More on Jihad from an Islamic site

[Booklover]

1 – The main goal of jihad is to make the people worship Allaah alone and to bring them forth from servitude to people to servitude to the Lord of people. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

2 – Repelling the aggression of those who attack the Muslims.

3 – Removing fitnah (tribulation)

4 – Protecting the Islamic state from the evil of the kuffaar.

**5 – Frightening the kuffaar, humiliating them and putting them to shame. **

6 – Exposing the hypocrites

7 – Purifying the believers of their sins and ridding them thereof

**8 – Acquiring booty **

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have been sent ahead of the Hour with the sword so that Allaah will be worshipped alone, and my provision has been placed in the shade of my spear, and humiliation has been decreed for those who go against my command, and whoever imitates a people is one of them.” Narrated by Ahmad, 4869; Saheeh al-Jaami’, 2831.
Al-Haafiz said:
This hadeeth indicates that war booty is permissible for this ummah, and that the provision of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has been placed in war booty and not in other kinds of earnings. **Hence some of the scholars said that it is the best kind of earnings. **

9 – Taking martyrs.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“If a wound (and killing) has touched you, be sure a similar wound (and killing) has touched the others. And so are the days (good and not so good), that We give to men by turns, that Allaah may test those who believe, and that He may take martyrs from among you. And Allaah likes not the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers).
And that Allaah may test (or purify) the believers (from sins) and destroy the disbelievers”
**[Aal ‘Imraan 3:140-141] **

10 – Ridding the world of corruption.

So the kuffar are repelled by means of the Muslims and the worse of the two parties is repelled by the better, just as the Magians (Persians) were repelled by the Christian Byzantines, then the Christians were repelled by the believers of the ummah of Muhammad.

The full text is here:


Vickie

 

[BlestOne]

Forgive me, I have not read the link but…

How does one acquire booty and rid the world of corruption at the same time? Even Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s but render unto God what is God’s”

 

[algebra]

Islamqa is a salafi website.

Its akin to going to jack chicks website to learn about roman catholicism.


The Truth is that jihad is BOTH an internal and external struggle against ‘evil’.

Jihad is a ‘just’ war.

 

[TomaszA]

Salafis don’t deny that Jihad is internal, they just don’t cop out in acknowledging that Jihad is also offensive warfare.

 

[algebra]

Salafis don’t deny that Jihad is internal, they just don’t cop out in acknowledging that Jihad is also offensive warfare.

As long as it is a ‘just’ war. Clearly undertaken to stop oppression.

 

[TomaszA]

Islamic expansion into Egypt and the Middle East by the first Caliphs can’t possibly fall under “Just War.”

 

[Valke2]

Islamqa is a salafi website.

Its akin to going to jack chicks website to learn about roman catholicism.


The Truth is that jihad is BOTH an internal and external struggle against ‘evil’.

Jihad is a ‘just’ war.

Here’s the problem with that analogy. Salafi brand of Islam has Saudi Arabia behind it and it is fueling the export of this puritanical brand of Islam throughout the world. In Pakistan, for example, most people can’t afford to give their children an education. But they are able to send them for free to schools that are financed by Saudi money and which often emphasize not only this militant brand of “desert Islam” but in many (not all) cases, focus primarily on indoctrinating the students with anti-western, pro jihad politics. They then take the smartest/brightest of these students, bring them to SA, have them marry 4 wives and produce a dozen or so children, to be indoctrinated in the same militant theology as their father.

The best way to fight this type of Jihad is to stop financing it with petrodollars. Find a way to be energy dependent and we take a huge step in the direction of defeating this type of violent fringe Islamic theology.

As I stated in another thread, never has such a small, fringe element of one of the world’s largest religion, had such vast resources at its disposal for the purpose of indoctrinating the rest of the world.

 

[algebra]

Islamic expansion into Egypt and the Middle East by the first Caliphs can’t possibly fall under “Just War.”

Yes and no.

They were expansionist.

However, there also seemed to have been a general discontent in the local population with church authorities.

The local populations pretty much invited the muslims in… in some instances.

 

[TomaszA]

The local populations pretty much invited the muslims in… in some instances.

