The J word sends shivers down the spine of many and is a subject that invokes a lot of discussion by TV analysts, pseudo Islam experts and even amongst muslims. Whilst Jihad is a very broad term, this article focuses primarily on combat.

In islamic history, Jihad is associated with chivalry, bravery and heroism. Unfortunately, this noble term has been abused in our time by muslims who in their anger and quest for revenge commit acts of criminality in the guise of Jihad.

I am writing this so that young muslim minds understand the concept properly and do not get drawn into these acts of stupidity perpetuated by certain individuals and groups.

We start our discussion from the Meccan seerah.

The Meccan Seerah

The lessons from the meccan seerah are so relevant today. It is important to note that Two thirds of the quran was revealed during the meccan phase of the message, It is a very important part .

For 13 years, the early muslims were subjected to untold hardship, they were tortured, killed, maimed and boycotted. It was so bad, that they had to tie stones to their bellies out of hunger.

Throughout this period, the commands coming from the Quran were 'hold your hand' and be 'patient'. Just keep warning. Meaning even if you are been attacked , do not retaliate. The Messenger was told to be patient with whatever they do.

This is probably the world's first exhibition of a non violent protest, forget Gandhi or Martin Luther.

So what was the relevance of this?

You see, the muslims were subjected to negative propaganda as they preached their message. Any retaliation by a muslim would only help further this propaganda, and hurt the dawah.

There are people that have a deep hatred for Islam, in their eyes, there is nothing right a muslim can do but the average person is not a hater but they build perceptions. Negative actions by muslims would negatively affect the dawah .

Remember the quraish owned the 'media', the propaganda machine. If a muslim attacked non muslim, that would have been 'breaking news'. By remaining patient, the muslims disarmed this tool of the quraish and the dawah did not suffer.

By commiting acts of stupidity, muslims hurt the dawah because even a neutral person who doesn't know better, makes conclusions about muslims. The security of other muslims is also threatened.

Another important thing to note here, is that the muslims did not have a state so even when they were oppressed, retaliation was forbidden for them.

When the muslims were forced out of mecca and their property confiscated, they relocated to Medina .

In Medina, the muslims became a state, it was only then that they were permitted to fight back.

This background is important to understand what comes next.

Jihad

At the moment, the majority of muslims are caught in between two groups saying essentially the same thing; extremists who want to destroy everything and christian/not christian missionaries trying to project this view about muslims to everyone.

In the middle of this mess is the rest of the ummah. This piece is targeted towards muslim youths who might get confused by the rhetoric by either sides.

The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Those who go to extremes are doomed.” He said it three times. Narrated by Muslim (2670).

This piece looks at war and violence and how it has been viewed by the Ummah for thousands of years; before the recent rise of muslim extremism.

Violence in Islam can be of 3 types

1. Self-defence
2. Retaliatory action
3. Preemptive action

Of these three, only self-defence can be undertaken by an individual or a group. so if someone attacks your home, you have the right to defend your family and property.

Retaliatory action can only be undertaken on a state level under a legimate muslim leader. . For instance, if your car is hit by someone,  You can't take the law into your hands and go damage the persons' car. The matter must be reported to the relevant authorities for justice. Al-Qisaas (the Law of Equality in punishment) can only be administered by the state law courts.

In a similar vein, Preemptive  violence can only be carried out by the state authorities.

There are verses in the Quran that talk about fighting. The word used here is "Qitaal" which relates mainly to a combat or war situation. These verses are specifically for wars that took place during the time of the prophet and relate only to a war situation. If we lose the context of the verses, we will indeed be lost.

Classical scholars understood war only in the context of the caliphate fighting its perceived enemies.

It is not for any individual or group of individuals to fight for any cause except in Self defence.


The prophet described extremists(Kharijites) as those: They will recite so much of the Qur'an that, when compared to their recitation, you will regard yours to be too little. Nevertheless, what they recite will not have the slightest affect on them. They will leave the religion in the manner of an arrow being shot from the bow.


What are the rules of engagement for the muslim?

Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children. (Saheeh Muslim Book 019, Hadith Number 4319).

Then Abu Bakr, the first caliph based on the prophetic teaching advised a military commander, Yazid, "I advise you ten things| Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly." Maliks Muwatta Book 021, Hadith Number 010.

These are the laws concerning combat even when it is legitimate, nothing justifies the waste of innocent life.

Whatever is good here comes from Allah, the mistakes are mine.

