Jihad – Holy War or Plundering Raids? Part 1

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Jihad – Holy War or Plundering Raids? Part 1

  1. θ says:

    Q.4, v.90 broadens a term of “Mu’ahid” to both indirect and indirect ally, that is to any ally or a protectorate under the “actual” Mu’ahid with whom directly the Moslem nations made a peace treaty.
    Q.4, v.90. Except for those who take safeguard with a group between yourselves and whom is a treaty,…

    – Defensive war to retrieve again the confiscated properties from Mekkan’s caravans.
    Ibn Ishaq, p.230
    Their houses in Mecca were locked up when they migrated, leaving no inhabitant.When the B. Jahsh gave up their house Abu Sufyan went and sold it to ‘Amr b. ‘Alqama brother of B. ‘Amir b. Lu’ayy. When the owners heard of this ‘Abdullah b. Jahsh told the apostle of it, and he replied: ‘Are you not pleased that God will give you a better house in Paradise?’ And when he answered Yes, he said, ‘Then you have it.’ When the apostle got possession of Mecca Abu Ahmad spoke to him about their house; and the apostle delayed his reply. People said to him, ‘The apostle dislikes your reopening the question of your property which you lost in God’s service, so don’t speak to him about it again.’ Abu Ahmad said in reference to Abu Sufyan: Tell Abu Sufyan of a matter he will live to regret.You sold your cousin’s house to pay a debt you owed.Your ally by God the Lord of men swears an oath:Take it, Take it, may your treachery cling to you like the ring of the dove.

    Prophet Muhammad didn’t invite Medinahs to join the 1st campaign of retrieving the confiscated properties of Mekkan Moslems (Islamic Irredenta) from Mekkans. The property in the caravan’s business belongs rightfully to Mekkan Moslems themselves.
    Prophet Muhammad didn’t do the tribal banditry (raid, Razzia).
    The sole mission of Islamic Irredenta is a justified retrieval, not about any banditry raid.

    Rather, Prophet Muhammad made pacts with Bedouins: Banu Damrah and Banu Madlaj. There’s no raid or plundering whatsoever against both Banu Damrah and Banu Madlaj. It is impossible for Moslems who suffered 13-year oppression and losses of property to do similar crime on Bedouins.
    In the earlier Medinah periods, Moslems unified both Arabs and Jews, and then cemented the 1st political agenda with neighboring cities, tribes, other Non-Mekkans through a good negotiation, treaty of Non-aggression, and political recognition. They pledge to not attack Moslems and to not side with Mekkans. Moslems also pledged to protect and not attack them.

    – Mekkans persecuted early Moslems before migration.
    Ibn Kathir.
    Allah’s statement, “Cursed were the People of the Ditch (Ukhdud)” (Q.85, v.4) meaning, the companions of the Ukhdud were cursed. The plural of Ukhdud is Akhadid, which means ditches in the ground. This is information about a group of people who were among the disbelievers. They went after those among them who believed in Allah and they attempted to force them to give up their religion. However, the believers refused to recant, so they dug a ditch for them in the ground. Then they lit a fire in it and prepared some fuel for it in order to keep it ablaze. Then they tried to convince them (the believers) to apostate from their religion (again), but they still refused them. So they threw them into the fire.

    – Defensive war to constrain the ultimatums of Mekkans.
    After Moslems migrated and stayed in Medinah, Mekkan rulers declared wars to Medinahs both Arabs and Jews.
    Abu Dawud, Book 19, Hadith 2998.
    Narrated A man from the companions of the Prophet: Abdur Rahman ibn Ka’b ibn Malik reported on the authority of a man from among the companions of the Prophet: The infidels of the Quraysh wrote (a letter) to Ibn Ubayy and to those who worshipped idols from al-Aws and al-Khazraj, while the Apostle of Allah was at that time at Medina before the battle of Badr. (They wrote): You gave protection to our companion. We swear by Allah, you should fight him or expel him, or we shall come to you in full force, until we kill your fighters and appropriate your women.When this (news) reached Abdullah ibn Ubayy and those who were worshippers of idols, with him they gathered together to fight the Apostle of Allah. When this news reached the Apostle of Allah, he visited them and said: The threat of the Quraysh to you has reached its end. They cannot contrive a plot against you, greater than what you yourselves intended to harm you. Are you willing to fight your sons and brethren? When they heard this from the Prophet, they scattered. This reached the infidels of the Quraysh. The infidels of the Quraysh again wrote (a letter) to the Jews after the battle of Badr: You are men of weapons and fortresses. You should fight our companion or we shall deal with you in a certain way. And nothing will come between us and the anklets of your women. When their letter reached the Prophet, they gathered Banu an-Nadir to violate the treaty. They sent a message to the Prophet: Come out to us with thirty men from your companions, and thirty rabbis will come out from us till we meet at a central place where they will hear you. If they testify to you and believe in you, we shall believe in you. The narrator then narrated the whole story.

