Does Islam encourage World Domination?
-
I made some research and even asked some friends but forgive me folks I cant expound on this subject much better than this...
Where in the Qur'an does Islam encourage World Domination?
World Domination is part of the Daru 'l-Harb doctrine of Islam. This Doctrine comes out of verses in the quran that says the world belongs to Allah. There are also hadeths that say it. Most muslims take this as meaning all the world must be converted to Islam
To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. Absolutely, Allah is the Most Rich, Most Praiseworthy. Do you not see that Allah has committed in your service everything on earth?
To Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. He is the Rich, the Praised.
And what cause have ye why ye should not spend in the cause of Allah?- For to Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth
Those who emigrate for the sake of Allah, then get killed, or die, Allah will surely shower them with good provisions. Allah is certainly the best Provider. Most assuredly, He will admit them an admittance that will please them. allah is Omniscient, Clement.
You shall strive for the cause of Allah as you should strive for His cause. He has chosen you and has placed no hardship on you in practicing your religion
Daru 'l-Harb is the doctrine (found in the hadith as well as in the Qur'an) that the earth belongs to Allah and to his Messenger. In the Qur'an Allah promises the world to his followers. This leads to the idea that jihad is a defensive war - liberating what already belongs to Allah and to his Umma. Hence the Muslims by waging jihad are taking back what is theirs. Even the whole world.
Since the world belongs to the Allah, any power that prevents them from having it is by definition oppressive, and upsurping the Umma's rights.
In the early hadiths, Umar says to his generals When you will take the land that God gives you, back... . This means that jihad - even ?offensive? jihad is ALWAYS a defensive war of liberation. This is one of the theological factors that makes discussion of jihad so confusing.
This concept of the world belonging to Allah and his Messenger then became formalized into the doctrine of Daru 'l-Harb.
Definition of DARU 'L-HARB
DARU 'L-HARB. "The land of warfare." According to the Dictionary Ghiyasu 'l-Lughat Daru 'l-harb is "a country belonging to the infidels which has not been subdued by Islam." According to the Qamus, it is "a country in which peace has not been proclaimed between Muslims and unbelievers.In the Fatawa Alamgiri, vol. ii. p. 854, it is written that a Daru 'l-harb becomes a Daru 'l-Islam on one condition, namely the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. The Imam Muhammad, in his book called the Ziyadah, says a Daru 'l-Islam again becomes a Daru 'l-harb, according to Abu Hanifah, on three conditions, namely (1) That the edicts of the unbelievers be promulgated, and the edicts of Islam be suppressed; (2) That country in question be adjoining a Daru 'l-harb and no other Muslim country lie between them (that is, when the duty of Jihad or religious war becomes incumbent upon them, and they have not the power to carry it on). (3) That no protection (aman) remains for either a Muslim or a zimmi; viz. that amanu 'l-awwal, or that first protection which was given them when the country was first conquered by Islam. The Imams Yusuf and Muhammad both say that when the edicts of unbelievers are promulgated in a country, it is sufficient to constitute it a Daru 'l-harb.
Definition DARU 'L-ISLAM
DARU 'L-ISLAM "Land of Islam." According to the Raddu 'l Mukhtar, vol. iii. p. 391, it is a country in which the edicts of Islam are fully promulgated.In a state brought under Muslims, all those who do not embrace the faith are placed under certain disabilities. They can worship God according to their own customs provided they are not idolaters; but it must be done without any ostentation and whilst churches and synagogues may be repaired, no new place of worship can be erected. "The construction of churches and synagogues in Muslim territory is unlawful, this being forbidden in the Traditions; but if the places of worship belonging to Jews, or Christians, be destroyed, or fall into decay, they are at liberty to repair them because buildings cannot endure forever."
http//www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8488
-
According to traditional Islam, the concept of offensive war and imposing Islamic rule across the globe certainly seems to exist. This is not in the teachings of the Qur'an. It baffles me how traditional Muslims and "ulema" maintain that hadiths are not in contradiction with the Qur'an.
How could one argue that the hadith below does not contradict the Qur'an, and doesn't encourage world domination?