Assalamu Aleikum

More please. This is fantastic!

Excellent. Front page material. Of course this will have no effect on those who already have stereotyped notions about Islam & Jihad such that not even the clearest proof can convince them otherwise, but to those who are open minded, realistic and genuinely seek truth & understanding, this is surely an eye opener. May Allah reward the writer.
Btw, to the uninformed, this essay above in itself is a form of jihad.

Ameen

OP you have tried. However, what you posted was your opinion which I respect. You did not tell us what Islamic scholars said on the matter, neither did you point specifically to any Fatwa. In conclusion, you spoke your mind.

^ This has been the position of scholars for thousands of years.

The view expressed above was approved by scholars. My opinion does not count when it comes to islamic issues.whatever I write is what I learn from more knowledgeable sources.

Read any classical tafsir, you will not find an opinion different from what has been presented.

The onus on you is to present a dissenting voice amongst classical muslim scholars.

^^^^^

I am not supporting or objecting to what you said, rather, I wanted to show that you stated your opinion by not referring to respected Islamic scholars. I shall proceed in my next post to show you some opinions expressed by the scholars on the matter.

And I say, everything written is the position of the vast majority of muslim scholars, not my position.

I only write from what I learn.

No, You guys are renowned for half-quotes or one missing the context.. You are going to come here with garbage now.

Give a classical scholar that allows an individual to take arms against a state. I will look up the rest and show you, you are lying.

^^^^

I get your point. Jihad is not an individual thing, but a COLLECTIVE war, in other words Jihad is state sanctioned in Islam. Don't you think the reason why we have individuals carrying out personal Jihad is because States can no longer declare Jihad like it used to be in olden times?

Moreover, I thought Jihad does not mean war but struggle against sin? How come you are referring to war?

dexmond: ^^^^

I get your point. Jihad is not an individual thing, but a COLLECTIVE war, in other words Jihad is state sanctioned in Islam. Don't you think the reason why we have individuals carrying out personal Jihad is because States can no longer declare Jihad like it used to be in olden times?

Moreover, I thought Jihad does not mean war but struggle against sin? How come you are referring to war?

Jihad means struggle, It could be physical or not physical. It is a very broad term.

This thread only talks about one aspect.

I think you need to read the thread again to have a better understanding.

^^^

Is the Physical Jihad the same as War? Kindly explain with references from the Quran and ahadiths. Tanx

Again , read through the thread. You are not the audience.

tbaba1234:

Classical scholars understood war only in the context of the caliphate fighting its perceived enemies.

What about these Classical Scholars take on the Jihad?


Fatawa ash-Sheikh Ibn Baz, 7/334, 335 in Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid (2003). "Jihad: Not Only Fighting"

Jihad is of various kinds, with one’s self, one's wealth, by making dua, by teaching and guiding, by helping to do good in any way. The greatest form of jihad is jihad with one’s self (i.e., going oneself and fighting), followed by jihad with one's wealth, jihad by speaking out and guiding others. Dawah is also part of jihad. But going out oneself to fight in jihad is the highest form.

Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah 15th Century Tunisian Scholar

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

In the Hidayah, vol. II. p. 140

It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do."

Al-Mawardi an 11th Century Shafi`i jurist

The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…

The Caliphate's target were NOT PERCEIVED enemies. Infidels were the target as shown above.

Even then, I don't see yet where its explicitly stated that jihad can only be undertaken by a state. It would be nice to avail us quotes.

If it is to be just Islamic States; what are the characteristic of a Muslim State? Don't you think a band of people can declare themselves an group, proclaim a one square kilometer area a "Muslim State" and declare an Amir and start a Jihad?

Also, don't you see this divine command to spread Islam through force (which scholars have shown that it is not time bound) somewhat unsettling. Don't you see why the world is jittery about Iran acquiring nukes? By these scholars' position (and mostly yours), Iran CAN declare Jihad as an Islamic State and nuke us all out of existence.

By the way, I believe that your position is moderate, nice and reassuring, and wish that it were the position of all Muslims.

You went to wikipedia and picked the quotes that suited you, even at that , you have not disproved anything written. Apart from the statement attributed to ibn khaldun which talks about compulsion in conversion, nothing you have written contradicts my statement. The quran clearly disagrees with ibn khaldun but I will read the actual reference later.

The baffling thing is that you only chose quotes that suited you, why the dishonesty. Why don't you present the complete picture.

