Some words on ''conquest''.

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

We begin in the name of Allah, the Majestic, and we invoke Him to send peace and blessings upon our beloved guide and master Muhammad ﷺ who was sent with the Guiding Book and the Supporting Sword to establish the truth upon mankind. 

I promised I would respond to a catholic on the issue of the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed al-Fatih (may Allah reward him abundantly for this and forgive him for any shortcomings) in 857 years after the hijra of the beloved Messenger ﷺ which lead to the taking of the heathen cross-worshiping halls of the Hagia Sophia and turning into a beautiful masjid where the worship of Allah alone was established, Alhamdulillah.

Some parts of the conversation can be seen below which went around in circles because we began to misunderstood each others points:

https://twitter.com/AllanRuhl/status/1281676911735758849

So let us begin:

Allan Ruhl, as a catholic committed to the bible (which is rare to see nowadays) claimed this ''I just want to let you know that I believe God condemns theft.'' This was said as a condemnation to the conquest of Constantinople by the Muslims. 

I simply replied ''How do you condemn something that the God of the old testament supports?'' i.e. I was referring to conquest as a matter of principle.

So he said, ''In the OT there is a commandment against theft. See Exodus 20.'' and indeed this is true what he claims and we both agree that THEFT is wrong. Now, this is where we differ:

My claim was that God of the OT has commanded offensive conquests of land before such as Canaan:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/10/the-conquest-of-canaan?lang=eng

You can read of the account of the conquest of Canaan which was commanded by God of the OT to be conquered. As you can see lands were taken. Definition of conquest according to google: the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by military force. He says ''Where in the OT does it say you can invade any land you want and steal their property.'' You can see yourself what happened in the conquest of Canaan!

But this man will say, ''but no!!!!! God didn't command conquests of other lands, just Canaan!!''

We say: Irrespective of how many lands God commanded for the Israelites to conquer, whether it was 1 or 1000, God at one point still commanded conquest of a certain nation. (His argument was that God doesn't command conquest of many nations but just one, and thus it isn't like the Muslims whose God commands conquest over all disbelieving nations, but this is besides the point since the discussion isn't about the quantitative nature of the commands rather its about the NATURE of the command)

So I asked him about Canaan, so he said ''God specifically commanded that, yes. He didn't tell the Israelites they could conquer any land they want and steal.''

So he admits that God has commanded conquest of a land and thus he affirms that conquest isn't always theft. 

This leads us to believe: that whenever God commands conquest it isn't theft of a land and its property whereas when conquest is absent of God's command then it is theft of a land and its property. So as you can see even he is being selective on what he calls ''THEFT'' (and it makes complete sense for him to do so).

So my points were:

How can you morally condemn conquest IN PRINCIPLE such that you consider it theft whilst at the same your God of the OT (that you believe in) commands conquest at least once such as the story of Canaan. Mind you, you believe Prophet Jesus is the human incarnate of the same God of the Old Testament!

The only reasonable explanation we can give is:

That you oppose ''theft'' of a land and property, however, you admit that when God commands a conquest it isn't theft anymore purely because of the fact that God commands it. You are being selective in what you call theft because to an atheist who doesn't believe in God, he would consider the conquest of Canaan as theft too!

So this man must be consistent and realize that his condemnation of the nature of the command of conquest from our God, which he calls ''theft'', the very same nature of command i.e. conquest is being commanded by his own God of the OT which he doesn't call theft.

SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR HIM TO SIMPLY SAY, ''BECAUSE YOUR RELIGION IS WRONG AND I DON'T BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD, AND THUS THEIR CONQUESTS BECOME THEFT WHEREAS WHEN MY GOD COMMANDS CONQUEST, I DON'T SEE IT AS THEFT OF A LAND'', but he went on some long tangent about the immorality of theft as if the conversation was ever about the morality/nature of ''theft''?

Can he not see we both agree theft is wrong, but simply disagree on what theft is due to our corresponding beliefs/theology?


The crux:

Similar to how this man can be selective on what he calls ''theft'' on account simply due to the fact if God commanded a conquest it isn't morally wrong or ''theft'', we too are selective in what we call ''theft''. 

He wants us to oppose and condemn the conquest of Constantinople by the Muslims, but nay, by Allah, we will never oppose or condemn the legitimate conquests (through jihad) whether it be the conquest of Hispania, the conquest of parts of Portugal, or Sicily, or Cyprus and the list goes where lands after lands fell to the believers. Indeed there can be excesses in warfare and we ask Allah to forgive those who erred, but never will we call this theft or oppression since Allah, the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth commanded us that Islam be spread offensively throughout His green earth so that people have a chance to accept the message and save their hereafter! This should suffice and clear any doubts with the people.

---

Ultimately, these are branch issues of hardly any consequence and this discussion all goes back to the correctness of the religion for this is the principle issue, so we give the da'wah to Allan to accept the religion! Allah is pure from being a body or contained within His own created creation and neither did He come to the earth flesh incarnate to die on the cross:

Worship Allah alone, who is the creator of the heavens and the earth who is free from imperfections and abandon your worship of man to save yourself from the everlasting fire: