![Shiahadithdaily's tweet photo. Did the Prophet (s) himself go around looking to fight the disbelievers or did he (s) respond after they initiated hostility?
'Permission to fight is given to those who are fought, because they have been wronged.' [22:39]
'Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress.' [2:190]
Even the Prophet (s) himself was not initiating conflict for the sake of fighting. He responded to persecution, expulsion, treaty violations, and armed aggression.
The clearest proof is the treaty of hudaybiyyah. By then, the Prophet (s) had already built a community in madinah and marched with a large body of muslims. Militarily, he was in a far stronger position than he had been years earlier.
If conquest and expansion had been his sole objective, that was the perfect opportunity. Instead, he accepted a peace treaty whose terms even many of his own companions initially found difficult to accept. He prioritized peace over bloodshed.
Even the conquest of makkah itself was not launched as an unprovoked war of expansion. It came only after the quraysh's allies violated the treaty of hudaybiyyah. When the Prophet (s) entered makkah with an overwhelming force, he did not order a general massacre or seek revenge. He granted a broad amnesty, declaring many of his former enemies safe.
Additionally, waging war for the sake of expansion was the sunnah of your idol umar. The so-called "conquest of persia" that you sunnis brag about was not a mission of dawah but a campaign of imperial expansion carried out after the Prophet's (s) death.
Quran does not command muslims to roam the earth with swords forcing belief or k!lling people simply because they reject islam, it says the OPPOSITE.
'Do not argue with the People of the Book except in a manner that is best, except with those who act wrongfully.' [29:46]
'There is no compulsion in religion. The truth stands clear from falsehood.' [2:256]
'If they incline toward peace, then incline toward it as well and rely upon Allah.' [8:61]
'Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who did not fight you because of religion or drive you from your homes.' [60:8]
Contrast that with what is attributed in your own sources regarding the campaigns under umar and abu bakr:
Sunni sources:
“We have come to k!ll your fighters and to enslave your offspring… we found in your land abundant food and water… by Allah, we will not leave it until it becomes ours or yours.”
The ʿilj (non-Arab foreigner) said in Persian: “He has spoken the truth.
He said: “And may your eye be pierced.”
So his eye was pierced on the next day he was struck by a strange arrow."
[Source: Al mustadrak ala al Sahihan, Volume 3, page 511] (scan attached)
It is said in al-Majmaʿ (vol. 6, p. 215): “Its narrators are the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ.”
It was also narrated by al-Ḥākim (volume 3, page 451+452), who authenticated it, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him.
[Source: Al Mujam al kabir, Volume 20, page 369,By Al Tabarani] (scan attached)
Is this the language of dawah? is this inviting people to truth? or is it a material motivation being openly stated - food, water, land, control?
There is no mention of calling people to islam, no emphasis on conveying the message, no concern about guidance. The focus is entirely on land conquest and control.
And historically, that lines up because persia did not become muslim overnight. For generations, the population remained largely non-muslim. Islam spread later through scholars, trade, interaction, and gradual acceptance, not through the sword campaigns themselves. What happened was military conquest. The spread of islam as a belief came afterward through entirely different means. Which brings you back to the inconsistency.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HL40ZVKaAAAf45H.jpg)
![Shiahadithdaily's tweet photo. Did the Prophet (s) himself go around looking to fight the disbelievers or did he (s) respond after they initiated hostility?
'Permission to fight is given to those who are fought, because they have been wronged.' [22:39]
'Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress.' [2:190]
Even the Prophet (s) himself was not initiating conflict for the sake of fighting. He responded to persecution, expulsion, treaty violations, and armed aggression.
The clearest proof is the treaty of hudaybiyyah. By then, the Prophet (s) had already built a community in madinah and marched with a large body of muslims. Militarily, he was in a far stronger position than he had been years earlier.
If conquest and expansion had been his sole objective, that was the perfect opportunity. Instead, he accepted a peace treaty whose terms even many of his own companions initially found difficult to accept. He prioritized peace over bloodshed.
Even the conquest of makkah itself was not launched as an unprovoked war of expansion. It came only after the quraysh's allies violated the treaty of hudaybiyyah. When the Prophet (s) entered makkah with an overwhelming force, he did not order a general massacre or seek revenge. He granted a broad amnesty, declaring many of his former enemies safe.
