What did the imams think of Abu Bakr's Ridda wars?

[Nightclaw]

11 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

I think @Nightclaw and @Cherub786might be able to give more details about what Sunnis say as he might be more equipped with the answer.  

If this is about Khalid ibn al-Walid and Malik ibn Nuwairah, then it is speculation. The Sahaba disliked what he did because they did not have any evidence upon the matter. Either Khalid was right or made a mistake, because the exact same incident happened when a companion killed a man who testified there was no God but Allah but was still killed, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) responded: "Why do you kill a man who says there is no God but Allah?" and the companion responded that he was only saying it and it was not from the heart. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said that he did not know what was in his heart [he literally asked him if he cut his heart open to see if faith was there].

I think in Minhaaj as-Sunnah, volume 5, pages 516-518, it is explained fully. I need to get all of the books so I can show it here.

 

3 hours ago, zahralzu said:

money? you don't think there's easier ways to get rich? say, like by supporting isreal as opposed to making enemies with america?

You are correct when you say this - the Saudis have sold out. As for supporting Israel, this is indirectly through America. They are all in kahoots with one another. They sold out in the 1910s, at the end of the Ottoman Empire [which lasted for centuries]. However, Saudis do not follow the religion of Islam properly, because Islam does not call for cowardice and letting innocents die for money.

Iran is also the same way, however. Yes, they do not have a bank owned by the Rothschild [central banks] along with the likes of Syria, Russia, North Korea, and Cuba. However, look at how Khamenei is doing to his own people. He is issuing the military to take land from the people forcibly. They are using shrines and graves as a site for money (same situation with Saudis with Medina/Mecca). 

[Ali bin Hussein]

14 hours ago, Cool said:

Refusing any ركن of Islam makes one kafir. But as the historical evidences suggests, he did not refused the zakat itself. Just refused to "pay" zakat to Abu Bakr. 

He had no right to refuse. If you are a Shia of Ali you act on Imam Alis orders. If he says revolt you revolt, if says don't pay tax you dont pay. If some one can give me evidence that Imam Ali told them not to pay the zakat, I accept Abu bakar was wrong. 

Otherwise you are just acting on your own you are neither following the Imam nor conforming to the established Sharia law. 

Edited November 23, 2020 by Warilla

[Nightclaw]

14 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

I don’t know how else to explain this but the history of Islam and the way it expanded was literally EPIC.  It was “out of this world”.  It was simply miraculous.  This is all part of sacred history!  Unfortunately Shias don’t consider what transpired during the caliphate periods as sacred.  They only have a microscopic view of the life’s of of the Imams at best and the events of Kerbala.  That is all. It is a bit curtailed of a picture that Shia have.  If unfortunate, it is a limitation or a deficiency I should say.  I was Shia, so I know what I was missing!

This is true. A lot of people fail to mention how the Turks came along and defeated the Muslims effortlessly but still accepted Islam - the majority of the Caucus region. A lot of regions also accepted Islam without question, like Syria and Oman. Islam hardly spread by the sword when it is compared to it's trades, da'wah, and preaching. Take for example Mansa Musa and his people - were the people of Mali converted through the sword? Senegal? Nigeria? Abyssinia? The Caucasians? No. They accepted Islam and helped it grow through trade.  The "spread by the sword" argument applies to Muslim political control, not the Islamic belief system. This had to have happened because the Romans were more harsh than the Persians, as they tricked Jews into fighting Persians for them and then had began to massacre them to the point where they had to flee. When 'Umar ibn al-Khattab captured Jerusalem, he invited the Jews there where they begun to flourish. He even showed mercy to the man who surrendered who had been persecuting and enforcing the religion upon the Jews, Sophronius. After the conquering of Jerusalem, Sophronius offered to have 'Umar pray at the church - he refused because he said that he feared Muslims would later on use this as a reason to convert their holy place of worship into a masjid - which is prohibited in Islam. There is a saying:

"If not for the Muslims, Judaism would have not existed today"

 If 'Umar ibn al-Khattab did not conquer Jerusalem, which was part of the Byzantine Empire at the time, then there would have been no Jewry as you know it today. It would have just been a hearsay cult with no prophetic teachings - and they even recognize this. Jews were always persecuted in Christian lands but invited to live in Muslim lands [such as the Uthmaniyyah Empire, Rashidun empire, etc.].

