With respect
1. What is the opinion of Allamah about the Muslims’ wars after the Prophet?
2. Is the Caliphs’ proceeds in war makings, which accidentally has led to extension of Islam, acceptable?
3. Does the law of murder, which is mentioned in Qur’an, mean attack, rape and exterminating?
The answer of your questions are as follow order:
1. The claim that Islam was introduced to the world by sword is not a valid claim; because Islam, first of all, was introduced to the world by the letters that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him), after treaty of Hudaybiyyah, wrote for the world’s kings, and by that means called them toward submission to God. After the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) also Muslims, by leaning on their sword’s power, did not prevail over Iran and Rome; since their sword’s power was not greater than the sword’s power of those superpowers, and naturally could not lead them to prevail over Kasra and Kaiser lonely. Therefore, it is fair that the most important factor of the influence, survival and extension of Islam in different countries is its attractive, exquisite and man-constructor teachings which still lead to its influence, survival and extension in different countries, as his honor Allamah Mansoor Hashemi Khorasani (may God protect him), in the issue of “The right way of confronting unbelievers” from the noble book “Return to Islam”[1] , mentioned to this important point and has said:
“Muslims’ dominance during the primary Islamic decades over the western and eastern emperors, was not due to their developed propaganda or even military means, but it was only the charisma in their message that was able to make the glitters of the world emperors lose favor among people and paved the way for their political and military developments, despite their limited facilities”.
With this description, it seems that the claim of Islam's influence, survival, and extension in different countries by leaning on the sword is an apparent exaggeration and unfairness that is derived solely from anti-Islamists inducements. Of course, there is no doubt that Muslims, after the Messenger of God (peace be upon him), had wars in different countries, but these wars were not typically with the people of those countries, but were with their unbeliever and oppressive rulers who have often dominated those regions through war and tried to oppress the peasantry, and with this description the Muslims’ wars must be regarded as the aim of liberating these regions from the occupation of unbelievers and oppressors; As for instance, from Rabi'i ibn Amer, the representative of Muslims in Qadisiyyah war for having conversation with Rostam Farrokhzad the commander of Iran’s army, is quoted that in response to his question about Muslims’ propensity for having war with them, said: “God has aroused us and God has brought us to take out whoever He wills from the slavery of men to the slavery of God and from the poverty of the world to its ample and from the oppression of religions to justice of Islam, and sent us with His religion until we call his people toward Him, then whoever accepts it, we accept from him and come back from him, and leave him with his land to govern it by himself”[2], and this is in accordance with the special worldview of Islam that knows earth for the God, and do not recognize ownership of men over it officially and says: ﴿إِنَّ الْأَرْضَ لِلَّهِ يُورِثُهَا مَنْ يَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ ۖ وَالْعَاقِبَةُ لِلْمُتَّقِينَ﴾[3]; “Indeed earth is for God, He bestows it to any one of His servants He wills and the future eventually belongs to the pious people”.
2. According to the basis of Allamah Mansoor Hashmi Khorasani (may God protect him) in the noble book “Return to Islam”[4], launching the war is permissible only with the permission of the God’s Caliph on earth, but it seems that such a permission, for Muslims’ wars with non-Muslims, after The Messenger of God (peace be upon him), has been existed implicitly at least during the time of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman; because there is no clear and proved opposition, narrated from the Ahl al-Bayt of The Messenger of God (peace be upon him) to these wars -even during the time of sovereignty of Ali and Hassan- but numerous supports and collaborations have been narrated in this regard, in which it can be mentioned among them to: Ali's with Omar consultation about the battle of al-Jisr, the conquest of Nahavand, the war with the Romans, the conquest of Jerusalem, the conquest of Khorasan and the conquest of Susa; regardless of that their possession of the trophies and slaves of these wars is certain and can imply to their belief in legitimacy of these wars, implicitly.
3. God's command to fight with the unbelievers and the oppressors is destroying the infidelity and oppression and saving the oppressed people of the world, not looting, raping, and exterminating, as He has said: ﴿وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلَّهِ ۖ فَإِنِ انْتَهَوْا فَلَا عُدْوَانَ إِلَّا عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ﴾[5]; “Fight them until faithlessness is no more, and religion becomes [exclusively] for Allah. Then if they relinquish, there shall be no reprisal except against the wrongdoers”; because God does not need looting, raping and exterminating, but He does not tolerate infidelity and oppression in the world, as He has said: ﴿إِنْ تَكْفُرُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَنِيٌّ عَنْكُمْ ۖ وَلَا يَرْضَى لِعِبَادِهِ الْكُفْرَ﴾[6]; “If you disbelieve, undoubtedly God does not need you, while He is not satisfied with blasphemy”, and He has said: ﴿وَمَا اللَّهُ يُرِيدُ ظُلْمًا لِلْعَالَمِينَ﴾[7]; “And God does not like any oppression for the people of the world!”.
