Al Qurtubi on killing women and children

[Saifullaah]

Asalaamu Alaikom,

Al Qurtubi says in his (Tafsir 5/8),

وأن المثلة بهم غير جائزة وإن قتلوا نساءنا وأطفالنا وغمونا بذلك ; فليس لنا أن نقتلهم بمثلة قصدا لإيصال الغم والحزن إليهم ; وإليه أشار عبد الله بن رواحة بقوله في القصة المشهورة : هذا معنى الآي

Which in English means,

"And it is not permissible for us to retaliate in the same manner, even if they kill our women and children and cause sorrow to befall us, it is not permissible for us to act likewise with the intention of making them feel grief and sorrow".

This is exactly the opposite of what Bin Laden said about him,

"The scholars and people of the knowledge [ahlu al-`ilm], amongst them 'Sahib al-Ikhtiyarat', and Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullah), and Shawkaani, and a lot of others, and Qurtubi (rahimahullah) in his tafseer, say that if the disbelievers were to kill our children and women, then we should not feel ashamed to do the same to them". (http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_21oct2001.htm

Wasalaam,

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah

jazakallaah khayr!

We must be just even in war. Allaahu akbar for our deen

[Saifullaah]

wa alaykum salam wa rahmatullah

jazakallaah khayr!

We must be just even in war. Allaahu akbar for our deen
Wa iyaak. Yes, Allah has put limits to what is allowed and what is not. All these attacks on civiliance are acts of 'Qisas', according to them. Which Qisas?! The third principle of the Islamic Qisas is that you cannot punish any other person except the killer himself.

Allah said,

وَلاَ تَقْتُلُواْ النَّفْسَ الَّتِى حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلاَّ بِالحَقِّ وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَـناً فَلاَ يُسْرِف فِّى الْقَتْلِ إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنْصُور

“And do not kill anyone whose killing Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is killed wrongfully, We have given his heir the authority. But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life. Verily, he is helped”.
(Qur’an 17:33).

Abdullaah Ibn Abbas said: “But let him not commit excess in slaying”, if he kills the killer of the victim. Thus, he should not kill other than the killer himself; it is also said that this means, according to another reading: DO NOT kill ten people to avenge the killing of one person”. (Tanwir Al Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas 17/33).

Tafsir Al Jalalain says: “But let him not commit excess”, (means), let him not overstep the bounds, in slaying, by slaying other than the killer”. (Tafsir Al Jalalain 17/33).

Ibn Kathir said about: “But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life”. They said: This means the heir should not go to extremes in killing the killer, such as mutilating the body or taking revenge on persons other than the killer”. (Tafsir 17/33).

And from Tafsir Al Qurtubi 17/33,

فَلَا يُسْرِفْ فِي الْقَتْلِ
فيه ثلاثة أقوال : لا يقتل غير قاتله ; قاله الحسن والضحاك ومجاهد وسعيد بن جبير . الثاني : لا يقتل بدل وليه اثنين كما كانت العرب تفعله . الثالث : لا يمثل بالقاتل ; قاله طلق بن حبيب , وكله مراد لأنه إسراف منهي عنه . وقد مضى في [ البقرة ] القول في هذا مستوفى . وقرأ الجمهور " يسرف " بالياء , يريد الولي , وقرأ ابن عامر وحمزة والكسائي " تسرف " بالتاء من فوق , وهي قراءة حذيفة . وروى العلاء بن عبد الكريم عن مجاهد قال : هو للقاتل الأول , والمعنى عندنا فلا تسرف أيها القاتل . وقال الطبري : هو على معنى الخطاب للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم والأئمة من بعده . أي لا تقتلوا غير القاتل . وفي حرف أبي " فلا تسرفوا في القتل

So it is HARAM to take revenge on other than the killer himself. Then, why did you take revenge on innocent people in Londen or Bali or New York or Madrid for the killings of their soldiers or leaders?!

Another proof can be found in the Sahiha'in,

Abu Huraira, (may Allah be pleased with him), reported that Allah's Messenger, (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), said: "When an Apostle from amongst the Apostles of Allah came to sit under a tree an ant bit him. He commanded his luggage to be removed from under the tree and he commanded it to be burnt in the fire and Allah revealed to him: "Why one ant (which had bitten you) was not killed (and why did you burn the others)?" (Sahih Muslim, Book 026, Number 5569).

Allaahu Akbar!! You can't even punish an ant for the "crime" of other ants according to our Shariah!!! Look at this justice, O people!

That's why Allah said,

قُلْ أَغَيْرَ اللَّهِ أَبْغِى رَبًّا وَهُوَ رَبُّ كُلِّ شَىْءٍ وَلاَ تَكْسِبُ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ إِلاَّ عَلَيْهَا وَلاَ تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَى ثُمَّ إِلَى رَبِّكُمْ مَّرْجِعُكُمْ فَيُنَبِّئُكُم بِمَا كُنتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ

"Say: "Shall I seek for (my) Cherisher other than Allah, when He is the Cherisher of all things (that exist)? Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another. Your goal in the end is towards Allah. He will tell you the truth of the things wherein ye disputed."
(Qur'an 6:164).

And,

كُلُّ نَفْسٍ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ رَهِينَةٌ
"Every soul will be (held) in pledge for its (own) deeds".
(Qur'an 74:38).

We say, yes, Jihaad is fardhul ain today, but as Allah said, "There is no aggression except against the oppressors". (2:193). May Allah guide us all to the straight path and may Allah grant victory to the Mojahidien. Amien Ya rabbal Aalamien!

Wasalaamu Alaikom Warahmatullaah,

[Shaghuri]

The ones that translated Bin Laden's ridiculous statement probably don't know who the ''Sahib al-Ikhtiyarat'' is, which is why they left it.

[nomad]

Assalamu alaykum

and why do you suppose that the bali bombings 9/11 and london bombings were done in revenge. Is it revenge if its from the muslim side, but strategy if its done from the other?

salams nomad

[Saifullaah]

The ones that translated Bin Laden's ridiculous statement probably don't know who the ''Sahib al-Ikhtiyarat'' is, which is why they left it.
Bin Laden is talking about Shaykhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyah, (rahmatullaah alaih). But Ibn Taymyah never made such a barbaric claim!

Ibn Taymyah said, (after mentioning a Hadith):

"We only mentioned this to repel the misconception of anyone who may think that the killing of women was permissible the year of the conquest of Makkah then prohibited after that, actually the people of knowledge have no uncertainty about the fact that the killing of women has never been permissible". (Ibn Taymyah, 'As-Saarim Al Maslool', 2/258).

However, if he or any other of the Ulama he quotes did make such a statement, then please, bring us your burhaan!

As Allaah says:

قُلْ هَاتُواْ بُرْهَـنَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَـدِقِينَ
"Say: "Bring your proof, IF you are truthful!"
(Qur'an 27:64).

Assalamu alaykum

And why do you suppose that the bali bombings 9/11 and london bombings were done in revenge. Is it revenge if its from the muslim side, but strategy if its done from the other?

salams nomad
Walaikom Salaam Warahmatullaah,

An Al Qaida statement appeared shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and said that muslims are allowed to take revenge and kill the remaining kufaar in America. Zawahiri is reciting everywhere the verses of Qisas and if you are aware, At Tibyan even wrote a whole "book" about this. I hope and pray that our brother Abuz Zubayr writes a refutation of that book, because many brothers and sisters are mislead by those people. May Allah guide us all. Ameen!

Wasalaam,

[JayshAllah]

Wow, Jazakh-Allah Khairan for this most excellent thread. May Allah reward you!!!!

[gag order]

can bin laden or zawahiri be qouted reliably on this matter?

did they say it is permissable to kill women and children intentionally?

or

did they say women and children are killed inadvertantly?

[ykhan]

can bin laden or zawahiri be qouted reliably on this matter?

did they say it is permissable to kill women and children intentionally?

or

did they say women and children are killed inadvertantly?

Good point akhi.

Does anyone have a link to a website where their words/speeches have been accurately translated ?

And does anyone have a link to the above mentioned fatwa in Arabic and/or cut and paste the sentence so we can see insha'Allah?

Jazaaka Allahu khairan in advance as always..!

[Abu wakee]

It's about time we reclaim the noble concept of Jihaad from these blood thirsty and crazed neo-khawarij and their figureheads.

May Allah protect us from their fitnah, ameen.

[gag order]

It's about time we reclaim the noble concept of Jihaad from these blood thirsty and crazed neo-khawarij and their figureheads.
and what will you do after reclaiming it
expel the invaders from iraq?

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

It's about time we reclaim the noble concept of Jihaad from these blood thirsty and crazed neo-khawarij and their figureheads.

May Allah protect us from their fitnah, ameen.

Abu Wakee. Although I might also disagree with some of their actions, however I would also be careful and refrain from name-calling and using labels that might be unjust and perhaps get me in trouble on yawm al-qiyamah.

And who exactly do you mean by "we" in your statement: "It's about time we reclaim..." Do you mean you personally? Or everyone here? Or whoever you follow and take as scholars? And who are they in this time, by the way?

And the reason why I am asking you this particular question is because on this forum, you seem to be in a class of your own, always finding to disagree with others on, but never clarifying your own actual stance or perspective or manhaj. Until you do that, statements of yours like the above will remain very vague and perhaps meaningless.

[Abuz Zubair]

We should also be careful of not turning completely against our brothers who may violate the Sharia every now and then. Surely, we all support them in their aim of freeing Iraq, etc. But we cannot support them in actions that violate the Sharia.

[Abu wakee]

and what will you do after reclaiming it
expel the invaders from iraq?

You obviously don't know how to read, or you intentionaly read into my words. Where did I ever mention Iraq? I'm condemning those who carried out the despicable and horrible acts that contravened the Shari'ah, such as 9/11 and 7/7.

Abu Wakee. Although I might also disagree with some of their actions, however I would also be careful and refrain from name-calling and using labels that might be unjust and perhaps get me in trouble on yawm al-qiyamah.

akhi al-kareem I quite agree with you. That's why I added the prefix 'neo', it does not have the same conotations as calling some one an outright 'khariji'.

And who exactly do you mean by "we" in your statement: "It's about time we reclaim..." Do you mean you personally? Or everyone here? Or whoever you follow and take as scholars? And who are they in this time, by the way?

Well since you asked, I'm quite fond of shaykh Salman al 'awdah and et al. And I absolutely love shaykh makki al hijaazi. Others include Shaykh Bin Bayyah, al-Shaykh Ibn uthaymeen (rahimahu Allah) etcetera. I've also come to like Imam Suhaib Webb, although he's not an 'alim, I quite like his manhaj.

And, as far as I know and care shaykh Salman condemns the acts in question.



And the reason why I am asking you this particular question is because on this forum, you seem to be in a class of your own, always finding to disagree with others on, but never clarifying your own actual stance or perspective or manhaj. Until you do that, statements of yours like the above will remain very vague and perhaps meaningless.

