Originally posted by ollncasino
Originally posted by GLaDOS
reply to post by ollncasino
The Ottoman empire was by the Turks! Why do you say Muslims? It's like saying 'Christians invade Poland starting WW2' or 'Jews invade Lebanon'...
"I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that
Muhammad is Allah's Apostle."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, number 24
Investigation, investigation, investigation.................. "Sigh"
“I was ordered to fight people…”
One well-known hadith that is often misunderstood is as follows:
“I was ordered to fight people until they bear witness that there is no deity except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; establish
the ritual prayer; and pay almsgiving. So if they do that, their lives and wealth are safe from me, except for a right recognized in Islam. Their
accounting, however, will be with Allah.” [Bukhari, Muslim]
Unfortunately, this text is often grossly misinterpreted as calling for continuous “holy war” against all non-Muslims until and unless they become
Muslim. But examination of context and scholarly interpretation reveals that the hadith by no means refers to all people and is not calling for any
sort of war, holy or unholy. The key to understanding the hadith, then, is to understand who exactly is meant by the word “people” in the
statement, “I was ordered to fight people.”
This same hadith has various narrations as recorded by different hadith scholars. Imam Nasa’i’s narration reads: “I was ordered to fight the
polytheists” rather than the word “people,” and it is an established principle in hadith methodology that various narrations of the same hadith
serve to clarify its actual meaning. Hence, the narration of Imam Nasa’i indicates that the word “people” in the first narration does not refer
to all people, but rather a specific group of people, namely, certain polytheists. This understanding is confirmed by both the Qur’an and the Sunna,
as many incidents in the life of the Prophet [peace and blessings be upon him] clearly show that all of humanity was not intended in the hadith.
This understanding is also confirmed by our codified legal tradition, which is a reflection of the Qur’an and Sunna. Imam Abu Hanifa and his legal
school limited this hadith to only the polytheists among the Arabs. And Imam Malik and his legal school limited it to only the Quraysh tribe among
them. [Ibn Battal, Sharh al-Bukhari]
That is to say, according to both schools of law, all non-Arabs are excluded from the hadith - whether polytheists, atheists, Jews, Christians, or
otherwise. Among the Arabs, any group that does not worship idols are also excluded, whether Jews, Christians, Magians, or otherwise. Only Arab
polytheists - or perhaps just the tribe of Quraysh among them - were being addressed by the Messenger [peace and blessings be upon him]. Incidentally,
the Hanafi and Maliki schools historically and up to today have constituted the vast majority of the Muslim world.
Imam Kasani, the eminent 6th-century Hanafi jurist, explains that the reasoning of this position is based on the difference between Arab polytheists
and all other peoples, including People of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians, Arab or non-Arab] and non-Arab polytheists. With respect to peoples
other than Arab polytheists, it is hoped that by mutual coexistence between them and Muslims, they will be drawn to Islam after reflecting over the
beauty of the religion and its Sacred Law [shari'a]. [f: And that hope is sufficient; whether they become Muslim or not is irrelevant to the Hanafi
and Maliki perspective that they are not addressed by the hadith.]
The nature of Arab polytheists, however, was to reject anything that conflicted with their customs and traditions, deeming all else to be madness and
worthy of scornful ridicule. They were a people - as repeatedly mentioned in the Qur’an - that refused to reflect over anything but “the ways of
their forefathers.” Therefore, because the Messenger of Allah [peace and blessings be upon him] was from their same tribe and knew them intimately,
he gave them no option but acceptance of Islam or fighting [f: And this statement, of course, was after years of being oppressed by those Arab
[Kasani, Bada'i al-Sana'i]
The great early Hanafi jurist and legal theorist, Abu Bakr al-Jassas, confirms this understanding with respect to both the above hadith as well as the
related verse, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). In fact, he states that all the early Meccan verses of peace and forbearance with
respect to non-Muslims remain in effect and are not abrogated with respect to all peoples other than the Arab polytheists. And with respect to all the
later verses commanding Muslims to fight the polytheists, they abrogate the early verses of peace only with respect to the Arab polytheists.
This understanding is also confirmed by the early Hanafi scholar Abu Layth al-Samarqandi, who comments on the verse “There is no compulsion in
religion” (2:256), “That is, do not compel anyone whatsoever to this religion, after the Conquest of Mecca and after the Arabs become Muslim
[i.e., the Arab polytheists of that time].”