The prophet made a major, if not sole, contribution to the theory of Islam, especially in the form of Quran, although uncompiled but still almost agreed upon. However we can not neglect the importance of the theoratical work done during the following years.

After the Prophet's last address, a verse was revealed to him:

"Al Yauma Akmalto Lakum Dinukum"
Today We have completed this religion to you.....

And it is a popular view among Muslims today that the doctrine of Islam was complete by the day. But during the coming years and for the next two centuries or so, a lot of work was done which we know believe as an essential part of Islamic theory,i.e.,

1- Compilation of Quran by Usman (there was some controversy over some phrases which was supported by some Sahaba but rejected by others, especially the one often quoted in favor of Mutta concept by Ahl e Tashi scholars)
2- compilation of Hadith Sahae Sitta, which is now accepted by most if not all as a basic religious document. Remember that this was done almost after 200 years.
3- Development of Fiqah. I need not mention the controversies related to this subject.

However as an institution, Islam was never completed by the prophet. The prophet's major institutional contribution was the concept of mosque. It was, in fact, Umer the second caliph who did the major contribution in the development of Islamic institutions for the first time.

Finally, pardon me for a rather brief reply

Thanks for your appreciation. Facing opposition and rough remarks, you know, it is difficult. But even more disturbing is people doubting your sincerity.

you dodged my question, I simply asked was Islam an institution by the time of the death of the prophet, all it needs is yes or no answer.

you yourself don't understand ur question.

Your original question was " was Islam "completed" as an institution"

Regarding this question ... yes islam was an institution by that time

__________________
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

So what if people doubt your sincerity? They doubted the sincerity of even prophets and saints. The prophets were stoned and sent into exile. People doubt even the existence of God. Only good ones would doubt you, the bad ones will be jealous. Truth has no friends, that's what I have known in my personal experience. But then don't yourself doubt others sincerity rather innocence. There are some people who just out of their innocence oppose higher reason due to their inexperience or lack of confrontation with truth.
I have an advice for you: Be precise in your answers, be basic and specific. Avoid long winded discussions, going into every nook and corner. Truth is always simple, smaller in size but greater in weight. Those capable of understanding, will understand you in a jiffy. Those who don't, you can never make them understand because they have their own conscious reasons, their egoistic defenses which they will never let you shatter. Save yourself some time, energy and brains.

Jazib Sb. Here are more details on this fruitful discussion which we started earlier:

Indeed, it is generally held that the rise of Islam in the early period was due to a wave of ‘Arab Imperialism’ that shook the super powers of those times and forced them into submission. In an astounding series of conquests, country after country fell to the sword of Islam. It was not long before the Muslim empire stretched from the shores of the Mediterranean in the west to as far as Indonesia in the east. Of course 'Umar (rta) is alleged to have great role in it in his times.

The fact that all these conquests took place is established history and hence cannot be denied in any way. However, the thesis that it was ‘Arab Imperialism’ that accounted for these conquests is something which cannot be condoned. While looking at the spread of Islam in the early period, one must resort to the basis which the Qur’ān itself offers for these conquests:

People among the immediate addressees of the Messengers of God who intentionally deny the truth are punished in this very world for this attitude so that this can become a corroboration of the punishment that this going to take place in this Hereafter.

Muhammad (sws) in his times was also directed by the Almighty to punish his immediate addressees found in Arabia for their intentional denial once the truch was conclusively conveyed to them by him.

He also wrote letters to surrounding areas to submit to the truth. While explaining this, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi writes:

During this period [in Madīnah], the Prophet (sws) presented his message to all the nearby nations outside Arabia.[1] By writing letters to the rulers of the nations,[2] he made it clear upon them that now Islam alone can guarantee existence for them.[3] This meant that just as the truth had been conclusively communicated through the Prophet (sws) to the Idolaters and the People of the Book of Arabia, it shall also be conclusively communicated before his death to these nations. The obvious outcome of this was that these nations also shall be punished in this world as per the divine law relating to deliberate rejection of the truth communicated to people by their respective messengers. Consequently, this is what happened also and after consolidating their rule in the Arabian peninsula, the Companions (rta) launched attacks against these countries giving them two options if they wanted to remain alive: to accept faith or to accept a life of subjugation by paying jizyah. None of these nations was an adherent to polytheism in the real sense; otherwise they would have been treated in the same way as the Idolaters of Arabia.



It is evident from these details that all these armed campaigns and offensives were not merely qitāl (war), they were in reality a punishment of the Almighty. This punishment, which is meted out to those who deliberately deny the truth is an established practice of Allah. As a Divine scheme, it descended first upon the Idolaters and the People of the Book of Arabia and then to certain other nations outside it. Consequently, this is absolutely certain that fighting those who have deliberately rejected the truth and forcing the vanquished to lead a life of subjugation by imposing jizyah on them is no longer allowed.



In other words, the mere happening of shahādah by the Almighty through Prophet Muhammad (sws) in Arabia was enough to conclusively convey the truth to the rulers of neighbouring countries to whom the Prophet (sws) wrote these letters. Any evasion on their part was tantamount to a deliberate denial of the truth. As a result, they had to face the wrath of God in the form of attacks launched by the Companions (rta) after the departure of the Prophet (sws). The common masses of these countries were also observers of the divine judgement which took place in Arabia, and hence to them also the truth was conclusively conveyed. A[1]. This happened after the truce of Hudaybiyah, when after this pact of peace with the Quraysh, the situation arose in which the Prophet (sws) could extend his preaching endeavours.