Ibn Rushd, in his Muqaddimāt, divides Jihad into four kinds:

"Jihad by the heart; Jihad by the tongue; Jihad by the hand and Jihad by the sword." He defines "Jihad by the tongue" as "to commend good conduct and forbid the wrong, like the type of Jihad Allah ordered us to fulfill against the hypocrites in His Words, “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites” (Qur'an [Quran 9:73 ] ). Thus, Seraj and Ahmad Hendricks have expressed a view that Muhammad strove against the unbelievers by sword and against the hypocrites by tongue

Even within the quotes on wikipedia it is clear they are talking about a state not individuals but ofcourse you were only looking for the one you could quote.

Majid Khadduri says: ″The Islamic faith, born among a single people and spreading to others, used the state as an instrument for achieving a doctrinal or an ultimate religious objective, the proselytization of mankind. The Islamic state became necessarily an imperial and an expansionist state striving to win other peoples by conversion. At the very outset, the law of war, the jihad, became the chief preoccupation of jurists. The Islamic law of nations was essentially a law governing the conduct of war and the division of booty. This law was designed for temporary purposes, on the asssumption that the Islamic state was capable of absorbing the whole of mankind; for if the ideal of Islam were ever achieved, the raison d’etre of the law of war, at least with regard to Islam’s relations with non-Islamic states, would pass out of existence. ..The Islamic law of nations, however, is not a system separate from Islamic law. It is merely an extension of the sacred law, the shari’a, designed to govern the relations of Muslims with non-Muslims, whether inside or outside the territory of Islam.

If you read the above, you will see, that it talks about an islamic state, its conduct of war.

Even from the statements you quoted:

According to Al-Mawardi an 11th Century Shafi`i jurist: [12] The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them… in accordance with what he judges to be

You can only have an amir of an army when you have a state. You will never see anything that encourags individuals to take arms against a state.

This statement above was first approved by real scholars before I posted it here anyway.

I think this topic is misleading. This is like asking the question, " what is a legitimate marriage?" You either have a marriage or you dont, there's no legitimate marriage or illegitimate marriage.

You either have a jihad or you don't, nothing called "illegitimate jihad". Modify the topic.

Thanks, the word legimate was added because of false notions that exist but I understand.

tbaba1234: You went to wikipedia and picked the quotes that suited you, even at that , you have not disproved anything written. Apart from the statement attributed to ibn khaldun which talks about compulsion in conversion, nothing you have written contradicts my statement. The quran clearly disagrees with ibn khaldun but I will read the actual reference later.

Sorry, I didnt know that visiting wikipedia and quoting their references was a crime. The issue should be - Are the references true or not? Ore mi, you wrote;

"Classical scholars understood war only in the context of the caliphate fighting its perceived enemies."

and my first basic referral threw your statement out of the window. Those scholars said that the sanctioned wars (Jihad)was to result on infidels for NOT ACCEPTING ISLAM. You suppressed that part. Why?

The baffling thing is that you only chose quotes that suited you, why the dishonesty. Why don't you present the complete picture.

And you quoted ALL the relevant texts? Why did you "forget" Ibn Khladun when you penned the quote above? The people I quoted were well known Islamic Scholars. I didnt want to pick an obscure people where you would say is a Shite,is a Salafi, is a this and that.

May I ask: Why did you not also tell us that Jihad was also wars for forceful conversion of non-Muslims and was obligatory until the entire earth is Muslim? Why did you leave that part out, huh?

Even within the quotes on wikipedia it is clear they are talking about a state not individuals but ofcourse you were only looking for the one you could quote.

Give me an explicit quote that no individual is permitted to fight Jihad to forcefully convert infidels. What about Fatawa ash-Sheikh Ibn Baz? I stated earlier; I don't see yet where its explicitly stated that jihad can only be undertaken by a state If there is please avail us.

Majid Khadduri says: ″The Islamic faith, born among a single people and spreading to others, used the state as an instrument for achieving a doctrinal or an ultimate religious objective, the proselytization of mankind. The Islamic state became necessarily an imperial and an expansionist state striving to win other peoples by conversion. At the very outset, the law of war, the jihad, became the chief preoccupation of jurists. The Islamic law of nations was essentially a law governing the conduct of war and the division of booty. This law was designed for temporary purposes, on the asssumption that the Islamic state was capable of absorbing the whole of mankind; for if the ideal of Islam were ever achieved, the raison d’etre of the law of war, at least with regard to Islam’s relations with non-Islamic states, would pass out of existence. ..The Islamic law of nations, however, is not a system separate from Islamic law. It is merely an extension of the sacred law, the shari’a, designed to govern the relations of Muslims with non-Muslims, whether inside or outside the territory of Islam.