You got that right brother. Most Sufis more likely than not would call me a 'wahhabi', and most salafis would probably think I'm anti wahhabi. So, I don't really fall into any category. This however has an advantage, it gives me a lot of mobility. I can steer in and out of each side and faction, yet at the same time be able to criticize all of them. :)


We should also be careful of not turning completely against our brothers who may violate the Sharia every now and then. Surely, we all support them in their aim of freeing Iraq, etc. But we cannot support them in actions that violate the Sharia.

Needless to say, well put.

[gag order]

You obviously don't know how to read, or you intentionaly read into my words. Where did I ever mention Iraq?

we were on the subject of zawahiri and bin laden when you interjected with:

It's about time we reclaim the noble concept of Jihaad from these blood thirsty and crazed neo-khawarij and their figureheads.

so i referred to iraq as an example since these 'figureheads' are involved in the conflict there.

You got that right brother. Most Sufis more likely than not would call me a 'wahhabi', and most salafis would probably think I'm anti wahhabi. So, I don't really fall into any category. This however has an advantage, it gives me a lot of mobility. I can steer in and out of each side and faction, yet at the same time be able to criticize all of them.
criticise to what end? perhaps you are just insincere?


And the reason why I am asking you this particular question is because on this forum, you seem to be in a class of your own, always finding to disagree with others on, but never clarifying your own actual stance or perspective or manhaj. Until you do that, statements of yours like the above will remain very vague and perhaps meaningless.
well observed...

[Abu wakee]

we were on the subject of zawahiri and bin laden when you interjected with:

so i referred to iraq as an example since these 'figureheads' are involved in the conflict there.

I don't know much about the nature of their involvement in Iraq if there's any. If you are talking about the likes of pawns like abu mus'ab al zarqawi, the street criminal turned fighter, then I absolutely condemn his idealogy of killing anyone without restrain. In fact, he was criticized by local Sunni Ulema.

As far as Zawahiri and OBL are concerned, they've brought nothing but harm to this ummah.

[Abu wakee]

to criticise to what end? perhaps you are just insincere?

Wow when did you get the knowledge of unseen? You recieved some sort of ilhaam? Or is it just a commonplace practice of yours trying to dissect what's in people's hearts?

[Saifullaah]

Does anyone have a link to a website where their words/speeches have been accurately translated? And does anyone have a link to the above mentioned fatwa in Arabic and/or cut and paste the sentence so we can see insha'Allah?
This was a transcript of his interview with Tayseer Allouni (Al Jazeera). The interview was recorded on 21-10-2001 and it also appeared on the old Al-Qaida website. This interview is also available on this website

See here: http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=977&

You can also ask those tibyan people because they have used this quote in their book as well, so maybe they can give you the Arabic version. This is a picture taken from that interview,

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7012/storybinladentape0131yf5.jpg

AND I have said in the past and I say again, I have nothing against these people. I see them as my brothers, because not ones have they commited openly KUFR. AND the Prophet said,

Allah's Apostle said, "Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one". People asked, "O Allah's Apostle! It is all right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?" The Prophet said, "By preventing him from oppressing others." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol 3, Book 43, Hadith 624).

But I do disagree with them and I do warn people against this ideology.

Wasalaam,

[gag order]

then I absolutely condemn his idealogy of killing anyone without restrain.
well thats just propaganda blown out of proprotion until it was revelead that the rafidah were perpatrating massacres against sunnis placing the whole issue into its proper context.

In fact, he was criticized by local Sunni Ulema.
by that do you mean the anbaris who abandoned the jihad to evict the occupier preferring instead to participate in the new democratic iraq under US supervision whilst they remain there as occupiers and to assist the americans in fighting 'foreign' insurgents?

Wow when did you get the knowledge of unseen? You recieved some sort of ilhaam? Or is it just a commonplace practice of yours trying to dissect what's in people's hearts?
no it was your 'figurehead' argument that betrayed you..

[Abu wakee]

no it was your 'figurehead' argument that betrayed you..

Care to elaborate Mr. Philosophical?

(Ive made it aptly clear that by figureheads I mean the likes of OBL and his takfeeri spiritual mento Zawahiri, if there are other figureheads in your mind let me know dawg)

[Abuz Zubair]

As far as Zawahiri and OBL are concerned, they've brought nothing but harm to this ummah.

Even the US, let alone Saudi government, wouldn't agree with this. :)

[Abu wakee]

Even the US, let alone Saudi government, wouldn't agree with this. :)

You obviously knew that I made these statements considering the 'current situation'.

[Abuz Zubair]

You obviously knew that I made these statements considering the 'current situation'.
Even in the current situation, it may be that what he is engaged in currently may over-weigh his wrong doings.

[gag order]

Allah's Apostle said, "Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one". People asked, "O Allah's Apostle! It is all right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?" The Prophet said, "By preventing him from oppressing others." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol 3, Book 43, Hadith 624).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I do disagree with them and I do warn people against this ideology.

by that you mean warning against their strategy, error, and oversight or advising how they can avoid mistakes in future or do you mean to denounce their jihad?

also the hadith you quoted is not relevant to the circumstances, rather the incident involving salman al farsi is more suitable when he was corrected over an erroneous sentiment by the rasul (saw) during a battle after which they both continued the fight together. the point is the rasul (saw) did not prevent him from fighting by dissmising him entirely.

[waziri]

by that you mean warning against their strategy, error, and oversight or advising how they can avoid mistakes in future or do you mean to denounce their jihad?

also the hadith you quoted is not relevant to the circumstances, rather the incident involving salman al farsi is more suitable when he was corrected over an erroneous sentiment by the rasul (saw) during a battle after which they both continued the fight together. the point is the rasul (saw) did not prevent him from fighting by dissmising him entirely.

Excellent point gag,lets see these arm chair critics get off their back sides get to the lands of jihad and explain to the mujahideen in person what the correct rulings are.

May Allah forgive the mujahideen their wrongs and may he subhana wa ta ala aid them and strengthen them and grant them the victory aaaameeeeeen.

[Saifullaah]

By that you mean warning against their strategy, error, and oversight or advising how they can avoid mistakes in future or do you mean to denounce their jihad?
The first and second one

Also the hadith you quoted is not relevant to the circumstances, rather the incident involving salman al farsi is more suitable when he was corrected over an erroneous sentiment by the rasul (saw) during a battle after which they both continued the fight together. the point is the rasul (saw) did not prevent him! Reply With Quote
The Hadith IS relevant to the circumstances, my brother. That's because they have oppressed innocent people, take attacks like 9/11, 7/7, Riyadh, Baali, Sharm Al Shaykh etc. as examples. They attacked civilians, with women, children and even muslims amongst them. The plane that they hijacked. Do YOU know who was in there?! If this is not oppression then what is?

Read this Hadith,

Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said: "We were with the Apostle of Allah during a journey. He went to ease himself. We saw a bird with her two young ones and we captured her young ones. The bird came and began to spread its wings. The Apostle of Allah came and said: "Who grieved this for its young ones? Return its young ones to it". (Abu Dawud, Book 14, KITAAB AL JIHAAD, Hadith 2669).

Why did Imam Abu Dawud put this Hadith in the Book of Jihaad? The Prophet even prohibited us from separating a bird from it's young ones, then how severe is separating a human being (mother) from her child?! That's why when Imam Ali wanted to separate a captive mother from her child, the prophet didn't allow him to do so. So how dare some people to say that the killing of women and children is HALAL from now on, just because they have done the same to us?

Today, Jihaad is fardhul ain, without doubt. And what Al Qaida has done is not even a drop in a ocean compared to what the kufaar have done to us, I agree, but still, we have to condemn it. Halal is Halal and Haram is Haram.

There is no aggression, except against the aggressor.

Wasalaam,

[ibnmyatt]

It's about time we reclaim the noble concept of Jihaad from these blood thirsty and crazed neo-khawarij and their figureheads.

All Praise and All Thanks are for Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala to whom we shall all return to be judged on The Last Day.

Is it not about time that we stop giving aid and support to the kuffar who have invaded our lands, killed, tortured and imprisoned our brothers and sisters, and is it also not about time that we stop demeaning and dishonouring in public those who, from sincere, honourable, motives have attacked, who are fighting, the kuffar who have done such things?

For, surely, calling some of brothers who are fighting the kuffar "blood thirsty" and "crazed" is dishonouring them in public and thus not only gives aid, support and comfort to the kuffar but also goes beyond the bounds set by Adab Al-Islam.

It was narrated on the authority of Abu Hariara that the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said: "He who believes in Allah and the Last Day should either speak honourably or be silent." (Muslim Book 1, 75)

I might ask - from whence comes your information concerning those whom you call "blood thirsty" and "crazed"? Have you met them? Have you talked with anyone who has?

I might ask - since you seem to disagree with them and their actions, have you saught to guide them, in private, and so discuss with them what you regard as their errors? If not, why not?

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:

"You who believe, if a dishonourable person [fasiq] comes to you with any news, verify it lest you harm people unwittingly and afterwards regret what you have done." 49:6 Interpretation of Meaning

Furthermore, when our lands have been invaded and occupied, when Muslims are being killed, tortured, imprisoned, when the kuffar are intent on trying to divide the Ummah, setting Muslim against Muslims, when the kuffar are intent on trying to change our Deen, what is our duty? Is it Jihad Fee Sabilillah, and to support those who are striving to defend their brothers and sisters and striving to exalt the word of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, or is it to demean and dishonour our brothers and sisters in public because we feel or believe we know that they are in error - because we have let our hawah guide us?

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:


"Judge between them by what Allah has revealed: do not give in to your own desires, and beware, for they will try to lead you astray, away from some of that which Allah has revealed. And if they turn away, there is the knowledge of their punishment by Allah for some transgression of theirs - and, indeed, there are many disobedient, rebellious ones [Fasiqun]. Do they seek to judge according to the ways of Jahiliyyah? The judgement of Allah is best - for those who sincerely believe." 5:49-50 Interpretation of Meaning

May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala protect us from all forms of Al-asabiyyah Al-Jahiliyyah, forgive us for our mistakes, and guide us to and keep us on the Right Path.

[Najaah]

Even if what these brothers are doing is wrong, they have Scholars who agree with them and they have their daleel to support what they are doing, so you can't blame them solely. At the end of the day even if they have done some wrong they have probably done more for this Ummaah than all of us put together.

Go to the mountains of Afghanistan and ask them what the likes of Mullaah Omar, UBL and Zawahiri did for them before the US Invasion?

Go to Fallujaah or Ramadi and ask the women that were raped who helped them?

Ask the old women and children in Chechnya who helped them?

Who has forsaked this Ummaah? Who were the first to run to the battle fields?