[2]. The names of these heads of states are: 1. Negus of Abyssinia, 2. Maqawqas of Egypt, 3. Khusro Parvez of Persia, 4. Qaysar of Rome, 5. Mundhir ibn Sāwī of Bahrain, 6. Hūdhah ibn ‘Alī of Yamāmah, 7. H~ārith ibn Abī Shamr of Damascus, 8. Jayfar of Amman. For details, see for example: Shams al-Dīn Muhammad ibn Abī bakr ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Zād al-ma‘ād fī hadyi khayr al-‘ibād, 14th ed. vol. 1 (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-risālah, 1986), 120-123.

[3]. Al-Bukhārī, Al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh, vol. 3, 1074-1076, (no. 2782); Muslim, Al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh, vol. 3, 1393-1396, (no. 1773).

[4]. The words of the Qur’ān, as quoted earlier, are:



وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِنْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ اسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّى يَسْمَعَ كَلَامَ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ (9 :6)

And if anyone among the Idolaters asks you for asylum, grant it to him so that he may hear the Word of Allah and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. (9:6)

[5]. In this regard, it needs to be understood that, apart from self-defence, the only legitimate reason for an Islamic state to undertake jihād today is to curb oppression and persecution in some other state whether Muslim or Non-Muslim. The Qur’ān (4:75) explicitly refers to this.

ny individual inquiry from them about the truth would of course have been treated in the same manner as it was in the case of Idolaters of Arabia.[4]

It is thus obvious that these attacks launched by the Companions (rta) were part of this divine scheme and after their departure, Muslims cannot wage war to punish people for not accepting Islam.[5]

__________________
Shiraz A.K
Assistant Commissioner (IRS)

Is this a Quranic Phrase?
I could not understand how and when the permission to kill those who did not accept the truth expired.


All I got from your post is that Prophet Muhammad was directed by Allah to punish his immediate addressees in Arabia for their intentional denial once the truth was conclusively conveyed to them by him. And then the prophet directed his caliphs to continue punishing those states whose rulers were asked to embrace Islam via mail.

Well is it then clear that Islam promotes violence?

Without going into any evidential arguments, I straightaway reject the existence of any divine scheme of this kind. Your view point is nothing but rubbish. You people who are always raising the slogans of Islam have absolutely no sense of the philosophy of the religion. All you know is that Muslims ruled over Christian Spain for eight hundred years and over India for one thousand years and Ottomans kept the Eastern Europe under subjugation for centuries. You are proud on imperialism and you have nothing to do with the great Islamic traditions of humanity, equality, brotherhood and justice and sufism. You people have no concern with the philosophy of Ali and Hussain. The only way to serve Islam that you know is to present it as an extremely aggressive religious lifestyle. Sad that you forgot Quranic injunctions for spreading the religion,i.e., "no compulsion in the choice of religion" and Allah's remedy for peaceful coexistence,i.e., "for you your religion and for me mine"

__________________
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

Yes I mentioned it in my earlier post.

The permission to perscute non-believers rest with the Prophet himself, which is conferred on Him by God Almighty through Imam-e-Hujjat. I mentioned this literary concept in my very first response but you did not pay any heed to this concept in which lie the explanation itself. Imam-e-Hujjat is the time frame which God give to a nation or qaum to accept the truth and final religion of God, when the time expires, the non-believers deep down in their hearts are convinced but they do not confess and accept, then the order of open persecution came from God. This is what Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) followed and migration of Madina is a clear cut proof of it.

No it is not clear that Islam promote violence, Islam first allow to give enough time to accept truth and finality of its last messenger and the message of God, if non-believers does not accept after due course of time, then there is AZAB(open persecution of non-believers) in any form and you are calling this AZAB a voilance.

Now I fully second you when you talk of Ummayds, Abbasids, Fatimid, Usmania, Ottomon empire all of these empires held high hand over times and I agree with you that these empires did resorted to voilence and used Islam but the ulterior motives were their hegemonic empire building. BUT please dont mix these human rulers with Khulfa-e-Rashideen. They are not at par with their mental caliber and state.

Lastely if you reject the divine scheme, I respect your opinion and I am not of the authority to enforce anything but was just to make it clear what I have learned after going deeply through Quran tafseer from last two years.

Have a great day!

__________________
Shiraz A.K
Assistant Commissioner (IRS)

O man!!! why don't you understand that whether you call it AZAB or VIOLENCE or ITMAM E HUJJAT or JIHAD or LOVE or whatever ... in principle it is waging war against those who do not accept your religion .... and even a lay man can easily understand that this is not right ... this is absolutely illegal ... because everyone has the right to choose any religion of his or her choice ... you can preach to him but you can not kill him if he does not accept you version. Does this ITMAM E HUJAT make any sense? And if the God were really to punish those who did not embrace Islam why did He not used any natural disaster kind of thing .... why humans were involved in all this? And now when, according to you, humans have been involved, they simply cannot unblame themselves by saying that it was nothing but AZAB E ELAHI ...

__________________
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.

In other words you are accepting that philosophy of religion has nothing to do with violence????


i have seen many so called liberals when they criticize their opponents, even when they talk about maulvis and criticize them for being intolerant towards other points of views, they overlook their own behavior. The way they present their views and reject others places them to the other extreme....

__________________
....."O my Lord! Open for me my chest (grant me self-confidence, contentment, and boldness); "And loose the knot (the defect) from my tongue, (i.e. remove the incorrectness from my speech)"That they understand my speech; And ease my task for me."(surah 20, ayaah 28).
Aameen....

Jazib sb, if you want to win the discussion, I guess there is no need to discuss it further. If you are questioning that why God had not persecuted the non-believers through Azab-e-Elahi instead through Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), I believe only God can answer neither his messenger.

Thank you so much for being part of this thoughtfull discussion and you have made me go through the literature once again by invoking this discussion.

__________________
Shiraz A.K
Assistant Commissioner (IRS)