If you read the above, you will see, that it talks about an islamic state, its conduct of war.

Even from the statements you quoted:

According to Al-Mawardi an 11th Century Shafi`i jurist: [12] The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them… in accordance with what he judges to be

You can only have an amir of an army when you have a state. You will never see anything that encourags individuals to take arms against a state.

This statement above was first approved by real scholars before I posted it here anyway

From the above quotes two things are clear, Jihad is partly a war to conquer infidels (ie non-Muslims)until Islam rules the earth and not the usual version some say here and CAIR will oft rehash ie a personal struggle etc. And, It is obligatory that the war be fought if the "infidels" refuse Islam. Whether the war is fought by a state or not is immaterial to the fact that it is an unjust war. A war that can come to non-Muslims at anytime a Muslim state so declares! With this sword of Damocles hanging over our (non-Muslims') head, do you blame us for taking your words with a table spoon of salt?

Also,my question was and still is: What constitutes a Muslim state? We don't know. What prevents a group of men to declare a 1 square kilometer a Muslim state and declare Jihad?

You see all these possibilities are not being addressed by you. All the nice words and explanations not withstanding, there is a genuine fear of what Islam is and can do based on what its text and scholars say.


Legitimate Jihad (war on infidels) will come upon us one day; so says the scholars. What say ye tbaba1234?

This word infidel that you brandish has its root in christianity. The word used in Islam means one who has rejected,

Also, read the words from

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a renowned scholar based in Qatar writes in his book Fiqh of Jihad,"The third category is the "moderate Ummah" which Almighty Allah has guided to the approach of moderation and granted knowledge, wisdom, and deep understanding of the Shari`ah and reality. Hence, it has not slipped into the negligence of the first category that seeks to keep the right of the Ummah unarmed with power, its Qur'an unguarded by the sword, and its home and sanctuaries with no guards to protect and defend them.

Likewise, it has not fallen into the excess and extremism of the second group thatof the second group that seeks to fight those who are peaceful and declare war against all people without discrimination; white and black, in the East or in the West.


Ofcourse you ignore this, also

Imam al-Dardir in his book Aqarab al-Masalik says Jihad is propagating the knowledge of the Divine Law commending right and forbidding wrong. He emphasized that it is not permitted to skip this category of Jihad and implement the combative form, saying, "the first [Islamic] duty is to call people to enter the fold of Islam, even if they had been preached to by the Prophet (s) beforehand."

This is the priority.

Every state has its army, it is a necessity ti survive. The jihad serves that purpose in an islamic state.

I find your comments fairly ignorant, how many books on Jihad have you actually read? How much of the quran have you studied?

Remember, this is a fairly narrow aspect of jihad. A personal strugglw against sin is also a jihad. What constitutes any other state constitutes an islamic state? the difference is the laws.

What is this your obsession with Islam? Read an authoritative book on Jihad as awhole then come back lets talk.

,

.

^^^

You are being dishonest by downplaying some part of the Jihad. It may be for political correctness or taqquiyya I dont know. But for those who know, there is a genuine reason to be worried about the J word in a world that is moving towards freedom of religious beliefs for all.

It is very clear from scholars which I quoted that part of Jihad is physical violence and carried out in the following manner; (i) Infidels (i.e. non Muslims) are invited to Islam first;
(ii)If they refuse, then it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them Hidayah, vol. II. p. 140 (this is the part you conveniently downplay)

Whether the war is by a Muslim State or an individual is immaterial. What is important is as stated by Ibn Khaldun "because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force."

You have not claimed that these scholars are WRONG. They must be right then. I tell you, should an Islamic state come up tomorrow, eg Iran, then we, non-Muslims, are done for. Do you now know why the J word is of serious concern?

Moving to other aspects, some people choose not to wait for the Islamic state but declare Jihad on their own. Could they be relying on understanding as stated by Fatawa ash-Sheikh Ibn Baz:

The greatest form of jihad is jihad with one’s self (i.e., going oneself and fighting), followed by jihad with one's wealth, jihad by speaking out and guiding others. Dawah is also part of jihad. But going out oneself to fight in jihad is the highest form.

