Thread by @AbdulMurtad

In this thread i will be discussing about JIHAD . pls read this thread till end so that you don't fall in the trap of muslim apologists and moderate muslims like @TheSamirAbbas

Cc: @Aabhas24 @Sanjay_Dixit @jihadwatchRS @ShefVaidya @sankrant @jkd18 @shivanginipatha

One of the things that you will always hear from muslim apologists is that jihad was only defensive and never offensive . This is completely false . In this thread i will only talk about offensive jihad . History of Islam as written by muslims shows us many examples of battle

And raids that were 100% purely offensive . The dozen of raids that I am aware of , were offensive . And some of the largest battles too (biggest example of this is Islamic invasion of India and rulers of delhi sultanate) . Infact the only battle which was defensive was

BATTLE OF THE TRENCH , which never really materalized into a battle anyway , as the muslim drug a large trench around their city to prevent the Meccan Pagans from entering . But even that came after many years of muslims attacking the trade carvans of Meccans

and constantly being a significant nuisance to their trade . I will quickly provide atleast two examples where THE JIHAD was definitely not defensive . 1) THE BATTLE OF BADR (ramadan 2 hijri/ march 624 CE ) probable the most well known battle the muslims were involved in ,

at the time of muhammad . It was their first major battle with the pagans of mecca . The muslims had decided to raid a trade carvan belonging to Meccans . And the meccans heard news of plans that Muslims had and sent out an army to protect their carvan .

Many muslims accept this and don't deny it , but others (like @zafarsareshwala , @TheSamirAbbas and @RubikaLiyaquat ) who really can't admit that their prophet was starting these wars to steal and accumulate wealth have suggested that the muslims were merly trying to

get back that was stolen off them . Now , there is a very little evidence from within the islamic sources that the meccans were actually stealing from the muslims . But let's read about the build up to this battle , briefly in the main biography of muhammad otherwise known as

SIRA OF MUHAMMAD . Now pls read the snippet . So the apologist interpretation fail here and its crystal clear that this is offensive jihad and not defensive jihad in any way .

Let's break it down . Firstly , Abu Sufyan is coming from syria and going to mecca - so the merchandise that he has can't be that of muslims , as it has been just brought from Syria . Secondly , Muhammad states clearly that it was their property . He didn't say that the Quraysh

Caravan was containing our property , when he was speaking to the muslims . Thirdly he clearly provides an instruction to go and attack it . Then he says they may get some war booty out of it . If u keep reading (refer pic below) you would see that the Muslims didn't even

expect Muhammad to go to war . And Abu Sufyan was anxious . So its really clear who is starting the war . The muslims initiated the battle of badr by trying to rob the meccan pagans

2) Now how about the RAID OF KHYBAR (refer pic below) . Just the highlighted sentence in pic tells us that he was targetting neighbouring towns and villages randomly . He waits outside to see if they do the call to prayer or not . If they don't it means they are not muslims

And he attacks them , as the result . WHAT KIND OF RELIGION OF PEACE IS THIS ? IS THIS MEANT TO BE DEFENSIVE JIHAD ? REALLY ? anyway lets just keep reading (refer the snippet ). So he waits the night doesn't hear the call to prayer - that confirms they are not muslims and

therefore they had become fair game for him to attack . He is about to attack these poor people waking up and walking out with thir spades and baskets , just trying to make a living . They see Muhammad's army and they run for their lives . Now how can muslims say that JIHAD

was only defensive when we have an abundance of stories like this . In order to try and prove their point , muslims will often repeat verses like these around to try and put the wool over your eyes

1) There is no compulsion in religion (2:256) [ I debunked this in my previous id Abdul Qasim , which unfortunately got suspended]

2) Fight in the cause of allah , those who fight you , but do not transgress limits ; for allah loveth not transgressors(2:190)

But the problem with these verses is that they are widely believed to have been cancelled out by later verses within the muslim concept of abbrogation which tries to explain all the contradictions by suggesting that the verse revealed later supersede the earlier ones

If they contradict each other . We are told by the major exegets of the Quran , that this verse has been abbrogated by later verses which command the killing of non believers . We only need to look at how Islam's biggest scholars interpreted them :

Here is what Imam Tabari reprts for the infamous " There is no compulsion in religion " verse . It says : " There is no compulsion in religion" means that the Arabs who had no (monotheist) religion , were forced into religion by the sword . Whereas the jews , christains

and Magians ( zoroastrians) are not forced if they pay jizya .

