Does Islam Intend to Conquer the World?
-
From a discussion featured here
http//forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9065
I am publishing this article as a response to a three-round debate between myself and ?Muhammad bin Lyin? of ?Faithfreedom.org?. The topic of the debate was ?Islam Intends to Rule the World? and ?Muhammad bin Lyin? represented the ?FOR? position whilst I represented the ?AGAINST? position. This is also an attempt to clean up the discussion and bypass the many petty tirades, denials and claims which manifested themselves in spite of the presentation of evidence. I wish too to clarify I that am a ?Qur?an alone? Muslim and that Islam is represented by the Qur?an alone (not by opinions, traditions and histories which have resulted from various viewpoint over time). ?Muhammad bin Lyin? had the opportunity to debate this assertion at the same time, but he did not take up the point.
The four main Qur?anic verses which ?Muhammad bin Lyin? employed to support his viewpoint are
?And fight with them until there is no more persecution and the system should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.?
Qur?an 839
?So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.?
95
?He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.?
Qur?an 933
?Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.?
Qur?an 929
I will deal with them in the order that they are presented.
REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIM ABOUT 839
?And fight with them until there is no more persecution and the religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.?
Qur?an 839
Although 839 is quite clearly in self-defence, ?Muhammad bin Lyin??s claim is that it states that Muslims should fight against non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (SWT). To further ?support? his point he states that ?desist? means ?convert to Islam? because according to him talking against Islam is fighting Islam. There are two things to remember
- This verse was revealed in the context of people hindering Muslims from their sacred Masjid (place of worship) (834) both via physical (830) and financial means (836)
?And when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they might confine you or slay you or drive you away; and they devised plans and Allah too had arranged a plan; and Allah is the best of planners.?
Qur?an 830
?And what have they that Allah should not chastise them while they hinder from the Sacred Mosque and they are not guardians of it; its guardians are only those who guard , but most of them do not know.?
Qur?an 834
?Surely those who disbelieve spend their wealth to hinder from the way of Allah; so they shall spend it, then it shall be to them an intense regret, then they shall be overcome; and those who disbelieve shall be driven together to hell.?
Qur?an 836
?Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed. And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.?
Qur?an 838-39
Therefore it must be concluded that ?desist? means ceasing to inhibit Muslims from practicing their system/religion, and from attempting to dominate it.
- 839 does not mention ?all religion?, but simply mentions ?the system (aldeen)?. This refers to the system of Islam (?religion? is ?millati?). ?Aldeen? is also used in some other verses
?And fight with them until there is no persecution, and the religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.?
Qur?an 2193
(Predictably ?Muhammad bin Lyin? attempted to use this verse to support 839 after realising that ?all religion? meant ?the system?, although he seems to have made the same mistake once again.)
??and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your system (deen), if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his system (deen)??
Qur?an 2217
(If ?deen? represents all systems/religions, how can one party turn another from it?)
?There is no compulsion in the system; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.?
Qur?an 2256
?Surely the (true) system of Allah is Islam, and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and whoever disbelieves in the communications of Allah then surely Allah is quick in reckoning.?
Qur?an 319
?This is because they say The fire shall not touch us but for a few days; and what they have forged deceives them in the matter of their system.?
Qur?an 324
?And do not believe but in him who follows your system.?
Qur?an 373
Etc. etc?
Therefore ?aldeen? certainly refers to Islam (in both the verses 2193 and 839). ?Muhammad bin Lyin? of course still says that he understands the verse properly.
REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIM ABOUT 95
?So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.?
95
Firstly it must be explained that the Qur?an as given today is not in its chronological order of revelation. Historically it is said that Sura (chapter) 9 was the second-last to be revealed, with Sura 5 before it. The reason I mention this is that verse 53 declares that all of the precepts in Islam have been detailed
?This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your system, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your system and completed My favour on you and chosen for you Islam as a system??
?Muhammad bin Lyin??s claim of internal abrogation (whereby the Qur?an allegedly cancels and replaces its laws as circumstances change) is therefore invalidated even before I demonstrate that there is no contradiction between what is written in Sura 9 and the rest of the Qur?an. Since there is no contradiction, regardless of whether there is or there is not ?abrogation? his claim does not affect my argument. His point is that 95 orders Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims unless or until they convert to Islam. He of course claims that this verse abrogates other verses in the Qur?an which promote freedom of belief. However, let us examine the first verse of Sura 9 to see what time and place the entire segment refers to
? immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.?