Unless and until you categorically say and show that Jihad (fighting to convert non-Muslims) is time bound, irrelevant in these modern times even for an Islamic State, and the scholars are wrong, I see no reason to agree wholly with you. Please don't ask about obsession. We are right to be inquisitive about the possibilities of an Islamic state waging war to convert us by FORCE.

tiarabubu is doing some debunking here . . . . .

Until i verify the statement by ibn khaldun, i would hold off comments until i see the actual statement and the context because often times translations are wrong. If he did actually say that,then i am afraid, he is incorrect.

Ibn Khaldun was an historian not a religious scholar, and even religious scholars make errors.

The Quran and history (generally) are clear.

"Let there be no compulsion (or coercion) in the religion (Islam). The right direction is distinctly clear from error."
(The Holy Quran, 2:256)


According to Christian orientalist, T. W. Arnold:

"...of any organized attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. "The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christiandom throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of Mohammedan [sic] governments towards them
(Arnold, Sir Thomas W., The Preaching of Islam, a History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, Westminister A. Constable & Co., London, 1896, p. 80.)

The other quotes are correct and i will explain why, just read on.

The caliphates did engage in conquests but never were the citizens forced to convert, if they were they would hardly be non muslims in the arab world. The non-muslims pay a tax, different from the tax paid by the muslims. Many fail to recognise that the percentage paid by the muslim in Zakat is higher than the Jizya.

If the muslims refuse to pay the Zakat, they are made to by the state, that includes fighting them. Abu bakr fought muslims who refused to pay the Zakat in the muslim lands. Today, we make sure the citizens pay tax by imprisoning them for tax evasion.

I would explain the different categories including fighting when they reject. Why do the muslims make war when they reject?. I will address why you don't need to be afraid of that today...

I am typing from a computer now (I was typing from a phone before)-so maybe i can address the claims you make and provide more details.

So let's start:

Like I said earlier,Jihad can only be called by the recognized leader of the muslims, i think that is settled:

Jihad must be performed according to Islamic rules and regulations and only for the sake or in the service of Allah. The physical or military Jihad must be called by a Muslim authority, such as, a president or head of a Muslim country after due consultations with the learned leadership. (M. Amir Ali, Ph.D., Islam , Jihad and Terrorism)


That is clear.

We will talk about the various kinds of Jihad, including the one you keep hammering on and at the end, I will give you a video that explains Jihad in full.

i. DEFENDING ISLAM AND THE COMMUNITY:

I think this is pretty straight-forward.

"To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to defend themselves), because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory - (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right - (for no cause) except that they say, 'Our Lord is Allah'..."
(The Holy Quran, 22:39-40)

Fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress limits. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors. ...And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against transgressors."
(The Holy Quran, 2:190, 193)


I do not think, you will have any grouse with this.


ii. HELPING ALLIED PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT BE MUSLIM:


If your allies are threatened, you can defend your allies, even when they are non-muslims. This is also Jihad.

In the late period of the Prophet Muhammad's(S) life, the tribe of Banu Khuza'ah became his ally. They were living near Makkah which was under the rule of the pagan Quraysh, Prophet Muhammad's(S) own tribe. The tribe of Banu Bakr, an ally of Quraysh, with the help of some elements of Quraysh, attacked Banu Khuza'ah invoked the treaty and demanded Prophet Muhammad(S) to come to their help and punish Quraysh. The Prophet Muhammad(S) organized a campaign against Quraysh of Makkah which resulted in the conquest of Makkah which occurred without any battle.

iii. DEFENDING THROUGH PREEMPTIVE STRIKES:

If you have intelligence that an enemy is about to strike, you could engage in preemptive strikes. This could be a life saver. When the messenger got information that a tribe was about to attack them, the muslims sometimes launched preemptive strikes.

Now to your main point

When they reject:

The last one addresses why a muslim nation would attack when the leader of a nation rejects. Can you imagine a muslim going around the streets of ancient rome preaching the message of Islam, a state with an official religion, He would be hanged or beheaded , easily. It was very difficult for jews and muslims to live in christian lands, see how they were treated when spain was conquered.

Today, it is much easier than it was then. The main purpose of that is:

iv. GAINING FREEDOM TO INFORM, EDUCATE AND CONVEY THE MESSAGE OF ISLAM IN AN OPEN AND FREE ENVIRONMENT:

The life of the Prophet Muhammad(S) was full of striving to gain the freedom to inform and convey the message of Islam. During his stay in Makkah he used non-violent methods and after the establishment of his government in Madinah, by the permission of Allah, he used armed struggle against his enemies whenever he found it inevitable.