Abdullah binUmar (May Allah be pleased with them) reported Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "I have been commanded (by Allah) to fight people until they testify that there is no true god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform Salat and pay Zakat. If they do so, they will have protection of their blood and property from me except when justified by Islam, and then account is left to Allah".
.
-
According to traditional Islam, the concept of offensive war and imposing Islamic rule across the globe certainly seems to exist. This is not in the teachings of the Qur'an. It baffles me how traditional Muslims and "ulema" maintain that hadiths are not in contradiction with the Qur'an.
How could one argue that the hadith below does not contradict the Qur'an, and doesn't encourage world domination?
Abdullah binUmar (May Allah be pleased with them) reported Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "I have been commanded (by Allah) to fight people until they testify that there is no true god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform Salat and pay Zakat. If they do so, they will have protection of their blood and property from me except when justified by Islam, and then account is left to Allah".
.
If you read that hadiyth in context, it's talking about DEFENSIVE FIGHTING, not offensive. Not only does the Qur'aan not encourage world domination, but neither do the ahadiyth and sunna. Both of them, though, talk about defensive fighting in order to preserve lives and to avoid oppression...
-
If you read that hadiyth in context, it's talking about DEFENSIVE FIGHTING, not offensive. Not only does the Qur'aan not encourage world domination, but neither do the ahadiyth and sunna. Both of them, though, talk about defensive fighting in order to preserve lives and to avoid oppression...
That's not what Muslims believe, it seems. I have seen countless sites where it says that offensive wars are an undeniable part of Islam. http//muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/jihad.html
-
If you read that hadiyth in context, it's talking about DEFENSIVE FIGHTING, not offensive. Not only does the Qur'aan not encourage world domination, but neither do the ahadiyth and sunna. Both of them, though, talk about defensive fighting in order to preserve lives and to avoid oppression...
Hadith is not contextual information. This hadith was, as far as Bukhari was concerned, quoted in full. The fact is, some Traditional Muslims that they are destined to the rule the planet.
-
That's not what Muslims believe, it seems. I have seen countless sites where it says that offensive wars are an undeniable part of Islam. http//muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/jihad.html
Wow, that's a crazy website... wow Thanks for the link, it was very informative. I knew that many Muslims believed in the idea of "offensive jihaad", but I didn't know it was to that extent, where they were willing to war with anyone who doesn't believe in Islaam...
-
Hadith is not contextual information. This hadith was, as far as Bukhari was concerned, quoted in full. The fact is, some Traditional Muslims that they are destined to the rule the planet.
By contextual, I mean it should be read in light of the other forms of war and struggle among the Muslims, and it depicts war as being defensive, not offensive. And even from this standpoint, based on the Qur'aan, "jihaad" does NOT mean 'holy war' or anything like that. It's about defending Islaam by whatever means, which also includes certain forms of proselytizing. In fact, posting on this site can be considered a form of "jihaad", since many people are made knowledgeable by the writings therein...
-
By contextual, I mean it should be read in light of the other forms of war and struggle among the Muslims, and it depicts war as being defensive, not offensive. And even from this standpoint, based on the Qur'aan, "jihaad" does NOT mean 'holy war' or anything like that. It's about defending Islaam by whatever means, which also includes certain forms of proselytizing. In fact, posting on this site can be considered a form of "jihaad", since many people are made knowledgeable by the writings therein...
How on earth should we read a hadith which says that Muhammad was commanded to fight everyone till they declare the kalimah at-tawheed in such a way that it is defensive? Traditional Muslims themselves don't read it like that. They read it as their masters constructed it, as a legitimisation of the fascist ideology they hoped would justify their lust for power in the name of God. The Quran is very clear ,'fight in the path of God those who fight you and do not over step..' If you keep that ayah in mind, then all this other war stories we hear in the seerah and hadith are just myths.
-
Wow, that's a crazy website... wow Thanks for the link, it was very informative. I knew that many Muslims believed in the idea of "offensive jihaad", but I didn't know it was to that extent, where they were willing to war with anyone who doesn't believe in Islaam...