Qur?an 91
Already we can see that 95 applies only to the particular non-Muslims with whom the Muslims at the time had a treaty. Those with whom treaties had not been made (e.g. because they did not live in proximity to the Muslims) were of course exempt and this is why the targeted non-Muslims must also represent no liability (93) to the Muslims (i.e. the Muslims were not at that time and under those circumstances subject to the Islamic ruling of never initiating combat (the reasons will be discussed)). Let us narrow it down further
?Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful .?
Qur?an 94
So we can see that it applies only to the non-Muslims of that time and place who had broken treaties and aided the enemies of the Muslims.
?And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.?
Qur?an 96
We can see that the non-Muslims who did not want to fight Muslims or those who did not agree with the animosity of their fellow people to Muslims are not to be harmed. ?Muhammad bin Lyin? says that this verse implies attempting to convert those who surrender, but this is illogical because firstly they are to be taken to a place of safety and not held captive (i.e. they do not have to be soldiers who fought against Muslims) and secondly the verse refutes his fantasy by stating that non-Muslims? ignorance of Islam is the reason for offering them its knowledge. Let us examine the verse 97
?How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful .?
Qur?an 97
Once again Allah (SWT) is re-emphasizing the importance of keeping to treaties. We can also derive from this verse that the non-Muslims could make peace by participating in the making of treaties at the Sacred Mosque. The following verses show that the reason for these declarations is that the non-Muslims had attacked the Muslims first and could not be trusted
?How ! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors.?
Qur?an 98
?They do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits.?
Qur?an 910
?What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people and remove the rage of their hearts; and Allah turns to whom He pleases, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.?
Qur?an 913-15
Therefore to be the subject of 95 the non-Muslims had to fulfil these criteria of hostily towards Muslims. Please note that from a Muslim perspective only Allah (SWT) knew what was in the hearts of the non-Muslims during that time. Thus if Allah (SWT) said that they could not be trusted, then they could not be trusted. Sura 9 was revealed to clarify such things and to guide the Muslims through these dangerous times. For example, the declaration of immunity in 91 and 93 is (according to the state of the non-Muslims? hearts) an application of 4735
?And be not slack so as to cry for peace when you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught.?
Qur?an 4735
Remember also that the guilty non-Muslims did not have to convert to Islam (after all, the non-Muslims in 929 did not have to), but it was one of the few ways by which they could prove that they had truly repented (another would be to make a treaty at the Sacred Mosque or to pay the ?Jizya?). Verse 911 simply states that if they do establish Islamic practices (praying, paying of charity etc.) then they will be ?brothers in faith?. 912 clarifies that if after converting they left the religion or system, they could only be fought if they openly attacked Islam
?And if they break their oaths after their agreement and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing-- so that they may desist.?
Qur?an 912
This is against the source of the animosity and it does not have to be a physical fight since it is until they cease. Please note that verbal/symbolical aggression towards Islam/Muslims is to be met only with equal retaliation
?Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way. And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.?
Qur?an 16125-126
?Muhammad bin Lyin? claims without proof that such verses have been abrogated by 95 and 929 (which will be addressed later), but all throughout the Qur?an fighting is only in retaliation
?Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them.?
Qur?an 2239
Finally, given the context of the segment in question (91, 93, 94, 98-13), regardless of the policy dictated it is irrelevant to modern times since these days Muslims will not have a Sura revealed to them in similar circumstances (e.g. to tell them what is in particular non-Muslims? hearts). Muslims can only fight in retaliation according to the injury suffered, and that is only what is described in these verses. The rest was up to Allah (SWT).
REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIM ABOUT 933
?He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.?
Qur?an 933
I will skip directly confronting verse 929 now since 933 is an integral component of ?Muhammad bin Lyin??s rationale for interpreting the verse in his (i.e. the traditional anti-Islamic) way.
Firstly the literal translation actually renders ?cause it to prevail over all religions? as ?manifest it above all systems? (that is, to ?show it as superior to other religions and thus attract more followers?). Indeed, the correct path stands out clear from error
?There is no compulsion in the system; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error??
Qur?an 2256
Nevertheless, I will bear with the more confronting interpretation of the verse because this is the rendering in 618-9. Let us examine the verse in its context of 929-36
?Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the Jizya in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.?
Qur?an 929
?And the Jews say Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!?
Qur?an 930
?They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).?
Qur?an 931
?They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.?