The population is never forced to convert, that is a sin. However, we believe that we have a divine message from God and everyone has the right to hear about this message, accept it or reject it.

WE DO NOT MAKE WAR WITH FRIENDLY COUNTRIES EVEN IF THEY ARE NON MUSLIM.

The messenger said:

"Whoever has killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance is found for a span of forty years." (Sahih Bukhari and Ibn Majah)



v. FREEING PEOPLE FROM TYRANNY:

This is also a major factor in Jihad, for instance, We see that the muslims freed syria from byzantine terror and EGYPT FROM CHALCEDONIAN PERSECUTION. Many celebrated the conquest of the muslims who promised them freedom of worship.

Allah admonishes Muslims in the Qur'an:

"And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? - Men, women, and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You, one who will protect; and raise for us from You, one who will help.'"(The Holy Quran, 4:75)

The Christians of Syria were divided in many different denominations and almost all of them were facing severe persecution at the hands of the ruling Byzantine Melkite Chalcedonian Church. Monophysites, Jacobites and Nestorians were facing the wrath of the Byzantine/Roman might. When Heraclius, the emperor, attempted to unite the Christians by hook or by crook, his initiatives were rejected and hence the threat of persecution. Thomas Walker Arnold stated that:

Indeed, so bitter was the feeling he [the emperor] excited that there is strong reason to believe that even a majority of the orthodox subjects of the Roman Empire, in the provinces that were conquered during this emperor’s reign, were the well-wishers of the Arabs; they regarded the emperor with aversion as a heretic, and were afraid that he might commence a persecution in order to force upon them his Monotheletic opinions. They therefore readily – and even eagerly – received the new masters who promised them religious toleration, and were willing to compromise their religious positions and their national independence if only they could free themselves from the immediately impending danger.(Arnold, Preaching, p. 54.)

Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, a Jacobite (or a Syrian Orthodox Christian) patriarch from 818 to 845, also discussed some reasons as to why the Syrian masses preferred Muslims over Byzantines. He stated in his chronicle, which covers the period from 582 to 842, that Heraclius mustered three hundred thousand men from Armenia, Syria and the Roman heartlands to expel the Muslims out of Syria. Muslims decided to withdraw from cities to fight an open pitch battle. However, whilst pulling back, the Muslims decided, out of fairness, to refund the money which they had taken as tribute from the Syrian Christians:

“We are both bound by our mutual oaths. Now we are going to do battle with the Romans. If we return, this tribute is ours; but if we are defeated and do not return, we are absolved of our oaths.” So they left Emessa for Damascus; and the emir Abu Ubaydah ordered Saeed b. Kulthum to return the tribute to the Damascenes likewise…To them he said: “ If we return victorious we shall take it back. But if we are defeated and prove powerless to save you from the Romans, here is your tribute, keep it. We for our part shall be absolved of the oaths which we have sworn to you.” (Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, Liverpool, 1993, p. 156-7.)

Here, they are talking about SAVING the population from the romans.

The non-Muslims pay the Jizya tax so that their lives, honour, religion, intellect and property are protected. In this case Muslims knew that they were unable to protect the Christians of Syria due to an imminent attack by Heraclius. It was not fair to keep the money in the absence of any ability to protect the masses.

So the Arabs left Damascus and pitched camp by the river Yarmuk. As the Romans marched towards the Arab camp every city and village on their way which had surrendered to the Arabs shouted threats at them. As for crimes the Romans committed on their passage, they are unspeakable, and their unseemliness ought not even to be brought to mind…The Arabs returned, elated with their great victory, to Damascus; and the Damascenes greeted them outside the city and welcomed them joyfully in, and all treaties and assurances were reaffirmed. (Dionysius, Chronicles, p. 157.)

As we can see Jihad is also about saving people from tyranny and giving them the freedom to practise their religion.


vi. WHAT SHOULD MUSLIMS DO WHEN THEY ARE VICTORIOUS?