I need to stop. I feel as if I am teaching a class. Sorry for the tangent. I love talking about history. I pray that this helps somehow, haha.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Nightclaw

[eThErEaL]

4 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

This is true. A lot of people fail to mention how the Turks came along and defeated the Muslims effortlessly but still accepted Islam - the majority of the Caucus region. A lot of regions also accepted Islam without question, like Syria and Oman. Islam hardly spread by the sword when it is compared to it's battles. Take for example Mansa Musa and his people - were the people of Mali converted through the sword? Senegal? Nigeria? Abyssinia? The Caucasians? No. They accepted Islam and helped it grow through trade.  The "spread by the sword" argument applies to Muslim political control, not the Islamic belief system. This had to have happened because the Romans were more harsh than the Persians, as they tricked Jews into fighting Persians for them and then had began to massacre them to the point where they had to flee. When 'Umar ibn al-Khattab captured Jerusalem, he invited the Jews there where they begun to flourish. He even showed mercy to the man who surrendered who had been persecuting and enforcing the religion upon the Jews, Sophronius. After the conquering of Jerusalem, Sophronius offered to have 'Umar pray at the church - he refused because he said that he feared Muslims would later on use this as a reason to convert their holy place of worship into a masjid - which is prohibited in Islam. There is a saying:

"If not for the Muslims, Judaism would have not existed today"

 If 'Umar ibn al-Khattab did not conquer Jerusalem, which was part of the Byzantine Empire at the time, then there would have been no Jewry as you know it today. It would have just been a hearsay cult with no prophetic teachings - and they even recognize this. Jews were always persecuted in Christian lands but invited to live in Muslim lands [such as the Uthmaniyyah Empire, Rashidun empire, etc.].

I need to stop. I feel as if I am teaching a class. Sorry for the tangent. I love talking about history. I pray that this helps somehow, haha.

I think this is needed!  This is what forums are for.  For Educating.  

Shias are not aware of this.  So they believe someone on the pulpit who one day comes and says:  “ISIS is the result of the  Actions of The early Caliphs”...  can you believe this?  

Edited November 23, 2020 by eThErEaL

[Nightclaw]

3 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

I think this is needed!  This is what forums are for.  For Educating.

A last thing I will mention - nobody speaks about the worlds largest Muslim population: Indonesia. This was not spread by the sword. As a matter of fact, the Mongols converted to Islam sometime after Ghengis Khan. Ironically enough, his grandson decided to convert and was among the first Mongolian Empire rulers to convert - leading to the mass conversion in that part of Asia. In China, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas was sent and was even reported to have begun building a masjid there. Islam was very readily accepted by the Chinese because they resonated with it. When the Christian Europeans came, they were appalled by them because they never used to take showers and were unclean (as opposed to the Chinese). They rhetorically used to say: "Do these creatures not know that this smell is ungodly?". However, when Islam came to them, a lot of Chinese accepted it and it was easy for them. The Chinese were even aided by the Muslims on numerous occasions (see Tang Dynasty). This only came after they had a quarrel over control over a certain region. One of my Kung Fu teachers was from the region along with her father:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Ju-Rong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Zi-Ping

 

So whoever claims Islam has spread by the sword has never looked into history, especially not the history of Islam. The reason why Islam was so easy to accept and widespread was because of the gentleness and God-fearing essence these men had. They were honorable and filled with dignity endowed with humility. When Heraclius sent a spy to the Muslims, they came back to him and he asked: "What did you see?" and the spy replied, "at night, they are like monks. In the day, they are like warriors." They were known for their valor, virtuousness, being upright and whatnot, so even when they did have to go to battle, everyone accepted Islam. When they won or lost - the regions they battle against still accepted Islam.

[MaisumAli]

13 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

whoever claims Islam has spread by the sword has never looked into history, especially not the history of Islam. The reason why Islam was so easy to accept and widespread was because of the gentleness and God-fearing essence these men had. They were honorable and filled with dignity endowed with humility

C'mon you don't really believe that do you? Literally every religion has been spread by the sword, and Islam is no different, whether that be sunni empires like The Ummayeds, Abbasids, The Ottomans, or Shia empires like the Safavids, Fatimids

It is not wrong to say Islam has been spread by the sword, because that is the case for every other religion

[Nightclaw]

1 minute ago, MaisumAli said:

C'mon you don't really believe that do you? Literally every religion has been spread by the sword, and Islam is no different, whether that be sunni empires like The Ummayeds, Abbasids, The Ottomans, or Shia empires like the Safavids, Fatimids

It is not wrong to say Islam has been spread by the sword, because that is the case for every other religion

 

38 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Islam hardly spread by the sword when it is compared to it's trades, da'wah, and preaching. Take for example Mansa Musa and his people - were the people of Mali converted through the sword? Senegal? Nigeria? Abyssinia? The Caucasians? No. They accepted Islam and helped it grow through trade.  The "spread by the sword" argument applies to Muslim political control, not the Islamic belief system.

