hola,i have a question, hopefully it is appropriate and i am not offending anyone (ojala). so if i may ask why do some muslims believe that the moorish invasion of spain was a noble thing, that muslims are supposed to do and other muslims say it is a bad thing that muslims may not do...
my larger question which i am asking is about violence and islam, one muslim has told me there is no place for aggression in islam. but then a muslim i asked elsewhere said that it is okay and said spain was an example the violence that is part of islam...
To answer your question [removed], whenever islaam is about to enter any land - the leaders give the rulers of that nation 3 options:1) Become muslim.
2) Pay Jizya and you will be under the protection of the muslims.
3) If you don't want to accept the above, then fight.
That might seem violent, but lets look at it this way - all the nations of the world would force the people to follow the religion of their ruler.
Therefore if the ruler was christian, the people were forced to follow that religion [like we can see in the story already.] Anyone who was in Iraq/Iran would have to follow Zoroastrianism. Anyone who was in India would have to follow hinduism etc. This happened for many centuries in the world, it was also at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him), and continued for many centuries even after that.
There was a man in Al-Shaam [Greater Syria] who became muslim within the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him), but because he lived in Greater Syria, where the Byzantinian Romans had power, they had him executed because he wasn't following the religion of the ruler (Heraclius.)
When islaam came, it abolished this ideology and because the people were living under oppression anyway, by these rulers who were taking advantage of the people - the people had one of the 3 choices mentioned above.
They could either accept islaam and become brothers and sisters in faith, the muslims would allow them to keep their land and wealth etc.
They could pay jizya [a small tax] which would be used to protect the state and help the needy etc. (the same way the muslims pay zakaah tax aswell.) Which in return would allow the people to keep their land, wealth, their honor and blood would be protected, and if anyone waged war against them - the muslims would fight on their behalf.
Or if the rulers never accepted any of these options, they would fight to lift the other people off oppression. The innocent people who might have wanted to follow another religion, but were too scared to because they were under the threat of being killed by their non muslim ruler. When these evil rulers were killed, the muslims would have authority in the land and allow the people to follow their faith freely, even have their own courts [with the laws according to their scripture.] All for a small tax, which they would be protected under anyway. And this wasn't injustice because muslims payed the (zakaah) tax anyway.
We follow the Qur'an and Sunnah [Prophetic way] according to the understanding of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah, we don't follow the way of the Ummayad Dynasty, because yes they aren't perfect and can do injustice, we don't agree that all that they did was right. But nowhere does it say in islaam that we follow the way of these people, rather we follow the way of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who would give the 3 options, if they never accepted within 3 days, they would be fought for the freedom of the innocent people.
Islaam is just, and Allaah loves those who are just. The Ummayads may have treated the people there unjustly, but don't you see now why Allaah removed this from their grasp? It's because they turned away from this justice. When Jesus (peace be upon him) returns back to the earth to slay the anti-christ, he will bring justice back to the lands, and this is why Allaah will allow the blessings of the earth to come out.
Just to add in, islaam didn't simply spread by the sword. If you look in the world right now, the countries with the biggest muslim population are Indonesia, Malaysia etc., yet no muslims went to fight there.
And Allaah Almighty knows best.
que Dios te bendiga
Alot of that is correct, but there are some errors. Looking through it, I would say the choices are not only for the leaders, but for the common population.
In Muslim lands the common people have the following choices:
1) Become Muslim. Muslims pay Zakaah, a 'tax' on wealth. Roughly 2.5% of your annual savings (not earnings).
2) Remain Non-muslim, and in this case Zakaah does not apply to you. Instead, you pay Jizya and you will be under the protection of the muslim state.
3) If you don't accept either of the above, you do not accept the state. You are an enemy of the state and it will take action against you. I have no idea what, but exile, imprisonment etc would probably be used.
War is only waged against states and armies, not general population.
If there is a war, and you are losing, you will not dictate the terms of surrender. The victor will. Pretty obvious really.