Additionally, waging war for the sake of expansion was the sunnah of your idol umar. The so-called "conquest of persia" that you sunnis brag about was not a mission of dawah but a campaign of imperial expansion carried out after the Prophet's (s) death.
Quran does not command muslims to roam the earth with swords forcing belief or k!lling people simply because they reject islam, it says the OPPOSITE.
'Do not argue with the People of the Book except in a manner that is best, except with those who act wrongfully.' [29:46]
'There is no compulsion in religion. The truth stands clear from falsehood.' [2:256]
'If they incline toward peace, then incline toward it as well and rely upon Allah.' [8:61]
'Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who did not fight you because of religion or drive you from your homes.' [60:8]
Contrast that with what is attributed in your own sources regarding the campaigns under umar and abu bakr:
Sunni sources:
“We have come to k!ll your fighters and to enslave your offspring… we found in your land abundant food and water… by Allah, we will not leave it until it becomes ours or yours.”
The ʿilj (non-Arab foreigner) said in Persian: “He has spoken the truth.
He said: “And may your eye be pierced.”
So his eye was pierced on the next day he was struck by a strange arrow."
[Source: Al mustadrak ala al Sahihan, Volume 3, page 511] (scan attached)
It is said in al-Majmaʿ (vol. 6, p. 215): “Its narrators are the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ.”
It was also narrated by al-Ḥākim (volume 3, page 451+452), who authenticated it, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him.
[Source: Al Mujam al kabir, Volume 20, page 369,By Al Tabarani] (scan attached)
Is this the language of dawah? is this inviting people to truth? or is it a material motivation being openly stated - food, water, land, control?
There is no mention of calling people to islam, no emphasis on conveying the message, no concern about guidance. The focus is entirely on land conquest and control.
And historically, that lines up because persia did not become muslim overnight. For generations, the population remained largely non-muslim. Islam spread later through scholars, trade, interaction, and gradual acceptance, not through the sword campaigns themselves. What happened was military conquest. The spread of islam as a belief came afterward through entirely different means. Which brings you back to the inconsistency.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HL40Y44a4AAGBJR.jpg)
![Shiahadithdaily's tweet photo. Did the Prophet (s) himself go around looking to fight the disbelievers or did he (s) respond after they initiated hostility?
'Permission to fight is given to those who are fought, because they have been wronged.' [22:39]
'Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress.' [2:190]
Even the Prophet (s) himself was not initiating conflict for the sake of fighting. He responded to persecution, expulsion, treaty violations, and armed aggression.
The clearest proof is the treaty of hudaybiyyah. By then, the Prophet (s) had already built a community in madinah and marched with a large body of muslims. Militarily, he was in a far stronger position than he had been years earlier.
If conquest and expansion had been his sole objective, that was the perfect opportunity. Instead, he accepted a peace treaty whose terms even many of his own companions initially found difficult to accept. He prioritized peace over bloodshed.
Even the conquest of makkah itself was not launched as an unprovoked war of expansion. It came only after the quraysh's allies violated the treaty of hudaybiyyah. When the Prophet (s) entered makkah with an overwhelming force, he did not order a general massacre or seek revenge. He granted a broad amnesty, declaring many of his former enemies safe.
Additionally, waging war for the sake of expansion was the sunnah of your idol umar. The so-called "conquest of persia" that you sunnis brag about was not a mission of dawah but a campaign of imperial expansion carried out after the Prophet's (s) death.
Quran does not command muslims to roam the earth with swords forcing belief or k!lling people simply because they reject islam, it says the OPPOSITE.
'Do not argue with the People of the Book except in a manner that is best, except with those who act wrongfully.' [29:46]
'There is no compulsion in religion. The truth stands clear from falsehood.' [2:256]
'If they incline toward peace, then incline toward it as well and rely upon Allah.' [8:61]
'Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who did not fight you because of religion or drive you from your homes.' [60:8]
Contrast that with what is attributed in your own sources regarding the campaigns under umar and abu bakr:
Sunni sources:
“We have come to k!ll your fighters and to enslave your offspring… we found in your land abundant food and water… by Allah, we will not leave it until it becomes ours or yours.”
The ʿilj (non-Arab foreigner) said in Persian: “He has spoken the truth.
He said: “And may your eye be pierced.”
So his eye was pierced on the next day he was struck by a strange arrow."