This might be true in the case of the Coptic Church living under Byzantium but really, does this justify conquering most of Christendom?

I really doubt Muslims had the intention of liberating Copts from Byzantine rule!

God bless,
Tomasz

 

[inJESUS]

Many Muslims are not ashamed of proving the Islamic conquests were offensive not defensive. If one takes a look at all the lands falling in the hands of Arab Muslims, he’ll clearly see they can in no way be defensive .

regarding the link, it is a salafi site and usually Muslims will tell you it’s not real Islam. At best i wonder about this clear last message to humanity so mis-understood by millions. After all, peace is peace but when peace is mingled with subjectivity, humiliation and conquering, no wonder it’s not considered peace to others, specifically not to the followers of Jesus.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Salafi, whatever.

Islamqa is mostly run by a reputable scholar, Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid, and it is an excellent resource.

However, many articles which appear on the site appear to be the work of laypeople, such as the one in question. You’ll note that there is no scholarly reference to this post, it’s just signed at the bottom by “Islam Q&A.” I’ve noticed that those posts signed as such are among the most bizarre on the site, and have since made the general decision to only bother with articles citing scholars who I can trust.

This particular article (quoted above) violates a number of principles which I have been taught by my own teachers (scholars in their own right). A small amount of poking around on the website also uncovered the following article:

islamqa.com/en/ref/20214

It is a discussion on jihad by the actual scholar of the site–Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid. I think you’ll notice a distinctively different flavor and tenor than the other anonymous article which was quoted by Booklover.

The internet can be a deceitful tool. It’s not enough to refer to what some would call an “islamic website,” when no scholars are available to vouch for the accuracy of the site.

A few years ago some of my friends cautioned me to stay away from the Islam Q&A website for an interesting reason I’d like to share with you–they told me, based on personal experience, that the translators often responded to questions with their own opinions instead of scholarly answers, thus corrupting the site with uninformed and incorrect opinions from laypeople on matters which only scholars are qualified to discuss.

Please keep that in mind if you choose to continue citing Islamqa.org as a site. Moreover, others before me have charged that the site is ‘Salafi’ which is… well, it’s only partly true. It is partly Salafi, though among Madhahab it leans in the Hanbali direction. Either way, there are many instances in which the vast majority of Muslim scholars from North Africa to Indonesia might strongly disagree with some opinions on the site.

 

[inJESUS]

Note taken Amy.

Are the Islamic conquests considered as Jihad fi sabillillah?

 

[Booklover]

Salafi, whatever.

Islamqa is mostly run by a reputable scholar, Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid, and it is an excellent resource.

However, many articles which appear on the site appear to be the work of laypeople, such as the one in question. You’ll note that there is no scholarly reference to this post, it’s just signed at the bottom by “Islam Q&A.” I’ve noticed that those posts signed as such are among the most bizarre on the site, and have since made the general decision to only bother with articles citing scholars who I can trust.

This particular article (quoted above) violates a number of principles which I have been taught by my own teachers (scholars in their own right). A small amount of poking around on the website also uncovered the following article:

islamqa.com/en/ref/20214

It is a discussion on jihad by the actual scholar of the site–Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid. I think you’ll notice a distinctively different flavor and tenor than the other anonymous article which was quoted by Booklover.

The internet can be a deceitful tool. It’s not enough to refer to what some would call an “islamic website,” when no scholars are available to vouch for the accuracy of the site.

A few years ago some of my friends cautioned me to stay away from the Islam Q&A website for an interesting reason I’d like to share with you–they told me, based on personal experience, that the translators often responded to questions with their own opinions instead of scholarly answers, thus corrupting the site with uninformed and incorrect opinions from laypeople on matters which only scholars are qualified to discuss.

Please keep that in mind if you choose to continue citing Islamqa.org as a site. Moreover, others before me have charged that the site is ‘Salafi’ which is… well, it’s only partly true. It is partly Salafi, though among Madhahab it leans in the Hanbali direction. Either way, there are many instances in which the vast majority of Muslim scholars from North Africa to Indonesia might strongly disagree with some opinions on the site.

Okay, I stand corrected!

Vickie