[gag order]

Why did Imam Abu Dawud put this Hadith in the Book of Jihaad? becos the incident ocurred during a campaign or in between campaigns? becos it is part of a longer narration which you quoted out of context? many plausible reasons.....

when Imam Ali wanted to separate a captive mother from her child, the prophet didn't allow him to do so. then you should follow the rasuls (saw) example rather than spending day and night denouncing and rebuking and wasting ink writing endless refutations. (not you personally but your ilk collectively) a simple 'please dont do that again' is sufficient. or suggest ways in which it could be avoided in future.

its reached a point where justifiable criticism has been blurred and merged with the notion that there is no jihad. i think it is appalling that women and children are killed inadvertantly, they need to work on minimising the casualties they inflict, that is all! however i will not work tirelessly to prove that their entire cause is invalidated and look for proofs to that effect...

in one incident when the companions killed women inadvertantly, the rasul (saw) admonished them. however he did not persue the matter in order to prove that their entire jihad was no longer valid and that they failed as mujahideen.

[ibnmyatt]

...but still, we have to condemn it.

Would you defend your brother, against the kuffar, even if according to your judgement, your feelings, he is or might be in error? Or would you aid the kuffar - and their apostate allies - to defeat, capture, kill, torture and imprison your brother whom you believe is in error?

Do you have knowledge enough - or believe you have enough knowledge - to condemn your brother in public? Do you have enough knowledge - or believe you have enough knowledge - to justify your judgement before Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala? Or do you fear the judgement of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala enough to be silent in public concerning a matter about which you may not have great knowledge?

For it is certain that we all will be held accountable, by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala.

As Sheikh Safar bin 'Abdir-Rahmaan al-Hawaali reminded us:

"This Muslim - supposing that he erred in taking revenge against the enemy or that he erred in considering someone to be an enemy who is not an enemy, then this Muslim is no more in error than those perpetrators of major errors like adultery, theft, and impiety towards parents. The position of Ahl us Sunnah with respect to the perpetrators of such major errors is well known. They still perform the prayer on him (if he dies) and seek forgiveness for him. They neither defame him nor do they make the People of Kufr pleased over the shortcoming of their brothers by mentioning their defects and errors. As long as the characteristic of Islam is present in them they are as the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, 'Every Muslim is forbidden to take the blood, wealth, honour of another Muslim.' "

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

Or would you aid the kuffar - and their apostate allies - to defeat, capture, kill, torture and imprison your brother whom you believe is in error?

As Sheikh Safar bin 'Abdir-Rahmaan al-Hawaali reminded us:

I remember when Shaykh Safar offered to help the government in dealing with the problem of "jihadi" shabab in Saudi Arabia, you guys (maybe not you personally, but those with the same "ideology" as you) were condemning and criticising Shaykh Safar for being a sell-out government agent because he was "helping the apostate allies of the kuffar defeat and capture the mujahidun"?

Something that I have noticed with many of the "jihadi" shabab living in the west is that they are not quite switched on with what is actually happening inside the countries that they are always talking about (Saudiyyah, etc.). This I think is usually because they don't know Arabic and so have very little way of finding out for themselves from the many information outlets available. Most of the time their sources of "information" are translated fatwas from here and there. Then you find them trying to quote from scholars whom they assume agree with them (in this case Shaykh Safar is a prime example), but who in reality are often completely against the kind of acts that these shabab are promoting.

I remember in the 90's that some quite well-known elements of the "jihadi" youth movement, who were even back then making takfir of the Saudi government, used to consider Shaykh Salman al-'Awdah "one of them", and they wrote an article describing his confronting the "apostate" Saudi government with the haqq! One would assume from this that Salman al-'Awdah held the same ideas as them regarding the takfir of the Saudi government. Yes it is true that he did change some of his views, but he never made takfir of the Saudi government like these shabab were trying to insinuate.

And now see the kind of things these same shabab are saying about Shaykh Salman.

[shaheed666]

Assalamu alaikum,
Even if what these brothers are doing is wrong, they have Scholars who agree with them and they have their daleel to support what they are doing, so you can't blame them solely. At the end of the day even if they have done some wrong they have probably done more for this Ummaah than all of us put together.

Go to the mountains of Afghanistan and ask them what the likes of Mullaah Omar, UBL and Zawahiri did for them before the US Invasion?

Go to Fallujaah or Ramadi and ask the women that were raped who helped them?

Ask the old women and children in Chechnya who helped them?

Who has forsaked this Ummaah? Who were the first to run to the battle fields?

SubhanAllah akhi ur very much right what the brothers here dont understand here is the fact that mujahideen are actually engaged in a military conflict and in an military conflict there is always an possibility of some actions which may be disliked by others like for example hazrath umar(ra) many a times disliked the way hazrath khalid bin walid(ra) espcially when two enemy captives were mistakenly killed by haza,khalid(ra) men,even the prophet lifted his hand praying that he had nothing to do with this but did the prophet malign him? did the prophet make an issue of this? the prophet very well understood when in war certain things happen which may be unacceptable to others....



The Hadith IS relevant to the circumstances, my brother. That's because they have oppressed innocent people, take attacks like 9/11, 7/7, Riyadh, Baali, Sharm Al Shaykh etc. as examples. They attacked civilians, with women, children and even muslims amongst them. The plane that they hijacked. Do YOU know who was in there?! If this is not oppression then what is?,


Akhi i dont know how much ignorant can anyone be,if that was NOT A RESPONSE TO OPPRESSION THEN WHAT WAS THAT?

Why did Imam Abu Dawud put this Hadith in the Book of Jihaad?

because that incident happened while on an expedition! as simple as that.

Halal is Halal and Haram is Haram.

what u think as halal is not halal and what you think as haram is not haram.that is determined by shariah.

There is no aggression, except against the aggressor.

alhamdulillah atleast u recognise this,if u think the people staying in cities have nothing to do with this then who sends their children to military?who pays tax to the government to run its military machine? if they were so serious about this whole thing the people should have launched a civil disobedience movement the way many people have done through out history expressing their stance against government policies any way here is haidth for u pz put forward ur explanation for this :
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) once captured an old man who was not involved in any form of fighting against the believers. However, his tribe Banu 'Uqail had an alliance with the tribe Banu Thaqeef, who were capturing and killing Muslims. To his shock, the prisoner asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) why he had captured him (whilst he had nothing to do with this crime). The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) replied:


"I captured you because of the crime of your allies, Thaqeef." (Muslims 1641)

In other words, Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) captured this old man simply because he belonged to a tribe (e.g. the UK) who had a coalition with another tribe (e.g. USA) who were arresting and killing Muslims



Something that I have noticed with many of the "jihadi" shabab living in the west is that they are not quite switched on with what is actually happening inside the countries that they are always talking about (Saudiyyah, etc.). This I think is usually because they don't know Arabic and so have very little way of finding out for themselves from the many information outlets available. Most of the time their sources of "information" are translated fatwas from here and there. Then you find them trying to quote from scholars whom they assume agree with them (in this case Shaykh Safar is a prime example), but who in reality are often completely against the kind of acts that these shabab are promoting.


Dear akhi though unwillingly i find myself at loggerheads with u anyway as u think most brothers who talk about Jihad dont know arabic is totally baseless infact most brothers who talk and preach about doing Jihad know arabic better than those who dont because of there willingness to join the mujahideen(and due to some reasons arabic has become the primary language of mujahideen) and migrate to the land's of Jihad and the reason for quoting certain scholars to prove certain points from certain scholars in not because they are not convinced about certain points or they want ot make a ga-ga telling such and such scholars tells the same thing as me,but the basic underlying reason for this is to convince brothers like u who most of the times disagree with them,and the aqeeda of such brothers not having based on the opinion of a certain scholars but on the quran and sunnah they obviously disown anyone who thinks otherwise. but i think inspite of all this agreement on so many issues including that of takfir lets be like imam shafi and imam malik who having debated and discussed that issue of takfir and both disagreeing with each other never maligned or condemned eachother..... and finally here is a tribute to all the innocents victims of terrorism by azzam publications:

11 September Tribute to Innocent Victims of Terrorism

NEW YORK (AZZAM): As the World gears up to mark the first anniversary of the 11 September attacks, we would like to pay tribute to the innocent victims of terrorism: innocent men, women and children who have been brutally murdered without any crime, without any television channel to mention their plight, without any magazine to print their photos, without any newspaper to list their biographies and without any cotton quilts to carry their name patches.

On this day, we remember the 121,237 Iraqi Muslim babies who have died in these last twelve months (World Heath Organisation statistics) as a direct result of American-imposed sanctions on Iraq, preventing critical child-medicines from reaching Iraqi hospitals. Three times as many Iraqi babies die every month as a result of these sanctions, than were killed in the 11 September 2001 attacks.

On this day, we remember the 31,202 Afghan Muslim civilians who have been brutally murdered since October 2001, by American warplanes indiscriminately bombing their villages, houses, mosques, hospitals and wedding parties. Ten times as many innocent Afghans have been killed by Americans than were killed in the 11 September 2001 attacks.

On this day, we remember the 6084 Indian Muslims killed and burnt in cold-blooded killing orgies organised by the Indian Government in Gujarat, during the last twelve months.

On this day, we remember the 5078 Chechen Muslim civilians who have been killed by Russian aerial bombing during the last twelve months, having been given a green light by the American 'War on Terror'.

On this day, we remember the 3039 Palestinian Muslims who have been murdered by Americans (via weapons held in the hands of Israeli soldiers) since September 2001.

On this day, we remember the 2170 Uzbek Muslims who have been taken away from their homes by the American-backed Karimov Government in the middle of the night, never to be seen again.

On this day, we remember the 1473 Chinese Muslims who have been executed in public after having been forced to drink alcohol and the flesh of swine, in the East Turkestan (Muslim) region of China.

On this day, we remember the 1399 Kashmiri Muslims murdered and the 852 gang-rapes carried out by Hindu and Sikh soldiers in Occupied Kashmir.

On this day, we remember the 1261 Indonesian Muslims massacred by Christians in the Maluku region of Indonesia, having been supplied with M-16 assault rifles, rocket launchers and funds by the Netherlands.

On this day, we remember the 598 Muslim, Mujahid prisoners being kept in small cages in Guantanamo Bay, after their beards were forcibly shaved, their hands and feet were bound and their eyes and ears were covered, in conditions where they are subject to malaria, heatstroke and other tropical diseases.

On this day, we remember the deaths of the hearts of 1.2 billion Muslims Worldwide who are blind to the above, but awake to a few people killed on 11 September 2001.

[Najaah]

Shaheed666 - Barak Allaahu feek. Btw I'm a sister.

Anyone know why my gender doesn't show up?

[Umm Ahmed]

Shaheed666 - Barak Allaahu feek. Btw I'm a sister.

Anyone know why my gender doesn't show up?


Go to your User Cp, then click on muslim female in your profile.

