The incredibly bloody Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam

[SubWater]

It's funny that Turks say Iran is ruled by Turks, arabs say Iran is ruled by arabs, Kurds say Iran is ruled be Kurds etc etc. these mono-ethnic people don't understand what Iran is. Let them dream.

Yes, Actually Iran is all of them

 

[-SINAN-]

bloody turks !

 

[Sina-1]

Yes, Actually Iran is all of them

Exactly My point as well

 

[veg]

He Was Banned Because He Gave Fatwas Without Authorization Not Politics.Stop Misleading People

1) Please read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Al-Munajjid#Controversial_statements
IslamQA.info was banned in Saudi Arabia due to the fact that it was issuing independent fatwas.​

2) Then I told you that Islam q&a has the largest following among the Muslims, but you neglected it completely. It is sad.

3) Then I pointed out that he mentioned several Quranic Verses and Ahadith, but again you neglected it.

4) Fatwa of Bin Baz:
Please see that Bin Baz is also saying the same thing:
http://www.binbaz.org.sa/fatawa/275
والأرجح أنه لا يلحق بهم غيرهم ، بل هؤلاء الطوائف الثلاث هم الذين يخيرون ؛ لأن الرسول قاتل الكفار في الجزيرة ولم يقبل منهم إلا الإسلام،
Translation:
... and (Mushrikeen) are not included among them (i.e. Ahl-e-Kitab). Jizya will only be taken by Ahl-e-Kitab, while Prophet killed the Kufaar in Arabia and accepted nothing from them except Islam.

No It Is Not The Fact That You Have Used The Same Tactic Used By Enemies of Islam Says A Lot About You.You are giving the classical 9: 5 islamophobe argument, which is a clear example of all the arguments the produce, and also a clear example of cherry picking and taking things out of context,

It is not fair. I provided you the opinions and tafsir of the Salafs.
In fact these are the modern Mufassirin who are twisting the facts and deceiving the people by hiding the history and traditions.

here are just a few points to refute your ridiculous argument:
1. Verses 4 says to uphold your treaties with the non believers
2. verse 6 says to give shelter to non combatant polytheists (AND GIVE THEM PROTECTION, EVEN IF THEY STILL DISBELIEVE)
3. verses 7-10 & 13 clearly show that this is against treaty breakers and people who attack you first

1) Tafsir Ibn Kathir (link):

Existing Peace Treaties remained valid until the End of Their Term

This is an exception regulating the longest extent of time for those who have a general treaty - with out time mentioned - to four months.

They would have four months to travel the lands in search of sanctuary for themselves wherever they wish. Those whose treaty mentioned a specific limited time, then the longest it would extend was to the point of its agreed upon termination date. Hadiths in this regard preceded. So anyone who had a treaty with Allah’s Messenger it lasted until its specific termination date ...

2) I already told you Verse 6 was not about the idolaters were living in Darul Islam, but it was about those Kuffar who came from Darul Harab and sought asylum in Darul Islam. Please see tafsir al Qurtabi for the details.

3) verses 7-10 & 13 are not abrogating the Orders of 9:5 which was very clear that after 4 months all the Musrikeen has to accept Islam or to be killed. After those 4 months there was no more the condition of any Fighting Kafir.

So You Have Declared An Ijma On The Basis Of One Hadith Without Giving Reference w.r.t Sihah Sitah And Giving Isnad And I Won't Be Surprised Considering That You Have Already Been Quoting Verses In Isolation Without Context How Your Quotation Is Going To Turn Out.