Qur?an 932
?He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.?
Qur?an 933
?O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and turn (them) from Allah?s way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah?s way, announce to them a painful chastisement,?
Qur?an 934
?On the day when it shall be heated in the fire of hell, then their foreheads and their sides and their backs shall be branded with it; this is what you hoarded up for yourselves, therefore taste what you hoarded.?
Qur?an 935
?Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah?s ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).?
Qur?an 936
?Muhammad bin Lyin? claims that 933 is a mandate for Muslims to make Islam conquer the world by spreading it through any means possible. If we read it properly, it becomes apparent that it is a response to 932 in which the Jews and Christians in this context are expressing aversion to Islam. ?Muhammad bin Lyin? declares overtly that 929 and 933 are directly linked, but to do so he must misread the verse. 933 states that Allah (SWT) was the One who revealed the Qur?an to His Messenger to make it prevail over every other religion. So first of all it is a standalone statement detailing what Allah (SWT) has done and not what Muslims should do. Secondly the Qur?an is clearly stated to be the means by which Islam would prevail, and thus ?Muhammad bin Lyin? would have to prove that there is a statement in the Qur?an urging Muslims to convert (forcibly or by other means) non-Muslims to Islam. Having failed to demonstrate this using the verses 839 and 95, his case is left only with 929. Since 929 only concerns Jews and Christians of that time (not even Hindus or Buddhists of that time), he will, of course, fail.
Here are some verses to clarify this
?There is no compulsion in the system; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.?
Qur?an 2256
?Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the believers compassionate, but if they turn back, say Allah is sufficient for me, there is no god but He; on Him do I rely, and He is the Lord of mighty power.?
Qur?an 9128-129
(Notice that the above two verses are in Sura 9. Thus ?Muhammad bin Lyin? must now push abrogation as he does with the rest of the Qur?an.)
?Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way. And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.?
Qur?an 16125-126
?Say Every one acts according to his manner; but your Lord best knows who is best guided in the path.?
Qur?an 1784
?And say The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve??
Qur?an 1829
?Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.?
Qur?an 608
(This is the basic law governing social relations between Muslims and non-Muslims).
Furthermore we must ask ourselves ?If ?Muhammad bin Lyin? is right, then how will the Qur?an help Muslims to forcibly convert non-Muslims when it would be easier to use the sword?? Does knowledge of knowing what is written in the Qur?an make fighting any easier? No, because the Qur?an would need only say ?Convert/conquer all non-Muslims however you can!? to provide as much religious impetus/support as it could offer to assist this. The Qur?an will of course help Muslims to have the faith necessary to obey it, but then ?Muhammad bin Lyin? can find no verse mandating Muslims to fight against any people who did not fight Muslims and injure them first. Verse 929 is his ?last stand?, and that will be dealt with shortly. From the evidence provided, the only rational explanation for verse 933 is that the revelation of the Qur?an itself will cause Islam to spread regardless of whether Muslims force it or not (though anyone who forces it is not a Muslim). Thus the verse does indeed suggest that Islam will ?dominate?, but only on the basis of the number of people who voluntarily convert and perhaps the presentation of the religion itself (as given via the Qur?an or its true adherents). The assertion that this verse was revealed specifically in context with 929 and not 932 is unfounded (not only due to the above explanation) because almost the exact same statements are found in Sura 61
?They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths but Allah will perfect His light, though the unbelievers may be averse. He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the true religion, that He may make it prevail over the religions, all of them, though the polytheists may be averse.?
Qur?an 618-9
REBUTTAL TO THE CLAIM ABOUT 929
?Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the Jizya in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.?
Qur?an 929
The first thing to be noticed is that this verse is situated in the contextual Sura 9 and secondly it concerns only the ?People of the Book? (Jews and Christians). The context was provided in the rebuttal to 95 and 933, but let us examine the criteria as we did with 95
The word ?Jizya? derives from the Arabic word ?jaza? which conveys ?recompense? or ?punishment?. Variations of the word are employed throughout the Qur?an to mean ?recompense? (693, 1052, 2790, 3654, 5341 and some others). Therefore if we take the purely Qur?anic meaning of the word then it is clear that the commandment to fight in 929 is in self-defence or retaliation for an injury inflicted (it may well be a payment to be made for treaty-terms broken (94)). Evidence for this is presented in 934 and 936 where the rabbis and monks were not only hoarding wealth and debarring people from practicing their religion (just as in 839), but also making war on Muslims
?O you who believe! most surely many of the doctors of law and the monks eat away the property of men falsely, and hinder (them) from Allah?s way; and (as for) those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in Allah?s way, announce to them a painful chastisement,?