I'm afraid I will lose my religion if I don't reject certain hadith ( I don't reject all hadith, since I'm not knowedgeable enough, and perhaps there are explanations, but it seems very clear to me that there are hadiths contradicting the Qur'an. Traditional Muslims may deny it, but it is as clear as day and night.
-
I'm afraid I will lose my religion if I don't reject certain hadith ( I don't reject all hadith, since I'm not knowedgeable enough, and perhaps there are explanations, but it seems very clear to me that there are hadiths contradicting the Qur'an. Traditional Muslims may deny it, but it is as clear as day and night.
Why bother accepting or rejecting hadith at all? Except for academic purposes (i.e to gauge the tendencies of early Muslims through their writings), hadith literature have no value in interpreting Quran. Quran must be connected with life itself, not any other text. As Kashif Ahmed Shehzada says, 'life is the tafseer of the quran'.
-
How on earth should we read a hadith which says that Muhammad was commanded to fight everyone till they declare the kalimah at-tawheed in such a way that it is defensive? Traditional Muslims themselves don't read it like that. They read it as their masters constructed it, as a legitimisation of the fascist ideology they hoped would justify their lust for power in the name of God. The Quran is very clear ,'fight in the path of God those who fight you and do not over step..' If you keep that ayah in mind, then all this other war stories we hear in the seerah and hadith are just myths.
I'm not encouraging the study of ahadiyth and sunna. I just said the traditional viewpoint is of Islaamic war being defensive, not offensive. Most sectarian Muslims agree. The toughest in terms of offensive battle against disbelievers are the Wahhabi (Salafiyya) Muslims, and they have radical interpretations of the Qur'aan anyway, based on certain unjustified hadiyths. But most traditional Muslims DO read about the wars and interpret them as being defensive, with Muhammad being the forgiving, patient leader who grants pardon to his enemies. In fact, there are hadiyths saying that Muhammad was fighting the people, and when others surrendered and called for peace/"salaam", Muhammad instantly ceased fighting them and let them go free, without even a reprimand... Have you read the hadiyths? What makes you think they're ALL bad and satanic, encouraging the people to do evil things? In reality, many of the hadiyths are in line with the Qur'aan and they clearly support it, even though I personally see no real need for them. All hadiyths are not bad, and there are probably a few authentic ("sahih" ones floating around among the writings of the scribes, although there probably aren't many...
-
In reality, many of the hadiyths are in line with the Qur'aan and they clearly support it, even though I personally see no real need for them. All hadiyths are not bad, and there are probably a few authentic ("sahih" ones floating around among the writings of the scribes, although there probably aren't many...
That seems like a contradiction. Sorry, I'm obsessed with contradictions D
-
That seems like a contradiction. Sorry, I'm obsessed with contradictions D
No, that's not a contradiction; but thanks for pointing it out anyway, so I can clarify what I meant... Just because a hadiyth is in line with the Qur'aan doesn't make it an authentic statement of Muhammad. They could've been made by others who based their reasoning on the Qur'aan itself. The hadiyths are taken from so many sources, it's nearly impossible to determine what's "sahih" and what's not. Some of them are based on Biblical references, some are based on Persian Zoroastrian travellers, and others are based on sayings of the people, whether they followed Muhammad or not. If there are truly and authentic sayings of Muhammad outside of the Qur'aan, they are very few in number, maybe 10 out of the hundreds of thousands of hadiyths collected by the scribes...
-
I'm not encouraging the study of ahadiyth and sunna. I just said the traditional viewpoint is of Islaamic war being defensive, not offensive. Most sectarian Muslims agree. The toughest in terms of offensive battle against disbelievers are the Wahhabi (Salafiyya) Muslims, and they have radical interpretations of the Qur'aan anyway, based on certain unjustified hadiyths. But most traditional Muslims DO read about the wars and interpret them as being defensive, with Muhammad being the forgiving, patient leader who grants pardon to his enemies. In fact, there are hadiyths saying that Muhammad was fighting the people, and when others surrendered and called for peace/"salaam", Muhammad instantly ceased fighting them and let them go free, without even a reprimand... Have you read the hadiyths? What makes you think they're ALL bad and satanic, encouraging the people to do evil things? In reality, many of the hadiyths are in line with the Qur'aan and they clearly support it, even though I personally see no real need for them. All hadiyths are not bad, and there are probably a few authentic ("sahih" ones floating around among the writings of the scribes, although there probably aren't many...