Brother, it seems you don't know Ibn Hajjar al-Asqallani, and that is why you are saying this thing.
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani is like Imam Bukhari among the Khalaf. If he says that the tradition is authentic, then it is not for you to deny him.
Despite, this historical fact (killing Majoos or taking Jizya) has been recorded every where and no one has disputed it.
For example, look at this tradition:

Sunnan Abu Dawud (authenticated by Saudi Mufti Albani), link:
ن بُجَالَةَ قال : كنتُ كاتبا لجُزْءِ بن معاويةَ عمّ الأحنفِ بن قيسٍ إذ جاءنا كتابُ عمرَ قبل موتهِ بسنةٍ اقتلوا كل ساحِرٍ وفرقُوا بين كلِّ ذي محرمٍ من المجوسِ وانهوهُم عن الزمزمةِ فقتلنا في يومٍ ثلاثةَ سواحرِ وفرّقنا بين كلِّ رجل من المجوسِ وحريمهُ في كتابِ اللهِ وصنعَ طعاما كثيرا فدعاهُم فعرضَ السيفَ على فخذهِ فأكلوا ولم يزمزمُوا وألقَوا وقرَ بغلٍ أو بغلينِ من الورقٍ ولم يكن عمرُ أخذَ الجزيةَ من المجوسِ حتى شهد عبد الرحمن بن عوفٍ أن رسولَ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أخذها من مجوسِ هجرَ​

This tradition telling the same thing that Umar was intented to kill all the Majoos, but then companion Abdul Rehman bin Auf told him that Majoos are also among Ahle Kitab and Prophet himself took Jizya from them.

And The Hadith You Quote Does Not Show Ijma It Clearly Showed Difference Of Opinion

Please understand that there was Ijma about killing of Polytheists. But the difference of opinion was about this if Majoos were Polytheists or Ahle Kitab.
When Umar was intended to kill Majoos for being kuffar, then none of the Sahabi contradicted him. But they asked for accepting Jizya from them for they were not Kuffar but among Ahle Kitab.

It Is The Height Of Comedy That You Talk About Salaf Differentiate Between Ancient Commentators and Modern Ones,Yet You're Quoting Modern Day Scholars Like Mufti Al-Munjid' and Ghamidi.

Please understand the the difference.

I quoted Islam q&a while he went into the details and gave the Quranic Verses and Ahadith on this subject.

Then I quoted Ghamidi, while he gave the references to the SALAF Ulama like Shafi, Ahmed Bin Hanbal, Ibn Hazm etc.

Here read Tafsir al-Qurtabi where he is giving the same Opinions of Salaf Ulama (link):

قال الشافعيّ رحمه الله: لا تقبل الجزية إلا من أهل الكتاب خاصّةً، عرباً كانوا أو عجماً لهذه الآية؛ فإنهم هم الذين خُصّوا بالذكر فتوجّه الحكم إليهم دون من سواهم؛ لقوله عز وجل:
{ فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ }
[التوبة: 5]. ولم يقل: حتى يعطوا الجزية كما قال في أهل الكتاب. وقال: وتقبل من المَجُوس بالسُّنّة؛ وبه قال أحمد وأبو ثَوْر. وهو مذهب الثَّوريّ وأبي حنيفة وأصحابه.
Translation:
Imam Shafi'i said that Jizyaa will not be taken except from Ahle Kitab, irrelative of that Ahle Kitab being Arabi or Ajmi. And proof of this is the Verse 9:29, while these are the people (i.e. Ahle Kitab) who have been mentioned separately about Jizyaa. Therefore, this Jizyaa is only related to Ahle Kitab, while Kuffar had to be killed as has been ordered in Verse 9:05 (Kill the Polytheiest wherever you find them...) and didn't mention further in verse 9:05 حتی یعطو الجزیۃ (till they give Jizyaa) like it has been mentioned for Ahle Kitab. Moreover Shafi'i said that Jizyaa will be accepted from the Majoos and this is proven from the Sunnah. And this is the opinion of Thawri and Abu Hanifa and his companions.​

 

[-SINAN-]

Exactly My point as well

We are a nation based country, you are a religion based country.

Concept might be hard to grasp for the Turks who don't know much about Iran.

 

[Zhukov]

You are a Muslim because you are born in a Muslim family. If you were born in a Jewish family you would be a Jew. Ditto with Christian and Hinduism

Bro first read what the discussion is about.
If you are a Hindu or a Jew or a Christian by birth Your great grandparents converted by their own free will. Not by Jewish Invaders or Roman invaders or Hindu invaders.
You cannot mass convert a population to a set of belief. At best you can Make them your subjects and follow your rule by force but not their faith in their heart.

