[JiveTurkey]

Could someone please put the following hadith in context:

Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, reported:
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I have been commanded to fight against people until they testify that there is no god but Allah, and he who professes it is guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right warrant, and his affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih Muslim

The Islam-bashers constantly use this as proof that Muslims were always the aggressors during the time of Muhammad SAW. Maybe I just suck at googling but I cannot find a detailed response from an Islamic website.

But while we're on topic, what is the Islamican consensus of offensive Jihad. From what I was told Islam was spread by sending Daiees to Non-Muslim lands and it was not until these Daiess were either threatened or harassed that the Muslims declared Jihad. Is this an accurate assessment?

[Hanbali]

Originally Posted by JiveTurkey

Could someone please put the following hadith in context:

Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, reported:
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I have been commanded to fight against people until they testify that there is no god but Allah, and he who professes it is guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right warrant, and his affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih Muslim

The Islam-bashers constantly use this as proof that Muslims were always the aggressors during the time of Muhammad SAW. Maybe I just suck at googling but I cannot find a detailed response from an Islamic website.

But while we're on topic, what is the Islamican consensus of offensive Jihad. From what I was told Islam was spread by sending Daiees to Non-Muslim lands and it was not until these Daiess were either threatened or harassed that the Muslims declared Jihad. Is this an accurate assessment?

Wa Alaykum as-Salam dear brother,

In regards to the hadeeth you quoted, which says "I have been commanded to fight..."

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah [ra] said of this narration:

“It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” (Majmu` al-Fatawa 19/20)

In regards to Offensive Jihad, try this:

Islamtoday.Com - It is not an Islamic duty to initiate aggression against peaceful neighbors

what is the Islamican consensus of offensive Jihad

A funny but classic slip.

You might find this website helpful:

Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations :: load-islam

[Good_ol_JR]

Originally Posted by Hanbali

Wa Alaykum as-Salam dear brother,

In regards to the hadeeth you quoted, which says "I have been commanded to fight..."

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah [ra] said of this narration:

“It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” (Majmu` al-Fatawa 19/20)

In regards to Offensive Jihad, try this:

Islamtoday.Com - It is not an Islamic duty to initiate aggression against peaceful neighbors

A funny but classic slip.

You might find this website helpful:

Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations :: load-islam

JazakhAllah Khair

[Hanbali]

One more thing about that hadeeth, I've also heard that it does not necessarily refer only to fighting physically in the battlefield, but also fighting by word of mouth, pen, etc.

[Foxhole]

Originally Posted by Hanbali

Wa Alaykum as-Salam dear brother,

In regards to the hadeeth you quoted, which says "I have been commanded to fight..."

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah [ra] said of this narration:

“It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” (Majmu` al-Fatawa 19/20)

In regards to Offensive Jihad, try this:

Islamtoday.Com - It is not an Islamic duty to initiate aggression against peaceful neighbors

As always, the answer in the link you provided is vague. It says that neighbors are not to be attacked as long as they do not "prevent the practice and spread of Islam." But it does not say what constitutes such prevention. Is a nation with a secular legal system that refuses to enforce Islamic law preventing the spread of Islam? I believe that many Muslims would answer yes to that. Meaning ... yes, you can attack countries that do not accept the authority of Islamic law.

[AliFazel]

Originally Posted by Hanbali

Wa Alaykum as-Salam dear brother,

In regards to the hadeeth you quoted, which says "I have been commanded to fight..."

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah [ra] said of this narration:

“It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” (Majmu` al-Fatawa 19/20)

In regards to Offensive Jihad, try this:

Islamtoday.Com - It is not an Islamic duty to initiate aggression against peaceful neighbors

A funny but classic slip.

You might find this website helpful:

Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations :: load-islam

Originally Posted by Hanbali

One more thing about that hadeeth, I've also heard that it does not necessarily refer only to fighting physically in the battlefield, but also fighting by word of mouth, pen, etc.

For once I agree with this Salafi Guy


Do you think he is changing ---

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by JiveTurkey

Could someone please put the following hadith in context:

Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, reported:
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I have been commanded to fight against people until they testify that there is no god but Allah, and he who professes it is guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right warrant, and his affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih Muslim

The Islam-bashers constantly use this as proof that Muslims were always the aggressors during the time of Muhammad SAW. Maybe I just suck at googling but I cannot find a detailed response from an Islamic website.

But while we're on topic, what is the Islamican consensus of offensive Jihad. From what I was told Islam was spread by sending Daiees to Non-Muslim lands and it was not until these Daiess were either threatened or harassed that the Muslims declared Jihad. Is this an accurate assessment?

It would be prudent to start with definitions.

