Were Islamic Empires peaceful?
-
The overwhelming majority of Muslims seem to think that Muslims never waged offensive wars. We know that according to the Qur'an we are allowed to defend ourselves, but we are not allowed to wage offensive wars. Honestly, I know very few Turks who admit that the Ottoman Empire was wrong when they attacked European countries..
What were the Ottomans doing at the gates of Vienna? Why did they wage many offensive wars and still consider themselves righteous? Why are we criticizing the Americans for invading Iraq when we did the same to other countries for centuries? This question has been bothering me for years...
-
What were the Ottomans doing at the gates of Vienna? Why did they wage many offensive wars and still consider themselves righteous? Why are we criticizing the Americans for invading Iraq when we did the same to other countries for centuries? This question has been bothering me for years...
me too. (but not for too long, about two years).
-
Why are we criticizing the Americans for invading Iraq when we did the same to other countries for centuries? This question has been bothering me for years...
In my opinion from reading the quran 'muslim' is a descriptive term so no individual or group can claim righteousness through mere parrot talk but only through action. If a group or individual claims to be muslim(peaceful) and wages offensive war then according to the quran 'they' are not 'muslim'. I believe once people start taking the word 'muslim' as a proper noun then they are creating sects which is prohibited by The God. Every religion has done this and the quran was revealed to eradicate all religions and unite all people under peaceful(muslim) living.
PEACE
-
No I didn't.
Why can't we criticize them all equally? We are not guilty by association. If someone does something you believe is wrong, you call them out for it.
I didn't say you did.. our ancestors did, but we take pride in everything we have done. I wonder why.
the quran was revealed to eradicate all religions and unite all people under peaceful(muslim) living.
No, not by force.. it is very clear from the Qur'an that we are not allowed to attack countries that don't attack us.
Are you arguing otherwise? Is what I said not common knowledge, or do most Muslims really believe that we must spread Islam by the sword? If the latter is true, then we have a big problem..
-
I didn't say you did.. our ancestors did, but we take pride in everything we have done. I wonder why.
When I accepted Islam, I didn't suddenly take on the responsibility of the actions of everything every muslim has ever done. I bare no responsibility for the actions of my ancestors
I bare no responsibility for the actions of the members of my sex
I bare no responsibility for the actions of the members of my race
I bare no responsibility for the actions of the members of my nationality
I bare no responsibility for the actions of the members of my religion
I bare no responsibility for the actions of the members of my familyI am an equal opportunity critic
-
If indeed Islamic history of conquests is true - and there are disputes, some secular historians claim that the Romans simply left the lands Muslims 'conquered' - then they must be judged in accordance with the Quran.
To me, we can never really know what happened but we can at the very least see that there are no clear answers. Aisha Musa's book on early Quranism shows that there are very penetrating questions that cannot be easily answered. Why did , for example, Shafiee devote so much space to the refutation of a non-existent or extremely marginal group?
It's the same with these conquests.
It's better to stick to our own engagement with Quran. That's all we'll be judged for. Historical questions are, at best, academic.
Well said, dc2.
-
When I accepted Islam, I didn't suddenly take on the responsibility of the actions of everything every muslim has ever done. I bare no responsibility for the actions of my ancestors
I bare no responsibility for the actions of the members of my sex
I bare no responsibility for the actions of the members of my race
I bare no responsibility for the actions of the members of my nationality
I bare no responsibility for the actions of the members of my religion
I bare no responsibility for the actions of the members of my familyI am an equal opportunity critic
I didn't say YOU are responsible. But why do Muslims always claim that Islamic empires were peaceful when this is clearly not the case? Why criticize the West for attacking Muslim countries unprovoked, while our ancestors (I'm from Turkey) did the same for centuries. Do most Muslims know that we are NOT allowed to wage offensive wars?? I don't think so.
-
I didn't say you did.. our ancestors did, but we take pride in everything we have done. I wonder why.
No, not by force.. it is very clear from the Qur'an that we are not allowed to attack countries that don't attack us.
Are you arguing otherwise? Is what I said not common knowledge, or do most Muslims really believe that we must spread Islam by the sword? If the latter is true, then we have a big problem..
Either you've not read my post in its entirety or you've not understood my post correctly. Re-read what I've wrote and I'm sure your question will be answered.
PEACE
-
Either you've not read my post in its entirety or you've not understood my post correctly. Re-read what I've wrote and I'm sure your question will be answered.
PEACE
This is what you said; "the quran was revealed to eradicate all religions and unite all people under peaceful(muslim) living".
I assume that you believe it's permissible to wage offensive wars to spread Islam. If not, then what did you mean?
Peace
-
In my opinion from reading the quran 'muslim' is a descriptive term so no individual or group can claim righteousness through mere parrot talk but only through action. If a group or individual claims to be muslim(peaceful) and wages offensive war then according to the quran 'they' are not 'muslim'. I believe once people start taking the word 'muslim' as a proper noun then they are creating sects which is prohibited by The God. Every religion has done this and the quran was revealed to eradicate all religions and unite all people under peaceful(muslim) living.