 

[Rustam]

Hey You make no logic. Your Grand parents converted from own free will in a MUSLIM DOMINATED REGION or Country for who knows what reasons maybe out of sheer good will and like ness of Islam, or many other things.

Now, If tomorrow may that never be, but if suppose tomorrow your decendants are converted by force to western secularism, and so on and so on a few generation later they will say hey my grand parents converted so I do this.

So what? We dont need islam to tell us good from bad.

Islam HAS been imposed in our region, we dont need the abrahamic arabs religions, its been chaos. and now that religion is promoting women western feminist ideals! just like catholics and jews!

because you indian continental folks are too BETA males and not masculine enough to see we people have our own identity, and we had enough. We should not do crazy arabian type islam nor should we accept any western ways, the modern western world has nothing to do with greek roman civilizations anyway, the modern western civilization is a gynocentric female enabling favoring one and those of you who have not lived, breathed, known ate, slept in and with them and their society you will not know. Now problem is you people hold islam as some holy high regard, we dont.

You can not force people to convert, HA, Go look at history, Islamic conquests, and then how they got their *** handed, Islam since has been used a political tool thanks the persians, turks and other for using the term islam and keeping its name.

now bro, dont push your islam on us, and the turkish poster, stop going around claiming the whole world is yours and turkic, even turkish people are a not turkic but mongols mixed and bred by iranian turks, real turks have nothing to do with turkey. persian, turk, loor, baloch, kurd, azari all are iranic people. and what we need is 1 to do what safavids did, and this time, we do the parthian way, we go capture anatolia and we demolish the arabs, who are they to force their desert religion.

Your Grandfather

Bro first read what the discussion is about.
If you are a Hindu or a Jew or a Christian by birth Your great grandparents converted by their own free will. Not by Jewish Invaders or Roman invaders or Hindu invaders.
You cannot mass convert a population to a set of belief. At best you can Make them your subjects and follow your rule by force but not their faith in their heart.

 

[veg]

Ok You Want Salaf Muffassirin I Give You Salaf Muffassirin
Tafsir al-Qurtubi:

Tafsir al-Qurtabi is in front of me. I ask you to read complete Tafsir al-Qurtabi in order to understand completely what he is saying:

“Then this ayat was revealed, meaning that it is lawful for you to fight if the unbelievers fight you. So the ayat is connected to the prior mention of hajj and entering houses by the back door. After this the Prophet fought those who fought him and refrained from those who refrained from fighting him until the ayat in Surat at-Tawba (9:5) was revealed, ‘Fight the idolaters,’… Ibn Abbas, Umar Ibn Abd’l – Aziz and Mujahid said that it is an ayat whose judgement REMAINS OPERATIVEand means: ‘FIGHT THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU and do not transgress by killing women, Children, monks and the like,’ as will be explained. An-Nahhas said that THIS IS THE SOUNDER POSITION IN TERMS OF BOTH THE SUNNA AND IN TERMS OF LOGIC. As for the Sunna, there is a Hadith reported by Ibn Ibn Umar that, during one of his expeditions the Messenger of Allah, saw a woman who had been killed and he ABHORRED THAT and FORBADE the killing of women and children. As for logic, it applies to children and those like them, like Monks, the chronically ill, old men and hirelings who clearly should not be killed. When Abu Bakr sent Yazid Ibn Abi Sufwan to Syria, he commanded that he should not do harm to certain groups. Malik and others transmitted this. …”​

So, Qurtabi is saying:

1) Initially prophet fought only those Kuffar who fought with him

2) But this happened only till the time of revelation of verse 9:05

3) Qurtabi in his Arabic Tafsir of Verse 9:05 very clear that ALL the Mushrikeen will be killed, except for the execptions that have been mentioned before Surah Tauba i.e. women, priests and children of kuffar are not to be killed, and also Ahle Kitab will not be killed while Allah told about them { حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُواْ ٱلْجِزْيَةَ i.e. till they give Jizyaa, which is not allowed for Mushrikeen while they are not among Ahle kitab ...

