Fighting in Islam

[stevecanuck]

Several posters in RF have repeated the oft-stated claim that the Qur'an only prescribes fighting in self defense. However, nobody has offered a plausible explanation for the creation of the Islamic Empire. So, yet again I ask what self defense imperative caused a Muslim army to be (for example) in Tours, France in 732?

 

[Orbit]

Apologists like to soft-pedal facts. There is no defense of empire-building or colonialism, except to say "that's what the world was like, competing empires and a lust for trade goods and wealth".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Several posters in RF have repeated the oft-stated claim that the Qur'an only prescribes fighting in self defense.

It might be helpful to see examples of the "repeated the oft-stated claim."

 

[sun rise]

Several posters in RF have repeated the oft-stated claim that the Qur'an only prescribes fighting in self defense. However, nobody has offered a plausible explanation for the creation of the Islamic Empire. So, yet again I ask what self defense imperative caused a Muslim army to be (for example) in Tour, France in 732?

What does any scripture have to do with what empires (and people) do? Not very much as far as I can see. That applies to more than just Islam.

 

[stevecanuck]

It might be helpful to see examples of the "repeated the oft-stated claim."

Aw c'mon, man. You've seen it as often as I have. I'm not going to let you deflect. Bye.

 

[stevecanuck]

What does any scripture have to do with what empires (and people) do? Not very much as far as I can see. That applies to more than just Islam.

Another deflection. Muslims follow the Qur'an, and you know it. Bye.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Aw c'mon, man. You've seen it as often as I have. I'm not going to let you deflect. Bye.

What I've seen often is petty Islam-bashing.

 

[stevecanuck]

What I've seen often is petty Islam-bashing.

All you're demonstrating is that you can't square the circle. If you had an Islam-friendly reason for their wars of conquest, you would be all over it.

 

[stevecanuck]

What I've seen often is petty Islam-bashing.

If you want Jew bashing, just read the Qur'an.

 

[dybmh]

Several posters in RF have repeated the oft-stated claim that the Qur'an only prescribes fighting in self defense. However, nobody has offered a plausible explanation for the creation of the Islamic Empire. So, yet again I ask what self defense imperative caused a Muslim army to be (for example) in Tours, France in 732?

The best I can come up with is that the lessons in the Quran had not been adopted by those who succeeded Muhammad. Even 100+ years after the Quran, the population of the eare had not learned and/or began incorporating the practices into their lives.

The region in which Islam developed was tribal, clans frequently raided each other for resources. This atmosphere of tribal violence did not dissolve with the emergence of the Islamic state. The rapid assimilation of new adherents was not due to common religious/spiritual beliefs, but instead was a desire to be included in protection from competing clans granted by the inclusion in the new Islamic religion.

This resulted in a militant foundation and attitude among the new Muslims, and this carried over for hundreds of years after Muhammad's death. It is not surprising that it took a very long time for the generations of new Muslims in that area to abandon their aggresive practices from the days of clan vengeance and retaliation. But that doesnt mean that Islam inherently encourages warfare outside of self-defense. It means that there were competing ideologies, the militant ideology of the tribal past vs. the new ideology of self-defense brought by the Quran. It simply took a long time for the previous mindset to be adjusted in favor of the new ideas in the Quran.

 

[sun rise]

What I've seen often is petty Islam-bashing.

Yup.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The region in which Islam developed was tribal, clans frequently raided each other for resources.

Perhaps caused by or worsened because of the dark periods, starvation and plague starting in 536. Muhammad was supposedly born around 570 into a world that was in chaos, people dropping dead everywhere and having seen massive death. I wonder how the Moors fared during the terrible decades as they were nomadic already. Maybe they had it better than most Europeans, or maybe they had it worse. No doubt people worried that humanity would end soon.

The Great Year of Darkness and the Rise of Islam

 

[stevecanuck]

The best I can come up with is that the lessons in the Quran had not been adopted by those who succeeded Muhammad. Even 100+ years after the Quran, the population of the eare had not learned and/or began incorporating the practices into their lives.