Muslims have clearly defined rules of engagement. Muslims shall not destroy plants, attack women, children, bystanders or workers.
If you have the upper hand, you fight til the enemy either gives up, accepts Islam or dies. Pretty obvious really considering you will lose if you stop fighting before the enemy gives up or dies. But they ahve a third possibility aswell as mentioned which is accept islam.
Can people add to this topic to give any needed details/corrections as I have done this all off the top of my head.
About the moorish conquest itself, it was not an invasion as has been described in alot of western history.
Alot (but not all) of it was by invite. Muslims at that time weer seen as civilised. Others wanted to interact with them, accept their ways. (not all, but some.)
There is no other way to explain the massive expansion into spain which conquered so rapidly.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
hola Admin,
muchos gracias for your comprehensive answer. if i may ask, i inferred from the original answer that muslims would invade a country to give people those three choices... but i do not necessarily think that your answer presumed this, what are the conditions to allow a muslim to invade another country?
muchas gracias
Dios te bendiga
“Singing is like praying twice.”
Dominus vobiscum to Catholics
may God guide you non Catholics
Before answeriong the question I will be honest and say I do not completely know. I will also say that very few invasions are based on altruistic or religious reasons. Where there are people there is greed.
Also I would argue that there is no state in the world that matched the description of an 'Islamic State'. There are Muslim states, but no true Islamic states, so none of this applies to the current real world.
From what I know it is only acceptable to go to war if the other side is the "aggressor", but others may dispute that.
By "Aggressor" I mean it has physically attacked, confiscated property of or harmed:
1. People of the Islamic state, or
2. people under it's protection, or
3. People or states that are allie to the Islamic state.
I do not think that a war of conquest is allowed, but a while back someone did dispute me on this. I have not looked into it so i cannot give a guarantee here, even if i stikll hold the view that it is not allowed.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable can add to this?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
lol, Muslims don't actually believe this right? That's like how the Nordic folks tell Ukrainians they invited the Rus into eastern europe.
A defector named count Julian provided safe harbor and boats to the already invading Moors, because of some personal dispute with Roderic. He ended up being killed I think...
The Moors secured Spain like every other conqueror does, apartheid laws and overwhelming troops strength. You can see how much the Spaniards appreciated Muslim rule when during the Reconquista they flipped out on moors and moriscos with pogroms, forced relocation and general meanness.
I have absolutely no idea why people consider these time periods gallant. Everybody behaved like animals, it was practically an international custom.
Except for the Japanese.
@ OP,
There is actually a quote from the Qur'an I don't think Admin mentioned that says God does not like aggressors, most Muslims interpret this to mean "don't be an aggressor" so I think it naturally follows in Islam you cannot have wars of aggression.
Does it still happen? Sure. So do other nasty things, no biggie. Best to concentrate on the present.
I agree with that symbol's last post. (people do things even when they are not 'supposed' to.)
When they flipped out (700 years later), it was more of a civil war, and the Muslims lost.
Until very recently I did not know about anythign about this era. All I knew was Muslims conquered spain then seven hundred yeards later they lost it. I did not know any more.
I still do not know much, but I watched a series on the BBC (Muslim influence or something ni europe... it was called something like that or totally diferent...) and it is on that I am basing my theories.
It also found that alot of scholarly research on the Spanish stuff was tainted. Or "Patriotic".
One fo the main people who is now a spanish hero and repelled "the Muslims" was actuallyof north african (somewhere I think nearalgeria I think) descent. He had actually migrated.
All very interesting, but not of any real concern to me. All that were involved are long dead. no one is making a claim on the place that is not spanish.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
[url=http://spainforvisitors.com/archive/features/moorishinvasion.htm]This[/url] link does not seem to be too favourable to either side, so probably contains fragments of truth.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
hola Admin,
muchas gracias, this is what i was interested to know... it is my observation that the individual i talked to is prone to aggressiveness...
Dios te bendiga
“Singing is like praying twice.”
Dominus vobiscum to Catholics
may God guide you non Catholics