 

[Abu_Zahra]

5 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

yes, he (al-baghdadi) was employing all this in a completely wrong context (for the purpose of a modern nation state).  you still don't seem to get it.  

You do realize that the Prophet (S) foretold that Persia, Sham and Yemen will be ours... right?  You are playing into the hands of the enemies of Islam when they try to say that Islam was spread by the sword.  You don't realize what you are doing!  You are insulting yourself by believing such a stupid narrative.  It wasn't spread by the sword.  Even historically speaking all this is unparalleled in history.  It is impossible for an Empire to grow so fast.   It was a Heavenly, Miraculous Spread.    

 

I wasn't talking about swords or the spreading of islam, maybe you're mixing up posts.

What I'm saying is that Baghdadi's justification was pretty much the same as the one you are providing for earlier caliphs. He was a caliph, with a group of loyal followers who pledge allegiance to him, and anyone who didn't do so was considered an apostate and killed, and their women were considered permissible. 

[MaisumAli]

Still doesn't negate the fact that Islamic warriors fought lands and the population slowly converted to Islam, and yes, trade and Dawah did affect the spread of Islam alot, the beuty of our faith did attract people, but let's be real here, the main reason as to why people converted was due to those conquests, let's just face the facts here.

[Nightclaw]

28 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

Still doesn't negate the fact that Islamic warriors fought lands and the population slowly converted to Islam, and yes, trade and Dawah did affect the spread of Islam alot, the beuty of our faith did attract people, but let's be real here, the main reason as to why people converted was due to those conquests, let's just face the facts here.

Again, this goes against history and is wrong. You can have that opinion, but it will be undermined because it is not true. What happened in Spain? Did the people at the time not ask the Muslims for help because of their persecution? Did they not ask Muslims for assistance because they knew they would be free living under them? Did not most of the Christians and Jews flourish under Islamic nations? That is the fact of the matter. No matter what you say or do, that is how it is.

Why did the Turkish people become Muslim? Nigerians? Senegalese? Indonesians? Chinese? Omanis? Syrians? Malaysia? The majority of the Caucus region? North Africa? East Africa? West Africa? What about almost every single Unitarian Christian converting to Islam in England? History points to the fact that trade and preaching were the primary factors. The most notable and most discussed reasons are conquests - but to say that this is the main reason? Historically, this not true. Go read the history of Islam and you will see that what you say is not true.

The entire Mongolian people became Muslim decades after Ghengis Khan. A lot of Spaniards became Muslim because of the Muslims themselves. Chinese became Muslims without battling the Muslims. Nonetheless, you can say the primary reasons were conquests until the day you reach your grave, but contrary to what you say, it is not true. All historical evidence corroborates with the fact that it was mainly due to trade and spreading the religion itself.

[Debate follower]

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

"at night, they are like monks. In the day, they are like warriors."

Reminds me of:

……..and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration;…… [Surah Al Fath :29]

[Cool]

2 hours ago, Warilla said:

He had no right to refuse. If you are a Shia of Ali you act on Imam Alis orders.

I think he has every right to ask from Abu Bakr as to why he forgot what they both have listened from Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in ghadeer. 

Perhaps you have ignored this report:

Quote

When Allah’s Messenger died and Bani Tamim (tribe) returned to Madina with Malik bin Nuwaira being with them, he went to see as to who became the successor after Allah’s messenger, he entered the mosque on Friday and Abu Bakr was giving an address on the pulpit. He (Malik) looked at him and said: ‘Oh brother of Taim’. (Abu Bakr) said: ‘Yes’. He (Malik) said: ‘Where is the Wasi of Allah’s messenger, who ordered I was ordered to follow?’ They (people) said: ‘Oh you desert Arab, things have changed.’ (Malik) said: ‘By Allah, nothing has changed, but you betrayed Allah and His messenger.’ Then he (Malik) got closer to Abu Bakr and said: ‘Who allowed you to climb onto the pulpit while the Wasi of Allah’s Messenger is here?’. Abu Bakr said: ‘Throw out this desert Arabian who urinates on his heels from Allah’s Messenger mosque.’ Qunfud and Khalid bin al-Walid went to him and kept pushing him until they removed him from the mosque.

Then he (Malik) rode on his camel and said (poem): ‘We obeyed Allah’s messenger as long he was amongst us, Oh people, what I have to do with Abu Bakr….’ When every thing was under Abu Bakr’s control, he sent Khalid bin al-Walid and said to him: ‘You heard what Malik said in front of the people, I’m worried that he would cause a crack we wont be able to fix. Kill him.