[ibnmyatt]

Something that I have noticed with many of the "jihadi" shabab living in the west is that ...

Which is a quite interesting point of view, but somewhat, in my view, drifting away from the points I raised, which are in relation to making accusations about some of those undertaking Jihad Fee Sabilillah.

In respect of the quote from Sheikh Safar bin 'Abdir-Rahmaan al-Hawaali, would you agree that it is a correct understanding of certain matters touched upon in the debate here? Which is where its relevance lies.

In respect of the questions I asked in my replies, I do know that the majority of such brothers who have acted and who desire to act, to undertake Jihad Fee Sabilillah, have done so and do so from a sincere desire to please and obey Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala only, and that these brothers are among the best Muslims that one could meet: full of love for the Ummah, for their brothers and sisters; full of love for Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and His Messenger (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). They have forsaken the temptations, the pleasures, the rewards, of this mortal life to strive, InshaAllah, to do what they sincerely in their hearts believe to be their duty. Many of them have endured and do endure hardships, as they know they will be judged by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala.

They are loyal, honest, modest, patient - in brief, they are honourable and noble: true warriors who undertake Namaz at the prescribed times. Contrary to the lies of the kuffar and their apostate lackeys, it is love, loyalty to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and His Messenger (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) that motivates the vast majority of these brothers - not "hate", not any negativity, not "bloodlust".

If those who make negative comments were in their company, and felt the genuine brotherhood of such Mujahideen, for just a few hours then that would InshaAllah change their view about them., and especially change their view of those to whom those Mujahideen have given bayah.

Some (or even many) may believe that the actions, the deeds, or some of the actions, the deeds, of such brothers are incorrect - that they have acted or may have acted out of error, or as a result of following someone who is or who may be in error. That is one view. There are some others (indeed, many others) who sincerely believe that they have acted, that they act and will InshaAllah act, correctly according to Quran and Sunnah. Whatever belief we have about this, we will be held accountable for it by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala.

Thus, the questions we should ask are: do we have enough knowledge to condemn, in public, our brothers and sisters whom we believe might be in error in this matter, thus giving comfort and joy to the kuffar? Or do we - fearing Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala most of all - make dua for them, and at the very least keep silent in public about such matters? Or do we - knowing that both we and they are but fallible, error-prone slaves of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala - support them in their Jihad against the dishonourable kuffar who have invaded and occupied our land, who have imprisoned, killed and tortured our brothers and sisters, and who in their kaffir arrogance and insolence demand that we accept and bow down to their Tawagheet? For, most certainly, some or many of the deeds of these Mujahideen have blunted the profane arrogance of the kuffar, Alhamdulillah, and given renewed hope to many, many Muslims, world-wide.

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:

"They thought that their towers would protect them from Allah, but Allah struck them from where they had not expected, causing great fear to enter their hearts." 59:2 Interpretation of Meaning

"Do not feel sorrow for the Fasiqun." 5: 26 Interpretation of Meaning

"Do not feel sorrow for those who do not believe." 5: 68 Interpretation of Meaning



May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala protect us from all forms of Al-asabiyyah Al-Jahiliyyah, forgive us for our mistakes, and guide us to and keep us on the Right Path.

[shaheed666]

Assalamu alaikum,



I do know that the majority of such brothers who have acted and who desire to act, to undertake Jihad Fee Sabilillah, have done so and do so from a sincere desire to please and obey Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala only, and that these brothers are among the best Muslims that one could meet: full of love for the Ummah, for their brothers and sisters; full of love for Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and His Messenger (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). They have forsaken the temptations, the pleasures, the rewards, of this mortal life to strive, InshaAllah, to do what they sincerely in their hearts believe to be their duty. Many of them have endured and do endure hardships, as they know they will be judged by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala.

They are loyal, honest, modest, patient - in brief, they are honourable and noble: true warriors who undertake Namaz at the prescribed times. Contrary to the lies of the kuffar and their apostate lackeys, it is love, loyalty to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and His Messenger (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) that motivates the vast majority of these brothers - not "hate", not any negativity, not "bloodlust".



jazakaAllah akhi for that ur very much right when telling that,even i with my personal experience have found the mujahideen to be best among all the musliims who unlike other muslims just dont stop at preaching others,who like others dont believe in working for Islam part-time and who as i have seen are the most pious and well mannered that is the reason why Allah(swt) has himself mentioned their superiority many a times in quran compared to those who sit back! jazakaAllah

[Mustafa al-Muhaajir]

Abu Wacky, watch your tongue when you speak of the Mujaahideen. May Allah accept the brothers who carried out the blessed operations mentioned.

[Saifullaah]

Expect tommorow a reply from me insha'Allaah

[Saifullaah]

In one incident when the companions killed women inadvertantly, the rasul (saw) admonished them. however he did not persue the matter in order to prove that their entire jihad was no longer valid and that they failed as mujahideen.
The Sahaba did NOT intentionally kill women and children, after they knew about the prohibition, as far as I know. They said, "We hear and we obey". And today, we all know that killing women and children is HARAM. It's haram with the Ijma of all scholars. And my problem is not with one or two women and children being killed here and there, but with you guys, saying:

"Indeed, from the things regarding which there is no doubt- Is that killing the women, children, elderly of America, including any other American who does not fight- is perfectly permissible. Nay, it is from the forms of Jihād which Allāh (Most High) and His Messenger have commanded us with. But there is one condition- It is not permissible for the Muslims to kill more than 4 million non-combatant American civilians, nor is it permissible to banish more than 10 million Americans!! And this is so that we do not surpass the equality of our retaliation".

American children? LOL! Every child is ma'sum! Was it his fault that he was born in America? How can you kill a child?! Do you agree with killing children? If not, then stop spreading this lies about Islam and if yes, then, as the Prophet said: "What can I do if Allah has deprived you of mercy?" (Sahih Muslim, Book 30, Number 5735).

Do you have knowledge enough - or believe you have enough knowledge - to condemn your brother in public?
It's true that we have to hide the mistakes of our brothers and sisters and correct them in secret, but this is something different. This ideology is spreading like a virus and before you know, innocent children are brainwashed by some kids and they blow themselves up in the markets of Baghdad or in the buses of London! This ideology has to be condemned and corrected in public, so that no one will follow this way.

Alhamdulillah atleast u recognise this, if u think the people staying in cities have nothing to do with this then who sends their children to military? who pays tax to the government to run its military machine?
The Muslims are paying taxes as well! What is stopping you from doing Takfir on them? What is stopping you? AND, what is stopping you from doing Takfir and killing yourself? Are you not paying taxes? So come on bro, wake up!

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) once captured an old man who was not involved in any form of fighting against the believers. However, his tribe Banu 'Uqail had an alliance with the tribe Banu Thaqeef, who were capturing and killing Muslims. To his shock, the prisoner asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) why he had captured him (whilst he had nothing to do with this crime). The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) replied: "I captured you because of the crime of your allies, Thaqeef." (Muslims 1641). In other words, Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) captured this old man simply because he belonged to a tribe (e.g. the UK) who had a coalition with another tribe (e.g. USA) who were arresting and killing Muslims
La hawla wallaa Quwatta illaah billaah!! Inna lillaahi wa inna ilaihi rajioon!

I had never imagined that I would have to defend the Prophet against some one who called himself: "Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'aah!", never! My brother, are you seriously claiming that the prophet punished an innocent person?! Dit he punished some one who was innocent? YES or NO? Subhan'Allah!

This is the Hadith you are talking about,

“Imran b. Husain reported that the tribe of Thaqif was the ally of Banu 'Uqail. Thaqif took two persons from amongst the Companiobs of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as prisoners. The Campanions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) took one person at Banu Uqail as prisoner, and captured al-'Adbi (the she-camel of the Holy Prophet) along with him. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to him and he was tied with ropes. He said: Muhammad. He came near him and said: What is the matter with you? Thereupon he (the prisoner) said: Why have you taken me as prisoner and why have you caught hold of one proceeding the pilgrims (the she-camel as she carried the Holy Prophet on her back and walked ahead of the multitude)? He (the Holy Prophet) said: (Yours is a great fault). I (my men) have caught hold of you for the crime of your allies, Banu Thaqif. He (the Holy Prophet) then turned away. He again called him and said: Muhammad, Muhammad, and since Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) was very compassionate, and tenderhearted, he returned to him, and said: What is the matter with you? He said: I am a Muslim, whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Had you said this when you had been the master of yourself, you would have gained every success. He then turned away. He (the prisoner) called him again saying: Muhammad, Muhammad. He came to him and said: What is the matter with you? He said: I am hungry, feed me, and I am thirsty, so provide me with drink. He (the Holy Prophet) said: That is (to satisfy) your want. He was then ransomed for two persons (who had been taken prisoner by Thaqif)”. (Sahih Muslim, Book 14, Hadith 4027).

Let me show you the response a brother gave me,

‘Ally’ means:

“An associate who provides cooperation or assistance”. (Bron: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ally

“A person, organization, or country that cooperates with another”. (Bron: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/ally?view=uk

So he was cooperating with them in capturing the two Sahaba and that makes him equally responsible. Ibn Taymiyyah said: "Those who assist a group and their helpers are (to be considered) part of them, in whatever is for or against them". The Prophet did not even punish him, he gave him food and drinks and he ransomed him for the two Sahaba. So what are you trying to prove with this? That killing innocent people is allowed in Islam?

This discussion can take ages and I don't have time to respond to everything you say, so IF you have any proofs, please show us. We are waiting for you to bring us proof that killing "American children" is allowed in Islam. Can you do that for us?

Allaah says,

فَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلُواْ وَلَن تَفْعَلُواْ فَاتَّقُواْ النَّارَ الَّتِى وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ أُعِدَّتْ لِلْكَـفِرِينَ
"And if ye do it not - and ye can never do it - then guard yourselves against the Fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones". (Qur'an 2:24).