It is strange that the unbelievers and the oppressors, always throughout their history, have fought against the world's oppressed people for the purpose of globalizing infidelity and oppression, and have refrained from no exterminating, raping or looting, but the Muslims’ wars with the aim of globalizing monotheism and justice and saving oppressed people of the world is considered as inadmissible and an example of looting, raping and exterminating! Undoubtedly, this is an evil conspiracy from them for dominating Taughut’s over the world, as God has said: ﴿الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۖ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ الطَّاغُوتِ فَقَاتِلُوا أَوْلِيَاءَ الشَّيْطَانِ ۖ إِنَّ كَيْدَ الشَّيْطَانِ كَانَ ضَعِيفًا﴾[8]; “Those who believed in, fight in the way of God and those who became infidels, fight in the way of Taughut, therefore fight against friends of Satan that Satan’s deception is weak”!
About the above critique and the site's response, I saw some serious problems and drawbacks that occupy my mind that I state in order. I apologize in advance for my harsh tone.
You said that Islam was first introduced to the heads of states around by the letters of the Messenger of God. This is clear and apparent, and nobody attributes this problem, meaning extension of Islam by the sword, to the Messenger of God, but such a fundamental problem refers to those who have leaned on his position after the Messenger of God.
You said that the victory of Muslims over Iran and Rome was not based on military power, but by virtue of the attractive teachings of Islam. Firstly, which Islam?! The Islam which lacks its most important principle, meaning the Welayat of the Caliph of God, and its leadership is exercised by unqualified individuals, and base on the Qur'an’s interpretation Taughut; those who have usurped the Caliphate long ago and had done what you know better.
Secondly, the comparison of Iran and Rome is completely wrong. Before the Constantine, the Romans had believed in the duodecimal gods, and after becoming Christianity as the Roman Empire’s religion officially, they believed in triad gods of Christianity. They had always worshiped gods, but in the east the people of Iran have believed in the unique God for thousands of years that surprises the historians, in a way that the Herodotus Greek historian quotes that the people of Iran, base on unknown reasons, were not interested in worshiping gods and idols, and always have worshiped the unique God.
Thirdly, the Muslims' insistence on the conquest of Iran after the Messenger of God seems surprising, while this insistence on Rome does not exist, whereas the Messenger of God has not sent any army to Iran during the time of his life, and the Iranians have not sent any army to Hejaz. At the same time, he has repeatedly sent armies to the Romans, so that his latest military program was to equip the Osama army which was prepared for Jihad with the Romans, and asserted all Medina’s sheikhs under the control of Osama, in which this movement of him contains specific historical messages for the posterity, but after his demise, Muslims’ foreign policy changed dramatically, and the arrowhead moved from the west and Rome to the east and Iran. You said about the conquering of Iran and Rome while Rome has never conquered; because the Muslim Caliph was not interested in its conquest.
Fourthly, you named the attractive teachings of Muslims as the reasons for the victory over Iran and Rome and the extension of Islam; because they were militarily weaker, while the victory of weak armies over the great empires is proceeded historically, such as conquering great part of Asia by Genghis Khan or conquering great part of Europe by Attila or conquering the Safavid capital by Mahmoud Afghan, who had no attractive teachings for the people of the world. What attractive teachings did Muslims have after the Messenger of God and the usurpation of the Caliphate?! Their history has been fulfilled with reasonless military campaigns and conquest of the lands, murder of men and captivity of women in the name of Allah. A review of Islamic history ranging from the triple Caliphates to Bani Umayyad to Bani Abbas to the Ottoman has been fulfilled with murder, oppression, rape, and captivity, in a way that today's ISISs cite the tradition of Caliphs for their work that has led to the hatred of the world, and provide evidence from the historical and Hadith books. The Arabs’ crimes after the conquest of Iran such as murder, rape, insulting, humiliating, burning scientific books, killing Iranian scientists and their ruthless treatment toward Iranian women and girls, in which the tongue shames to speak about it, had what attractive teaching for the people?