Ibn Shazan records in Al-Fadael, page 75

 

[Cool]

2 hours ago, Warilla said:

Otherwise you are just acting on your own you are neither following the Imam nor conforming to the established Sharia law. 

Umm, It reminds me the case of Hazrat Abudhar Ghafarri (رضي الله عنه)

He was forced out of Madina by the Caliph into the desert, where he finally died. 

I am wondering what are your views about him! 

[Cyrax]

10 minutes ago, Cool said:

I think he has every right to ask from Abu Bakr as to why he forgot what they both have listened from Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in ghadeer. 

Perhaps you have ignored this report:

 

السلام عليكم

بارك الله فيك, why do you accept this report?  It seems that the author who recorded it died the year 606 Hjiri, and the book doesn't contain chains.

The report is found here بارك الله فيك:

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1361_الفضائل-شاذان-بن-جبرئيل-القمي/الصفحة_76#top

[Cyrax]

1 hour ago, MaisumAli said:

C'mon you don't really believe that do you? Literally every religion has been spread by the sword, and Islam is no different, whether that be sunni empires like The Ummayeds, Abbasids, The Ottomans, or Shia empires like the Safavids, Fatimids

It is not wrong to say Islam has been spread by the sword, because that is the case for every other religion

السلام عليكم

أحسن الله إليك, I think you are confusing "Islam as a state being spread by the sword" (which of course is how all states, not religions, spread) and "Islam as a religion being forced on the people by the sword."  It is being argued that Islam as a religion was not spread or forced on people by the sword, although I suppose that may be in the case of the Safavids and the Saudis to a certain degree, but as a general rule, there are very few instances of Islam being forced on the people by the sword.

[Cool]

19 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

why do you accept this report?  It seems that the author who recorded it died the year 606 Hjiri, and the book doesn't contain chains.

There are many reports in Sunni books which declares that Malik was not apostate and mentions that Abu Bakr paid the blood money to the brother of Malik. 

So if he was declared Muslim by some of the sunni historians & narrators of hadith, this automatically means that he had not refused the zakah itself. 

The report of Shazan makes this matter clear. Specially if you look at page 75, you will find another report about him. That report was also mentioned by another historian, I am not remembering his name at the moment.

Quote

قال البراء بن عازب بينا رسول الله صلى 

 

[Cool]

38 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

السلام عليكم

بارك الله فيك, why do you accept this report?  It seems that the author who recorded it died the year 606 Hjiri, and the book doesn't contain chains.

The report is found here بارك الله فيك:

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1361_الفضائل-شاذان-بن-جبرئيل-القمي/الصفحة_76#top

Salam brother, 

Here is another authentic sunni reference:

Quote

Umar bin al-Khattab said: ‘Had I asked Allah’s messenger about three issues, I would like that more than hum al-Nyam (flock of reddish camel).
Who is the Caliph after him?
If a group of people admit that they believe in Zakat but don’t submit it to us, is it lawful for us to fight them?
and the kalala (who dies and doesn’t have son or parents)

Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 2 page 332 Tradition 3186

al-Hakim said: ‘Sahih according to the conditions of the two Sheikhs’

 

[Cyrax]

11 minutes ago, Cool said:

There are many reports in Sunni books which declares that Malik was not apostate and mentions that Abu Bakr paid the blood money to the brother of Malik. 

بارك الله فيك, but that's not what I asked.  I did not ask why do you believe that Malik did not apostate after the death of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, I asked you why you accept a report that is chainless and recorded in a book 590 year after the death of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم.  You can come to any conclusions you want regarding his Islam or lack thereof, that's not my concern, my question was in regards to your methodology when choosing to accept this report.  I'd also like to add, why did you think this report can be used as evidence against a non-12er like the brother you were addressing?

14 minutes ago, Cool said:

So if he was declared Muslim by some of the sunni historians & narrators of hadith, this automatically means that he had not refused the zakah itself. 

I'm not sure how that first premise lead you to the conclusion; especially considering that ALL Sunni historians view Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman etc as not only Muslims, not only righteous Muslims, but the best of the them and yet you consider them all to have left Islam after the death of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم.  The fact of the matter is, there is a wide spectrum of views regarding Malik's incident, you can choose to come to whatever conclusions you want to, but all I was interested in was in how you came to the conclusion that that chainless report written by an author who died in 606 Hijri was authentic.

18 minutes ago, Cool said:

The report of Shazan makes this matter clear. Specially if you look at page 75, you will find another report about him. That report was also mentioned by another historian, I am not remembering his name at the moment.

Why did you accept these reports to be authentic?  That was all my question was, akhi.