Wasalaamu Alaikom Warahmatullaah,

[shaheed666]

The Sahaba did NOT intentionally kill women and children, after they knew about the prohibition, as far as I know. They said, "We hear and we obey". And today, we all know that killing women and children is HARAM. It's haram with the Ijma of all scholars.


neither did the mujahideen,shaykh osama made it clear that if they really wanted to kill children they had the liberty to choose other targets,but as far as pentagon and WTC are concerned they are not civilian targets and as far as sahaba are concerned no doubt they never intentionally killed women and children but even u give me instances where the kuffar killed muslim women and children after jihad was obligated now to give u one example when a muslim women's honour was violated by some men of banu nadir wasn't the entire tribe banished including women and children and morever these are the same people who re-elected bush and tony blair and it is these very places(mainland america and britain) which house their military,inteligence,media and every thing that they use to fight muslims and how is it that these places cannot be attacked while they attack us everywhere just like shaykh hussain mahmud said" Let us make the idea in its simplest form so that these people understand it, and I hope that you open your minds a little to understand the tough reality that your great minds have not understood, inshaAllah. It is a reality that the likes of you great thinkers and philosophers rarely understand. Be careful about this sentence that explains very accurately where the area of fighting is, are you ready? The fighting will be… be careful, I am going to say a word so let it not escape you for it is a little difficult to understand, and it maybe that the clever be betrayed by his wit and doesn’t understand, be careful to what I say… I say: “fighting is where the enemy is”. I pray to Allah that you should understand… O the granter of wisdom to Sulaiman, make them understand …"


American children? LOL! Every child is ma'sum! Was it his fault that he was born in America? How can you kill a child?! Do you agree with killing children? If not, then stop spreading this lies about Islam and if yes, then, as the Prophet said: "What can I do if Allah has deprived you of mercy?" (Sahih Muslim, Book 30, Number 5735).


nonsense, who wants to kill american children but if children are killed while a general attack is lauched it cannot be prevented u know american and israeli missiles and even bullets dont diferentiate b/w anyone


This ideology is spreading like a virus and before you know, innocent children are brainwashed by some kids and they blow themselves up in the markets of Baghdad.


akhi u have committed a fundamental error who told u mujahideen are blowing themselves up in markets dont u know the shari ruling on blaming a innocent of a crime he hasn't commited and dont u know the ruling on recieving news from the kuffar......

The Muslims are paying taxes as well! What is stopping you from doing Takfir on them? What is stopping you? AND, what is stopping you from doing Takfir and killing yourself? Are you not paying taxes? So come on bro, wake up!


come down to this planet! who is making takfir of whom?

I had never imagined that I would have to defend the Prophet against some one who called himself: "Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'aah!", never! My brother, are you seriously claiming that the prophet punished an innocent person?! Dit he punished some one who was innocent? YES or NO? Subhan'Allah!


so agree that the person was punished for being a "ally" now thats what the average american is!now who is making up the american military,airforce,intelligence are they people coming from heavens? who sanctions the war budget and who choose the people who sanction them,u call them innocents who never stood up agianst the death of iraqi children who support the israeli crimes in palestine and the american government's stand on this issue who gave their active and silent consensus for every sin commited by succesive american government's on this earth..
u wake up even if u think this whole thing is wrong and mujahideen have commited a mistake, mind u brother you are in no position to criticize them, u urself being a qaa'id i.e. people who sit back ur first priority should be to join the mujahideen and its only then that u criticise their actions or express your stand on certain issue(am sure u will find some listeners), and did anyone say that the Mujahideen are Angels!! Is not every son of Adam a mistaker!! We ask how many mistakes have the Mujahideen made? Then we say it is enough nobility for a person that his mistakes that can be counted. How do you account the Mujahideen for some of their mistakes in Jihad while your eating and drinking and standing and sitting and sleeping is all drowned in the ocean of your sins of staying back from Jihad!! The step of the Mujahid, his standing and sitting and laughing and crying, eating and sleeping and drinking in Jihad - all of it is included in good deeds. Then wont their mistakes be drowned in the sea of their good deeds as your saying is drowned in the sea of your staying back and sitting from Jihad? Or will Allah not hold you to account on your staying back from Jihad and account the Mujahideen only on the Day of Judgment in what they strived hard in!


This discussion can take ages and I don't have time to respond to everything you say,

As again i would repeat the actions of 9/11 or anyother were only reactions to a crime and injustice unparalled in history and akhi its really appalinig that i have to defend people who are above the criticism of people like us(imagine the sahaba who stayed back during tabuk criticizing the sahaba who were killed by the sandstorms during the expedition-u better read the whole story),they are leading the Ummah in its war against disbelief, for they are the ones who are aiding on the fire, and they are the ones who are spending their souls in the arenas of war, and they are the ones who are protecting the sanctity of men and women, and spilling the blood on the war grounds. They have abandoned their countries and have left their friends to obey the call of the only One worshipped. So the one who doesn’t know their right and doesn’t know their favor on him, then he is the one who doesn't have any right to criticise them...
khuda hafiz

[gag order]

And my problem is not with one or two women and children being killed here and there, but with you guys, saying:

"Indeed, from the things regarding which there is no doubt- Is that killing the women, children, elderly of America, including any other American who does not fight- is perfectly permissible. Nay, it is from the forms of Jihād which Allāh (Most High) and His Messenger have commanded us with. But there is one condition- It is not permissible for the Muslims to kill more than 4 million non-combatant American civilians, nor is it permissible to banish more than 10 million Americans!! And this is so that we do not surpass the equality of our retaliation".

who are 'you guys' ???

you started off well with post one and could have eloborated more on tafsir al qurtubi but went off on a tangent in post three citing evidences related to hadd punishment which is a completely different affair and irrelevant to say the least.

it appears bin laden was mistaken about qurtubi so lets take it from there. also can you reconcile for me, the permissability of catapult bombardment and the prohibition of killing women and children?

[Brother_Mujahid]

The Islamic Ruling with Regards to Killing Women, Children and Elderly in a Situation of War

'Abdullah Yusuf 'Azzam

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/003_azzam2050081722-6071.jpg

Fil-Jihaad - Adaab wa Ahkaam

Islam does not (urge its followers to) kill [anyone amongst the Kufaar] except the fighters, and those who supply Mushrikeen and other enemies of Islam with money or advice, because the Qur'anic Verse says:

And fight in the Cause of Allah those who fight you...

Fighting is a two-sided process, two sides are involved, so whoever fights or joins the fight in any means/way is to be fought and slain, otherwise he, or she is to be spared.

That is why there is no need to kill women, because of their weakness, unless they fight. Children and monks are not to be killed intentionally , unless they mix with the Mushrikeen, and, [therefore], we are unable to attack the fighting Mushrikeen alone, in this case we fire at the Mushrikeen, but we do not aim at the weak (i.e. non-fighting women, monks, and children).

Abusing/slaying the children and the weak inherits hatred to the coming generations, and is narrated throughout history with tears and blood, and generation after generation would be told about this. And this is exactly what Islam is against.

Islam wants to bring people closer (to the Truth), it also seeks to make Allah (Ta'aala), His Messenger (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) and His religion lovable to the people - but, on the other hand, it does not alter according to peoples whims, nor does it change its Path in order to please the people:

And if the Truth had been in accordance with their desires, verily, the heavens and the earth, and whosoever is therein would have been corrupted! (23:71)

Scholars have different opinions with regard to this issue (i.e. the slaying of women, children and the elderly in the situation of war).

- The first opinion:

Killing women and children is not allowed under any circumstances, even if the Kufaar use their women and children as human shields. And this is the madh-hab of Malik and Al Ouzaey. (This opinion is not well supported by evidences.)

- The Second opinion:

The weak (i.e. women, children and the elderly) are not to be aimed at, unless they fight, or mix with the fighters, in such a way as to make it impossible for the [Muslims] to fight without killing them. And this is the opinion of the Shafi'ee's and the Hanafis.

Al Mawurdee said (in Al Ahkaam As Sultaaniyah p41):

"Killing women and children in war is not allowed, as long as they do not fight, because of the Prophet's (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) ban on killing them."

Al Sarkhasy said (in Al Mabsoot Vol, 10, p31):

"Setting their castles (i.e. the Kaafir's) on fire shall not be stopped [merely] because of the presence of women and children, it shall not be stopped either because of the presence of a Muslim prisoner of war - as long as [it is the] Mushrikeen [that] are aimed at, and targeted."

The elderly - who have a say in decision making - can be slain, because the Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) agreed on Abu Amr Al Ash'aree's killing of Duraid As Sammah, who was over 100 years old. [The hadeeth is narrated in Bukhari and Muslim]

Blind, disabled and mentally-ill war prisoners are not to be killed, because only fighters are to be [intentionally] killed. There is nothing wrong with sending water on (i.e. flooding) a Kaafir's city or setting their [cities] on fire, or bombarding them with Al Minjaneek (Mangonel ballista, a war machine that is used to throw rocks), even if there are children, or Muslim individuals present...

The Scholars [of the Salaf] had different opinions regarding this matter, due to the way they understood some Ahadeeth, and the availability of these Ahadeeth to them.

The Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) showed the reason behind forbidding the killing of women and children, when he passed by a slain woman (after one of the battles), he (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) said:

"She was not (able) to fight. (i.e. she shouldn't have been killed because she was not able to fight.)" (Narrated by Ahmad and Abu Dawood)

Imam Malik used the following hadeeth as general evidence to the illegality of killing women and children; Ibn 'Umar (radiallaahu 'anhuma) said:

"A woman was found killed in one of the battles of the Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam), so the Prophet banned the killing of women and children." (Narrated by AlJama'ah (i.e. Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, At Tirmidhee) except for An Nasaa'ee, and Abu Dawood)

While the Shafi'ee's agreed that while, this is the general rule or guideline for war, there are special cases and situations, as is proven by the following hadeeth. As Sab Ibn Juthamah said:

"The Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) was asked about attacking the Mushrikeen at night time, where women and children get hit (un-intentionally). He (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) replied:

"They are from them. (i.e. the attack should not be stopped because of the presence of women and children.)" (Narrated by Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, At Tirmidhee etc.)

Another hadeeth supports this opinion; At Tirmidhee narrates:

"The Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) used Minjaneek (Mangonel ballista) to bombard the people of At Taa'if."

(And it is known that the people of the city of At Taa'if had all their families with them inside their castles.)

As well, a third hadeeth supports this argument. Salmah Ibn Al Akwa said:

"We attacked Houzan (tribe) at night time with Abu Bakr As Siddiq, after the Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) assigned him as the Ameer for this attack." (Narrated by Ahmad and Abu Dawood).

The above two attacks, i.e. that of At Taa'if and Houzan, were towards the end of the Prophet's (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) life. (So it can not be said that this rule is invalid and was replaced by a different ruling, as some might argue).

Looking at the issue from a different angle, we see that stopping the Muslim army from fighting Mushrikeen when they have children with them; would put Muslims and their interests under danger and harm, especially in these days where fighting relies on artillery fire, aircrafts and tanks. For this would mean that the use of all these machine guns [and weaponry, etc.] would have to be avoided and stopped. (Which is non-sense).

The Scholars have unanimously agreed on the [unintentional] killing of a Muslim if he/she is taken [and used] as a human shield by the Kufaar, so why would they forbid fighting the Kufaar because they have their ( Kaafir) women and children with them?...

Is the sanctity of Mushrik women and children greater than that of Muslims?

Plus, the forbidding (of the of killing of women) is when a woman does not take part in the war, nor joins the fighting, nor sacrifices for her faith and ideology and [seeks to] die for them... As for now, the situation has changed, and women do not differ much - regarding this specific issue - from men.

Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymeeyah says Fatawa 28/537]:

"The Muslim Ummah has unanimously agreed that when the Kufaar take Muslims as human shields, and the Muslims fear (defeat) if they do not attack, then it becomes permissible to fire, but we aim at the Kufaar. Some scholars [have] said that it is [still] permissible to fire even if ceasing fire will not form any [kind of] danger (for the Muslims)."

Ibn Al Arabee said in Ahkaam al Qur'an 1/104:

"(Kaafir) Women shall not be slain unless they fight, because the Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) forbade that, [But] that's[only] if they do not fight. If they do, they get slain."

http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=214&

[Brother_Mujahid]

Al Qaeda in Egypt Leader Calls for Attacks On Women and Children

Hoda Osman and Maddy Sauer Report:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/images/2007/06/25/alqaedainegy_mn_2.jpg

The Egyptian militant who leads the group he calls "Al Qaeda in Egypt" has called for his followers to launch attacks in Egypt to "strike against all Zionist-Crusader targets" there, including women and children.

The statement of Mohammed Khalil al Hakayma, who is wanted by the United States, is dated yesterday and has been posted on numerous jihadi Web sites.

"Rise up and pluck out the Zionist presence in Egypt," he says. "Rise up and inflame a war on them everywhere. Do not differentiate between a military and a civilian person. As they struck against our women and children, we will kill their women and children."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/al-qaeda-in-egy.html

[al-utaybi]

asalamu alaykum.
i dont think the issue is a matter of qisas, i think they believe all the kuffar in usa and uk are combatents.
isnt that what dr. ayman al zawahiri said.
they believe bcos the ppl elected their government therefore they take the role of combatent.

my question is how far does one go to become a combatent, is voting for your government make u a combatent and an legitimite target?

plz all those with ilm can u help me clarify this?

[al-utaybi]

that is also what sheikh hamud ash shuaybi said for usa

[Brother_Mujahid]

Civilians in warfare when democratic countries are involved

Question: Some people are declaring the prohibition regarding the killing of civilians during war to be inapplicable to democratic countries. They argue that the policies of those countries are enacted by the governments they themselves choose through their votes. It is not like the days when kings were authorities unto themselves and their actions did not reflect the will of the people. Therefore, in today’s democratic world, it is right to assume that the nation’s policies have the sanction of public at large. Is there any validity to this line of reasoning?

Answered by the Fatwa Department Research Committee - chaired by Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî

The argument being advanced by these people is false. This should become obvious to us if we consider the circumstances in which the rulings prohibiting the killing of civilians came about.

These rulings are from the Prophet (peace be upon him) when he was battling the pagans of Mecca and their allies among the pagan tribes of Arabia. The pagans of Mecca were a tight-knit community and their tribal leaders made their decisions together at their tribal councils. They were more like a very large and squabbling family than a burgeoning and impersonal nation. Moreover, the population of Mecca – indeed of all Arabia – was small and the region’s social organization was tribal. The average person in such a society had more personal access to the decision makers and had far greater influential on policy that an individual American or British person today has with respect to his country’s foreign policies which are determined largely by big corporations and powerful lobbies.

Indeed, there was solidarity among the pagan Arabs as to their purposes against the Muslims. During the Battle of Uhud, the women went out to the battlefield, led by Hind, to lend moral support to the soldiers. Before the battle, they sang the following song to inspire their men:

If you go forth, we will embrace you,
And spread out the cushions.
But if you retreat we shall leave you,
And do so without affection.

It has been said by historians that their singing had a maddening affect on their men folk and that this influenced their performance on the battlefield.

In spite of all this, Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) stressed the need to protect the weak and the noncombatants during war and was very considerate of them.

Ibn `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “I saw the body of a slain woman during one of the battles of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), so he forbade the killing of women and children.” (Sahîh al-Bûkhârî and Sahîh Muslim)

Rabâh b. Rabî` said: “We were with Allah’s Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) during a battle and we saw people gathered together. He dispatched a man to find out why they were gathered. The man returned and said: ‘They are gathered around a slain woman.’ So Allah’s Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ‘She should not have been attacked!’ Khâlid b. al-Walîd was leading the forces, so he dispatched a man to him saying: ‘Tell Khâlid not to kill women or laborers’.” (Sunan Abî Dâwûd)

It is also related that Allah’s Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Tell him not kill children or laborers.” (Sunan Ibn Mâjah)

Laborers are not to be attacked deliberately, even if they are present during the battle, as long as their activities are not directly connected with the fighting. Workers who are not present at the battlefield are definitely not to be treated with aggression, regardless of the fact that they are in the enemy country. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) would say the following words to his troops before sending them to war: “Go forward in the name of Allah. Do not kill an elderly person, nor a small child, nor a woman, and do not exceed the bounds.” (Sunan Abî Dâwûd)

Shaykh Salman al-`Awdah comments: “These people today, just like those at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are the ones to whom the message of Islam must be conveyed.”

http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=638&main_cat_id=15

[Brother_Mujahid]

Terrorism and Killing Civilians

Question: Is it permissible in jihad to attack civilian targets?

Answered by Shaykh Salman al-`Awdah

On the basis of principle, Islam prohibits targeting innocent people such as women, children, and others like them even when there is actually a war being waged between the Muslims and the disbelievers. Disbelief, in and of itself, is not a justification to kill someone.

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs who came after him stressed the need to protect the weak and the noncombatants and were very considerate of them.

Ibn `Umar said: “I saw the body of a slain woman during one of the battles of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), so he forbade the killing of women and children.” (Sahîh al-Bûkhârî and Sahîh Muslim)

Abû Dâwûd relates from Rabâh b. Rabî` with an authentic chain of narrators that he said: “We were with Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) during a battle and we saw people gathered together. He dispatched a man to find out why they were gathered. The man returned and said: ‘They are gathered around a slain woman.’ So Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: ‘She should not have been attacked!’ Khâlid b. al-Walîd was leading the forces, so he dispatched a man to him saying: ‘Tell Khâlid not to kill women or laborers’.”

In another narration from Ibn Mâjah, it is related that Allah’s Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Tell him not kill children or laborers.”

Laborers are not to be attacked deliberately, even if they are present during the battle, as long as their activities are not directly connected with the fighting. Workers who are not present at the battlefield are definitely not to be treated with aggression, regardless of the fact that they are in the enemy country. Abû Dâwûd relates from Anas b. Mâlik that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) would say the following words to his troops before sending them to war: “Go forward in the name of Allah. Do not kill an elderly person, nor a small child, nor a woman, and do not exceed the bounds.”

In the Muwatta’, it is related from Yahyâ b. Sa`îd that Abû Bakr sent an army to Syria and went out to give them words of encouragement. He walked alongside Yazîd b. Abî Sufyân, then said: “You are going to find a group of people who have devoted themselves to the worship of Allah (i.e. monks), so leave them to what they are doing.”

It might be appropriate to make mention of the proposal that the angel of the mountains made to Allah’s Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he would bring the two mountains down upon the inhabitants of Mecca. Allah’s Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “No, I hope that Allah will make some of their descendants worship Him alone.” He said this in spite of the fact their destruction would have been of a divine nature and he and the believers with him would not have had to lift a finger against them.

Those people and these today are to be called to Islam. They are the ones to bring the message to. Failure to fulfill this duty properly at one time or another does not mean that it always has to be this way, because there is an Islamic effort that offers the promise that this will take place.

Moreover, public places like airplanes and markets are open territory where both Muslims and Non-Muslims meet. It is also a place where adults and children, men and women are to be found. These places are never to be turned into targets, even during times of war.

http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=310&main_cat_id=15

[al-utaybi]

jazakallah for this.
one tthing who is this sheikh wahhab at-turayri and when was this fatwa issued?

[al-utaybi]

an issue comes to my mind now, we knw its not allowed to kill non combatents, but the question is who is a non combatent and whos not?
we knw woman, children, monks. but does it include the general lay man, here im not talking about labourers but just men.?

[Brother_Mujahid]

jazakallah for this.
one tthing who is this sheikh wahhab at-turayri and when was this fatwa issued?

Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî is one of the scholars that went to jail in the mid-90's for his opposition to the presence of American troops inside Saudi Arabia along with Shaykh Safar al-Hawali and Shaykh Salman al-`Awdah. As for went the fatwa was issued, I imagine sometime after 1999, though regardless it is still relevent.

[al-utaybi]

jazakallah

[al-utaybi]

so what is defined as non-combatent in the shariah?
woman,children,monks,labourers. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MEN?

[MosDef]

Another question for the brothers:

These people who commit these crimes in the name of Jihad - do we still support them in the overall Jihad?

Even if they persist in these crimes?

Do we support them in the genuine acts of resistance?

Or do we warn people away from them? Thus reducing the numbers partaking in resistance.

BarakAllah feek

[al-utaybi]

the tibyanbrothers quote daleel to say its allowed as qisas to kill their woman and children if they do that to ours.

wat do you brothers say to what they have written?

[Brother_Mujahid]

the tibyanbrothers quote daleel to say its allowed as qisas to kill their woman and children if they do that to ours.

wat do you brothers say to what they have written?

Here some links for you to consider:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=5173

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=5271

As for the specific book in question, brother Abuz-Zubayr has quite extensively demonstrated how fabrications and malicious distortions permeate the book.

[Saifullaah]

Look at what Imam Malik, (rahmatullaah alaih), said:

"The matter that is agreed upon amongst us is that the children are not to be killed in retribution because their killing is considered a killing of mistake for which there is not prescribed punishment". (Fiqh us Sunnah 2/352).

So the scholars have agreed according to Malik, that EVEN IF a child kills someone, you can't kill him in retribution! :eek:

[abu_ibrahim]

As for the specific book in question, brother Abuz-Zubayr has quite extensively demonstrated how fabrications and malicious distortions permeate the book.

malicious distortions? Lets not exaggerate. Yes there are distortions, but are they done "maliciously" suggests it was done with intent.

[MosDef]

And so far only one has been pointed out. From what i have read anyway...

But why havnt they publicly accepted this and changed it!? No news on that then? All the good work they done is being undermined.

[Abuz Zubair]

There was another misquote in the book someone else pointed out. I didn't know it since I hadn't read the entire book. That was the misquote from al-Mugni, saying that Ibn Qudama justifies intentionally targeting women and children; there could be many, MANY other misquotes and distortions buried in that document.

The bottom-line is, whoever got the documented together should be deeply ashamed of himself, and if he doesn't, may Allah punish him the way He punished the distorters amongst the previous nations, Ameen. People should likewise be ashamed of themselves for sticking up for that document or the author behind such a shameful deed.

[Saifullaah]

Akhee Abu Zubayr, I got 2 other question to you, (if you don't mind),

They say in their book:

"And as Ibn Hajar stated, there were from the Salaf those who viewed it permissible to kill the women and children of the kuffār - regardless of whether or not they fight - as Ibn Hajar (ra) narrated from Abū Bakr Al-Hāzimī, that he viewed the killing of women and children permissible due to the Thāhir [external appearance] of the words of the Prophet in the Hadīth of As-Sa’b. And Ibn Hajar then remarked, “This is a strange (opinion).” Al-Māwirdī (ra) narrated from Ash-Shāfi’ī the permissibility of killing the women (of the kuffār), other than from amongst the People of the Scripture".