Certainly, the racist approaches as well as national and religious prejudices are from the greatest impediments of cognition and the causes of disagreement among Muslims, while Islam with its own emergence has terminated such ignorant glories, and has removed fabricated boundaries from among the human beings and declared faith as the basis of brotherhood and infidelity as the basis of hostility, but unfortunately it seems that some Muslims are still in ignorance and have not fully entered into the Islam.
With this introduction, we draw your attention to the following notes:
Firstly, contrary to your notion that “a few people attribute this problem, meaning the extension of Islam by leaning on the sword, to the Messenger of God”, many in the world attribute this problem to the Messenger of God (peace be upon him), and with an approach similar to your approach about the companions of His Excellency, consider the personality of His Excellency, because of works such as attacking the civilian convoys of Mecca, expulsion of Bani Qaynuqa and Bani Nazir from Medina and mass execution of Bani Qurayza, as militant and seeking extension of Islam by leaning on the sword, and to prove their claim, refer to the verses of Jihad In the Qur'an and their conflict with what they call human rights, while their claim is abrogated and biased and has been answered in detail on its own place.
Secondly, in your appendix, you have denied “the extension of Islam because of its attractive teachings” and have said: “Which Islam?! The Islam which lacks its most important principle, meaning the Welayat of the Caliph of God, and its leadership is exercised by unqualified individuals, and base on the Qur'an’s interpretation Taughut” while this speech is delusional and inaccurate to the ultimate extent; because although the Welayat of the Caliph of God on earth is one the principles of Islam, but there are other principles such as prayer, fasting, zakat and hajj after believing in monotheism, prophecy and resurrection, and with this description those who believe in these principles, even though they do not know the Caliph of God on earth, they are Muslims and consequently can help to extension of Islam around the world by presenting its attractive teachings; especially due to the fact that Islam is better than infidelity in any case, and cannot prefer infidelity rather than that even to the extent of Shahadah.
Thirdly, you claim that “the comparison of Iran and Rome is completely wrong”, because base on your notion the Iranians were monotheist and Romans were unbeliever, while this is a racist and unscientific speech; because in Shari'a, both the Iranians and the Romans were non-Muslims and were from the people of book, and with this respect, are considered as unbelievers and subjected to the rule of the «الكُفْرُ مِلَّةٌ واحِدَةٌ»; but the Iranians were Zoroastrian and Romans were Christian, and Christians are more from the book than Zoroastrians, and for this reason, the attitude of Islam and Muslims has always been better toward Christians than Zoroastrians. Moreover, the Roman king's treatment with the Prophet's invitation was much better than that of the Iranian king; since Heraclius the Roman king, after receiving it, respected the Prophet, and by summoning a group of Quraysh, investigated about His Excellency and ultimately has not denied him, but count him a prophet, but Khosrow Parviz the Iranian king tore down the invitation of His Excellency, and beside insulting His Excellency, said to his messenger, “If you were not the messenger, I would behead you”, to the extent that in some famous narrations, the Prophet cursed him and asked God for the decline of his kingdom! With this description, it seems that if the comparison of Iran and Rome is wrong, it is because Rome was superior over Iran, and this is contrary to your claim; as in the book of God also when the Romans victory over the Iranians was promised (Surah Roman, verse 4), apparently, the happiness of the Muslims about that is reported, and this is, based on some narrations and the famous opinion of commentators, due to the Romans superiority over the Iranians in the opinion of Muslims.
Fourthly, with your national and racist prejudice, you have claimed that “the Muslims' insistence on the conquest of Iran after the Messenger of God seems surprising”, while considering above explanations, it is not surprising, because the Iranians' attitude toward the Arabs Muslims was much more worse and humiliating than the Romans’ attitude, and their religion, according to Islam’s opinion -contrary to your claim-, was more wrong; as the Islam’s laws in chapters such as sanctification, marriage and slaughter were often stricter pertain to Magians than its laws pertain to Christians. Furthermore, It is Mutewatir and well-known that the Prophet of God (peace be upon him) has announced in many occasions the conquest of Iran and Rome by the Muslims and their domination over the treasures of Kasra and Kaiser, and it is interesting that in all these cases he has mentioned “Kasra” before “Kaiser”, as for instance, in battle of the Trench, when with his blessed hand heat the ground with a pickaxe and broke a large stone, said: «لَقَدْ فُتِحَ عَلَيَّ فِي ضَرْبَتِي هَذِهِ كُنُوزُ كَسْرَى وقَيْصَرَ»; “For me in this heat of mine the treasure of Kasra and Kaiser are conquered”! Therefore, there are many narrations showing that Muslims, in moving toward Iran before moving toward Rome, had expectation about this promise of Messenger of God (peace be upon him), and expected the victory over Iran before the victory over Rome.