Qur?an 934
?Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah?s ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).?
Qur?an 936
Therefore 929 is no different to any other verse in the Qur?an commanding Muslims to fight oppression and aggression. The ?Jizya? is simply reparation in accordance with the injury inflicted on Muslims It must be remembered that there are differences in religions and under no circumstances does the Qur?an acknowledge the validity of other religions as they are followed today. Nevertheless the Qur?an encourages mutual tolerance and respect amongst people themselves
?Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.?
262
?And We did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them two but in truth; and the hour is most surely coming, so turn away with kindly forgiveness.?
Qur?an 1585
?And surely We have honoured the children of Adam, and We carry them in the land and the sea, and We have given them of the good things, and We have made them to excel by an appropriate excellence over most of those whom We have created.?
Qur?an 1770
(Humanity is one family.)
?Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.?
Qur?an 608
However, it does not end there. ?Muhammad bin Lyin? will of course divert discussion of Islam from the Qur?an alone and refer to the traditional (cultural) understanding of ?Jizya?. He has not attempted to justify the required assertion that the religion (laws and precepts) of Islam is ultimately derived from more than one scripture, and thus within this debate he has no basis to argue with the ?Qur?an-alone? understanding of the word. It is not my purpose here to discuss ?Shia? vs ?Sunni? vs ?Qur?aniyun? understandings of the Qur?an, and thus I will bear with the unsupported transformation of the word ?Jizya? into ?tax for being non-Muslim in a Muslim state?. However, please consider the following verse
?Say I do not ask you aught in return (for the Message) except that he who will, may take the way to his Lord.?
Qur?an 2557
This shows that Muslims would not be rewarded by being exempt from normal state tax simply because they converted to Islam. Therefore the ?Jizya? must have served some purpose besides humiliating or labelling non-Muslims, and then the only separation between Jizya as ?state tax? and ?recompense? would be its purpose. What was appropriate at the time was appropriate, and it would be un-Islamic to implement a tax based on religion and not on a practical and fair basis (it would break the ?no compulsion in the system? rule, for a start). This will be discussed further shortly, but my thoughts are that ?Jizya? is ultimately a recompense for some justifiable reason or another. I am thus not disagreeing with the traditional understanding of the purpose of ?Jizya?, but merely the translation into ?tax? without considering various factors.
As a side-note, those interested in the debate between traditional hadith-following Muslims and Qur?an-alone Muslims are advised firstly to read the Qur?an by paying attention to the meaning of each relevant verse and referring to both perspectives (the Qur?an-alone position represented by my commentary now over half-complete but covering all necessary arguments). Ultimately the matter does not affect the topic of this debate.
To begin, I will present the new verse
?Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.?
Qur?an 929
The tax is generally understood as either material proof of non-Muslims? acceptance of subjection to the state and Islamic laws (this would be un-Qur?anic at least as an unjustified standout tax compared to the Zakat) or a tax in return for protection or some practical purpose (it is easy to see how if Muslims considered non-Muslims to be ?separate? and a burden to be carried that the tax would be implemented under all circumstances). Ultimately regardless of the rationale it would have at least some practical purpose and be no different to any tax in modern times). If the Jews and Christians were not already living in the Muslim-controlled state (logical after reading verse 934 and considering the polytheists of 91-5), then it is illogical that the Qur?an is telling Muslims to fight against the Jews and Christians who did not establish Muslim practices (including prohibiting what Allah (SWT) and His Messenger prohibited (e.g. pork)) because living under their own social rules one could not expect them to be Islamic! That would mean attacking every non-Muslim state! However, the verse only specifies Jews and Christians making it terribly illogical that Muslims would be ordered to attack them simply for not upholding an Islamic society.