Did Imam Shafi permit the killing of women AND CHILDREN of others than Ahlul Kitaab? I don't really get this, because children are ma'sumeen?

AND they say,

Imām Az-Zayla’ī (ra) said, “So if it is permissible to kill the children of the mushrikīn for the benefit [Maslahah] of the Muslims - then killing their elders is even more worthy of being permissible, if there is a benefit in doing so- such as if they were kings. But if there is no benefit, then they shouldn’t be killed unless they fight- in which case they should be killed to repel (their harm).”

Do you know the context of this saying? Jazakallaahu khayran.

Wasalaamu Alaikom Warahmatullaah,

[MosDef]

Very patchy evidence. I think the Muslims know and should accept that this is wrong amongst the vast majority of Ulema past and present.

With regards to Tibyan the good work i was referring to is the interviews etc from the frontlines and imprisoned scholars.

[Abuz Zubair]

Brother Saifullah,

This is the very trait of the zanadiqa... to sift through the volumes and volumes of fiqh looking for shaadh opinions, like the permissibility of drinking wine, listening to music, riba, sodomising the wife, etc, etc...

Of course they will find scholars amongst the Salaf with shaadh opinions. But if they were to chose those shaadh opinions, let them not criticise those who want to drink wine and sodomise their wives, either. This is nothing but extreme weakness and carelessness with respect to faith.

I need Zayla'i's quote in Arabic to comment.

[al-utaybi]

the brothers frm tibyan state in theirbook about the permissability of killing woman and children that the only reason why it wasnt allowed to kill them was because of the benefits the muslims will have.
secondly they state that the prophet and his companions ordered some of the killing of woman and children after those hadith on the impermissability.
thirdly they state ulemas who say as qisas it can become permissable to kill woman and children.

what do you brothers have to say to these issues, if u can help me please?

[Abuz Zubair]

I think you have been given the relevant links exactly on the issues you mentioned?

[abu_ibrahim]

what do you brothers have to say to these issues, if u can help me please?

brother, the best thing you can do is to delete that PDF.

[al-utaybi]

maybe its just me as i just started practising,
but i dnt see how you proved the issue about the reason why killing woman and children wasnt allowed was for a benefit.
and i dont see how you refuted the claims that the prophet and his companions ordered the killing of them after those hadith of the foridance.
thirdly it seems like the qisas your applying to this matter is not to do with when your at war with another state,nation etc...
please forgive me if i seem rude,i just want to seek the truth as i am soo confused about this issue,

[Abuz Zubair]

Dear brother,

If you have just started practising then I don't think you should get involved in these issues at this stage because they are not important and secondly, they have absolutely no relevance to your practical religious life.

Learn about the basics, starting with correct understanding of Tawheed, how to pray, fast and the basics of business transactions, marriage, etc if you want to get married. This knowledge might be fard 'ayn on you depending on your situation. The other knowledge might even be harmful at this stage, let alone non-obligation.

[al-utaybi]

jazakallahu for your advise brother abuz-zubair, i appreciate it so much.
but the issue is ive learnt those basics already like tawheed. some of them im still learning like fiqh of transactions. although you may think its erelevant i do not because
firstly im living umongst the kuffar,
secondly with all these recent events that are hapenning like what happened in london,scotland etc...
thirdly it will effect my situation and my families situation living umongst them as we probably be prone to sum sort of backlash.
fourthly it will effect my dawah
fifthly my transactions,intereactions with them would be effected.
so in reality it does effect me, as when 7/7 happen and 9/11 even though i wasnt even practising then it effectedme, so more greater would it effect me now!
and finally the reason why i want to find out about this issue is so i can clearly state if sumone asks me what i think of these attacks, i am sumone who sees the importance of having knowledge of shariah and bcos i so lack it i fear to speak and say sumthing which the shariah doesnt permit,or to forbid sumthing which the shariah allows.
we should help one another in these issues and help to remove one anothers doubt, maybe sumone like you with ilm may not deem it to be important in my case, but if you was in my position you would, and Allah knws best.
but i start to realise of brothers i knw personally (not any1 here) that they have ilm but they refrain frm spendint time teaching me the ilm due to them not regarding it as important, even my tawheed they never taught me it. sumtimes brothers can spend so much time on the net wasting it, but they cant give that whole day or hr to help abrother who is in need of ilm.
thats why the postion of the ulemas and those with ilm is soo important.
as we knw or what i was taught is that jihad is very important and is the highest.
alhamdulillah i can pick things up quick that is why ive already started to learn about covenant and i wanna learn the fiqh of jihad.

[Brother_Mujahid]

So the only issue left for you is whether it is permissible to purposely kill women and children? And the words of the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w), Imam Malik, Imam al-Qurtabi, and Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah aren't enough for you? They are all dust before the mistranslations of Tibyan?

[Saifullaah]

This is the very trait of the zanadiqa... to sift through the volumes and volumes of fiqh looking for shaadh opinions, like the permissibility of drinking wine, listening to music, riba, sodomising the wife, etc, etc. Of course they will find scholars amongst the Salaf with shaadh opinions. But if they were to chose those shaadh opinions, let them not criticise those who want to drink wine and sodomise their wives, either. This is nothing but extreme weakness and carelessness with respect to faith.
Yes Akhee'l kareem, that's true. The proof is not in how much knowledge a person has, but the proof is in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. I came across this saying of Imam Ahmad,

"The opinion of Awzaa'i, the opinion of Maalik, the opinion of Abu Haneefah: all of it is opinion, and it is all equal in my eyes. However, the proof is in the narrations". [Ibn Abdul Barr in ("Jaami' Bayaan Al 'Ilm 2/149)].

I need Zayla'i's quote in Arabic to comment.
Well, I don't have the Arabic text, but they say:

"Refer to “Tabyīn Al-Haqā’iq”, in “Kitāb As-Siyar”. So what is obvious is that the reason why the children and women of Banu Quraythah were spared, was because there was a benefit [Maslahah] in keeping them alive - meaning enslavement. And killing them would have meant destroying valuable property. But as Az-Zayla’ī (ra) clarifies- that if there is indeed a benefit in killing the women and children of the kuffār - a benefit which would have to be greater than the benefit of enslaving them- then it is permissible to kill them".

Wallaahu Aalim,

[Sohel]

Good point akhi.

Does anyone have a link to a website where their words/speeches have been accurately translated ?

And does anyone have a link to the above mentioned fatwa in Arabic and/or cut and paste the sentence so we can see insha'Allah?

Jazaaka Allahu khairan in advance as always..!

Salam alaik akhi

You can get all Bin Laden statements in www.jihadunspun.com.

I have read all of them. He didn't justify intentional killing of women and children. Probably you also will not get a single example where Al-Qaeda and Mujahideen killed any women or children in captivity.

To my understanding when two sides are at war there will be collateral damage to both side. Moreso, probably there is no category as civilian in Quran and Hadith. The categories are mumeen, kafir, mushrik ,munafiq and ahle kitab as stated in Quran and Hadith.

Moreover the people who voted for their warmonger Govts can't be innocent. Again world trade center and pentagon are strategic targets in USA by which USA dominates the world economically and militarily. So those are very well legitimate targets.

I think you people are more keen to swallow the propaganda of the west while don't try to realize the actions of the Muzahideen.

We should be ready to take a hundred excuses from the Muzahideen but not a single one from the kufr. But I find quite the opposite.

May Allah guide us all.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Here is the latest from the mysterious "Husayn bin Mahmoud":

"Today, the content of all these verses is perhaps encapsulated in a single verse, which is: 'If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted [Koran 16:126].' [In this verse], Allah commands to fight the enemy the same way he fights us, to kill him in the same way he kills us, and to deliberately kill those who set out to kill us. Today, our enemies hit us with nuclear bombs, cluster [bombs] and chemical [bombs] which have killed many of our men, women and children, destroyed homes and crops, spread disease and burned [people's] bodies. [U]We [therefore] have the right to fight back by the same means, by the command of Allah who [instructs us] to be ruthless and fierce [with the enemy] and to smite him, in order to teach others a lesson...

"These verses teach us that Allah commanded the believers to be firm, forceful, ruthless and radical in killing the enemies who fight against [Islam], and to show them no mercy or compassion... This applies to offensive jihad. What about [the case in which] the infidels attack the Muslim states, shed [Muslim] blood, violate women's honor and offend [Islam]? In that case, there is no doubt that they must be struck and killed with even greater ruthlessness, as a lesson to others and in order to fill them with awe for the [Muslim] nation, so that no-one will wish to attack [the Muslims] anywhere, ever again. For Allah has said in the Koran: 'If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse them and those who follow them, that they may remember [Koran 8:57]'...

Source: http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD163507

[al-utaybi]

dear brother mujahid,
the question is no one is saying generally its allowed, but the discussion is, 'is there certain circumstances where it is?'.eg qisas in war
what they say in their book is generally its not allowed but there are circumstances where it is.
they also say that the whole concept of it being impermissable was of maslahah to the muslims and they also quote the likes of what you have.
my problem is i have no access to these cassical books as i cannot read arabic o speak it, so thats where i dnt knw.

[MosDef]

Read this thread regarding that website you mentioned: (Jihadunspun)

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=451&highlight=www.jihadunspun.com.

Then read the following to see why you need to be careful:

http://abuhamza.org.uk/

Sheikh Hussein Bin Mahmoud is the pseudonym of an Al-Qaeda leader who frequently writes on Islamist forums (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, London, November 30, 2006).

[Brother_Mujahid]

Moreover the people who voted for their warmonger Govts can't be innocent.

What is your evidence? And what about the majority of people who voted for Al Gore in 2000 and the nearly half that voted for John Kerry in 2004? And how do you respond to the fatwa of Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî which I earlier posted? See: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=36207&postcount=46

So it is fine to kill some old woman because of the possibility she voted for George Bush?

[Brother_Mujahid]

dear brother mujahid,
the question is no one is saying generally its allowed, but the discussion is, 'is there certain circumstances where it is?'.eg qisas in war
what they say in their book is generally its not allowed but there are circumstances where it is.
they also say that the whole concept of it being impermissable was of maslahah to the muslims and they also quote the likes of what you have.
my problem is i have no access to these cassical books as i cannot read arabic o speak it, so thats where i dnt knw.

If I didn't know any better, I would assume you already have your mind made up and are just looking for the "evidence" so you can go public.

[al-utaybi]

ok so what about if its not woman and children, is one allowed to kill other non combatents otherthan them ? like the men from them?