Or, maybe they had been adopted. That's the whole question here - whether the Qur'an promotes offensive along with defensive fighting. Mohamed's own behavior would suggest it does. He oversaw the beheading of hundreds of Banu Qurayza men and youths. What in the name of self defense could possibly justify that? He also led or ordered many raids in which people were killed and much loot was taken.

The region in which Islam developed was tribal, clans frequently raided each other for resources. This atmosphere of tribal violence did not dissolve with the emergence of the Islamic state. The rapid assimilation of new adherents was not due to common religious/spiritual beliefs, but instead was a desire to be included in protection from competing clans granted by the inclusion in the new Islamic religion.

If you're trying to suggest that Islam mirrored the militaristic atmosphere in which it was born, I would agree.

This resulted in a militant foundation and attitude among the new Muslims,

I would say it resulted in a militant foundation in the Qur'an, and therefore Islam.

and this carried over for hundreds of years after Muhammad's death.

Yes, 1400 years and counting to be precise.

It is not surprising that it took a very long time for the generations of new Muslims in that area to abandon their aggresive practices from the days of clan vengeance and retaliation.

But, have they? Islamic militancy is growing, not diminishing.

But that doesnt mean that Islam inherently encourages warfare outside of self-defense. It means that there were competing ideologies, the militant ideology of the tribal past vs. the new ideology of self-defense brought by the Quran. It simply took a long time for the previous mindset to be adjusted in favor of the new ideas in the Quran.

That's where you have it backwards. Offensive fighting came more and more to the forefront of Islam in the latter stages of its evolution. Surah 9, which is the last chronologically, is a call-to-arms that affects the world to this day.

 

[dybmh]

Or, maybe they had been adopted. That's the whole question here - whether the Qur'an promotes offensive along with defensive fighting. Mohamed's own behavior would suggest it does. He oversaw the beheading of hundreds of Banu Qurayza men and youths. What in the name of self defense could possibly justify that? He also led or ordered many raids in which people were killed and much loot was taken.

If clan-to-clan violence and retribution was common before the Quran, then continued violence did not originate in the Quran.

Regarding the example of Banu Qurayza, I'll need to read about it to comment. You may be right, but I am not well informed on the matter.

If you're trying to suggest that Islam mirrored the militaristic atmosphere in which it was born, I would agree.

no, I'm saying old habits die hard.

I would say it resulted in a militant foundation in the Qur'an, and therefore Islam.

Interesting. I hadn't considered that. Yes, could be.

Yes, 1400 years and counting to be precise.

But, have they? Islamic militancy is growing, not diminishing.

Are modern Islamic nation states expanding their borders militarily? If not then it's a different issue than described in the OP.

That's where you have it backwards. Offensive fighting came more and more to the forefront of Islam in the latter stages of its evolution. Surah 9, which is the last chronologically, is a call-to-arms that affects the world to this day.

You may be 100% correct. I'll read surah 9 and comment further if I disagree. You've mentioned this surah several times in other threads. It's a high time I've read it so i know what you're talking about.

 

[stevecanuck]

If clan-to-clan violence and retribution was common before the Quran, then continued violence did not originate in the Quran.

I never said the qur'an originated violence. I'm saying it contains dozens of calls for violence to be committed.

Are modern Islamic nation states expanding their borders militarily? If not then it's a different issue than described in the OP.

Modern Islamist groups certainly are. ISIS being the most well known. In the Sahel, Islamist incursions from multiple groups have been waging expansionist jihad for a while now.

You may be 100% correct. I'll read surah 9 and comment further if I disagree. You've mentioned this surah several times in other threads. It's a high time I've read it so i know what you're talking about.

Surah 9 is not internally compiled in chronological order. According to Islamic scholar and author, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, this surah contains three sections. The first verses chronologically (38-72) deal with Mohamed's preparations for the expedition to Tabuk, where he expected to battle Byzantine forces. The second section (73-129) was revealed after his return, with the third (1-37) coming at the time of the second Hajj.

