islamic tradition of non-violence?

[inhumility]

Hi
I have checked the articles
Non-Violence and Islam
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first article is written by a Sunni moderate religious Muslim famous personality of India , and I admire him for his moderate thinking. He has quoted from Quran correctly which is common to every Muslim faith, but the Hadith quoted by him in his good article are from Sunni Books, to the best of my knowledge, please correct me if I am wrong.
The second person a Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan was a political leader, he and his sons were principled persons, but not religious scholars, have no bearing on BB's requirement.
That proves my point.
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam

[farhan]

Try this article , comes with lots of links .

Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These two sites will also be helpful.

SunniPath: An Online Islamic Educational Institute
IslamOnline.net

[farhan]

In everey prophet,s life there are two phases, one is of peaceful preaching, & other is of non-peace full stuff. Noah preached for 500 years , those who didn’t submit to God were killed by God . Moses preached to the Pharoah, he refused & died. In Islam Jihad (struggle!!) is against Zulm & Udwaan (Opression/Injustice & Animosity)(See:8:39, 2:217). In the above examples, people were killed for the same reason. Sometimes rather then sending a flood, God asks his followers to attack (called Qital not jihad) the unjust & oppressors. It’s a double test, for both parties. This is what happened under Joshua & David. (Or what failed to happen under Moses). The only exception is Jesus, but he will be coming back to to fulfil his mission. This time he won’t practice “turn other cheek” philosophy.

Coming back to the topic , Gandhi as I have heard, developed Satyagarha after studying Meccan life of Prophet Muhammad . It was the time when he was forbidden to fight. (4:76). Scholars give a lot of reasons for this. People who have described Jihad say it starts with fighting ego. Not fighting back, not cursing back, not killing back was a part of this . Preaching peace fully & not stumbling upon some kind of “mine is better than yours” arguments were also highly recommended (6:68). Jihad & Purification with Quran were prescribed . (25:52).

Other than being a cleansing of ego for believers, this is also a clear sign for non-believers . Its clearly visible to them that these people are oppressed not because they want money or power, but because they obey one God. Muslims were taunted a lot by the Mekkan elites for teachings like “slaves are equal”, “women should be given rights” & “come back to Abraham’s God”. But for people who were not ruled by their ego, Muhammad’s teachings made perfect sense.

Later on after a lot of torture, killings, a two year old social boycott (during which Muslims had to boil sticks & eat them) & failed assassination attempts on Muhammad, they migrated to Medina. The state was formed. Meccans confiscated all Muslim property. Meccan muslims didn’t have much knowledge of agriculture. Trade routes were blocked. This lead to caravan raiding. Meccans attacked (Badr), & failed. Meccans reattacked (Uhad) & partially succeeded (Quran says this happened because they followed their wishes rather than the prophet). Meccans gathered all Arabia & went to Medina to annihilate everything. Muslims came to realize there is no point of fighting this huge army & dig a trench around medina, except for the portion under Banu Quraiza. In the middle of this horrible situation, BQ broke their treaty & changed their alliance (we know the rest). Later on after a failed attempt to perform haj lead to Hudabiah treaty. Breaking of which lead to Conquest of Mecca . Again there was no fight . Heraclius , after taking Syria from Persians was planning to attack Medina , which lead to Tubuk.

So if you see Meccan period, it was all peaceful struggle. In Medinan period, muslims were faced with fight or die situations, so obviously they had no option other than fighting. If Muhammad didn’t fight at that time, Muslims’ fate would have been same as the fate of Christians . There are a lot of people who bring up this Jesus vs. Muhammad debates . Fact of the matter is, that Jesus didnt preach Christianity. He asked people to “keep the commandments” & “be vigilant as a snake”. Finally he asked his followers to take up swords (Luke:22:35-38). I don’t know how Christian scholars interpret this . In the end , he left his followers without power, stability & security. They suffered a lot . Israeli Spirituality was taught to gentiles who didn’t have the slightest comprehension of these things (unlike jews who had experienced 2000 years of spiritual evolution). Some people had to live, some people had to rule. Obviously teachings had to be changed, commandments had to be abrogated. We all know who was born of a virgin on 25th December. This is what happens when a prophet leaves his people without power. This is what wasent supposed to happen after Muhammad.