[MaisumAli]

Brother I'm not denying that Trade and Dawah spread Islam greatly, indeed they did, but there is absolutely no denying that the conquests by Islamic empires were the main reason behind the spread of Islam

Now don't get me wrong, the phrase "Spread by the Sword" seems to sound a bit harsh, but in reality there is no Major religion(except for like Buddhism probably lol) that has not been spread by sword or conquest, it is only natural for such things to happen

(Also keep in mid the Jizya also played a factor, for non religious people, converting to save a bit of cash was worth it)

32 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

What happened in Spain? Did the people at the time not ask the Muslims for help because of their persecution? Did they not ask Muslims for assistance because they knew they would be free living under them?

Yes, a faction of them did, Spain was having internal problems within itself as to who should be in power. But keep on reading and see what happened from there:

Quote

The invasion of Spain was the result both of a Muslim readiness to invade and of a call for assistance by one of the Visigothic factions, the “Witizans.” Having become dispossessed after the death of King Witiza in 710, they appealed to Mūsā for support against the usurper Roderick. In April or May of 711 Mūsā sent an Amazigh army headed by Ṭāriq ibn Ziyād across the passage whose modern name, the Strait of Gibraltar, derives from Jabal al-Ṭāriq; in July they were able to defeat Roderick in a decisive battle.

Instead of returning to Africa, Ṭāriq marched north and conquered Toledo (Ṭulayṭulah), the Visigothic capital, where he spent the winter of 711. In the following year Mūsā himself led an Arab army to the peninsula and conquered Mérida (Māridah) after a long siege. He reached Ṭāriq in Toledo in the summer of 713. From there he advanced northeast, taking Zaragoza (Saraqusṭah) and invading the country up to the northern mountains; he then moved from west to east, forcing the population to submit or flee. Both Mūsā and Ṭāriq were recalled to Syria by the caliph, and they departed in 714 at the end of the summer; by then most of the Iberian Peninsula was under Muslim control.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Spain/The-Almoravids

43 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Did not most of the Christians and Jews flourish under Islamic nations? That is the fact of the matter. No matter what you say or do, that is how it is.

Yes they did, Alhamdulillah, our religion has a very clear cut way as to how to deal with non Muslims, they pay the Jizya, then they're good, but how exactly does that prove Islam wasn't spread by the sword? The discussion isn't about whether Islam is a religion of peace or not

47 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Why did the Turkish people become Muslim?

They didn't, the Turkish people were always Muslim, but if you are referring to Anatolia(Modern day Turkey), then they were originally Byzantian, and when the Islamic empires brought the Byzantines to their knees through military conquests, the Muslim population grew

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Nigerians? Senegalese?, North Africa? East Africa? West Africa?

Yes, here trade was a big factor, but that is not to forget that the Muslim conquests had a huge hand in the conversion of Africa in general(Especially by the Umayyads)

https://www.britannica.com/place/North-Africa/From-the-Arab-conquest-to-1830

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_the_Maghreb

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Indonesians?

Yes I agree, Indonesia was largely converted because of trade, which then inspired people to lead Coup's, this is true

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Chinese?

China? When was China ever muslim? Lemme guess? Saad b. Abi Waqqas?

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Omanis?

Umm..Arabian Peninsula? Nothing? Heck, Oman was becoming Muslim in the time of the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Syrians?

Is this even a question? Rashidun conquests duh!

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

hat about almost every single Unitarian Christian converting to Islam in England?

Remind me again what the muslim population of England is again? A couple of people convert to Islam in England, wow! Big deal! So that proves Islam wasn't spread by the sword?

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

History points to the fact that trade and preaching were the primary factors

I'm not denying, same goes for other religions, they too did trades and send missionaries did they not?

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

The most notable and most discussed reasons are conquests - but to say that this is the main reason? Historically, this not true. Go read the history of Islam and you will see that what you say is not true.

Oh it is very true my friend, one does not give up his current faith that simply

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

The entire Mongolian people became Muslim decades after Ghengis Khan.

Oh really? Where? Islam is less than 5% in Mongolia, Islam was merely a governance strategy by the leaders, the Mongols didn't give a damn about their religion, also considering that completely demolished the Abbasids doesn't sit well with the whole "Islam wasn't spread by the sword" thing

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Chinese became Muslims without battling the Muslims

Daleel?

1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Nonetheless, you can say the primary reasons were conquests until the day you reach your grave, but contrary to what you say, it is not true. All historical evidence corroborates with the fact that it was mainly due to trade and spreading the religion itself.

