[jinnzaman]

1. Offensive jihad

2. Jizyah

3. Slavery

4. Concubinage

5. The concept of "dhimmi"

6. The corporal punishment nature of hadd (lashing, amputation, hadd)

Discuss.

[kenneth]

none of this has anything at all to do with my faith or spirituality. go figure.

[Jaysh]

Here are my views. Ready, set, go.

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

1. Offensive jihad

Don't believe in Aggressive Jihad. I believe in the Quran and I think it's insulting to accuse it of being abrogated so extensively. Rather, it is specification, not abrogation.

2. Jizyah

Nothing wrong with jizya. It is "protection money" to maintain the army, since Non-Muslims don't need to serve in the military. Also, the jizya is to be light.

3. Slavery

I believe that slavery is haram, (shock). I believe that Islam allows a form of indentured servitude, however. Indentured servitude is a means to preach the religion to a recently conquered aggressive nation. The indentured servants are to be treated like family.

4. Concubinage

I believe concubines are like wives, except with less rights.

5. The concept of "dhimmi"

A dhimmi is a protected person (i.e. he is protected from any harm due to his paying the jizya, or the protection money) . I see nothing wrong in this.

6. The corporal punishment nature of hadd (lashing, amputation, hadd)

What's wrong with this, and what does this have to do with imperialism?

Discuss.

In regards to imperialism, I think Islam is the opposite of imperialistic, because of the strong emphasis in the Quran against aggression, such as:

Quran

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.

[jinnzaman]

Jaysh,

Do you have any classical sources that rejected offensive jihad?

[bluey]

Weren't there cases of offensive Jihad during the time of the Prophet sallalahu alayhi wasallam and during the Caliphate of the four rightly guided Caliphs?

As for Islam being imperialistic, I think it depends on who you ask. Someone who is Muslim, follows the command 'Obey Allah and his Messenger' and accepts, understands and knows the reasoning being these rulings wouldn't exactly consider it being imperialistic.

But someone who is probably Non-Muslim, and even some Muslims for that matter, do not understand the ins and outs of such rules and regulations would probably consider it as being imperialistic.

And Allah subhanna wa ta'ala knows best.

[Jaysh]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Jaysh,

Do you have any classical sources that rejected offensive jihad?

First, I do not deny Offensive Jihad altogether. I say that it cannot be "Aggressive Jihad". So Offensive Jihad is allowed in some cases when there is just reason, such as dawah carriers being killed in the land, etc.

But yes, I reject the opinion of those who claim that Islam advocates Aggressive Jihad and relentless war against peaceful nations.

Originally Posted by bluey

Weren't there cases of offensive Jihad during the time of the Prophet sallalahu alayhi wasallam and during the Caliphate of the four rightly guided Caliphs?

Please read this, sister:

It is not an Islamic duty to initiate aggression against peaceful neighbors

Question:

Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring 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?

Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court

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. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and 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 kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet's lifetime.

May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad.

[Jaysh]

Originally Posted by bluey

Someone who is Muslim, follows the command 'Obey Allah and his Messenger' .

My problem is that nowadays people 'obey the Imams' instead of obeying Allah [swt] and His Messenger [s].

Allah [swt] is VERY CLEAR on this topic:

Quran

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.

So let us obey Allah [swt], not any Imam.

To use a Jinnzaword, the ruling against aggression is qati-istic, not dhanni-istic.

[MossadConspiracy]

Islam is not imperialistic

[Revert]

Muslims are imperialistic at times but I don't feel Islam is. Jaysh thanks for the links they were very informative.

[Variable]

Yeh I think it is. It's an outward looking religion that include in its foundation elements on how to deal with conquered peoples along with historical precedents of territorial aquisition and extension of economic control.

Normative statements aside, that's what happened, if the example of the Prophet and the rightly guided Caliphs are considered part of Islam, then so is the the projection of power and control.

Originally Posted by Jaysh

First, I do not deny Offensive Jihad altogether. I say that it cannot be "Aggressive Jihad". So Offensive Jihad is allowed in some cases when there is just reason, such as dawah carriers being killed in the land, etc.

What if it's against the religion of the people to allow dawah carriers into their land?

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. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.

A common justification given for imperialistic actions.

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 kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet's lifetime.

May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad.

That's not true... there was no confrontation at Tabuk. The histories on both of those are sketchy at best from an academic standpoint.

[Timbit]

Yeah, it is.

Though of course you can argue that there's no such as thing as offensive jihad, that slavery was meant to be phased out and that concubinage shouldn't matter today as there's no Islamic state.

I dunno what a dhimmi is and the other things don't bother me much.

[IbnMardhiyah]

I'd say no, based on Umar's expressed desire for a "mountain of fire" separating them and the Persians.

[Jaysh]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

I'd say no, based on Umar's expressed desire for a "mountain of fire" separating them and the Persians.

Word. Jazakh-Allah Khairan.

Originally Posted by Variable

What if it's against the religion of the people to allow dawah carriers into their land?

I know where you are going with this. I cannot find any statement of the Prophet [s] which forbids Non-Muslims from giving their dawah in the lands of the Muslims. Yes, it was a rule created by Sayyiduna Umar [ra], but as Imam Shafi'i said, the companions have the right to their own ijtihad, but our canonical law comes only from Quran and Sunnah. And the rules made by Umar [ra] were specific to that scenario, just as France made certain regulations on Germany after WWII, such as limiting the size of the army. France made all sorts of demands on Germany, because they felt that Germany had been the aggressor, and as such, they were in the right to make demands of compensation. Same way Muslims may have felt with nations that had previously been highly aggressive towards the Arabs.

A common justification given for imperialistic actions.

All actions in Islam are based on niyyat (intention). If I pray in order to please Allah [swt], then I am rewarded for that. But if I pray in order to show off to the people, then I am condemned to hell for that.

Likewise, if someone invades a country because there is oppression in that land, then it is based on their intention that we judge them. Yes, a lot of countries use moral reasons as a secondary justification for invading a country, but in this case, the niyyat (intention) is false.

Therefore, a Muslim leader is allowed to invade another country if there is oppression in that land against Muslims, but this must be his sincere intention. If this is just his justification--and not his sincere intention--then the action would be haram.

That's not true... there was no confrontation at Tabuk. The histories on both of those are sketchy at best from an academic standpoint.

What exactly is not true?

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by Variable

That's not true... there was no confrontation at Tabuk. The histories on both of those are sketchy at best from an academic standpoint.

There wasn't an actual battle at Tabuk. It was an expedition. The Muslims under Prophet Muhammad had gone there due to rumors of Heraclius raising an army against them. However, when they arrived at Tabuk, the Byzantine army wasn't there. Some say that the Byzantine army had withdrawn upon learning of the Muslim army (numbering 30,000) heading towards them.

For more information:

The Invasion of Tabuk

The Byzantines had still initiated hostilities when they had killed the ambassador of the Prophet, Al-Harith bin ‘Umair Al-Azdi.