Later on Christianity spread into Europe by power & preaching. Three continents were ethnically cleansed. Two were enslaved. We don’t see this with Islam. India is still Hindu after 1000 years of Muslim rule. Andalusia was Christian after 700 years of Muslim rule. Native Americans were still breathing despite frequent contact with Arab traders.

[farhan]

A few sayings that I was able to get from my harddrive.

The mujahid is he who makes jihad against himself (jahada nafsah) for the sake of obeying Allah.’’ Tirmidhi, Ahmad, Tabarani, Ibn Majah, al-Hakim, and Quda`i also relate it. The contemporary hadith scholar Shu`ayb al-Arna'ut confirmed that its chain of transmission is sound in his edition of Ibn Hibban, Sahih 11:203 (#4862). Al-Haythami related the following version in the chapter on Jihad al-nafs in his Majma` al-zawa'id and declared it sound

"'What kind of jihad is better?' Muhammad replied, 'A word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler. (Nisai)

`Umar narrated that a man came to the Prophet asking for permission to go to jihad. The Prophet asked: "Are your parents alive?" He said that they were. The Prophet replied: "Then struggle to keep their rights"(The hafiz Ibn Abu Jamra al-Azdi al-Andalusi(d. 695) in his commentary on Bukhari entitled Bahjat al-nufus)

[farhan]

BTW Your first quote, scholars interpret it as prophet’s mercy & vision. As I remember, he replied to Gabriel, “I am send as mercy for humanity, how can I ask for their destruction. I will pray for them so that they might come to the right path.”. His prayer fulfilled a decade later. The second one is not from any hadith that I know of. Most probably it is some Sufi parable that might have originated in Turkistan. The third quote is interpreted as being kind to neighbors, not as struggle.

[farhan]

Inhumility, Muslim problem with Ahmadis are based on facts. Quran calls Muhammad as khatamun nabiien. Now in Pre-Ahmadi Islam, every Rasul was a Nabi & every nabi is not a rasul. So when Quran says no nabi after Muhammad, by default it means no rasul after him too.
Mr. Qadyani’s life was also much different fom what is prophecised in Hadith about Jesus. Jesus will come in bilad assham, he wont bring any new teachings & he will fight dajjal. Mr.Qadyani cant be Mahdi either. His life contradicts the ahadeeth.
Ahmadis don’t comit Shirk, so they should get a good afterlife. Other then that, no matter they pray & fast & give alms, with a belief in wahi/nabi/rasul/kitab after Muhammad , person goes outside Islam .
You seem to be a nice guy, I hope you weren’t offended. We have been taught a prayer by our prophet, that goes something like,”O God, show me things the way they really are”. So ask God for truth, who else but him.

[inhumility]

Hi
Further to my above post:
If one opens the home page of alislam.org, one sees:
Digital Media Library
Search Engine

more...
by clicking on the word more.... above one opens up the digital meida library:
(e.g. Islam, Jesus, Jihad)

Keyword List Keyword List
By selecting word Jehad from the Keyword List and clicking the search button we get.
Question: What is the real Islamic Jihad and what is the stand of Amadiyyat with respect to Jihad? Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad(ra) - 07 Dec 94 - 57 minutes - Liqama'al Arab - Eng/Arashow synopsis text - windows audio - windows video - show all program files
by clicking show all program files we get:
Program: In this program Hudhoor discusses the concept of real Islamic Jihad Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad(ra) - 12/7/1994 - 60 minutes - Liqama'al Arab - Eng/Aradownload mp3 - windows audio - windows video
By listening or viewing the above audio/video windows one could understand the real convincing concepts (Ahmadia Muslims), once that is clear; references of sources are no problem.If one is interested one could do that, otherwise ignore, please.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam,working for unity of all the revealed religions

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by farhan

Mr. Qadyani’s life was also much different fom what is prophecised in Hadith about Jesus. Jesus will come in bilad assham, he wont bring any new teachings & he will fight dajjal. Mr.Qadyani cant be Mahdi either. His life contradicts the ahadeeth.