    – Defensive war to restrain the war treason of Jews.
    Tabari, History, Foundation of the Community, Vol 7, p.85 – 86
    The Messenger of God remained in Medina after his return from Badr. When he first came to Medina he had made a compact with its Jews that they would not aid anyone against him and that if any enemy attacked him there they would come to his aid. After the Messenger of God killed many polytheists of Quraysh at Badr (the Jews) were envious and behaved badly towards him, saying, “Muhammed has not met anyone who is good at fighting. Had he met us, he would have had a battle which would be unlike a battle with anyone else.” They also infringed the contract in various ways. The Banu Qaynuqa were the first to infringe the agreement between them and the Messenger of God, they took to arms between Badr and Uhud.
    Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p.363
    Asim b. Umar b. Qatada said that the banu Qaynuqa were the first of the Jews to break their agreements with the apostle and to go to war, between Badr and Uhud, and the Apostle besieged them until they surrendered unconditionally.
    Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 362.
    Narrated Ibn Umar: Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again. He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam.

  2. θ says:

    Killing the innocent people for what the sinners do is not a typical judgment of God, but rather the absence of God exploited by the devils to persuade that there’s no god, or that God is responsible for the Problem of Evil.

  3. θ says:

    It is notable that today’s radical groups just have a local purpose, being less geographical, limited, restricted and contained if compared to the Medieval Moslems who aspired to a more greater conquest to seriously invade the infidel empires abroad, such as Persia, Byzantium, and Visigoth remnants.
    Today’s radicals just want the Western forces to stay away from a sporadic “Civil war” which the radicals have calculated to supposedly grant them a more easier victory. It’s supposed that if there’s no Western supporter behind the current regimes in Middle East, the radicals could have toppled them overnight.

    Periodical radical attacks in the Western soils were no longer intended to conquer or take over the lands of infidel states. Worse, they don’t anymore aspire to liberate the Palestine land from Israeli occupation despite being in front their nose.

    A reason to attach the name of Islam and Jihad is just to steal the portion of Zakat from every mosques, from Imams and congregations, as well as a gimmick to gain sympathy, but today’s radicals do not have a proper Islamic character because they have no zeal toward the sacred land. For them, somewhat the West is more holier than Al Aqsa mosque.

    Like a temporal skirmish, no one uses a small action of terror to invade. There’s no such a grand picture of “Caliphatic invasion” or liberation from today’s radical terrorism. Rather, that just turns to be as lowly as message of imploring to the West, that is to just let them – those radical groups – deal with the existent regimes in Middle East upon the on-going Civil war therein. The radical groups struggled a lot to set even one foot in Middle East, and keep failed. As the political pattern shows, they just managed to have one or two years of a bloody reign before then getting defeated so badly by other groups or junta or old regime.

  4. θ says:

    There’s a distinction appearing between the liberated Eastern Europe and the liberated Middle East. Although both regions used to be target of the Western involvements, Eastern Europe stay unified so they cannot be dictated by their liberators, whereas in Middle East they started a civil war so that they get dictated by their liberators, even to the extent of being as worse as sufferings under their old tyrants.

  5. θ says:

    One tragic lesson of the civil war occurs in Afghanistan after being liberated by the brave Mujaheddin along with Taliban in 90s. Once Taliban, Mujaheddin and Pakistan were three darlings of the US, CIA and Saudi Arabia. But unfortunately Ben Laden wants to be the sole Emir of Afghanistan against the wishes of all Mujaheddin groups by reason that he is not an Afghan tribe. At most, Ben Laden could be a vizier or minister, not Emir. Their rejection enraged him, so that he supports 9/11 that eventually makes both Taliban and Mujaheddin groups the sworn enemies of the US. It is so easy for a man to destroy the alliance between the US and the Afghanistan.

  6. θ says:

    A bad tendency to make a civil war – turning an ally as new enemy for sake of power – after being liberated is a reason why the leaders in the Middle East can’t be trusted.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Jesus happened to promise a false prophesy. Either he erred on this, or that the victims of persecution (whose hair and head perished) aren’t the true Christian elects.
    Lk 21
    16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Jesus promised a victory upon the true followers. Either the Disciples and martyrs (including Paul) were a bunch of false Christians, or that Judas (one of the seventy preachers) was saved, due to having his name written in heaven as the elects.
    Lk 10
    19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

  9. θ says:

    Somehow, shockingly Qur’an indicates there’s an open offering of forgiveness for the good Islamophiles from the background of Non Islam, A Self-restraint of the Non Moslems (who live in Islamic nations) with a virtue of tolerance may obtain an indirect forgiveness of Allah upon them. Their tolerance or non-hostility is somewhat counted as atonement.
    Q.2, v.192. And if they restrain it, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
    Q.8, v.38. Say to those who have disbelieved that if they restrain it, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they rebel then the precedent of the former peoples has already taken place.

    Any nation or tribe or race or regime that restrains and has no hostility whatsoever against Islam – despite not converting to Islam – is absolutely safe from the aggression of Moslems.

    In other words, why would the radicals hate the tolerant, getting-along, non-hostile Non-Moslems to whom Allah’s forgiveness could be given?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s