"Lo! Allah commands you that you restore deposits to their owners, and if you judge between mankind that you judge justly. Lo! It is proper that Allah admonishes you. Lo! Allah is ever Hearer, Seer."
(The Holy Quran, 4:58)

"O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah's witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to Piety and fear Allah. And Allah is well acquainted with all that you do."
(The Holy Quran, 5:

"And of those whom We have created there is a nation who guides with the Truth and establishes justice with it."
(The Holy Quran, 7:181)

"Lo! Allah enjoins justice and kindness, and giving to kinsfolk, and forbids lewdness and abomination and wickedness. He exhorts you in order that you may take heed."
(The Holy Quran, 16:90)

"Those who, if We give them power in the land, establish prescribed prayers (salah) and pay the poor-due (zakah) and enjoin right conduct and forbid evil. And with Allah rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs."
(The Holy Quran, 22:41)


Ethics of war:

Even when war is declared, there are restriction

i. Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person.

ii.Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees.

iii. Do not destroy an inhabited place.

iv. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food.

v. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them.

vi.Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly." Maliks Muwatta Book 021, Hadith Number 010.

How many nations in the history of the world have had this kind of ethics?


Hopefully, you are clear now.

Learn more about Jihad here from muslim scholars.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-zLekoW3pg&feature=player_embedded

QED!

You seem to try to mix two issues in your position. These are (i) what the religious text say about Jihad, and (ii) the actions of individual commanders in the field.

To start with the later, the actions of a commander in the field depends on his disposition. Telling us how benevolent a military commander was adds little to the argument. If other Muslim commanders were benevolent how about other that were extremely brutal? It also raises the question; Why were non-Nuslim lands of Syria, Eygpt, TurkeyIran, to india and China invaded by Muslims? Was it a preemptive strike? What of commanders like Uthman Dan Fodio who was also a scholar? Was his invasion preemptive? Against what threat?

You are wrong to state that: The caliphates did engage in conquests but never were the citizens forced to convert. Didnt Uthman force people to convert? Please say the truth I beg. What of these?

Khilafah Massacres from 1840-1860

Badr Khan Bey, A Hakkari Kurdish Amir, combined with other Kurdish forces led by Nurallah, attacked the Assyrians. The fierce Kurds destroyed and burned whatever came within their reach. An indiscriminate massacre took place. The women were brought before the Amir and murdered in cold blood. ... The aged mother of Mar Shimun, the Patriarch of the Church of the East, was seized by them, and after having practiced on her the most abominable atrocities, they cut her body into two parts and threw it into the river Zab.... N[b]early ten thousand Assyrians were massacred, and as large a number of woman and children were taken captive,[/b] most of whom were sent to Jezirah to be sold as slaves, to be bestowed as presents upon the influential Muslims. (Death of a Nation, pp. 111-112).

The Sultan, Abdul Hamid II (known appropriately in history as the "red Sultan" gave no quarter to the insurgents.' The Khalifah's policy was genocidal: 'whole villages were razed to the ground, and the inhabitants murdered. Between April and August 1876 thousands of Bulgarian Christians were horrifically massacred by Khilafah forces - 12,000 men, women and children were butchered in May alone.
Peacock, The Making of Modern Europe, p. 232; Stokes, Europe 1850-1959, p. 205.

n 712, Governor of Iraq, Hajjaj, ordered the conquest of Sind under the commandership of his nephew, Muhammad bin Kasim. He was instructed to “bring destruction on the unbelievers… [and] to invite and induce the infidels to accept the true creed, and belief in the unity of God… and whoever does not submit to Islam, treat him harshly, and cause injury to him till he submits.” According to Al-Biladuri, after the capturing the port of Debal, the Muslim army slaughtered the inhabitants over three days and the priests of the temples were massacred. [Chachanama, Muhammad al-Kufi, trs Kalichbeg, I, 155; Shashi R Sharma, Caliphs and Sultans, p. 95].

These are just a couple. Its obvious you forgot about them. There are so many examples of these chalips that carried out whole scale destruction in the course of Jihad. That other religions survived just goes to show that you cannot conquer the mind through force.

Now to part two: Several scholars still show us what they understand by Jihad. My question to you is; are they wrong? if there are errors, how come many made this errors?


Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (10th century), a leading Maliki jurist, declared:
Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals
may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to
begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the
religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative
of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war
will be declared against them[/b].


Scholars agree that all polytheists [according to many modern Shariah
authorities, this includes anyone who holds secular law as superior to Allah's
Shariah] should be fought. This is founded on [8:39]: "Fight them until there is 4
no persecution and the religion is Allah's entirely." . . . Damage inflicted upon the
enemy may consist in damage to his property, injury to his person or violation of
his personal liberty, i.e., that he is made a slave and is appropriated. This may be
done, according to ijma [the consensus the Shariah authorities] to all polytheists:
men, women, young and old, important and unimportant. . . .Ibn Rushd or Averroes Bidayat al-Mudtahid wa-Nihayat al-Muqtasid


Ibn Taymiyya (14th century),
Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is
Allah’s entirely and Allah’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all
Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those
who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old
people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they
actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or
otherwise assisting in the warfare).

