Powered by UITechs
Get password? Username Password
Page 1 of 1

  Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly 


Topic initiated on Thursday, January 15, 2009  -  3:44 AM Reply with quote
Forcing to Islam, right or wrong ?

This course said that the Almighty's scheme in this world is to test man by giving him the right to freely chose his religion. Can u please provide me with verses from the Q'uran or Hadiths that led to this conclusion? Another thing, it says that Jihad to spread the truth or force Islam on others isn't our job but that of the prophets b/c unbelievers deliberately deny it. Again, i need to be provided with verses or ahadiths that led to this conclusion.
And my question here is, forcing Islam by persecution or any other violent way on other non-Muslims right or wrong? Please use verses or ahadiths to prove it. Me personnaly, i think its wrong but i see a lot of people in the Muslim world that try to force Islam on non-Muslims through violent ways and consequently tarnish Islam's image. And i can't stop wondering as to where they got the idea that they need to force it on others. Furthermore, can Jihad apply from Muslims against other Muslims that persecute non-Mulsims ? Thanks, ur answers will be much appreciated!

Posted - Friday, January 16, 2009  -  10:15 AM Reply with quote
Someone? anyone?

Posted - Friday, January 16, 2009  -  1:30 PM Reply with quote

Thanks for your question.

1. The verse 2:256 sets a general rule about freedom of choice when it comes to religion. Every other verse and every Hadith has to be seen and interpreted with this verse (as a principle) in mind:

"There is no compulsion in relation to His religion: The right path has now become completely distinct from the erroneous ones. Therefore, whoever rejects the arrogant [Satan] and believes in God, he indeed has gripped a firm handle that shall never break apart. And God is all-hearing, all-knowing." (2:256)

Accordingly, no one can attempt to force others into Islam. Those Muslims who believe otherwise should explain how they justify their belief in the light of the above verse of the Qur'an. Also rationally they need to justify how it is possible to call some one Muslim when the person only behaves like a Muslim to remain safe and unharmed while in his heart he is not convinced about Islam.

2. You asked for an evidence from the Qur'an that says "Jihad to spread the truth or force Islam on others isn't our job but that of the prophets b/c unbelievers deliberately deny it".

The module does not say that. It says:

"once the truth is communicated to the addressees of a Messenger to the extent that none of them is left with an excuse to deny it and they still deliberately deny it, then they are punished in this very world by the Almighty in either of the following two ways:
i. through natural calamities like storms and earthquakes
ii. through the swords of the believers".

The Jihad you are referring to is not to force people to religion, but is in fact the punishment of God that is taken place through the swords of believers, after giving enough ultimatum, against people who are convinced about the truth but do not accept it because of their arrogance.

With regard to Jihad (that in this context basically means attempting to kill others), we first need to bear in mind a general rule of the Qur'an about killing:

"Whoever killed even a single soul - not being a punishment of murder neither that of spreading unrest in the land - is as if he killed the whole of mankind." (5: 32)

Accordingly only two reasons for killing can be justified, these are punishment of murder and punishment of those who spread unrest in the land.

While Jihad against persecution can be justified in the light of the above rule, Jihad to force them to accept a religion will not be online with the above.

Therefore any one who claims that we can kill people in an attempt to force them to accept religion needs to justify how this can be seen as punishment for either unjust murder or spreading unrest in the land, referring to verse 5:32 .

There can only be exception from the above rule for those who have special permission from God to carry out Jihad for another reason (other than curbing persecution).

This special permission is only given to the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions:

If you read the beginning of the Sura of Taubah you will see how the verses in this particular chapter of the Qur'an (as an example) relate to the time and the direct addressees of the Prophet (pbuh).

Again if any one claims that these verses are addressing all Muslims of all time then the burden will be on him to reason how he has come to this conclusion.

It is referring to this very rule of God's punishment through his Messengers (and his direct followers) that we read in the Qur'an:

"Indeed those who are opposing Allah and His Messenger are bound to be humiliated. The Almighty has ordained: ‘I and My Messengers shall always prevail’. Indeed Allah is Mighty and Powerful. (58:20-1)


“Fight them and God will punish them with your hands.” (9:14)

3. The word “Fitna” that is used in the Qur'an has a general meaning of “persecution”. Therefore we do not have any reasons to introduce limiting conditions for Jihad against persecution, on the basis of people involved being Muslims or Non-Muslims.

Yes even if a non-Muslim group is being persecuted by Muslims, other Muslims with the directive of their respective state may start Jihad against those oppressing Muslims.

Please do let me know if this needs further clarification.