The first solution is that ?Jizya? means ?recompense? as discussed. The second is that (assuming ?Jizya? means ?tax?) Muslims were being ordered to conquer the Jewish and Christian states because they had done something wrong (see the verses 934, 936 and 91-2. It might be noted too that ?fight? in the verse does not necessarily mean a physical fight, and that the words ?pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority? could well convey a change in heart of the disbelievers and a voluntary conversion to Islam. This ?fight? would be in response to the hostile attitude of the People of the Book in 930-36. In the second case (of Muslims being ordered to conquer) it would still be retaliatory and apparently necessary as per verse 936 (in which the polytheists (as which the particular ?People of the Book? are described) fight the Muslims all together). However, with ?Jizya? as ?tax? it is unclear why the polytheists of 91-5 are not subjected to it also. After all, although 936 can refer to them alone, to the Jews and Christians alone or to them all together, the wording of 936 implies all of them. Converting to Islam, forging an alliance and paying the Jizya were all ways by which the untrustworthy non-Muslims (98-13) could prove that they had repented.
In the much less likely scenario that the People of the Book were already living in the Islamic society, the Jizya as ?tax? would make sense and their refusal to pay it would be justification to ?fight? them until they did (after all, each state must uphold its tax laws). The amount of tax to be paid would be state-determined and it would obviously have to be fair and reasonable. Jizya as ?recompense? in this context is less likely but the meaning itself would explain its purpose.
In conclusion (ignoring 839 due to the emptiness of the claim made against it) Sura 9 is a Sura revealed for a particular context. It concerns entirely the defence of the religion in particular circumstances, and does not influence the precepts of the religion itself. To claim that Islam intends to conquer the world using this chapter is thus a futile and desperate attempt at justifying the critic?s need to believe that Islam is unworthy of the thoughts which he or she is constantly and obsessively expressing despite having little or no knowledge of the Qur?an. It has been said that ?a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?, and this is certainly the case with ?Muhammad bin Lyin?. Below is shown a fatwa issued by Sheikh H?n? al-Jubayr at the Jeddah Supreme Court, Saudi Arabia
?QUESTION Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack neighbouring non-Muslim states and collect ?Jizya? from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?
ANSWER If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihad of a military nature is only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and to remove oppression from the people.
The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first. The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to assassinate the Prophet (SAW). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (SAW), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu?tah and Tab?k during the Prophet?s (SAW) lifetime.?
Finally, Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes
?As for fighting the Jews (People of the Book), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace treaty and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed??.
(Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80).
This is consistent with the conclusions above.
Khuda Hafiz
-
Also see
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/no-freedom-of-religion.htmhttp//misconceptions-about-islam.com/islam-clash-of-civilisations.htm
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/islam-spread-by-sword.htm
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/fighting-war-terrorism.htm
-
I would like to answer this question
Q Does Islam Intend to Conquer the World?
'Islam' denotes a religious belief system composed of sects with diverging points of view but centered around the Prophet Muhammad and his message purportedly revealed by God in the Qur'an.
To ask question in such simplistic terms can be quite misleading and unconstructive as opposed to asking 'Do the teachings of Islam tell it's followers to take over the world?' either way - the issue is a very complicated one and not necessarily worthy of a simple yes or no answer.
A What I would DEFINITELY say is that there are Muslims who are trying to take over the world and make it their mission to convert as many people as they can to their ideology whether that be Sunni, Shiah, Qadiani etc - Just as there are Christians, Bahais and members of other cults and religions who are trying to do exactly the same thing.
I think it would be very unfair for any of us to ask 'Does Christianity intend to conquer the world?' or 'Does Islam intend to conquer the world?' without mentioning the other considering how simillar these religions are in this respect - after all how did they become the two most dominant religions on Earth? D
Although I'm an ex-Muslim I still feel at times very defensive towards Muslims in general because I feel they are disproportionately targeted especially in light of my own views that most of the violence and misery being doled out due to religious convictions on Earth at this moment in time is being perpetrated by Christian Zionists in the White House. And I feel it is VERY dangerous to concentrate on the criticism (if it is even a criticism )) of ANY religion if other religions are guilty of the very same crimes - they must be named along side them.
-
PS - I know you are not asking the question, he is, I just think that a lot of supposed non-religious types are unfairly prejudiced against Islam and thought it may be constructive to give my assessment seeing as though I'm am also a non-Muslim. It always annoys me when these criticisms are made and other religions are getting away with murder!!! >
-
PS - I know you are not asking the question, he is, I just think that a lot of supposed non-religious types are unfairly prejudiced against Islam and thought it may be constructive to give my assessment seeing as though I'm am also a non-Muslim. It always annoys me when these criticisms are made and other religions are getting away with murder!!! >(
That is quite true. Many thanks for your assessment. I should have repeated my introduction to the debate (where I said that "Islam" is defined by the Qur'an and not by attitudes) in the article.
Take care and salaam.