I never said all hadiths are bad and satanic. What I said was, we don't need hadith to understand the Quran. Hadith like the one above can never be understood 'in context' because there isn't a context. That particular hadith is clearly false. However, even true hadiths (true by whose criteria, God knows) arent necessary to understand Quran either.
-
I never said all hadiths are bad and satanic. What I said was, we don't need hadith to understand the Quran. Hadith like the one above can never be understood 'in context' because there isn't a context. That particular hadith is clearly false. However, even true hadiths (true by whose criteria, God knows) arent necessary to understand Quran either.
You can understand the context of the hadiyths by reading the rest of the hadiyths; they're in harmony. If they conflict, then they're usually either fabricated or misinterpreted. On the rest of what you said, though, regarding not needing the hadiyths to understand the Qur'aan, I agree...
-
No, that's not a contradiction; but thanks for pointing it out anyway, so I can clarify what I meant... Just because a hadiyth is in line with the Qur'aan doesn't make it an authentic statement of Muhammad. They could've been made by others who based their reasoning on the Qur'aan itself. The hadiyths are taken from so many sources, it's nearly impossible to determine what's "sahih" and what's not. Some of them are based on Biblical references, some are based on Persian Zoroastrian travellers, and others are based on sayings of the people, whether they followed Muhammad or not. If there are truly and authentic sayings of Muhammad outside of the Qur'aan, they are very few in number, maybe 10 out of the hundreds of thousands of hadiyths collected by the scribes...
Thanks for the clarification, you are right.
I found a hilarious article about offensive Jihad.
"The Types of Jihad
There are two types of Jihad against the Kuffar.
1- Offensive Jihad, 2- Defensive Jihad
1- Offensive Jihad is when the Muslims launch an offensive attack. If this attack is on the Kuffar who have previously received the message of Islam, then to call them towards Islam before commencement of the attack is considered preferable. However, if the message of Islam has not reached them, then the Kuffar will be invited towards Islam. If they reject this true faith, then they will have to pay Jizyah (Kufr tax). If they refuse to submit to the payment of Jizyah then the Muslims are to fight against them. With this type of Jihad the Kuffar who plot against the Muslims are repelled and their hearts are filled with fear, so that they do not succeed in their plans.
The offensive Jihad is Fardh Kifayah, the purpose of which is to ensure the Kuffar remain terrorised and away from mischief, thereby, allowing the message of Islam to be conveyed without any obstructions.
If one group of Muslims fulfil this obligation then it will be sufficient on behalf of all Muslims, but if there are no Muslims fulfilling this obligation then everyone is considered sinful.
It is stated in Fatawa Shami It is required of the Imam (leader) of the Muslims to dispatch the army routinely once or twice a year towards the Kufr countries. It is also the duty of the Muslim public to assist the Imam in this noble cause. If the Imam does not send an army, then he will considered sinful.
The majority of Jihad undertaken at the time of our Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) was within the category of offensive Jihad.
The Quran has called upon the Muslims to undertake the offensive Jihad and when this obligation is satisfactorily fulfilled there would be no apparent need for the defensive Jihad.
When Muslims neglect this important obligation then they are subjected to the defensive Jihad and this has become, with regret, widely common in our time.
2- Defensive Jihad is when the Kuffar enemy attacks, the Muslims, forcing them in to a defensive position. This is one of the most important obligations upon the Muslims. In researching and studying the Jihad work predecessors, we understand that Jihad is considered Fardh ayn under the following conditions-
a) When the unbelievers attack upon a country or city belonging to the Muslims or if they gain control of a Muslim country.
b) When the unbelievers take Muslims captives.
c) When a Muslim woman is held by the Kuffar, to ensure her freedom is Fardh upon the whole Muslim Ummah.
d) When the Imam (leader) of the Muslims orders the Muslims to go for Jihad.
e) When the Kuffar and Muslims face each other in the battlefield and the battle takes place.