So in other words there is no compulsion for other monotheists to join Islam , if they are willing to pay the jizya tax . For the rest of the non believers , the options are to join Islam or be killed .

The quran contains a number of peaceful verses which were revealed when Islam was weak and tried to establish itself . The more violent and aggressive verses all came when the muslims had grown in number and power . I think this quranic verse sums it up pretty neatly( refer pic)

It says : " And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand (quran 47:35)

This verse clearly tell us , that muslims should not be calling for peace , when they are in a position of strength . This explains why ISLAM BEGAN WITH PEACEFUL VERSES , BUT WHEN THEY ALL GOT CANCELLED OUT , WHEN THEY WERE EMBOLDENED ENOUGH THROUGH STRENGTH .

Let's look at more examples which glorify . In this hadith Muhammad makes it clear , that to kill people and be killed is the best thing a muslim can hope to do

In another hadith muhammad says :

So muhammad labels those who do not fight as hypocrites . And the quran theratens hypocrites with the worst type of torture in hell ( ref : quran chapter 4 verse 145)

So now asides from rhe incentives of virgins in the afterlife , if u die fighting for islam , you are now being told " If u don't fight- you can be considered a hypocrite "

Whether the hadith refers only to Muhammad's time or for all time is contested among classical muslim scholars . But we can certainly see how one can see it to be an eternal command especially with authentic hadiths like this one around (see below)

One more eg : refer quran 2:216

This verse sums up the problem with religion and islam in particular , in a nutshell . It basically says " We have ordered you to fight , even though you mightnot want too" . And at the end of the verse it tells us that " God know and you don't " .

So therefore , we should never question his judgement and ask why . Just listen and obey (case with all religions) . This is why its so difficult to reform and why its so easy for violence to breed within Islam. It says :

Allah know and we don't so who are we to question ? Who are we ro change these commands or water them down ? .
Another quick example : Quran chapter 61 , verse 10 and 11

The word used in arabic for " struggle hard" in that verse is "tujahidouna" which is a variation of Jihad . SO THOSE WHO DO JIHAD WITH THEIR LIVES AND THEIR PROPERTIES WILL AVOID A PAINFUL TORMENT IN HELL

Now one last verse : quran chapter 2 , verse 193 .
On paper it look ok . It tells muslim to stop fighting if other side give up , which is kind of common sense . But as always we have a clause . You can't be hostile and aggressive against people if they are not fighting you

Unless they are oppressors . Well who is an oppressor ? .
The commentary by tabri on this verse says(refer pic below ) :
With this verse god means 'if they stop' that is they stop THEY STOP FIGHTING , EMBRACE YOUR FAITH AND CARRY OUT WHAT YOUR FAITH REQUIRES AND

LEFT THE WORSHIPPING OF IDOLS , THEN YOU CAN STOP FIGHTING THEM AND AGGRESSING AGAINST THEM . THIS IS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T START CONFLICT ONLY AGAINST THE OPPRESSOR AND THEY ARE POLYTHEISTS .

So we can see clearly here that you must continue to fight until they become muslims . And carry out all that Islam requires them to do - from prayers to obligatry fasting to compulsory hijab etc . This is also supported in the commentary of Ibn Kathir :-

So from the pic you can see that the second major exegete of the quran confirms that fighting shouldn't stop unless they stop worshipping any god beside Allah . So its clear that fighting non muslims must continue forever . This is atleast the case within sunni islam

Shia islam is generally in a more dormant and pacifist state , as they are waiting the emergence of "IMAM MAHDI" to lead the nation and make those decisions for them

So in conclusion :-
1) FIGHTING IN THE WAY OF ALLAH IS NOT ONLY TOLERATED , IT'S MOST DEFINITELY ENCOURAGED

2) A VERSE TELL MUSLIMS NOT TO CALL FOR PEACE IF THEY ARE IN POSITION OF STRENGTH .

3) THOSE WHO DON'T FIGHT ARE TOLD THEY ARE HYPOCRITES

4) THE QURAN TELLS MUSLIMS THAT FIGHTING IS GOOD FOR THEM EVEN IF THEY DON'T REALSIE IT . And many scholars have interpreted these verses as being " A CALL FOR CONSTANT WAR UNTIL ISLAM DOMINATES THE ENTIRE WORLD .

This is my new id my previous id abdul qasim got suspended due to mass reporting