Hi
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 rightly and truthfully claimed to be PromisedMessiahImamMahdi in Islam. There is no contadiction in Hadith if seen,understood and resolved in the light of Quran, the very first source of Islam common to all faiths in Islam.The PromisedMessiahImamMahdi has not come in Christians or Jews, he is a truthful follower of Muhammad SAW, he has brought no new religion, follows the Sunnah of Muhammad SAW, so this is in short the meaning of Khatamun-Nabiyyeen. He came at the right time for reformation of the Muslims and to unite all the Revealed Religions by peaceful and truthful means.Please try to understand and realize it, no compulsion.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam

[bananabrain]

inhumility, stop hijacking the bloody thread. i'm starting to believe the rest of these guys are right - everything with you eventually turns into "mirza ghulam ahmad is the answer to everything, please understand and believe it" - now for feck's sake, shut up about it. we're talking about something else.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Abdullah]

Hi Bananabrain,

The Sunni perspective on what the incidents involving where the Prophet [saw] 'forgave', and 'showed patience and forebearance rather than retaliate', and 'return good for evil', is that, it is best to follow the aforementioned examples, but a person still has a right for eye for an eye and if he chooses to implement the 'eye for an eye' he'd be doing no wrong, as it's his right.

For example, if a person unjustly slaps me in the face, then I could decide to forgive him and not retaliate for the sake of Allah, or I could return him good for evil, i.e, I do not retaliate and when I see him another time, I offer him a sweet, be nice to him, etc, and that would be the best actions that I can do in the circumstances [I'd get a greater reward for these actions, than the one of retaliating]...but if I want, than I have the right to slap him back and that would be me 'equalising up' with the person and that would be considered as justice.

So basically..Islam encourages Muslims to do the 'greater good' which is, 'forgive and forget', and 'return good for evil'...and it also teaches them that, although retaliation is a 'lesser good' than the former, it still is a right of the person as it will only serve the course of justice.

The Islamic principle of 'obeying the law of the land' will supercede any Islamic rights that are not in accordance with it..., so therefore Muslims living in Britain can act in self-defence, as the law allows, but as far as 'seeking retaliation' is concerned, when it's not done in the spur of the moment and as a defensive/extenuating act, than it has to be taken through the courts and physical retaliation in this circumstance will not be allowed.

hope this helps

Peace.

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by Abdullah

but a person still has a right for eye for an eye and if he chooses to implement the 'eye for an eye' he'd be doing no wrong, as it's his right.

This is to further elaborate the inherent wisdom in Islamic teaching with regard to; where forgivness is to be excercised and where to implement 'eye for an eye'. This has been mentioned by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad with reference to Quran in his famous book "The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam":
http://www.alislam.org/books/philosophy/1q6.html

It becomes a moral quality when a person deliberately makes himself harmless and exercises the quality of peacefulness on its proper occasion, and refrains from using it out of place. In this context the Divine teaching is: Try to promote accord between yourselves (8:2); Peace is best (4:129); when they incline towards peace, do you incline towards it also (8:62). The true servants of the Gracious One walk upon the earth in humility (25:64); and when they Come upon something vain, which might develop into strife, they pass on with dignity (25:73). That is to say, they do not start quarrelling over trifles and do not make small matters which do not cause much harm an occasion for discord. The expression vain that is employed in this verse means mischievous utterance of words or doing something which causes little damage and does little harm. Peacefulness means that one should overlook conduct of that type and should act with dignity; but if a person's conduct does real harm to life or property or honour, the moral quality that should come into play in apposition to it is not peacefulness but forbearance, to which we shall revert later. Should anyone behave mischievously towards you, you should try to repel it with peacefulness, whereby he who is your enemy will become your warm friend (41:35). In short, peacefulness means overlooking trivial matters of annoyance which occasion no great harm, and are more-or less confined to uttering nonsense.

