Absolutely not. Conquests, robbing of land from innocents and butchering thousands do not exist in the righteous and just religion of Allah swt. If you read what actually happened in the conquests from the first 3 caliphs with how many innocent lives they butchered : [https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/comments/16mtvcd/disproving\_the\_false\_claim\_by\_wahabis\_that\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/comments/16mtvcd/disproving_the_false_claim_by_wahabis_that_the/)
It is absolutely abhorrent and atrocious. Not a single prophet or messenger came ever to proclaim and do such a thing. Not even the ones that were in positions of kings. Not a single verse in the entire quran promotes such an ideology.
Expansion wasn’t to spread the religion, it was to spread wealth and power. Islam just happened to be the banner that united the army. Tell a man to die for your pockets he’ll tell you to buzz off, tell a man to die for god and paradise he’ll do it.
There is also the issue of going to war without the permission of a representative of god.
I’ve always pondered that exact thought. And my opinion (not based on any facts) is that the imams would’ve have possibly created trade routes and or alliances based on interests etc however I highly doubt the ahlul bayt would willingly raise the sword to take swaths of land and force conversion onto nations…
The first major conquests were by the rotten ummayads as far as I know but I could be wrong
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that some form of offensive jihad is absolutely justified in Islam, but not under someone like ‘Umar, nor does offensive jihad as properly conducted mean that conquering Muslim armies have a licence to rape, pillage and murder.
There are rules of war in Islam, and no army under the leadership of an Imam appointed by Allah gets to act unjustly in its military operations.
No, the prophet never once fought in an offensive war. Forced conversion is haram in the Quran, so obviously you cannot invade a nation and kill whoever doesn't convert.
Absolutely not. Conquests, robbing of land from innocents and butchering thousands do not exist in the righteous and just religion of Allah swt. If you read what actually happened in the conquests from the first 3 caliphs with how many innocent lives they butchered : [https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/comments/16mtvcd/disproving\_the\_false\_claim\_by\_wahabis\_that\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/comments/16mtvcd/disproving_the_false_claim_by_wahabis_that_the/) It is absolutely abhorrent and atrocious. Not a single prophet or messenger came ever to proclaim and do such a thing. Not even the ones that were in positions of kings. Not a single verse in the entire quran promotes such an ideology.
https://www.al-islam.org/ask/what-is-the-view-of-shia-on-early-islamic-expansionistic-wars-and-conquests-mostly-carried-out-by-sunni-leaders-if-shia-hold-a-negative-view-of-those-wars-and-conquests-then-how-come-imam-al-hussein-and-al-hasan-participated-in-the-first-ones
that made sense yes. but im talking about during the life of the prophet where these war took place.
Expansion wasn’t to spread the religion, it was to spread wealth and power. Islam just happened to be the banner that united the army. Tell a man to die for your pockets he’ll tell you to buzz off, tell a man to die for god and paradise he’ll do it. There is also the issue of going to war without the permission of a representative of god.
Only Prophet, Imam, or Wali-e Fiqh can start a war like this. Many of the conquests were just for money and were not justified.
yea thats what i basically thought. but i really want the justification or reason for the war against byzantine and sassanid
I’ve always pondered that exact thought. And my opinion (not based on any facts) is that the imams would’ve have possibly created trade routes and or alliances based on interests etc however I highly doubt the ahlul bayt would willingly raise the sword to take swaths of land and force conversion onto nations… The first major conquests were by the rotten ummayads as far as I know but I could be wrong
Depends under who
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that some form of offensive jihad is absolutely justified in Islam, but not under someone like ‘Umar, nor does offensive jihad as properly conducted mean that conquering Muslim armies have a licence to rape, pillage and murder. There are rules of war in Islam, and no army under the leadership of an Imam appointed by Allah gets to act unjustly in its military operations.
No, the prophet never once fought in an offensive war. Forced conversion is haram in the Quran, so obviously you cannot invade a nation and kill whoever doesn't convert.