I just wanted to mention that if any system is oppresive upon humans, it has to be toppled down to maintain peace on earth. When some non-muslim commander (I guess Roman) asked Khaled bin Waleed, what do you want exactly, ” He said something like this, ”we want to free mankind from the slavery of mankind, take them from the cluthces of human dictators towards the protection of Allah”.
Here is the actual story, it is Rabi bin Amir not Khalid bin Waleed:
Prior to the historical battle of Qadissiyya, Saad bin Abi Waqqas(RA) sent Rabi’ bin Aamir(RA) to the Persian Emperor Rustam.
While Rustam was seated on a gold throne and besides him pillows and cushions laced with gold thread, Rabi'(RA) was approaching him on a horse with his hand on a sword in a scabbard made of shaggy cloth, and his spear was bound with a strap of sinew.
Rabi bin Aamir(RA) moved forward, trampling over the precious carpet in the tent of Rustam with the hooves of his horse.
He dismounted and tied his horse to the edges of two cushions. Refusing the orders of Iranian soldiers to handover his sword, Rabi’ (RA) moved forward in a stately manner. He walked with short steps, leaning on his spear, piercing the carpet. When he came close to Rustam, he sat down on the floor, cross-legged and plunged his spear into the carpet. Rabi'(RA) said, “We will not sit on this finery of yours.”
This shows that he was not intimidated by this kingly pomp and lifestyle of the Persians.
Rustam asked him : “Why have you come here with your armies?”
Rabi’ bin Amir(RA) replied:
“Allah has sent and brought us here to extricate those, who so desire, from their servitude to men and make them servants of Allah; and to remove His servants from the constrictions of this world and show them the spacious path to the Hereafter. We are also here to extricate people from the cruelty of the false religions and bestow on them the justice of Islam. He has sent us to bring His religion to His creatures and to invite them to Islam.”
These words of Rabi(RA) is the reason why Mujahideen are engaging in Jihad Fee Sabeelillah throughout the world.
Islamic history nor western foreign policy is not a basis for correctly understanding offensive jihad. It has nothing to do with proselytising or implementing NGO policy
The basis are the legislative texts of Islam that address jihad. The classical scholars differed on the sabab (cause) of jihad, majority said it was the existence of oppression others said the existence of rule of kufr. This difference had little impact on offensive jihad since Kufr is also Oppression (dhulum) but today some sections of the Ummah seek to pacify or use euphemism and call offensive Jihad, a “pre-emptive Jihad”?!
The essence of offensive jihad is to remove Kufr and Oppression and Implement Islam and Justice on the land. To make the word of Allah the highest. It follows a three stage method. The fighting (qital) part, is not against the people, it is only removing the material obstacles in the way of the dawah to the people.
The West deep down actually “Supported the failed Coup attempt at Murdering President Receb Tayip Erdogan, to forcefully remove him out of Office, so they can reinstate, someone who rules more secular than rather someone like Erdogan who rules a bit more from a Islamic stand point.
I remember the day, how most of the Western Media were so dissapointed that the coup failed, and how their offensive Jihad, was foiled.
Yep as the saying goes; If you dont accept Secular Democracy. We will come and bomb your nation, so it accepts our Secular democracy.
Secularism spreads by the sword:
See how this ExMuslim got exposed on the West spreading human rights by force to Afghanistan
See also Secular liberalism the way it spread to Algeria under the French occupation:
See also how the Bush administration spread Christianity by force to Iraq
A Mormon United States Senator, Mr. Gordon Smith admits in a leaked video that he voted in favour of the Iraq war so that the Mormon Church could send its missionaries to convert Iraqis and to establish Mormon Churches in Iraq.
“Our missionaries always follow in the footsteps of American soldiers.”
See also how Westerners try to justify Captain Cooks voyages as being ethical:
My Response to this video on Captain James Cook:
So basically what use are saying is, “The Ends Justify the means”.
Meaning, it’s okay if Captain cook carved the way that lead to the colonial genocide of the indigenous. Because at the end of the day, ” We spread colonialism to those communities and made it “Modern”.
Now imagine we said, it’s okay if Sept11 happened and the Muslims invaded America through Osama Bin laden, did they eventually spread Shariah to America. Yes, it did, therefore as a Muslim, the end justifies the means.
I can assure you if Captain cook was a Muslim and as a result, the Muslims invaded Australia and enforced their culture on this land, committed all those atrocities, and built all their mosques here, it would be depicted as an “invasion” by all of the Western critics, and not depicted as simply as a navigation. It’s a double standard and a white privilege if you are spreading Westernism then colonial navigation is justified no matter how many atrocities those navigation have facilitated.