The second type of moral qualities are those that are related to doing good. The first of these is forbearance or forgiveness. He who commits an offence against another causes him pain or harm and deserves to be punished either through the process of the law, with imprisonment or fine, or directly by the person offended. To forgive him, if forgiveness should be appropriate, would be to do him good. In this context the teaching of the Holy Quran is: Those who control their tempers when they are roused and who overlook people's faults when that is appropriate (3:135). The recompense of an injury is a penalty in proportion thereto; but whose forgives and effects thereby a reform in the offender, and no harm is apprehended, that is to say, exercises forgiveness on its appropriate occasion, will have his reward with Allah (42:41).
This verse shows that the Quran does not teach non-resistance to evil on all occasions, or that mischief makers and wrongdoers should never be punished. Its teaching is that one must consider whether the occasion calls for forgiveness or punishment, and to adopt the course which would be best in the interests both of the offender and the public. Sometimes an offender turns away from wrongdoing in consequence of being forgiven, and sometimes forgiveness incites him to further wrongdoing. Therefore, God Almighty directs that we should not develop the habit of forgiving blindly on all occasions, but should consider carefully whether forgiveness or punishment would be most appropriate, and, therefore, a virtue, in each particular case, and should adopt that course. Some people are so vindictive that they keep in mind the wrongs done to their fathers through generations, and there are others who carry forbearance and forgiveness to the extreme, sometimes even to the limit of shamelessness. They exercise such weakness, forgiveness and forbearance as are utterly inconsistent with dignity, honour, jealousy and chastity. Their conduct is a stain on good character and the result of their forgiveness and forbearance is that people are disgusted with them. That is why the Holy Quran attaches the condition of appropriate time and place for the exercise of every moral quality, and does not approve the exercise of a moral quality out of its place.
It should be remembered that forgiveness is not a moral quality in itself. It is a natural impulse which is found in children also. A child soon forgets an injury, if it is inflicted upon him wrongfully, and again approaches affectionately the person who has inflicted the injury upon him, even if such a person should intend to kill him. He is pleased with his beguiling words. Such forgiveness is in no sense a moral quality. It would become a moral quality when it is exercised in its proper place and on its proper occasion; otherwise it would only be a natural impulse. There are few people who are able to distinguish between a natural impulse and a moral quality. We have repeatedly pointed out the distinction between a true moral quality and a natural condition, which is that a moral quality is conditioned by conformity to place and occasion, and a natural impulse often comes into play out of place. A cow is harmless and a goat is humble but we do not attribute these qualities to them because they are not invested with a sense of time and place. Divine wisdom and God's true and perfect Book have made every moral quality subject to time and place for its proper exercise.
Unquote
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam

[Abdullah]

With all due respect Inhumility, Mirza Gulam Ahmed and his Ahmeddiyyah cult is not recognised as an Islamic sect by the consensus of the Islamic Scholars.

To believe in another Messenger/Prophet after the Prophet Muhammed [saw] is kufr [disbelief which takes a person out of the folds of Islam] accroding to Islam, and as Gulam Mirza Claimed to be a Prophet and as his followers believe that he is a Prophet of God, that is why they are out of ther folds of Islam alltogether.

Saudi Arabia does not allow the Ahmediyyah to go and perform Hajj, as non-Muslims are not allowed to perform Hajj.

Below is a fatwa on the Ahmediyyahs:

This refers to the conference of the Muslim Organisations of the world League at Macca Mukaramma Saudi Arabia from 14th to 18


Peace

ps: so therefore, it is irrelevant what Gulam Mirza [or any Ahmediyyah teachings] say about the issue in question, or any Islamic issue for that matter, as the Ahmediyyahs teachings has nothing to do with Islam

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Abdullah

The Islamic principle of 'obeying the law of the land' will supercede any Islamic rights that are not in accordance with it...

what are the sources for this? what is this principle called in arabic?

and can everyone please shut up about ahmadiyyah - you can all takfir each other as much as you like, but it's getting in the way of my islamic education.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Abdullah]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

what are the sources for this? what is this principle called in arabic?

and can everyone please shut up about ahmadiyyah - you can all takfir each other as much as you like, but it's getting in the way of my islamic education.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Mufti Ibn Adam explains it beutifully :

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in, whether it is a Islamic state (al-khilafa), Muslim countries, or non-Muslim countries such as those in the west, as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah. If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.