The concept of offensive jihad is to attack non-Muslim territories that do not have a treaty with Muslims solely for the sake of propagating Islam through breaking the psychological resistance of the kuffar to Islam. (I know that seems like a pretty intense definition, but thats essentially what it is).

The classical view on offensive jihad had differences of opinion. The Hanbali madhab rejected such a concept and their view of jihad was focused more on whether non-Muslim states committed offenses against either Muslims, Islam, or an Islamic country. It was only under those conditions that the Hanbalis would allow warfare. Whether it was defensive or "offensive" in the sense that the Muslims initiated the war after the injustice occurred was irrelevant for them.

The Hanafis and the Shafi'is are the greatest proponents of offensive jihad in that they believe that ever so often an Islamic government MUST engage in a war with a non-Muslim state just so that they are known the might of Islam.

However, the classical view was developed within a different historical era of international relations. The only Hanafis that I think still support the classical concept of offensive jihad are the Deobandi 'Ulema. I'm not sure what the Barelwis believe in this regard. The Levantine Hanafis seem to favor the view espoused by Imam Zaid Shakir who has given a fatwa that offensive jihad is no longer necessary since a system of international relations exists.

[iSHi]

Originally Posted by AliFazel

For once I agree with this Salafi Guy


Do you think he is changing ---

NO maybe you are.

[Hanbali]

Originally Posted by Foxhole

As always, the answer in the link you provided is vague. It says that neighbors are not to be attacked as long as they do not "prevent the practice and spread of Islam." But it does not say what constitutes such prevention. Is a nation with a secular legal system that refuses to enforce Islamic law preventing the spread of Islam? I believe that many Muslims would answer yes to that. Meaning ... yes, you can attack countries that do not accept the authority of Islamic law.

No, Mr. Butt Hole. This is not at all what we are talking about. We are talking about the killing of Dawah-carriers and the like.

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

It would be prudent to start with definitions.

Wa Alaykum as-Salam, dear brother Jinn Zaman.

Thank you for your informative post. It was really beneficial. May Allah [swt] reward you.

What I think is that in the modern day context, it would not really matter what opinion you take...if, for example, Pakistan turned into an Islamic state, then because we had covenants with every other country, there would be no change in that status.

I think that the more aggressive opinions about Offensive Jihad come from a time in which the default was war, not peace as it is now.

I don't know if anyone here has played Civilization, the computer game. In that game, the default is war. As soon as you meet another civilization, you either make a peace agreement with them, and if you don't, then you are automatically in a state of war.

I know I'm brining up a computer game in this discussion, but hey, it's an awesome game.

[Hanbali]

Brother JiveTurkey, you should give me rep points for my post. Thank you.

[iSHi]

Originally Posted by Hanbali

Brother JiveTurkey, you should give me rep points for my post. Thank you.

I tried. It wouldn't let me.

[Hanbali]

Originally Posted by iSHi

I tried. It wouldn't let me.

Well, du`a would be just fine then. Jazakh-Allah Khairan.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Hanbali

No, Mr. Butt Hole. This is not at all what we are talking about. We are talking about the killing of Dawah-carriers and the like.

So if a non-Muslim state needs to allow 'Dawah-carriers' to avoid having offensive jihad waged against them - would Muslim countries need to allow Christian missionaries to avoid having a noble crusade waged against them?

[AliFazel]

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you (of your own choice) a guardian over them.

Is this not enough to understand, that offensive wars are not the way of Islam?

[UmarOMC]

Originally Posted by JiveTurkey

Could someone please put the following hadith in context:

Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, reported:
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I have been commanded to fight against people until they testify that there is no god but Allah, and he who professes it is guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right warrant, and his affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih Muslim

The Islam-bashers constantly use this as proof that Muslims were always the aggressors during the time of Muhammad SAW. Maybe I just suck at googling but I cannot find a detailed response from an Islamic website.

But while we're on topic, what is the Islamican consensus of offensive Jihad. From what I was told Islam was spread by sending Daiees to Non-Muslim lands and it was not until these Daiess were either threatened or harassed that the Muslims declared Jihad. Is this an accurate assessment?

Quite honestly it is a very good question but one I will not claim to know enough about to answer with enough knowledge because I've thought long and hard about it myself. As far as I know the only times such aggression is allowed is under the circumstances you've mentioned and only against those willing to fight or whom invest towards the destruction of you and yours... brutality and genocide against the civilian populace is un-Islamic and found in "Christian" histories but not Islamic.

I could only be a leader to ever found out first hand... and the truth of the matter will be made 100% clear when Allah tells me the worth of my deeds therein.

May Allah forgive us and keep us on the path of truest justice. ameen



2:190 AND fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.



'aalaykum assalaamu wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh