Does Islam justify war?

[Subby]

Muhammad was the son of a merchant and orphaned at age six eventually marrying a rich widow Khadijah and having six children. Born in 570 AD, Muhammad (Arabic: محمد, Muḥammad) himself is considered an ideal man, al-Insān al-Kāmil (الإنسان الكام&#1604 in Arabic. By 630 AD all of Arabia was under his control. He is not considered divine nor is he to be worshiped. He is humbly a messenger of Allah and a model in how a Muslim should live his or her life. As the Qur'an declares, Muhammad is a; "... beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."

Frequent ghazi (plural ghazawāt) or raids however upon the Quraish by Muhammad and his followers over the years erupted into the Battle of Badr (624 AD), one of the few directly participated in by Muhammad and mentioned in the Qur'an.

Muhammad in Islam is to be mirrored, Muhammad directly participated in warfare. Thus a Muslim must progress Islam by the sword, or must attain/usurp/attack softly, in other words not by weapon but by word, law and culture, territory not ruled by Muslims.

 

[MiRy]

similar quotes could be found in the bible... just saying...

 

[Subby]

The difference is the fact that there is a Christ in the picture that Christians are to follow. God manifests Himself differently as humanity matured. During the time of ANE and even more ancient was vastly more primitive.

Since a Christian follows Christ, and Christ did NOT directly participate in battle. I think the distinction is clear.

 

[.lava]

Muhammad was the son of a merchant and orphaned at age six eventually marrying a rich widow Khadijah and having six children. Born in 570 AD, Muhammad (Arabic: محمد, Muḥammad) himself is considered an ideal man, al-Insān al-Kāmil (الإنسان الكام&#1604 in Arabic. By 630 AD all of Arabia was under his control. He is not considered divine nor is he to be worshiped. He is humbly a messenger of Allah and a model in how a Muslim should live his or her life. As the Qur'an declares, Muhammad is a; "... beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."

Frequent ghazi (plural ghazawāt) or raids however upon the Quraish by Muhammad and his followers over the years erupted into the Battle of Badr (624 AD), one of the few directly participated in by Muhammad and mentioned in the Qur'an.

Muhammad in Islam is to be mirrored, Muhammad directly participated in warfare. Thus a Muslim must progress Islam by the sword, or must attain/usurp/attack softly, in other words not by weapon but by word, law and culture, territory not ruled by Muslims.

Islam justifies self-defense, not being the one who starts war over civilians who mind his own business on daily issues.

btw, how's your thread a Qur'anic debate?

.

 

[Subby]

Islam justifies self-defense, not being the one who starts war over civilians who mind his own business on daily issues.

Muhammad conducted ghazi upon civilizations to further his religion. He didn't just talk, he used the sword. Not in self-defense but to further his ruled territory.

btw, how's your thread a Qur'anic debate?

Because some people may actually debate the fact that Islam justifies war. So far nobody can.

 

[.lava]

Muhammad conducted ghazi upon civilizations to further his religion. He didn't just talk, he used the sword. Not in self-defense but to further his ruled territory.

hardly. they were living peacefully with others but non-Muslims started torturing and attacking Muslims. because of those attacks they left their home town. but non-Muslims did not give up and followed them with their armies. only after that point Muslims did fight back and that is called self-defense, naturally..

Because some people may actually debate the fact that Islam justifies war. So far nobody can.

you've started your thread in Qur'anic debates DIR. that's why i am wondering what's the relation, what you know about Qur'an, which verses or surahs yu'refering to...etc. you are not a Muslim and obviusly you lack knowledge of Qur'an. start with asking questions instead of causing pointless discussions that you could not even add anything about

.

 

[Subby]

hardly. they were living peacefully with others but non-Muslims started torturing and attacking Muslims. because of those attacks they left their home town. but non-Muslims did not give up and followed them with their armies. only after that point Muslims did fight back and that is called self-defense, naturally..

And your source for Muslims being attacked is? Why do they have to conquer with the sword because of that? Christianity did not do that, and there was a holocaust against it the first 300 years.

you've started your thread in Qur'anic debates DIR. that's why i am wondering what's the relation, what you know about Qur'an, which verses or surahs yu'refering to...etc. you are not a Muslim and obviusly you lack knowledge of Qur'an. start with asking questions instead of causing pointless discussions that you could not even add anything about

The Qur'an, hadiths, etc is what I use.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, TashaN, but history showed that after Muhammad's death, Muslim armies began invading other kingdoms. They invaded eastward towards Mesopotamia and Persia, west into Syria and Egypt (and kept going west in much of north Africa). You know the history of Islam better than I do.