But your strange claim that “Rome was never conquered because the Muslims’ Caliph had no interest in its conquest” is either due to your ignorance or to your extreme prejudice; since the Muslims during the time of Abu Bakr, simultaneous to conquering part of Sassanians’ territory, also fought against the Romans and conquered the Levant, to the extent that they occupied Palestine and surrounded Damascus, then conquered areas of eastern Rome during the time of Omar bin Khattab such as Damascus, Baalbek, Homs, and Yarmouk. To the extent that Heraclius the Roman king abandoned the Levant and fled to Constantinople, and the Muslims could gradually dominate across the Levant, and even proceed to the Taurus Mountains in Asia Minor. In addition, they, during the time of Omar, conquered Egypt which was under the control of Roman, and proceed, during the time of Uthman, even to the Strait of Dardanelles in the Marmara Sea and fought with the Byzantine armies. It is understood from here that your claim that “the lack of Muslims’ insistence on conquering Rome unlike Iran” and “the lack of Caliph's desire to conquering the Rome” is simply an illusion arising out of your national and religious prejudice.
Fifthly, In the rest of your appendix, you have denied the extension of Islam because of its attractive teachings, and by referring to Mongols’ domination over Iran, have claimed that the extension of Islam was based on the sword of the Muslims, while this is also a strange fallacy and an irrelevant comparison; because in the above question and answer, the speech is not about Muslim domination over Iran, but about the extension of Islam in Iran, which was certainly due to its attractive teachings, not the sword of the Muslims; considering that in the attack of wild and infidel Mongols to Iran, the Iranians have never accepted their religion, but after a while they turned them into their religion, but in the attack of Muslims to Iran, Iranians accepted their religion quickly and after a while became sincere Muslims and provided many scientific services to Islam. It is understood from here that the Iranians never became Muslim because of the sword of the Arabs, but became Muslim because of the attraction of Islam; because if this heavenly religion were not attractive to them, they would have never been submitted to that, just as they have not been submitted to the Mongols’ religion. With this description, it seems that you are trying to respect your people, but you are unknowingly giving them the biggest insult; because you claim that the Iranians converted to Islam, not for the rightfulness of Islam, but for the Arabs’ sword, whereas we consider this claim false and believe that the Iranians have accepted Islam because of its rightfulness; especially considering that contrary to your illusion, Muslims have not forced them to accept Islam, but they left them free to accept that or accept Jizah. At least, during the time of Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and Ali, the laws of Islam about war, peace, Jizah, Amman, captives and trophies were regarded briefly, and it was only during the time of Bani Umayyad and Bani Abbas that they probably did “crimes such as murder, rape, insulting, humiliating, burning scientific books, killing Iranian scientists and their ruthless treatment toward Iranian women and girls, in which the tongue shames to speak about it”, and therefore, there must be distinguished between the conquests of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), which was sometimes accompanied by consultations with Ali ibn Abi Talib and the presence of individuals such as Salman Farsi, Hozayfat ibn Aliman, Muqdad ibn Sa'ud, Hashim ibn Atabat, Ammar ibn Yasser, Hijjr ibn Adi, and Bara ibn Azib, and the Umayyad and Abbasid conquests.
Furthermore, it is surprising that you consider wrong the comparison between Zoroastrian Iranians and Christian Romans, but you do not consider wrong the comparison between Muslims and irreligious savages similar to Attila and Mughal Genghis khan!! We seek God's help against these racist attitudes and national and religious prejudices, which are one of the greatest impediments of cognition and the causes of disagreement among Muslims.
We advise you Muslim brother that with complete obligation to the cognition standard, and complete avoidance to its impediment, make your mind free from these illusions and passions, and do not be influenced of the propaganda and inductions of anti-Islamist and divisive bodies, and consider Islam as the only basis and standard for your beliefs and actions.
We ask God for your mercy.