This is what Qurtabi actually wrote (link):

الثانية ـ قوله تعالى: { فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ } عامٌّ في كل مشرك، لكن السُّنّة خصّت منه ما تقدم بيانه في سورة «البقرة» من ٱمرأة وراهب وصبيّ وغيرهم. وقال الله تعالى في أهل الكتاب:
{ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُواْ ٱلْجِزْيَةَ }
[التوبة: 29]. إلا أنه يجوز أن يكون لفظ المشركين لا يتناول أهل الكتاب،

So the thing which has not been abrogated (and which Ibn Abbas is talking about) is killing of women and children.

You Don't Seem To Have Any Shame In Spreading Lies

It Only Takes Google Translate To Find Out What Allama Ibn Kathir Had Actually Written.In This Entire Paragraph He Doesn't Mention Any Abrogation Claim Nor Is Their Mentioning Of Killing polytheists

As For Abrogation

Similarly
Imam Zarkashi in his masterful work on Qur’anic sciences, “Al-Burhan fi Ulum al-Qur’an.” He explains that many commentators of the Qur’an were incorrect in their understanding that the Verse of the Sword abrogated the various verses of patience and forbearance. This is because “abrogation” entails a complete termination of a legal ruling, never again to be implemented. This is definitely not the case with these verses. Rather, each verse entails a particular ruling conjoined to a particular context and situation. As circumstances change, different verses are to applied instead of others. No ruling is permanently terminated though, which is what is entailed by true abrogation.

He concludes his discussion by saying, “The verse of the sword by no means abrogated the verses of peace – rather, each is to be implemented in its appropriate situation.”

[Al-Burhan fi Ulum al-Qur’an]


Imam Suyuti specifically discusses this verse in relation to other verses of peace, patience, and forgiving. He explains that, contrary to what some Imams believed, this is not a case of abrogation but rather of context. In certain situations, the verses of patience and forgiving apply, while in other situations the verse of the sword applies. No verse was completely abolished by another, but rather each has a specific context and applicability.

[Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur’an]

the Verse of the Sword deals specifically with the situation of Meccan polytheists breaking peace treaties and openly declaring war on the Muslim polity. The verse, then, commands the Muslim state to take up arms and defend itself against those that breached their covenants and attacked out of treachery.

This explanation is confirmed by the most reliable Imams of Qur’anic exegesis [tafsir], including Imam Razi, Imam Jamal, Imam Zamakhshari, Imam Baydawi, Imam Nasafi, Imam Biqa`i, and others.

[Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb; Jamal, Hashiyat al-Jalalayn; Zamakhshari, Kashshaf; Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil; Nasafi, Madarik al-Tanzil; Biqa`i, Nadhm al-Durar]

The verse, therefore, can by no means be generalized to refer to all disbelievers. Such an interpretation is not confirmed by scholars of Qur’anic interpretation

Brother, I gave you the Ijma of Sahaba about the killing of Majoos. You see after this Ijma there is no space left for Khalaf mufassirin like Suyuti.

I also gave you the opinions of Salaf Aima who were unanimous that Prophet indeed killed all the Arab Mushrikeen except if they accepted Islam. A little dispute among them was if it was limited to the times of Prophet or also for the later times.

And Ijma of Sahaba is very clear that it was not only limited to the times of Prophet, but later Caliph Umar also wanted to kill Majoos for he thought that they were also Kuffar.

 

[SubWater]

We are a nation based country, you are a religion based country.

Concept might be hard to grasp for the Turks who don't know much about Iran.

Dude you should read Shahname, specially Turan part of shahname.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan
also if you have time read this
http://www.zoroastrian.org/articles/Iran_Turan_in_Avesta.htm

for example base on Avesta :

Fareidun thought to divide his kingdom in his lifetime. He gave Anatolia (Asia Minor) and the west to Salm, China and Turkestan (Central Asia) to Tur, and Iran, the best part of the kingdom, to Iraj.​

in shahnameh Iranian are in war with Turanian but they have same cultures many Iranians have Turanian wife and in many cases like Siavash story shah Iran is bad guy however Turanian are invader.