I wish my friend, but the sad reality is that every religion is spread by the sword, do you not think that the Christians or Jews never thought of trade and dawah? Lets just face the facts with an unbiased view.

[MaisumAli]

57 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

السلام عليكم

أحسن الله إليك, I think you are confusing "Islam as a state being spread by the sword" (which of course is how all states, not religions, spread) and "Islam as a religion being forced on the people by the sword."  It is being argued that Islam as a religion was not spread or forced on people by the sword, although I suppose that may be in the case of the Safavids and the Saudis to a certain degree, but as a general rule, there are very few instances of Islam being forced on the people by the sword.

W Salam!

Spreading politically and being spread religiously are interchangeable terms, it's simple, you take over a certain area of land, and you convert them to your religion, or otherwise they throw you out, it's just how the world works, I didn't create the system

1 hour ago, Cyrax said:

It is being argued that Islam as a religion was not spread or forced on people by the sword,

Oh it definitely was, so was every other religion, like I said, it's just how the word works

1 hour ago, Cyrax said:

although I suppose that may be in the case of the Safavids and the Saudis to a certain degree, but as a general rule, there are very few instances of Islam being forced on the people by the sword.

I would be that quick to single our the Safavids or the Saudis that quickly if I were you, forced conversions were a know thing among almost all Islamic empires, including the Ummayeds, Abbasids, Ottomans, Safavids, etc.

It is not something that we can simply deny, but it would be better for face the facts and get on with it, while I realize the term "Islam was spread by the sword" has a negative vibe to it, it is unfortunately true, and the same goes for the rest of world religions

[Cyrax]

4 minutes ago, MaisumAli said:

W Salam!

Spreading politically and being spread religiously are interchangeable terms, it's simple, you take over a certain area of land, and you convert them to your religion, or otherwise they throw you out, it's just how the world works, I didn't create the system

Oh it definitely was, so was every other religion, like I said, it's just how the word works

So your evidence is "that's how the world works?"  You need to provide some evidence other than "in reality there is no Major religion(except for like Buddhism probably lol) that has not been spread by sword or conquest, it is only natural for such things to happen."  Note how you have no idea the history of Buddhism, yet you somehow assume their religion spread by peace, while simultaneously having no evidence that Islam was forced on the people other than "that's the way the world works."  Doesn't that show you that perhaps you are just parroting a narrative you have been fed?

If Islam was spread by force, then who was paying all the Jizya?

In reality, Muslims are accused of both forcing Islam on everyone, while simultaneously keeping them away from Islam so that they can pay jizya.  Unless you can provide any proof of your claims, the fact will remain: Islam as a political state spread by the sword without a doubt, but Islam was not forced on the people that they conquered.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Cyrax

[MaisumAli]

1 hour ago, Cyrax said:

So your evidence is "that's how the world works?"  You need to provide some evidence other than "in reality there is no Major religion(except for like Buddhism probably lol) that has not been spread by sword or conquest, it is only natural for such things to happen."  Note how you have no idea the history of Buddhism, yet you somehow assume their religion spread by peace, while simultaneously having no evidence that Islam was forced on the people other than "that's the way the world works."  Doesn't that show you that perhaps you are just parroting a narrative you have been fed?

Perhaps you should read what I wrote earlier again, I didn't just state "That is how the word works"

1 hour ago, Cyrax said:

Note how you have no idea the history of Buddhism, yet you somehow assume their religion spread by peace, while simultaneously having no evidence that Islam was forced on the people other than "that's the way the world works."  Doesn't that show you that perhaps you are just parroting a narrative you have been fed?

Yes perhaps, if you could show me Buddhism conquering other lands, then I'll gladly change it

1 hour ago, Cyrax said:

Doesn't that show you that perhaps you are just parroting a narrative you have been fed?

Parroting? Perhaps you have me confused with some ex Muslim or atheist, I used to believe in the whole "Islam was not spread by the sword" narrative, until I realized to understand other people's viewpoints instead of applying a one sided bias, only then did I realize that Islamic history isn't all butterflies and rainbows

1 hour ago, Cyrax said:

while simultaneously having no evidence that Islam was forced on the people other than "that's the way the world works." 

Are you going to simply throw aside all of the conquests committed on other territories by Islamic factions? Do you also realize that the reason Islam spread soo rapidly was because of the military conquests of the early Islamic caliphates, a fact that no historian can deny? Muslim were legendary warriors, and they used that to their advantage, no problem in that, but to say that Islam wasn't spread by the sword and every other religion was is quite a one sided biased statement

1 hour ago, Cyrax said:

If Islam was spread by force, then who was paying all the Jizya?