You can pick up individual cases of misappropriation but it does not subtract from the rule... That is why i put "generally" in bracket.

We are talking about THOUSANDS of years of history. There is no way, you will not find atrocities committed by muslims. You will find many but the law is the law.

The fact remains that if we were forcing people to convert there would not be a significant non muslim population in Arab countries as there are today..... That is a fact.

Look at iran, It has 99% shia because the shia dynasty that took over it in just the 16th century(or so) forced conversions. Just a few hundred years ago.

In arab countries such as syria, christian are significant even up till today over 1000 years after Islam took over. From that backdrop, they have generally been allowed to live with their faith.

This was made clear even by the orientalist, i quoted above.

There is nothing wrong in any of those quotes and it has been explained above.

Very interesting debate. . .

tbaba1234: You can pick up individual cases of misappropriation but it does not subtract from the rule... That is why i put "generally" in bracket.

Please apply the same rule to yourself. You pick individual cases to show the "benevolence" of Jihad wars and what do you expect i do? By the way, how many benevolent versus brutal wars are there in Islamic history?

We are talking about THOUSANDS of years of history. There is no way, you will not find atrocities committed by muslims. You will find many but the law is the law.

But the interpretations of the scholars show that the law is for Muslims to strive to ultimately convert non-Muslims BY FORCE through Jihad. THAT IS THE LAW as interpreted by the Scholars. Hello.....!

The fact remains that if we were forcing people to convert there would not be a significant non muslim population in Arab countries as there are today..... That is a fact. Look at iran, It has 99% shia because the shia dynasty that took over it in just the 16th century(or so) forced conversions. Just a few hundred years ago.

In arab countries such as syria, christian are significant even up till today over 1000 years after Islam took over. From that backdrop, they have generally been allowed to live with their faith.

This was made clear even by the orientalist, i quoted above.

This phenomena is explained partly in the interpretations of Jihad war as explained by Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani;


Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals
may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to
begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the
religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative
of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war
will be declared against them


and in the Hidayah, vol. II. p. 140



It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do."





Other religions, especially Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews, survived because they were made to pay Jizya in exchange for a stay and to keep their faith. Other minor religions, atheists or idol worshipers didn't survive. Syria you are referring to was Christian until the Jihad invasion of Muslims in 629 AD.


So you see, (in fact you know) part of jihad involves violence and forceful conversion. Until you prove that it is no more incumbent or obligatory for a Muslim (or state) to declare physical violent Jihad of conversion on non-muslims, I am afraid your position is a tough sell. Moreso you continue to down play that part. And knowing that Muslims hold the words of the Quran and Hadith as eternally sacred, the threat is ever present. So don't blame non-Muslims for being concerned.

Have a great day, sir.

You have said nothing spectacular here. Ofcourse they have to pay the Jizya tax .... That is the law for non muslims.. Muslims pay Zakat.

If you are a citizen of the state, you have two options, become a muslim and pay Zakat.. Stay non muslim and pay jizya. The jizya ensures that the muslim army fights for your protection, even when there is a draft, you can not be forced into the army. For your information, muslims pay a higher percentage for the zakat tax.

You are dodging evidence from history and the quran that shows clearly that muslims did not convert forcibly. Look at syria, lebanon, Egypt, for christian populationa.. Look at morocco, yemen for jewish populations... India.. hindu. Populations that have existed for thousands of years. Jews migrated in their numbers to muslim lands from europe.
:
In contrast, non christian populations found it very hard to live in Europe. See spain... before the christians took spain, there was a thriving community of different religions. When they conquered,jews were expelled, muslims were expelled or forced to convert. This took hundreds of years so you can't say maybe it was one or two bad governments. Even when they signed a treaty to allow the muslims practise, they broke it.

You can't argue with the evidence of history. It is absolutely prohibited in Islam to forcibly convert.

The amazing thing about your beating around the bush is that non of the statements made in the first post was disproved . You are trying to force this old tired argument of forced conversions. The kind of dishonesty and hypocrisy shown is ridiculous.

Anyway, enjoy your day too.