Actually, Ferdowsi explain how Iran and Turan shaped from same entity but they become enemy.
until now nowruz is alive among most of the Turks.

you don't know about Iran my friend.

 

[-SINAN-]

Dude you should read Shahname, specially Turan part of shahname.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan
also if you have time read this
http://www.zoroastrian.org/articles/Iran_Turan_in_Avesta.htm

for example base on Avesta :

Fareidun thought to divide his kingdom in his lifetime. He gave Anatolia (Asia Minor) and the west to Salm, China and Turkestan (Central Asia) to Tur, and Iran, the best part of the kingdom, to Iraj.​

in shahnameh Iranian are in war with Turanian but they have same cultures many Iranians have Turanian wife and in many cases like Siavash story shah Iran is bad guy however Turanian are invader.

Actually, Ferdowsi explain how Iran and Turan shaped from same entity but they become enemy.
until now nowruz is alive among most of the Turks.

you don't know about Iran my friend.

Bro, how this is related with what i have said ?

 

[SubWater]

Bro, how this is related with what i have said ?

we are not religion or ethnic based country actually we are more than that.
also, you said Turks don't know about Iran, so I introduce two link from very old Iranian mythology which related to Turks as well.
maybe they interest to read and know more about Iran.

Take it easy dude

 

[-SINAN-]

we are not religion or ethnic based country actually we are more than that.
also, you said Turks don't know about Iran, so I introduce two link from very old Iranian mythology which related to Turks as well.
maybe they interest to read and know more about Iran.

Take it easy dude

I'm easy.

On a second thought when you consider shah era...you were still Iran back then and not a religion based country. So, it would be unfair to say Iran is a religion based country as it was still a mosaic with different ethnicity back then.

Bro, i'm sorry. I don't have time to read lengthy articles. If i find time, i will read it though.

 

[SubWater]

I'm easy.

On a second thought when you consider shah era...you were still Iran back then and not a religion based country. So, it would be unfair to say Iran is a religion based country as it was still a mosaic with different ethnicity back then.

Bro, i'm sorry. I don't have time to read lengthy articles. If i find time, i will read it though.

Thanks dude
I really like to see Turks, Arabs, Iranian and other groups in region shape strong block of power we have many things to share and learn from each other.

Good luck

 

[-SINAN-]

Thanks dude
I really like to see Turks, Arabs, Iranian and other groups in region shape strong block of power we have many things to share and learn from each other.

Good luck

Well, i have hope from Iran but with both regime in Iran and Turkey making hard to cooperate between themselves. I wanna remind that Iran - Turkey border is one of the oldest borders in the world. We didn't have a conflict for centuries.

However, i'm not very hopeful regarding Arab world.

But we can hope.

 

[Samlee]

Tafsir al-Qurtabi is in front of me. I ask you to read complete Tafsir al-Qurtabi in order to understand completely what he is saying:

“Then this ayat was revealed, meaning that it is lawful for you to fight if the unbelievers fight you. So the ayat is connected to the prior mention of hajj and entering houses by the back door. After this the Prophet fought those who fought him and refrained from those who refrained from fighting him until the ayat in Surat at-Tawba (9:5) was revealed, ‘Fight the idolaters,’… Ibn Abbas, Umar Ibn Abd’l – Aziz and Mujahid said that it is an ayat whose judgement REMAINS OPERATIVEand means: ‘FIGHT THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU and do not transgress by killing women, Children, monks and the like,’ as will be explained. An-Nahhas said that THIS IS THE SOUNDER POSITION IN TERMS OF BOTH THE SUNNA AND IN TERMS OF LOGIC. As for the Sunna, there is a Hadith reported by Ibn Ibn Umar that, during one of his expeditions the Messenger of Allah, saw a woman who had been killed and he ABHORRED THAT and FORBADE the killing of women and children. As for logic, it applies to children and those like them, like Monks, the chronically ill, old men and hirelings who clearly should not be killed. When Abu Bakr sent Yazid Ibn Abi Sufwan to Syria, he commanded that he should not do harm to certain groups. Malik and others transmitted this. …”​