In reality, Muslims are accused of both forcing Islam on everyone, while simultaneously keeping them away from Islam so that they can pay jizya.  Unless you can provide any proof of your claims, the fact will remain: Islam as a political state spread by the sword without a doubt, but Islam was not forced on the people that they conquered.

Simple, the people that were left of the minority paid the Jizya, also keep in mind it would only be natural for people to convert just to avoid the Jizya, in a way, many people also converted from the Jizyah, those who were steadfast on thier faith were the ones who payed the Jizyah

1 hour ago, Cyrax said:

slam as a political state spread by the sword without a doubt, but Islam was not forced on the people that they conquered

Oh so the people just went along with it? You conquer their entire country and all of a sudden they want to join your religion now? Something doesn't add up

 

That does not mean to say that the Muslim were complete barbarians that killed any non Muslims the saw on the street, but rather when you control an area, you tend to also control the population, unless they would kick you out lol

Edited November 24, 2020 by MaisumAli

[MaisumAli]

Just to reinstate my position, I am not some bigitod Islamaphobe or some ex-Muslim

I am simply trying to convey the fact that Islam hasn't been spread solely on Trade and Dawah, but rather early Islamic conquests had a huge hand in the spread of Islam, which no historian will disagree with

Also, this is perfectly normal for any religion, and Islam is no exception

Just in case anyone may have misunderstood as to what my personal opinion is on the spread of Islam

Salam un Alaykum

[eThErEaL]

5 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I wasn't talking about swords or the spreading of islam, maybe you're mixing up posts.

What I'm saying is that Baghdadi's justification was pretty much the same as the one you are providing for earlier caliphs. He was a caliph, with a group of loyal followers who pledge allegiance to him, and anyone who didn't do so was considered an apostate and killed, and their women were considered permissible. 

I did get your point.  The difference as I said earlier is that Baghdadi did that in the context of a modern nation state (on his own accord).  The early caliphs did so as a result of God’s decree that the religion will spread far and beyond (or as was foretold by the Prophet (S)).  Now if Baghdadi wants to implement that for his own agenda, whose problem is that?  

[Nightclaw]

2 hours ago, MaisumAli said:

Brother I'm not denying that Trade and Dawah spread Islam greatly, indeed they did, but there is absolutely no denying that the conquests by Islamic empires were the main reason behind the spread of Islam

Now don't get me wrong, the phrase "Spread by the Sword" seems to sound a bit harsh, but in reality there is no Major religion(except for like Buddhism probably lol) that has not been spread by sword or conquest, it is only natural for such things to happen

(Also keep in mid the Jizya also played a factor, for non religious people, converting to save a bit of cash was worth it)

Yes, a faction of them did, Spain was having internal problems within itself as to who should be in power. But keep on reading and see what happened from there:

https://www.britannica.com/place/Spain/The-Almoravids

Yes they did, Alhamdulillah, our religion has a very clear cut way as to how to deal with non Muslims, they pay the Jizya, then they're good, but how exactly does that prove Islam wasn't spread by the sword? The discussion isn't about whether Islam is a religion of peace or not

They didn't, the Turkish people were always Muslim, but if you are referring to Anatolia(Modern day Turkey), then they were originally Byzantian, and when the Islamic empires brought the Byzantines to their knees through military conquests, the Muslim population grew

Yes, here trade was a big factor, but that is not to forget that the Muslim conquests had a huge hand in the conversion of Africa in general(Especially by the Umayyads)

https://www.britannica.com/place/North-Africa/From-the-Arab-conquest-to-1830

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_the_Maghreb

Yes I agree, Indonesia was largely converted because of trade, which then inspired people to lead Coup's, this is true

China? When was China ever muslim? Lemme guess? Saad b. Abi Waqqas?

Umm..Arabian Peninsula? Nothing? Heck, Oman was becoming Muslim in the time of the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

Is this even a question? Rashidun conquests duh!

Remind me again what the muslim population of England is again? A couple of people convert to Islam in England, wow! Big deal! So that proves Islam wasn't spread by the sword?

I'm not denying, same goes for other religions, they too did trades and send missionaries did they not?

Oh it is very true my friend, one does not give up his current faith that simply

Oh really? Where? Islam is less than 5% in Mongolia, Islam was merely a governance strategy by the leaders, the Mongols didn't give a damn about their religion, also considering that completely demolished the Abbasids doesn't sit well with the whole "Islam wasn't spread by the sword" thing

Daleel?

I wish my friend, but the sad reality is that every religion is spread by the sword, do you not think that the Christians or Jews never thought of trade and dawah? Lets just face the facts with an unbiased view.