Some Muslims are under the impression that it is permissible to violate the laws of countries that are not an Islamic state (al-Khilafa), which is totally incorrect. Muslims must adhere to the laws of any country they live in, whether in the west or the east, as long as the law is not in contradiction with one’s religion.

Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 2796 & Sunan Tirmidhi)

The above Hadith is general, in that it does not distinguish between Muslim and non-Muslim lands, although the understanding of the scholars is that it generally applies to Muslim lands.

Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries in the west), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar)

Those who are of the view that it is not necessary to obey the laws of the land unless it is ruled by a proper Islamic governance system, usually say that these laws are non-Islamic and man made, and one is only obliged to abide by the laws of Allah!

In reality, this is a very immature understanding of Islam, for even an Islamic Khilafa government would implement laws that are the creation of their own minds and Ijtihad. If an Islamic government sees the need to implement a certain law, then it has the full jurisdiction to do so, even if it is not found in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

All the scholars unanimously agree that, if an Islamic government decides to implement a law for the benefit of the country and its citizens, then there is nothing wrong in doing so, as long as it does not contradict Shariah, and this law will be binding upon every citizen of that country, even if it was not made obligatory by Shariah initially. Therefore, the laws which an Islamic Khilafa government will set down will also be “man made”, and binding upon all the citizens.

Then the case here is not between “Allah’s laws” and “man made laws” rather one must understand and deal with the issue more rationally and deeply.

When one lives in a particular country, one agrees verbally, in writing or effectively to adhere to the rules and regulations of that country. This, according to Shariah, is considered to be a covenant, agreement and trust. One is obliged to fulfil the trust regardless of whether it is contracted with a friend, enemy, Muslim, non-Muslim or a government. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) always stood by their word and did not breach any trust or agreement, as it is clear from the books of Sunnah and history. Thus, to break a promise or breach a trust of even a non-Muslim is absolutely unlawful and considered a sign of being a hypocrite (munafiq).

Allah Most High states:

“And fulfil (every) engagement (ahd), for (every) engagement will be enquired into (on the day of reckoning).” (Surah al-Isra, v. 34)

Similarly, Allah Most High states:

Allah does command you to render back your trusts to those to whom they are due, and when you judge between people that you judge with justice.” (Surah al-Nisa, v. 58)

And regarding the one who breaks an agreement and is guilty of treachery, Allah Almighty says:

“Allah loves not the treacherous.” (Surah al-Anfal, v. 58)

there is plenty more evidence in the full article, which can be read in the link below:

Darul Iftaa

Peace

[bananabrain]

thank you, abdullah - this is most instructive.

Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in...as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah.

which obviously means that *someone* has to have the authority to determine whether something is against shariah or not. i was under the impression (mistakenly or not) that this was determined at local level. or is it the case that some go by the rulings of particular authorities; al-azhar, for example? or is it both? i can see from this that whether something is "against shariah" or not could certainly be quite unclear without centralised authority.

If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.

does this mean they would be obliged to disobey/break the law, or that they would still have to keep it "under protest", so to speak?

Muslims must adhere to the laws of any country they live in, whether in the west or the east, as long as the law is not in contradiction with one’s religion.

well, yes, but how is this to be determined? let's take halal slaughter for example (as this is an example relevant to judaism as well) - if it is made illegal in a country (for reasons of, say, cruelty to animals, rather than religious repression) is one obliged to eat vegetarian, or slaughter in secret, or leave the country? (btw, this is an example, i don't know of a case where this has occurred)

When one lives in a particular country, one agrees verbally, in writing or effectively to adhere to the rules and regulations of that country.

i can see how this works for immigrants and a convert, of course, can implicitly signal this agreement by the act of converting, because accepting the religion also implies acceptance of this rule, but what about a case of a native-born muslim?

these sources are also extremely useful; thank you.

b'shalom

bananabrain