So, Qurtabi is saying:

1) Initially prophet fought only those Kuffar who fought with him

2) But this happened only till the time of revelation of verse 9:05

3) Qurtabi in his Arabic Tafsir of Verse 9:05 very clear that ALL the Mushrikeen will be killed, except for the execptions that have been mentioned before Surah Tauba i.e. women, priests and children of kuffar are not to be killed, and also Ahle Kitab will not be killed while Allah told about them { حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُواْ ٱلْجِزْيَةَ i.e. till they give Jizyaa, which is not allowed for Mushrikeen while they are not among Ahle kitab ...

This is what Qurtabi actually wrote (link):

الثانية ـ قوله تعالى: { فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ } عامٌّ في كل مشرك، لكن السُّنّة خصّت منه ما تقدم بيانه في سورة «البقرة» من ٱمرأة وراهب وصبيّ وغيرهم. وقال الله تعالى في أهل الكتاب:
{ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُواْ ٱلْجِزْيَةَ }
[التوبة: 29]. إلا أنه يجوز أن يكون لفظ المشركين لا يتناول أهل الكتاب،

So the thing which has not been abrogated (and which Ibn Abbas is talking about) is killing of women and children.

First You Said That All Mushrikeen Were To be killed.Now When I Put Tafsir In Front Of You,You Have Started Making Exceptions Not Just Women and Children But Monks, the chronically ill, old men and hirelings.

If You Had Read The Commentaries of Verses 9:1-14 You Would Have Known That It Talks About The Kuffar of Makkah Who Unilaterally Broke The Treaty of Hudaybia And Attacked Banu Khuza.This Was Not A General Order To Commit A Mass Murder

Brother, I gave you the Ijma of Sahaba about the killing of Majoos. You see after this Ijma there is no space left for Khalaf mufassirin like Suyuti.

I also gave you the opinions of Salaf Aima who were unanimous that Prophet indeed killed all the Arab Mushrikeen except if they accepted Islam. A little dispute among them was if it was limited to the times of Prophet or also for the later times.

And Ijma of Sahaba is very clear that it was not only limited to the times of Prophet, but later Caliph Umar also wanted to kill Majoos for he thought that they were also Kuffar.

No You Have Not Given Me Anything.I Have Given The Opinion of Multiple Ulema Showing That Verse 2:256 And Similar Verses Were Never Abrogated

You Have Not Given Any Solid Proof For Ijma.

For Ijma There Has To Be An Unambiguous Concensus So Far You Have Failed To Present That.One Hadith Is Not Enough and The Information In It Is Inconclusive.

If There Was A Genuine Ijma Like You Claim All The Scholars I Mentioned Would Have Taken This Into Consideration When Giving Their Verdict.

2) I already told you Verse 6 was not about the idolaters were living in Darul Islam, but it was about those Kuffar who came from Darul Harab and sought asylum in Darul Islam. Please see tafsir al Qurtabi for the details.

3) verses 7-10 & 13 are not abrogating the Orders of 9:5 which was very clear that after 4 months all the Musrikeen has to accept Islam or to be killed. After those 4 months there was no more the condition of any Fighting Kafir.

For Point 2 It Is Obvious That Now You Are Resorting to Deception.None of The Verses 9:1-13 Are About idolaters were living in Darul Islam They Are About idolaters Who Broke The Treaty and Attacked Muslims.

As For Point 3 Now You Are Purposefully Confusing People.Nobody Talked of abrogation Except You.I Am Talking Of Putting The Verses In Proper Context

Dr. al-Buti:

“As a matter of fact, reading verse 5 of chapter 9 in isolation supports the view that Muslims should fight pagans for their Disbelief, but this same verse must be read together with the proceeding verses of the same chapter. Hence, if we read this verse (9:5) in the light of the following three verses only (9:6,7, and 8) the claim for killing pagans for their paganism becomes void. …”