In verses 38-72 Mohamed again found himself having to rouse the reluctant bedouins (hypocrites) to risk their lives for "the cause of God". Justification for attacking the Byzantines is a matter of debate, and I will leave that discussion for another time. It is enough for now to know that Mohamed's plan to fight the Byzantines is the context for these verses:

 

[dybmh]

I never said the qur'an originated violence. I'm saying it contains dozens of calls for violence to be committed.

And what I expect from the Quran is that each call for violence is moderated by the surrounding verses.

Modern Islamist groups certainly are. ISIS being the most well known. In the Sahel, Islamist incursions from multiple groups have been waging expansionist jihad for a while now.

OK. A small minority if included among the Islamic nations.

Surah 9 is not internally compiled in chronological order. According to Islamic scholar and author, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, this surah contains three sections. The first verses chronologically (38-72) deal with Mohamed's preparations for the expedition to Tabuk, where he expected to battle Byzantine forces. The second section (73-129) was revealed after his return, with the third (1-37) coming at the time of the second Hajj.

In verses 38-72 Mohamed again found himself having to rouse the reluctant bedouins (hypocrites) to risk their lives for "the cause of God". Justification for attacking the Byzantines is a matter of debate, and I will leave that discussion for another time. It is enough for now to know that Mohamed's plan to fight the Byzantines is the context for these verses:

OK, I've been reading the surah a little bit throughout the day. I'll certainly focus on those specific verses and try to keep what you're saying in mind.

 

[stevecanuck]

And what I expect from the Quran is that each call for violence is moderated by the surrounding verses.

Do you mean further explained, or mitigated?

OK. A small minority if included among the Islamic nations.

Such terrorism does not operate in a vacuum. It must be heavily financed and widely endorsed. Simply counting the number of sandals on the ground only gives you a glimpse at the visible side of the curtain. Backstage has to be a hotbed of activity, or there would be no show.

If you want to only count participants, you would assume that only a few hundred thousand were opposed to the election of Donald Trump, because that's how many hit the streets in protest. You know that tens of millions were upset, and that they contributed moral support. How is same not true for Islamic terrorists?

OK, I've been reading the surah a little bit throughout the day. I'll certainly focus on those specific verses and try to keep what you're saying in mind.

Ok, let me know if you have any questions and I'll do my best to answer them. (First hint: To "go forth in the cause of God" means to fight.)

 

[dybmh]

In an effort to stay on topic, I've reposted the issue brought in the OP below:

Several posters in RF have repeated the oft-stated claim that the Qur'an only prescribes fighting in self defense. However, nobody has offered a plausible explanation for the creation of the Islamic Empire. So, yet again I ask what self defense imperative caused a Muslim army to be (for example) in Tours, France in 732?

So the question is, in Quran are there directives to establish an Islamic Empire proactively.

In verses 38-72 Mohamed again found himself having to rouse the reluctant bedouins (hypocrites) to risk their lives for "the cause of God". Justification for attacking the Byzantines is a matter of debate, and I will leave that discussion for another time. It is enough for now to know that Mohamed's plan to fight the Byzantines is the context for these verses:

I'm seeing a few verses encouraging participation in the fighting. A good chunk of the verses are ecouraging monetary support. Those who don't do either are labeled hypocrits. I'm not seeing anything in these verses which direct Muslims to invade, conquer, and establish an Islamic empire.

That's the whole question here - whether the Qur'an promotes offensive along with defensive fighting. Mohamed's own behavior would suggest it does. He oversaw the beheading of hundreds of Banu Qurayza men and youths. What in the name of self defense could possibly justify that? He also led or ordered many raids in which people were killed and much loot was taken.