Give me evidence that Islam was spread primarily by conquest and then bring the evidence that it was spread by other da'wah and preaching to see the difference. As for the Jews, they did do da'wah. There is a hefty chunk of Jews left in Ethiopia, Kenya, etc. They were in the minority worldwide due to them being eradicated and persecuted where they stayed. Christians used to force people to become Christian - which was their version of da'wah. So in essence, they did do da'wah. 

But I ask you to give evidence that Islam as primarily due to conquest and not what I said. Give me the numbers and give the comparison.

2 hours ago, MaisumAli said:

Daleel?

4 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Look up the history of the Hui's and the jiaomen. 

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

I haven't seen any hadiths on the reactions of the Imams (عليهم السلام) on the Ridda Wars, If you guys have some, plz post. I am guessing they didn't get involved because A lot had already happened. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) died, They were threatened, Fatima (عليها السلام) Died, a forced allegiance. Just a lot made Ahlulbayt (عليهم السلام) very sad and tired. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows best.

[Cool]

12 hours ago, Cyrax said:

my question was in regards to your methodology when choosing to accept this report.  I'd also like to add, why did you think this report can be used as evidence against a non-12er like the brother you were addressing?

I am not the authority to accept or reject any report. I am just a reader who go through the history books and try to understand what might be the case.

So contradicting reports were there in Sunni books, some declaring him apostate & some declaring him Muslim. Some saying he refused the zakah, some says he only refused to "pay" zakah.

My interest on Shazan's report is limited to the section where he mentioned that Malik believed in the wilayah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & he openly challenged the authority of Abu Bakr. This gives me the hint what might be the reason for his "not paying" zakah to Abu Bakr.

12 hours ago, Cyrax said:

not sure how that first premise lead you to the conclusion; especially considering that ALL Sunni historians view Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman etc as not only Muslims, not only righteous Muslims, but the best of the them and yet you consider them all to have left Islam after the death of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. 

Pardon me brother, where did I mention this? 

What I can do maximum is to consider them as zalim or hypocrites because of their deeds with respect to Ghadeer & Fadak. 

I have just mentioned the ignorance of Abu Bakr where he ordered Khalid to divorce the widow of Malik after ordering to pay the blood money for the killing of Malik. I have questioned the legitimacy of Khalid's marriage to Malik's wife & raised objections on that.

12 hours ago, Cyrax said:

Why did you accept these reports to be authentic? 

I don't know whether the reports mentioned in Sunni books are authentic or not. What I am sure is that this incident happened & Malik was not Apostate otherwise Abu Bakr would not have ordered to pay blood money to Malik's brother & Khalid to divorce Malik's wife. 

What is authentic is that:

Quote

Umar bin al-Khattab said: ‘Had I asked Allah’s messenger about three issues, I would like that more than hum al-Nyam (flock of reddish camel).
Who is the Caliph after him?
If a group of people admit that they believe in Zakat but don’t submit it to us, is it lawful for us to fight them?
and the kalala (who dies and doesn’t have son or parents)

Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 2 page 332 Tradition 3186

al-Hakim said: ‘Sahih according to the conditions of the two Sheikhs’

There are certainly evidences against Khalid bin Waleed in this case as well as what he did in the life time of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). In fact the case of Malik bin Nuwerah at least have exposed Khalid bin Waleed.

[Abu_Zahra]

On 11/24/2020 at 2:31 AM, eThErEaL said:

I did get your point.  The difference as I said earlier is that Baghdadi did that in the context of a modern nation state (on his own accord).  The early caliphs did so as a result of God’s decree that the religion will spread far and beyond (or as was foretold by the Prophet (S)).  Now if Baghdadi wants to implement that for his own agenda, whose problem is that?  

I understand your position as well. The early caliphates were rightful in your perspective, while modern day ones are not. The question is, where do you draw the line? At which point did caliphate lose it's legitimacy? 

[eThErEaL]

45 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

I understand your position as well. The early caliphates were rightful in your perspective, while modern day ones are not. The question is, where do you draw the line? At which point did caliphate lose it's legitimacy? 

I don’t think you quite grasped my point.  The expansion of Islam to Persia, Sham and Yemen was foretold. By the Prophet (S).   It wasn’t the caliphs per se who expanded Islam, it was simply the result of of the revelation.   

 

 

 

[Abu_Zahra]

12 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

I don’t think you quite grasped my point.  The expansion of Islam to Persia, Sham and Yemen was foretold. By the Prophet (S).   It wasn’t the caliphs per se who expanded Islam, it was simply the result of of the revelation.   

Yes I have noted your point. Does that mean that every caliphate that appeared after the people of these regions accepted islam is not a rightful caliphate?