Posted - Saturday, April 24, 2010  -  12:25 PM Reply with quote
As I have read in the Jihad reading that a Muslim state can wage war against a state which is causing violence and oppression to the human beings anywhere in the world to protect and support the oppressed. It sounds like this itself will create more violence and war where war has also been commercialized for selling and buying war equipment as a business. We see today that there are other ways of stopping oppression and war in the world for example by calling out world peace summits and conferences for dialogue and finding alternatives in order to reach an agreed peaceful way out.
Just like there was a time when beating a spouse was a norm of the society and culture in order to keep the peace and stability in the family, husband would beat wife and wife's brothers would beat husband-even today it happens in many places including Pakistan and India- but today in an educated and groomed society there are many alternatives for both the spouses to come to an agreed plan where both the parties assess their attitude and intentions for the peaceful running of this small but most important individual state of a family in a society as a whole.

Posted - Saturday, May 01, 2010  -  4:14 PM Reply with quote
War in one's defence is a right of every human being and nation. The problem is that most super powers wage war on weaker nations in the greed of material. Innocent people including women and children and also animals and plants loose lives. If Muslims stand up to defend themselves or their brothers and sisters, they are blamed for practicing "Jihad". It is these same powers that then go ahead and call out conferences for 'Saving Earth' and 'Global warming solutions' . Is it not hypocrisy?

Posted - Sunday, May 02, 2010  -  3:34 AM Reply with quote
Dear Samra,

I think as long as peaceful routes are possible and effective no fighting should take place. I agree you on this. However the history shows that some times peaceful routes do not lead to anything but waste of time and allowing more persecution and in these particular cases, using arm force seems to be the only possible solution.


Posted - Friday, January 28, 2011  -  12:24 AM Reply with quote
assalamu alaykum.
I have 3 points. I am playing devil's advocate here so I can better understand this.
We're saying that Islam cannot be forced. That's well supported by "There is no compulsion in religion". We're also saying that the prophets (AS) under Allah's directive can punish disbelievers who genuinely reject the truth of Islam. But the threat of 'punishment' at the hands of the prophet and his followers is a type of coercion to accept Islam, is it not? Yes I think you will say, "well so is jahanam, which a proper kafir would also accept". Still they are being coerced to embrace Islam by the threat of imminent war. Is it not better for there to be no coercsion at all, if there must indeed be no compulsion in religion?
And also while the rulers might be kafir, they don't speak for their people who would be forced to fight in defence of their kafir rulers, fight and possibly be injured or killed. These citizens might not be 'rejectors' of the truth, but might just be ignorant, hence their death is not a punishment they deserved.
So only the prophet, under God's order can wage jihad against kuffar for knowingly rejecting the truth of Islam. Hence noone after the prophet can wage war upon a nation as we can’t be certain they, in their hearts, truly rejected the message of Islam. Where is the evidence for this other than reasoning? Judge’s still arbitrate without revelation or divine inspiration about the hearts of the people they’re judging about. Just as they make decisions about what’s apparent, it can be argued that rulers can make decisions about what’s apparent regarding other nations and their rejection of Islam. Is there consensus amongst the earlier and contemporary scholars on this issue that jihad against rejectors of the message is invalid after the prophet’s demise? Can I have some refernces please to justify this consensus, or please name the scholars in support of this stance. Because I've heard imams imply to the contrary, that jihad can be waged if a nation rejects dawah and rejects jizya regardless of whether the prophet was alive or he had died. Also I've heard that the greatest oppression is kufr, and hence we can wage jihad on nations who reject dawah to Islam purely because they have done the greatest injustice (using AlQuran 4:75-75 as justification).
jazakumullah khayr

Posted - Saturday, February 05, 2011  -  2:05 AM Reply with quote
W slaam
Here r my responses:
"Islam cannot be forced" is the right description of islamic point of view however it must not be confused with the prophet's Punishment. One must know that Messengers (rasool & not Nabi) of Allah are always on special duties. The made the TRUTH absolutely CLEAR & then the deniers left w NO option but to either accept Islam or ready to die.
looks nothing wrong in ur 2nd pt.
Pl Note that Kuffars are only the Deniers of Allah's messengers. They are either killed by Divine Punishment OR the Prophet, under God's order wage Jihad against them as is the Case of our beloved prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h). So u r right dat none after them can wage war upon a nation as we can’t be certain they, in their hearts, truly rejected the message of Islam. Its evidence is the law (Sunnah) of God regarding prophets & messengers desribed in the Quran!
I'm not sure about the consensus of scholars on this issue BUT Quran is absolutely clear about it that Jihad against rejectors of the message is invalid after His Messenger’s demise?
Those WHO SAY that jihad can be waged if a nation rejects dawah and rejects jizya regardless of whether the prophet was alive or he had died have surely misunderstood the Divine law regarding Messengers.
However Jihad against oppression is Allowed in islam with its basic requirements that It Must be led by the head of the State & the ratio between U & apponents Must be 1into 2.

Reply to Topic    Printer Friendly
Jump To:

Page 1 of 1

Share |

Copyright Studying-Islam © 2003-7  | Privacy Policy  | Code of Conduct  | An Affiliate of Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences ®

eXTReMe Tracker