[Source: Al mustadrak ala al Sahihan, Volume 3, page 511] (scan attached)
It is said in al-Majmaʿ (vol. 6, p. 215): “Its narrators are the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ.”
It was also narrated by al-Ḥākim (volume 3, page 451+452), who authenticated it, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him.
[Source: Al Mujam al kabir, Volume 20, page 369,By Al Tabarani] (scan attached)
Is this the language of dawah? is this inviting people to truth? or is it a material motivation being openly stated - food, water, land, control?
There is no mention of calling people to islam, no emphasis on conveying the message, no concern about guidance. The focus is entirely on land conquest and control.
And historically, that lines up because persia did not become muslim overnight. For generations, the population remained largely non-muslim. Islam spread later through scholars, trade, interaction, and gradual acceptance, not through the sword campaigns themselves. What happened was military conquest. The spread of islam as a belief came afterward through entirely different means. Which brings you back to the inconsistency.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HL40YUkbEAEVigI.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Leo
@leorfdh
Elon musk is a pedophile with no friends
Ciudad de México
Joined February 2026
43 Following
55 Followers
11.5K Posts
Amazing Iran but right now there's something else you need to work on... please
This is possibly the most accurate tweet of all time.
Did the Prophet (s) himself go around looking to fight the disbelievers or did he (s) respond after they initiated hostility?
'Permission to fight is given to those who are fought, because they have been wronged.' [22:39]
'Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress.' [2:190]
Even the Prophet (s) himself was not initiating conflict for the sake of fighting. He responded to persecution, expulsion, treaty violations, and armed aggression.
The clearest proof is the treaty of hudaybiyyah. By then, the Prophet (s) had already built a community in madinah and marched with a large body of muslims. Militarily, he was in a far stronger position than he had been years earlier.
If conquest and expansion had been his sole objective, that was the perfect opportunity. Instead, he accepted a peace treaty whose terms even many of his own companions initially found difficult to accept. He prioritized peace over bloodshed.
Even the conquest of makkah itself was not launched as an unprovoked war of expansion. It came only after the quraysh's allies violated the treaty of hudaybiyyah. When the Prophet (s) entered makkah with an overwhelming force, he did not order a general massacre or seek revenge. He granted a broad amnesty, declaring many of his former enemies safe.
Additionally, waging war for the sake of expansion was the sunnah of your idol umar. The so-called "conquest of persia" that you sunnis brag about was not a mission of dawah but a campaign of imperial expansion carried out after the Prophet's (s) death.
Quran does not command muslims to roam the earth with swords forcing belief or k!lling people simply because they reject islam, it says the OPPOSITE.
'Do not argue with the People of the Book except in a manner that is best, except with those who act wrongfully.' [29:46]
'There is no compulsion in religion. The truth stands clear from falsehood.' [2:256]
'If they incline toward peace, then incline toward it as well and rely upon Allah.' [8:61]
'Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who did not fight you because of religion or drive you from your homes.' [60:8]
Contrast that with what is attributed in your own sources regarding the campaigns under umar and abu bakr:
Sunni sources:
“We have come to k!ll your fighters and to enslave your offspring… we found in your land abundant food and water… by Allah, we will not leave it until it becomes ours or yours.”
The ʿilj (non-Arab foreigner) said in Persian: “He has spoken the truth.
He said: “And may your eye be pierced.”
So his eye was pierced on the next day he was struck by a strange arrow."
[Source: Al mustadrak ala al Sahihan, Volume 3, page 511] (scan attached)
It is said in al-Majmaʿ (vol. 6, p. 215): “Its narrators are the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ.”
It was also narrated by al-Ḥākim (volume 3, page 451+452), who authenticated it, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him.
[Source: Al Mujam al kabir, Volume 20, page 369,By Al Tabarani] (scan attached)
Is this the language of dawah? is this inviting people to truth? or is it a material motivation being openly stated - food, water, land, control?
There is no mention of calling people to islam, no emphasis on conveying the message, no concern about guidance. The focus is entirely on land conquest and control.
And historically, that lines up because persia did not become muslim overnight. For generations, the population remained largely non-muslim. Islam spread later through scholars, trade, interaction, and gradual acceptance, not through the sword campaigns themselves. What happened was military conquest. The spread of islam as a belief came afterward through entirely different means. Which brings you back to the inconsistency.