OK, I read very briefly on this on wikipedia. They claim that the beheadings were a result of a broken treaty. Yes the Quran speaks very harshly about this, but that doesn't show that the Quran directs Muslims to forcefully establish an Islamic empire. Further, wikipedia says that the justification for this violence against Banu Qurayza comes from Hadith, not from Quran.

 

[stevecanuck]

In an effort to stay on topic, I've reposted the issue brought in the OP below:

So the question is, in Quran are there directives to establish an Islamic Empire proactively. I'm seeing a few verses encouraging participation in the fighting. A good chunk of the verses are ecouraging monetary support. Those who don't do either are labeled hypocrits. I'm not seeing anything in these verses which direct Muslims to invade, conquer, and establish an Islamic empire.

Yes. That's why I keep mentioning surah 9 and the offensive military campaign (against the Byzantines) that inspired it. Verse 9:29 is very clear about that as it says, "Arberry: Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled."

The fact that they had to travel across the desert for two weeks to get to Byzantine territory in order to engage an empire that had never attacked them puts paid to any claim of self defense. And remember, this was Mohamed himself who waged this campaign, so there is no doubt that this offensive push is ingrained into Islam.

OK, I read very briefly on this on wikipedia. They claim that the beheadings were a result of a broken treaty.

History is written by the victors. First, the Banu Quraiza in no way aided the Meccans in the Battle of the Trench. Any treaty that existed (and there is a lot of debate about that) would have been for the protection of the city, but it wasn't the target - the Muslims were. The Meccans had this war made against them, and they were trying to end it on their terms. There was absolutely no reason for the Jews to help the Muslims, so they didn't.

Second, even if the leaders of the Banu Quraiza had broken a treaty, would possible justification could there have been for Mohamed to behead every single male in the tribe? There wasn't even a battle. The Jews surrendered without a fight and Mohamed slaughtered them.

Yes the Quran speaks very harshly about this, but that doesn't show that the Quran directs Muslims to forcefully establish an Islamic empire. Further, wikipedia says that the justification for this violence against Banu Qurayza comes from Hadith, not from Quran.

Again, Mohamed was the leader, and he could have stopped the slaughter, but he didn't.

 

[dybmh]

Yes. That's why I keep mentioning surah 9 and the offensive military campaign (against the Byzantines) that inspired it. Verse 9:29 is very clear about that as it says, "Arberry: Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled."

The fact that they had to travel across the desert for two weeks to get to Byzantine territory in order to engage an empire that had never attacked them puts paid to any claim of self defense. And remember, this was Mohamed himself who waged this campaign, so there is no doubt that this offensive push is ingrained into Islam.

OK, first of all, you sent me to read verses 38-72, now you're quoting verse 29. At this point, I'll read whatever verses in whatever order you choose. Just tell me how. I'm looking for Qur'an quotes to support the idea of Islamic empire building. Directives to expand militarily. I see verse 29, I see your chosen translation. It's a little difficult for me to attribute this to support empire building. But maybe you're right. If so, you have one verse.

Second, what you're providing is evidence of values that, as you say, are ingrained into Islam. But that's not the topic of the OP. The topic was "... the Quran perscribes ...". If Muhammad lead the charge and conquered, that's sunnah not Quran. If your claim is, the sunnah of Muhammad brings an aggressive influence into Islam, I probably wouldn't be debating with you right now.

History is written by the victors. First, the Banu Quraiza in no way aided the Meccans in the Battle of the Trench. Any treaty that existed (and there is a lot of debate about that) would have been for the protection of the city, but it wasn't the target - the Muslims were. The Meccans had this war made against them, and they were trying to end it on their terms. There was absolutely no reason for the Jews to help the Muslims, so they didn't.

Second, even if the leaders of the Banu Quraiza had broken a treaty, would possible justification could there have been for Mohamed to behead every single male in the tribe? There wasn't even a battle. The Jews surrendered without a fight and Mohamed slaughtered them.

Sunnah not Quran

Again, Mohamed was the leader, and he could have stopped the slaughter, but he didn't.

Sunnah not Quran