And they were certainly not the signs of "self-defence", TashaN.

After the Arabian peninsula had gone under Islam control, Syria was invaded. Syria, at that time, was under Byzantine rule. The Syrians were involved with what happened to Muhammad and his followers, except they were traders to Mecca. What did Syria to warrant an invasion?

It simply showed that Muslims became warrior-states, empires built upon by conquests, no different from non-Muslim empires of the time, before, during and after. Yes, Muhammad was a prophet to your religion, but he also was a military leader. The wars that Muhammad had fought must have inspired Muslims as much as the religion.

How are Islamic empires any different from the Roman Empire at the height of its power? Those who became citizens of Rome, served in the Roman armies, just like in the Islamic empire. Citizens or not, people pay taxes, just like they did for Rome. Even those kingdoms not in Islamic emperors' control, like client kingdoms had to pay tributes, just like the client kingdoms to Rome.

It is all about powers. And it is mistake to think it wasn't about power - self defence or not.

 

[kai]

MOD Post

This thread has been moved to Religious debates​

 

[bowingtoGod]

The Qur'an says the only right wars are Jihad. And Jihad wars can only be fought in self defense or against oppression. Muhammad (saws) did raid those caravans, but those were the belongings of the Muslims that the non Muslims stole from them!

As for the other wars, there was always a reason. Some of those empires sought the death of Muhammad (saws) and etc etc

 

[nameless]

"Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next best in goodness?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.'" ~Bukhari:V1B2N25

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world].[Qur'an 8:39]

enough reasons for war and conquest.....

 

[sandandfoam]

Islam can be construed as peaceful. Many, including myself do so.
It can also be construed as violent. This seems to be how fundamentalist opponents and proponents like to construe it.
People who define things with reference to extremes are hard to agree with at the best of times.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The difference is the fact that there is a Christ in the picture that Christians are to follow. God manifests Himself differently as humanity matured. During the time of ANE and even more ancient was vastly more primitive.

Since a Christian follows Christ, and Christ did NOT directly participate in battle. I think the distinction is clear.

Don't forget Revelation, where Jesus will indeed directly participate in death and destruction.

(And also do not forget, the same God who guided men to war and genocide in the OT is, by issue of the Trinity and "In the beginning was the Word", the very Jesus of the NT.)

 

[bowingtoGod]

"Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next best in goodness?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.'" ~Bukhari:V1B2N25

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world].[Qur'an 8:39]

enough reasons for war and conquest.....

Salaam
That is an interesting Hadith! It actually contradicts other hadiths so I don't know how reliable that one is. Is it authentic?
And that verse is taken out of context. I don't remember exactly what it is referring too but I do remember that one. I will get back to you if I find what it means Insha'Allah (God willing)

 

[bowingtoGod]

I just looked it up. That is a mistranslation and is not quoted fully. If they cease (the enemies cease fighting) then do not harm them anymore.
And the only just war is a defensive one in Islam. Also we are obligated that when they seek peace we must also.

 

[nameless]

I just looked it up. That is a mistranslation and is not quoted fully. If they cease (the enemies cease fighting) then do not harm them anymore.
And the only just war is a defensive one in Islam. Also we are obligated that when they seek peace we must also.

im not sure if it is mistranslation, the source for those verses are quran.com, also found similar thing in other other quran websites.

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]"

i wonder what does disbelief and polytheism has to do with fighting, why they are mentioned here? Why it asks to fight the whole world? the whole world attacked or attacks islam?

 

[neves]

im not sure if it is mistranslation, the source for those verses are quran.com, also found similar thing in other other quran websites.

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]"

i wonder what does disbelief and polytheism has to do with fighting, why they are mentioned here? Why it asks to fight the whole world? the whole world attacked or attacks islam?

its important to understand the word fitnah... I think the words under the parenthesis does not really reflect the meaning well ... in a broader sense it means affliction or trial...

also could I ask for a proper citation of the hadith pls... seems like misquoted material to me as-well...

 

[nameless]

also could I ask for a proper citation of the hadith pls... seems like misquoted material to me as-well...

i have provided the source (quran.com), kindly verify if it is misquoted before making assumptions......