The explanation of fardh Ayn is that every person will go for Jihad to such an extent that the son will march forth without the permission of his father, the wife without the permission of her husband, the debtor without the permission of the creditor. The Jihad becomes fardh , firstly upon all the Muslims in the area being attacked. If the Muslims are not sufficient or they do not fulfil this Jihad, then it is obligatory upon the Muslims in the next town or country to assist.
If they too are not sufficient, then it will be fardh upon the next country until the fardh extends from the East to the West. In discussing the issue of defensive Jihad, Imam Ibne Taymiyah (ra) writes 'The defensive Jihad means to fight to defend our religion and our honour, it is the most important obligation. There is no obligation after Iman considered more necessary to implement than the fighting against an enemy who has attacked to corrupt our world and our Hereafter. There is no condition for this Jihad, not even the necessities to travel or wealth, in fact every individual will confront the enemy according to his ability.' We also understand from the writings of our scholars that Jihad does not only become fardh ayn when the enemy attacks, but also when the enemy is at a distance of a Shara`ee journey (48 miles); Jihad then becomes fardh upon that town. (Nihayatul Muhtaj, p58 v."
http//www.2600.com/news/mirrors/harkatmujahideen/www.harkatulmujahideen.org/jihad/t-jihad.htm
-
Look at where your definitions are from. It's hadith and conjecture. It's the doctrine of Arab imperialism not the Quran.
The quotes from the Quran are in my eyes just statements of fact and are unrelated to any concepts as you mention.
2264-65 is mentioning God's Mercy in the way he has made nature, the animals and minerals all capable of being utilised by humans. We do not live in a bleak environment. God has designed the earth and heavens so that they are hospitable to us. Every thing we turn ourselves to has a use for us or teaches us something about God. That is the meaning of that verse.
3126 See how the statement of fact that everything belongs to God is followed by Rich ie. free of all wants, and Praised ie.worthy of all praise. It is describing God rather than making a distinction between two separate arenas of politics on the earth.
5710 Statement of fact. Urges people to spend in the cause of God.
2258-59 This is fact disproves any claim of different arenas or an urge to war for world domination. If considered with 4100 which says
"And whoso emigrates from his country in the way of ALLAH will find in the earth an abundant place of refuge and plentifulness. And whoso goes forth from his home, emigrating in the cause of ALLAH and HIS Messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward lies on ALLAH, and ALLAH is Most Forgiving, Merciful,"
ie. if you are oppressed then God has made the earth wide enough to flee from the oppression. There are places of refuge and plentifulness. It does not encourage 'expansionism'; but it protects human rights.
2278 Yes you shall strive; and God says there is no hardship in practicing "religion"; taken in conjunction with the fact that there is no compulsion in taking this step leaves nothing to be debated.
The "doctrine" you mention is not supported by the Quran, and is a dogma of Arab imperialism.
You are against Arab imperialism not the Quran.
Peace.
the hadits is not conjecture, if you dont believe to hadits then how you pray (sholat) and wudhu (ablution)?
and if you dont believe to hadits as mentioned by juynboll as common link theory, could you please to describe where the false of ilm al mustholah al hadits?peace
-
That's not what Muslims believe, it seems. I have seen countless sites where it says that offensive wars are an undeniable part of Islam. http//muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/jihad.html
the wars or ghazw was legal action at that time, but if you doing now, you will againts the international law/common rules. Islam should be conceives as a rule that follows time and place and not rigid as textualist.
peace
-
the wars or ghazw was legal action at that time, but if you doing now, you will againts the international law/common rules. Islam should be conceives as a rule that follows time and place and not rigid as textualist.
peace
Salaam,
Do you think most Muslims agree with what you said?
-
Actually Recluse, Traditionalists developed something called 'Fiqh al-Aqalliyat' (fiqh of minorities) when they became client communities of hegemons after losing power. The fuqaha believe that when Muslims aren't in power, there's no need for 'offensive jihad' but they achieve power, it's an obligation again. A truly fascist ideology, in my opinion.