PEACE
Do you see anywhere in the bold highlighted section in my post about offensive war being permissible?? Before jumping to assumptions wouldn't it have been more sensible for you to have asked me to clarify my position as it wasn't clear to you??
PEACE
-
Do you see anywhere in the bold highlighted section in my post about offensive war being permissible?? Before jumping to assumptions wouldn't it have been more sensible for you to have asked me to clarify my position as it wasn't clear to you??
PEACE
I wasn't referring to the bold part. You said; "the quran was revealed to eradicate all religions and unite all people under peaceful(muslim) living".
Do you think it's permissible (in Islam) to wage offensive wars to spread Islam. If not, then what did you mean? Were the Ottomans trying to eradicate all religions and uniting people under peaceful (muslim) living? Why did they use force, if it's not permissible?
Peace
-
I wasn't referring to the bold part. You said; "the quran was revealed to eradicate all religions and unite all people under peaceful(muslim) living".
Do you think it's permissible (in Islam) to wage offensive wars to spread Islam. If not, then what did you mean? Were the Ottomans trying to eradicate all religions and uniting people under peaceful (muslim) living? Why did they use force, if it's not permissible?
Peace
Well I was referring to the bold part because if you read all of it in its context we wouldn't be having this discussion but its cool.
Religions give power to the elite and keep people blinded to serve idols and also give authority to clerics etc. We obviously cannot wage war against these elite but we can educate those who are mentally and physically enslaved to religions. If human rights are being violated then we have to wage war to bring peace(islam).
Ottomans whether they did this or not is irrelevant as they will be judged by The God. And remember islam is not a religion so when I said the quran was revealed to eradicate all religions I didn't imply war which you assumed so. Eradicate does not equal war, so lets all eradicate false beliefs in our lives
PEACE
-
Good question. In fact, Umayad, Abbasid and Ottoman empires were agressive.
Peace,
Edip -
I wasn't referring to the bold part. You said; "the quran was revealed to eradicate all religions and unite all people under peaceful(muslim) living".
Do you think it's permissible (in Islam) to wage offensive wars to spread Islam. If not, then what did you mean? Were the Ottomans trying to eradicate all religions and uniting people under peaceful (muslim) living? Why did they use force, if it's not permissible?
Peace
Maybe they didn't care that they were using force, and weren't following what the Qur'an says.
And why are Turks so proud of that? I think they're looking at it from a patriotic viewpoint as opposed to a Qur'anic one. -
Maybe they didn't care that they were using force, and weren't following what the Qur'an says.
And why are Turks so proud of that? I think they're looking at it from a patriotic viewpoint as opposed to a Qur'anic one.Salam,
True, but nationalism is forbidden in Islam. I think there are Qur'an verses warning those who take pride in their tribe and race. I have always been fiercely opposed to nationalism. Pride/arrogance ("kibir" in Arabic) is strongly discouraged in Islam.
-
Salam,
True, but nationalism is forbidden in Islam. I think there are Qur'an verses warning those who take pride in their tribe and race. I have always been fiercely opposed to nationalism. Pride/arrogance ("kibir" in Arabic) is strongly discouraged in Islam.
Peace.
Very true. But if they're not following the Qur'anic teachings then why do they care what it says? And you know Turks have such strong nationalism.... yes, it's not right ... but it's there... -
I think there are a couple of problems here. Firstly, people are saying that the Qur'an forbids nationalism, but there seems no doubt to me that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) sought to establish a 'nation' i.e. an organised hierarchical authority controlling the territory belonging to the Muslims and capable of waging wars and enforcing laws. The Qur'an uses the word 'nation' many, many times.
Secondly, the criticism of the Ottomans seems a little extremist. Every Islamic Caliphate was a nation-state and in the later period of Islamic history the Caliph was reduced to a figurehead in the eyes of the common people. Ottomans were no exception as the last Islamic Caliphate, so why single them out for criticism? People here are saying they were 'aggressive', but really aggression in their case was simple strength based on a superior political, social and military administration to any preceding Islamic Caliphate in history. Of course Islam was used as a pretext to justify the rule of the Caliphs and Sultans, but this happened in a much more benign way than under the Umayyads for example.
Who brought down the Ottoman Empire? It was a massive effort with many players involved. The Ottomans had an enemy in Britain, particularly, and found themselves on the losing side in WW1. Then they were brought down by a combined effort of Arab Wahhabi nutcases, organised by Laurence of Arabia the British agent as a part of a way for the European powers to change the 'balance of power' in Europe and Asia Minor. They had had their eye on the Ottomans for ages.
So, in conclusion I think the criticism of the Ottomans is quite unfair. Strength and a well-organised bureaucracy are the worst reasons to criticise a nation. Rather, they are praiseworthy and should be a source of pride for Turks and Muslims generally.
-
TheIndian,
You completely missed the point I was trying to make. I'm saying offensive wars are "unIslamic", and yet the Ottomans attacked other countries for no good reason. I don't care how "strong" or great the Ottomans were. I only care about Quranic principles.