[al-utaybi]

no brother mujahid,
i dnt have my mind made up, rather i am confussed about the issue and that is why i want to seek the proofs and to have firm conviction.
the whole issue is ive been threw the tibyan book and alhamdulillah some things you brothers refuted but there are some things which you brothers havnt realy done so which is why i am confussed.

[Brother_Mujahid]

And fight in the Way of Allâh those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. (2:190)

[Sohel]

What is your evidence? And what about the majority of people who voted for Al Gore in 2000 and the nearly half that voted for John Kerry in 2004? And how do you respond to the fatwa of Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî which I earlier posted? See: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=36207&postcount=46

So it is fine to kill some old woman because of the possibility she voted for George Bush?

My question to Brother Muzahid -- In the Battle of Badr there were some muslims (weak in Imaan) who had to join the kufr Army against the muslims. Some of them died also in the hands of the muslims. What is your view on that ?? So did they not share the same fate as the mushriks though they were against this battle in their heart. Does it explain your democracy concept ??

In Mecca among the Quraish there might have been thousand opinion of thousand persons but what that really count to muslims , in a war ???

If you can differentiate is always better, but you should not negotiate your mission to carry out differenciation.

Brother, can you imagine a situation in the present context that the muzahideen is facing an old lady from the kufr, where it might take place ???

I am only telling that if you attack a target in America there will be civilian deaths and among them there may be women and children. You can't avoid it.

Sorry that I am not citing reference from Quran and Hadith because I am not a scholar. I write what I understand from reading Quran, Hadith and fatwa of the scholars.

And Allah knows better.

Allah Hafiz

[al-utaybi]

the ayat where Allah says only fight those who fight you [2:190]

like the brother quoted shaykh azzam and said fight the 2nd party who fights you (combatants).

firstly as far as the tibyan brothers, they say all those ayat are abrogated by the sword.
secondly they say that this verse is general and its not restricted to qisas.

thirdly i went to check the tafsir by ibn kathir and this is what he says:

Abu Ja`far Ar-Razi said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah commented on what Allah said:

﴿وَقَـتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَـتِلُونَكُمْ﴾
(And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you,)

Abu Al-`Aliyah said, "This was the first Ayah about fighting that was revealed in Al-Madinah. Ever since it was revealed, Allah's Messenger used to fight only those who fought him and avoid non-combatants. Later, Surat Bara'ah (chapter 9 in the Qur'an) was revealed.''

`Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said about the Ayah that it was later abrogated by the Ayah:
﴿فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ﴾
(then kill them wherever you find them) (9:5)..

[al-utaybi]

as for ayat 17:33 allah says except for a just cause (Qisas),
so if someone kills 1 person then u dont kill 10 persons but the killer himself, but what about if they kill ten, do we only kill 1 and not ten, then that wouldnt be just?

[Saifullaah]

thirdly i went to check the tafsir by ibn kathir and this is what he says:

Abu Ja`far Ar-Razi said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah commented on what Allah said:

﴿وَقَـتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَـتِلُونَكُمْ﴾
(And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you,)

Abu Al-`Aliyah said, "This was the first Ayah about fighting that was revealed in Al-Madinah. Ever since it was revealed, Allah's Messenger used to fight only those who fought him and avoid non-combatants. Later, Surat Bara'ah (chapter 9 in the Qur'an) was revealed.''

`Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said about the Ayah that it was later abrogated by the Ayah:

﴿فَاقْتُلُواْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ﴾

(then kill them wherever you find them) (9:5).
Why did you stop there?

Ibn Kathir, (rahmatullaah alaihi), goes on saying:

"However, this statement is not plausible, because Allah's statement:

[الَّذِينَ يُقَـتِلُونَكُمْ]

(... those who fight you) applies only to fighting the enemies who are engaged in fighting Islam and its people. So the Ayah means, `Fight those who fight you".

[Saifullaah]

"In his book, Al-Istidhkar, Ibn Abd Al-Barr mentions that Yahya ibn Yahya Al-Ghassani asked Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz about the meaning of the Qur’anic verse which states: “Fight for the cause of God those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression. Indeed, God does not love aggressors.” (2:190). Umar answered him saying that it excludes from fighting women and children and anyone who does not take part in a war effort against Muslims. Umar ibn Abd Al-Aziz also wrote to some of his commanders giving them orders not to kill any woman, elderly person, child or monk".

[al-utaybi]

this is his opinion, and like i said above what is said is that its abrogated by verse of sword. this was the first ayat revealed on jihad, but there comes many ayat after it.
the whole argument is wether its permissable to kill non-combatants as qisas. we k nw generally its not allowed.
and like brother abuz zubair said he hasnt read the whole book to knw their (tibyan) views.
if you are reading this brother abuz zubair, pls can u read it and get bck to me as a refutation against all the evidences they bring, as maybe they have misquoted it.
Allah alim

[al-utaybi]

the tibyan brothers gave the example of banu quraydah where 700 were killed including non combatants (farmers,labourer,men) except for all those under puberty and the woman.

so they say this as example to say its allowed. bcos they broke their treaty.

[al-utaybi]

bro that ayat fight those who fight you-
yes it excludes non-combatant. no one is doubting that like ibn kathir tafsir says, the prophet(saw) would only fight combatants and try and avoid non-combatants.

but thats not the issue, the issue is what about if they kill our innocent ppll ,can we do likewise to them(qisas)? is that ayat aplicable, as athere are other ayats which says that if they were to transgress you to, do likewise .

can u kill non-combatants excet woman and children?

[Saifullaah]

The whole argument is wether its permissable to kill non-combatants as qisas.
Allaah says:

وَلاَ تَقْتُلُواْ النَّفْسَ الَّتِى حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلاَّ بِالحَقِّ وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَـناً فَلاَ يُسْرِف فِّى الْقَتْلِ إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنْصُور

"And do not kill anyone whose killing Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is killed wrongfully, We have given his heir the authority. But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life. Verily, he is helped".
(Qur’an 17:33).

We are not talking about the first part of the Aya, but about the words,

(ً فَلاَ يُسْرِف فِّى الْقَت)
(Fala yusrif fe qatli)

The mufassireen have mentioned that "Israf in killing", is killing others than the killer. I gave you proof from the Tafsir of Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas and the Tafsir of Jalalayn. I got the Hilali translation at home and it says in between two brackets: "(i.e. he should not kill except the killer only)". That's the explanation of the Aya. That's also what I read in a pashto translation of the Qur'an. So you can't take revenge on innocent people. You can only kill the killer. Wallaahu aalim,

[MosDef]

How do we explain the following?: (Apologies if it has already been discussed/refuted - pls do point me in the right direction)

The Verdict of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Sālih Al-‘Uthaymīn

The Shaykh, may Allāh be merciful towards him, said in a tape recording regarding this topic :

“And the second (matter) is the forbiddance of killing women and children in times of war.

But if it is said: ‘If they (the kuffār) do this to us- meaning that they kill our children and women- Then do we then kill them?’

The apparent [Thāhir] is that it is (permissible) for us to kill their women and children- even if it means that we lose profit/benefit from it [since keeping them alive is a profit/benefit because they become the property of the Muslims]; (and killing them in this situation is permissible) due to it threatening the hearts of the enemies and a humiliation for them.

And due to the generality of the Statement of Allāh:

فَمَنِ اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُواْ عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ

“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him” Al-Baqarah: 194

And to (purposely) destroy property (which could later belong) for the Muslims (by killing them in this case) is nothing strange.

And due to this, the baggage, the baggage of the one who steals from the Ghanīmah is burned, even though in that, there is the loss of some property of one the fighters.

Then if someone says:

‘If they rape our women then do we rape their women?’

No, this, no, no we do not do it.

Why? Because this is prohibited as a (whole) category , and it is not possible for us to do it.

Meaning, it is not forbidden out of respect for the rights of others - rather, because it is forbidden as a category [i.e. the action of ‘intercourse’]. So it is not permissible for us to rape their women.

But if the dividing (of the [I]Ghanīmah) takes place, and the woman from them ends up as a slave woman, then she becomes property of the right hand. The person can have intercourse with her as a right hand possession, which is permissible and there is nothing wrong with this”

Later on, the Shaykh was asked about the fact that the women being killed are not the ones who killed our women, so is this justice?

So he answered:

فَمَنِ اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ فَاعْتَدُواْ عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَى عَلَيْكُمْ

“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him” Al-Baqarah: 194

What is justice? Not at all. They kill our women, we kill their women. This is the justice. It’s not justice to say ‘if they kill our women we won’t kill your women.’

Because this, I notice from this that it has many enormous affects on them”

End of quote from Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Sālih Al-‘Uthaymīn, may Allāh have mercy upon him.

Refer to the side “B” from the third cassette of [I]Kitāb al-Jihād from Sharh Bulūgh al-Marām. Or download it from the Shaykh’s own website: http://www.binothaimeen.com/sound/snd/a0020/A0020-3B.rm . Brothers and sisters are requested to download this before it is taken down by the Enemies of Allāh. Starting at time frame 29:09 .

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=251

[Abuz Zubair]

This has been refuted over and over.

[MosDef]

On this thread? Wherebouts?

[Sohel]

Brother

Those who tried to refute it is with a preconceived idea - as I view it. I think there are enough logic in the article.

Allah knows better.

[al-utaybi]

brothers are saying they have refuted it but when u tell them what tibyan say they just say dont trust them yet they dont want to or cannot refute tibyan brothers.

[Abuz Zubair]

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=7939&postcount=51

and

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=7977&postcount=55


Please do read the entire thread here:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=7977

And move on from where we left off instead of re-inventing the wheel.

Everything you ever wanted to discuss has already been discussed there. If it hasn't then feel free to bring it up.

[MosDef]

Ok i have read the threads. JazakAllah Khayr Akhi,

But as far as the Ibn Uthaymeen fatawa goes: you seem to refute it from the point of audio recording not binding on the scholar. But as far as i know he never took this back or contradicted this in his writings. Please do correct me. However yes there are plenty of scholars who oppose this view.

My view on this is that regardless of the legal viewpoint the acts in the west such as 7/7 bring about no benefit. i.e. they don't scare the British from withdrawing - they only bring harsher legislation making it harder for Muslims.

But then again they will reply with the examples of Madrid and the Spanish withdrawal from Iraaq.

And im sure you mentioned in another thread how the majority of Jihaad's since the time of RasoolAllah (saws) have violated the Shariah in some way. Not that its correct.

But if people like Khalid b Walid intentionally killed innocents - what makes you think our weaker versions today i.e. the Mujahideen cannot make these same errors?

WallahuMusta'an

[Saifullaah]

Abdullaah Ibn Abbas, (radiallaahu anhu), however, DID PERMIT the killing of children ...




































































But only if you got the knowledge of Khidr, (Alaihi Salaam), LOL (Sahih Muslim, Book 9, Hadith 4458).

[Abuz Zubair]

But as far as the Ibn Uthaymeen fat