Question about muslim invadings after prophet death
-
In the name of God
Salam, sorry for my bad grammar, im not native
I know the islam allows war only in self defence (2239)
But what about wars after prophet death? its no way that all of this wars were in self defence, for instance only one year after the death of prophet, the muslims attcked iran(and all of historians say that the muslims attacked first and it wasnt in self defence) its so hard for me to agree that all of the companions of prophet deserted teachings of quran just 1 year after death of the prophet, so what is the point behind this? Are all of the companions forgeted what quran said just after 1 year?(and all of the people were silent?) are all of the wars after prophet were in self defence? iran was one example(im iranian) there are so many other wars(and in iran case, iran was sooo weak at the time and its almost impossible to wage war against muslims, and historians say that iranians didnt attacked muslims first)
i want to know your thoughts on this
Peace handshake group
-
In the name of God
Salam, sorry for my bad grammar, im not native
I know the islam allows war only in self defence (2239)
But what about wars after prophet death? its no way that all of this wars were in self defence, for instance only one year after the death of prophet, the muslims attcked iran(and all of historians say that the muslims attacked first and it wasnt in self defence) its so hard for me to agree that all of the companions of prophet deserted teachings of quran just 1 year after death of the prophet, so what is the point behind this?
- To expand the territory of the empire
- To gain more control over the vast wealth of Sassanid empire.
- To eliminate the potential threat of invasion from Sassanid empire. Nowadays they call it as "Pre-emptive attack".
Are all of the companions forgeted what quran said just after 1 year?(and all of the people were silent?) are all of the wars after prophet were in self defence? iran was one example(im iranian) there are so many other wars(and in iran case, iran was sooo weak at the time and its almost impossible to wage war against muslims, and historians say that iranians didnt attacked muslims first)
- Quran was not yet being written during that time.
- Not all wars during that time were in self defence.
- there are wars to silence another person who also claimed as a prophet also known as Ridda War / Apostasy War (thus explain the invention of dogma of Muhammad as the last prophet and those who claimed as one need to be eliminated)
- there are wars among arabs tribes as they struggle for power on who should control whom. Basically they murdered each others.
- By Iran you mean Sassanid Empire? Yes Sassanid Empire did not invade any region of Arabian peninsula, they operate on Arabian peninsula through proxy of certain Arabian tribes. The focus of the Sassanid Empire at that time was the Roman (Byzantine) empire, all military and economic resources were directed towards war with Roman empire.
Please view the above explanation with common understanding of
- Religion is NOT spirituality
- Religion is a political tool which is invented and used by the elite to control the masses.
- In war between empires there's no good guys or bad guys, more often all who are involved in the war are bad guys. Thus by stating the above I do not imply that the Sassanid Empire is the 'good guys' and the Arabian Caliphate is the 'bad guys' or vice-versa.
-
Peace Mahdi20.
You say quote"But what about wars after prophet death? its no way that all of this wars were in self defence, for instance only one year after the death of prophet, the muslims attcked iran(and all of historians say that the muslims attacked first and it wasnt in self defence) its so hard for me to agree that all of the companions of prophet deserted teachings of quran just 1 year after death of the prophet, so what is the point behind this? Are all of the companions forgeted what quran said just after 1 year?(and all of the people were silent?) are all of the wars after prophet were in self defence? iran was one example(im iranian) there are so many other wars(and in iran case, iran was sooo weak at the time and its almost impossible to wage war against muslims, and historians say that iranians didnt attacked muslims first)"
Well, what about during the life of the prophet? Did all people follow Qoran? What about the "Munafiqueen? Those who pretended to follow Qoran?
The wars to spread a false religion tells you all you need to know about the religion itself.
Even during the life of the prophet those who opposed him were working against Qoran pretending to follow the prophet..They were plotting to hijack the religion. Traditional Islam is not what the prophet came with.
So ,in short those who plotted and hijacked true Islam started the plotting from the offset and created a false religion and went on to spread it aggressively.Basically from the beginning, many did not accept the teaching of Qoran and fought to eradicate the truth. Those whom the prophet tried to change succeeded in changing GOD s religion and won the day. GOD s trial had to be fulfilled and the enemies of Qoran succeeded .
GOD protected -Qoran- for the generations after Qoran but left those who oppose Him to their plots and their religions. GOD s trial continues for all generations.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
In the name of God
Salam, sorry for my bad grammar, im not native
I know the islam allows war only in self defence (2239)
Salam,
It's not islam as a whole but Qur'an here.
But what about wars after prophet death? its no way that all of this wars were in self defence, for instance only one year after the death of prophet, the muslims attcked iran(and all of historians say that the muslims attacked first and it wasnt in self defence) its so hard for me to agree that all of the companions of prophet deserted teachings of quran just 1 year after death of the prophet, so what is the point behind this? Are all of the companions forgeted what quran said just after 1 year?(and all of the people were silent?) are all of the wars after prophet were in self defence? iran was one example(im iranian) there are so many other wars(and in iran case, iran was sooo weak at the time and its almost impossible to wage war against muslims, and historians say that iranians didnt attacked muslims first)
i want to know your thoughts on this
Well, unlike what an Islamic tradition written two centuries after the events asserts, there is no historical proof that the early conquests (in particular by Umar ibn Khattab) were actually motivated by the desire to convey Qur'an to other people.
It is not even sure that Umar and co were actually aware of Qur'an.In fact, it could be very well that Qur'an was partly written to oppose the conquests.
This verse could be very well the witness of this early opposition
285 But then, here you are slaying yourselves, and driving out a group of you from their homes; you act towards them with sin and animosity. And if they come to you as prisoners, you demand ransom for them, while it was forbidden for you to drive them out! Do you believe in part of the Book and disbelieve in part? The punishment for those among you who do so is humiliation in this worldly life, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be delivered to the most severe retribution. God is not unaware of what you do.These other verses
258 And We said "Enter this town, and eat from it as you wish bountifully. And enter the passageway by crouching, and say "Our load is removed," so that your wrongdoings will be forgiven, and We will increase for the good doers."
259 But the wicked altered what was said to them to a different saying, thus We sent down upon the wicked an affliction from the heavens for what wickedness they were in.though speaking of Moses and his fellows, indirectly address the fact that Arab conquerors (Umar and co.) were spreading their faith through conquest instead of preaching to the people.
Qur'an did not emerge from a pagan milieu as the Islamic tradition asserts, it emerged from a milieu versed in the Scriptures and already knowing them very well.
In the book of al-Baladhuri, I found a hadith saying that if Qur'an had not said that there would be no prophet after Muhammad, then Umar could have been prophet after Muhammad.
This is a very strange hadith, suggesting incidentally that the initial "prophet" was actually Umar, later downgraded to a mere companion when Qur'an became more and more popular. Other hadiths and narratives, including outside Islamic tradition go into that direction.Don't forget that according to Islamic tradition, Umar at the beginning was actually an opponent to Qur'an preaching. There could be some truth behind this, namely that making him a companion of the Qur'an preacher could in fact be a later reconstruction.
At one point in the early Arab history the conquests stopped, and coincidentally we see more and more historical artifacts witnessing Qur'an preaching. It could be that Qur'an increased popularity among Arabs put an end, or at least slew down, the conquests.