But like I said, the West will justify any means so long as it spreads colonial power to the World. For example their are many Westerners who “Justify dropping a Nuclear warhead on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, saying if they didn’t, then the war wouldn’t have ended and more people would have died as a result. In other words they even have the audacity to justify dropping a bomb on civilian population killings 100,000 of women and children, why? Because it at least stopped the war.
You see, everything can be justified even ” Terrorism” under Westernism so long as Westernism Wins.
Now imagine I said, Muslims can blow can drive as many planes into buildings in the West.
Did those planes stop Western aggression and hostility towards Muslim nations. If it did, then those planes that committed Terrorism, is now justifiable because it stopped Western aggression towards Muslims.
See it’s really the same thing. 😂🤙
A non Muslim wrote in response to my statement above:
A critic sent a lengthy reply:
I have no problem with expansionism.
What I have a problem with is when people deny expansionism when it comes to colonialism.
And here you go, with more nonsense he was just a navigationist. Who had no dream of his own to conquer anybody else’s land.
Really? Are we to believe that great Brittan did not intend an invasion and used navigational experts to live out those dreams?
I find it hilarious that almost all your navigators lead to invasions regardless if it were America, India, Africa and Australia and so on.
But yeh, keep denying that cook was innocent of this dream
Even if for argument’s sake, Captain James cook himself was innocent of having an expansionist ideology.
The fact that Australians erect statues of Captain James cook as a national icon all over Australia, in the face of the indigenous communities one would expect fury, as cooks expedition became a means means of conquering and invading.
Suppose if Muslims invaded Australia through the help of the navigators who paved the way for such an invasion and imagine for a second Muslims started erecting their navigators as statues and as national Icons, would we not expect the indigenous communities to be infuriated by this?
Of course one would, but like I said the standard changes when they happen to be white, all of a sudden the play the victim card.
Again this is part of your white racist policies where many Australian nationalists I speak to would argue, that it was a good thing to invade Australia because it was through that expansionism democracy was spread and advancement and technology were brought here under the western enlightenment, in fact they even take it to the next level, where they even deny an invasion saying, it was the indigenous who resorted to violence first, as the indigenous would often war with other indigenous tribes. For example, they will argue that the indigenous people massacred the pygmy, which was another indigenous group.
So there you have it, white people are very good at invading and then playing the victim, justifying the invasion as being fair, and then having the audacity to deny such an invasion. Oh, and your comment about my culture being racist compared to yours deserves “slow claps”. Really what a ridiculous assertion is given that we live in the 21st century and the white race has fueled movements like BLM which is growing in the Western world and not the Muslim world. Australia was rated according to statistics as one of the most racist countries in the World, despite being one of the most diverse, what does that have to say?
As I said, if I said Muslims invaded Australia, which means it helped the spread of Islamic ideology, I couldn’t get away with justifying what I believe is good for humanity meaning the message of salvation for humankind, but if you are white and you believe democracy or secular liberal values are good, then such an invasion becomes justifiable, for the same token then Russia invading Ukraine is justified since Russia wishes to expand its own beliefs. Now it may not be in line with your values, but it can still be justified since we all have our own ideals which we believe in, so if the West can justify expansionism (invasion) it leads to other countries adopting Secular liberal democratic values, then Russia is justified by invading and spreading it’s values, same goes for Muslims invading and spreading their values. You can’t say the West is justified and all others are wrong, that would be like the Muslims or Russians saying, their invasions are justified and the white invasions are wrong. That just creates a circular argument. Now you may argue, well the invasions of Russia and the invasions of Muslims are wrong because they’re enforcing the wrong ideals on the inhabitants, but Muslims or Russians can counter that and say, well our ideals are better, so again we are back to circular arguments. It’s just one ideology vs another ideology. We all believe deep down in expansionism we all want humanity to concede to our belief systems. What I dislike the most is when white people point fingers at others for invading, such as ” Islam spread by the sword” slogans. While the West invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and the Muslim world to spread its ideals to those nations, solely to make them liberal, Secular and democratic. And then they pretend they are not the invaders when invasion and spreading liberal values are drumed into the Muslim world, and this is why we are seeing, for example the entire western world pouring money and sanctions into Ukraine to stop the Russian invasion of Ukraine, why because Ukraine is Democratic and so the West will invest Billions of dollars to upheld Democracy and liberal values.
Of course if Ukraine was a shariah country or a communist nation, would the west even care? if Russia invaded another sharia or communist country.
Of course not, they will probably be happy to see Russia invade Ukraine, saying they prefer communism over Islam. And if Ukraine was a communist country,
There wouldn’t be a global sanction against Russia I can assure you.
The hypocrisy is blatantly obvious. When the West acts as though their not expanionists when they really are, and would support any War so long as it furthers their ideology.
Come now see the difference between Islam and the way the West spreads:
Let’s now debunk all the violent verses in the Quran that are taken out of context: