Post by easternqibla on Jan 21, 2013 10:51:33 GMT -5
Hi, I came to this forum from www.quranists.org/ , where I found this interesting quotation:
"Nor did he [Muhammad] create an empire where he was ruler of the believers 88:22."
In my research into Islam, I came across the existence of the Ibadi Muslims, who were numerous in North Africa but were overpowered by the Ismaili Shiite Fatimids (I'm not being polemical, Christians have fought each other to convert each other too: it goes with a 'religious nutter mentality' who also is in charge of an army …(!)). They have their own country Oman where they are the majority.
The thing is this: the Sunni acknowledge all 4 first caliphs as 'rightly guided', the Shia only the 4th Ali, but the Ibadi only the first two (accepting Ali at first, but then rejecting him). So between them there is actually not one 'rightly guided' caliph.
I have been seriously questioning whether the Arab/Islamic expansion was what Muhammad wanted. What are peoples' views on this, given that Muhammad himself did not create/want (?) an empire?
i agree. I do no think that our beloved prophet Muhammad (saas) intended for the Muslims to go out and conquer the world with no need for self defense.
There were many early Islamic groups who were extinguished by other Muslims. The victor of those battles is Ahlul-hadeeth. The Shia also are highly influenced by the Ahlul-hadeeth but they placed authority obviously with the Ahlul-bait and are critical of the companions and the caliphs.
But then there were also Ahlu-r-ray, Murjites, Ahlul-Kalam and the various Mu'tazilah groups who were known as Ahlu-t-tawheed wal-'adl. There were also the Khawaarij who were hated for their harsh stance against non-practicing Muslims but I'm not exactly sure that all of them were as hostile as history portrays them.
From my study of the Quran the organization that was to be established by the Quran was to be voluntary and self-regulating with members free to leave (but of course be shunned for doing so). It was also supposed to be an organization wielding physical power for self defense and to eradicate oppression when asked to do so but there is nothing in the Quran that convinces me that what became the Caliphate was what the Quran promoted. If you look at the Arab Muslim influence in East Africa and the Islands of Asia you will find a much less hostile expansion. The same goes for the original Muslim converts thoughout non-Roman Africa, i.e. Nubia and the Sahel. Once islam was established among the ethnicities of the original converts, the further expansion of islam into Africa was however very different.
What happened in my opinion is that the pre-islamic elites used the momentum of the unifying power of Islam as a banner of the religion for the Arabs to compete with the Greco-Romans and the Persians for whom the Arabs had nothing but extreme disdain and dislike for having been on the edges of their empires. As a matter of fact two main Arab groups the Banu Ghassan (Ghassanids) and the Banu Lakh (Lakhmids) were already acting as powerful viceroys for the Greco-Romans (the Byzantines in the Levant) and the Persians in Iraq, Kuwait and Iran
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2013 16:23:08 GMT -5 by Ibrahimi