![Shiahadithdaily's tweet photo. Did the Prophet (s) himself go around looking to fight the disbelievers or did he (s) respond after they initiated hostility?
'Permission to fight is given to those who are fought, because they have been wronged.' [22:39]
'Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress.' [2:190]
Even the Prophet (s) himself was not initiating conflict for the sake of fighting. He responded to persecution, expulsion, treaty violations, and armed aggression.
The clearest proof is the treaty of hudaybiyyah. By then, the Prophet (s) had already built a community in madinah and marched with a large body of muslims. Militarily, he was in a far stronger position than he had been years earlier.
If conquest and expansion had been his sole objective, that was the perfect opportunity. Instead, he accepted a peace treaty whose terms even many of his own companions initially found difficult to accept. He prioritized peace over bloodshed.
Even the conquest of makkah itself was not launched as an unprovoked war of expansion. It came only after the quraysh's allies violated the treaty of hudaybiyyah. When the Prophet (s) entered makkah with an overwhelming force, he did not order a general massacre or seek revenge. He granted a broad amnesty, declaring many of his former enemies safe.
Additionally, waging war for the sake of expansion was the sunnah of your idol umar. The so-called "conquest of persia" that you sunnis brag about was not a mission of dawah but a campaign of imperial expansion carried out after the Prophet's (s) death.
Quran does not command muslims to roam the earth with swords forcing belief or k!lling people simply because they reject islam, it says the OPPOSITE.
'Do not argue with the People of the Book except in a manner that is best, except with those who act wrongfully.' [29:46]
'There is no compulsion in religion. The truth stands clear from falsehood.' [2:256]
'If they incline toward peace, then incline toward it as well and rely upon Allah.' [8:61]
'Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just toward those who did not fight you because of religion or drive you from your homes.' [60:8]
Contrast that with what is attributed in your own sources regarding the campaigns under umar and abu bakr:
Sunni sources:
“We have come to k!ll your fighters and to enslave your offspring… we found in your land abundant food and water… by Allah, we will not leave it until it becomes ours or yours.”
The ʿilj (non-Arab foreigner) said in Persian: “He has spoken the truth.
He said: “And may your eye be pierced.”
So his eye was pierced on the next day he was struck by a strange arrow."
[Source: Al mustadrak ala al Sahihan, Volume 3, page 511] (scan attached)
It is said in al-Majmaʿ (vol. 6, p. 215): “Its narrators are the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ.”
It was also narrated by al-Ḥākim (volume 3, page 451+452), who authenticated it, and al-Dhahabī agreed with him.
[Source: Al Mujam al kabir, Volume 20, page 369,By Al Tabarani] (scan attached)
Is this the language of dawah? is this inviting people to truth? or is it a material motivation being openly stated - food, water, land, control?
There is no mention of calling people to islam, no emphasis on conveying the message, no concern about guidance. The focus is entirely on land conquest and control.
And historically, that lines up because persia did not become muslim overnight. For generations, the population remained largely non-muslim. Islam spread later through scholars, trade, interaction, and gradual acceptance, not through the sword campaigns themselves. What happened was military conquest. The spread of islam as a belief came afterward through entirely different means. Which brings you back to the inconsistency.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HL40ZuraIAAWSMt.jpg)
I completely support what happened at Auschwitz.
Just want to put that on the record.
In case you don't know the names of the killers of just Imam Hossain a.s
liberal equivalent of the right wing guys who film themselves eating bacon
It’s hard to believe but this is a picture of the United States reflecting pool before the revolution happened. The US was once a very westernized country
Pronounced “DR Congo” as “Dominican Republic of Congo”
I am not suicidal.
thought this was the reflecting pool for a second
gifs when the joke is time sensitive
People are dragging him for walking in with his finger on the trigger but you have to understand that he’s trained to do that when he sees children
broke: women hold up half the sky
woke:
"housing providers"
I’m genuinely in shock just last year I didn’t see anyone defend Yazid’s name, now I’m literally seeing people OPENLY defend him and even praise him, what has twisted people’s minds this bad?
I will ally with my Shia brothers resisting tyranny, over my Sunni brothers signing Abraham accords in a mall.
You arrested a student for writing a column in her school newspaper.
“Unluckiest” is a weird way to say deliberately targeted and mistreated by the host country with FIFA’s consent.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.6M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.5M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.6M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.9M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.6M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.4M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
69.8M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.5M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.7M followers