Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Abbaas

Who Are The Northern Alliance?

Recommended Posts

who are these northern alliance whom we are told by the mass media are "good muslims"?

 

well lets see here, they are drug addicts, drug lords, theives, prostitutes, agents of CIA and US Government, and a lot of them are former agents of the USSR, meaning that they are communists!

 

so why are we told that they are the "good muslims" when they arent even muslim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Peace

 

so why are we told that they are the "good muslims" when they arent even muslim?

 

You are stereotyping here....in a very dangerous way... SOME of the leadership might not be the best muslims but many of them certainly are muslims. Wasn't the Lion of Panjhir Ahmed Shah Massoud one of the northern alliance commanders? He was one of the bravest mujahideen in modern times. You should be careful how you word your opinions bro.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

You are stereotyping here....in a very dangerous way... SOME of the leadership might not be the best muslims but many of them certainly are muslims. Wasn't the Lion of Panjhir Ahmed Shah Massoud one of the northern alliance commanders? He was one of the bravest mujahideen in modern times. You should be careful how you word your opinions bro.

 

Peace

 

actually Ahmad Shah Masood was an agent of the CIA and openly recieved money and arms from them. He was a hypocrite who wanted Afghanitan to become America's colony and his men were well known rapists who later joined the Americans for money.

 

It was the religious Afghans allied with the religious Arabs funded by Muslim sheykhs who did most of the work. Ahmad Shah Masood achieved nothing until they arrived and then he tried to get credict for all their works and thanked his American masters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact that he allied with COMMUNISTS goes to show how anti-communist (anti-USSR) he was :sl:

 

He was a 100% hypocrite. I dont think he even intended to defeat the soviets, probably just a show for money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamualikum

 

even if Ahmed Shah Masoud was a good "mujahid".......but after the USSR left he betrayd the mujahideen and probably wanted power for himself..........anyway he got what he deserved.........some taliban dressed as journalists went to him to "get an interview"..but the camera actually had a bomb inside it loooooooooool and that was the end of the hypocryte lol hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...SOME of the leadership might not be the best muslims but many of them certainly are muslims.

 

Assalamualikum

 

i'm sure the northern alliance are apostates by now :sl:

 

 

for siding with the kuffar and betraying muslims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

Well you obviously know nothing about Ahmed Shah Massoud, One of Afghanistan's greatest heroes.

 

but after the USSR left he betrayd the mujahideen and probably wanted power for himself

 

After the Defeat of the USSR, THe Mujahideen Army broke down into multiple Parts. Taliban on one side, and Ahmed Shah Massoud's People on the other.....it just happened that the terrorist Taleban won, and this is why you hate and slander this great mujahid like this, because you side with the taleban and their allies alqaeda.

 

He was a 100% hypocrite. I dont think he even intended to defeat the soviets, probably just a show for money.

 

Islam teaches us to not slander muslims, so I guess this goes to show who the real hypocrite is. Are you saying he defeated the Red Army in so many battles, and suffered enormous personal losses of his own and all this time he was a communist agent? wow, what a vivid imagination.

 

actually Ahmad Shah Masood was an agent of the CIA and openly recieved money and arms from them.

 

The Whole Afghan resistance was funded by the West and their puppets Saudi Arabia. Even the Taleban (surprise) received hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from the USA right before 9/11 . I expect you call your taleban friends hypocrites aswell, but you surely wont, and this just goes to show your blatant double standards.

 

Salam

Edited by anthony19832005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Islam teaches us to not slander muslims, so I guess this goes to show who the real hypocrite is.

 

Assalamualikum

 

Look whos teaching us about Islam....no offence but didnt u just slander the taliban ...they are muslims...and dont you always slander Sheikh mujahid Osama bin laden......whos the hypocrite now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You slandered Ahmed Shah Massoud, so you really shouldnt talk. And btw, I called the taleban killers which they are and I called Osama a terrorist , which he is, for the acts he and his organisation have carried out throughout the world.

 

Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the acts he and his organisation have carried out throughout the world.

Assalamualikum

 

And peace and blessings be on the Last of the Prophets, who said to his Companions, “Advise me! Do you think we should target the children of those who helped them (the enemies), so we kill them; and if they remain sitting, then they will sit as those whose families have been killed, and property been seized, even if they survive. ”Refer to “Musnad Ahmad” (18166), Al-Bayhaqī (9/218), An-Nasā’ī in “Al-Kubrā” (5/170), ‘Abdur-Razzāq (5/330), At-Tabarānī in “Al-Kabīr” (20/10), and similar is narrated by Al-Bukhārī (4/1531), and Ibn Abī Shaybah (7/387). Also refer to “Zād Al-Ma’ād” by Ibn al-Qayyim under the chapter of “The Pact of Hudaybiyah”.

 

 

“Fight against them so that Allāh will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people, and remove the anger of their (believers') hearts.” At-Tawbah: 14-15

 

 

“And there is (a saving of) life for you in Al-Qisās [the Law of Equality in punishment], O men of understanding”Al-Baqarah: 179

 

 

the Amīr of the Mujāhidīn, Abū ‘Abdillāh Usāmah Ibn Lādin, may Allāh preserve him, said in a video tape released on October 29, 2004- in which he said, very briefly, “…And we shall punish the tyrant just as it punishes… so that it can taste just some of what we have tasted (at its hands), so it would stop killing our children and women.” The validity of this will be examined in the Light of the texts of the Sharī’ah of Islām.

 

Ka’b Ibn Mālik (ra) narrated, “In the Campaign of Khaybar, the Messenger of Allāh ملسو هيلع للها ىلص prohibited the Mut’ah marriage and the killing of any small child or woman.” Refer to “Sharh Ma’ānī Al-Āthār” (3/221), At-Tabarānī (19/74), “Musnad Ahmad” (1/79), and Al-Bayhaqī in “Al-Kubrā” (7/204).

 

And Nāfi’ (ra) narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar (ra), “The Messenger ملسو هيلع للها ىلص saw a woman who had been killed in one of the campaigns, so he disapproved of this; and he prohibited the killing of women and children.” 11 Refer to “Sahīh Al-Bukhārī” (4/147), and “Sahīh Muslim” (3/1364).

 

...and there are alot more prohibiting this act.

 

Are there any situations in which it is permissible to kill the women and children of the kuffār, and other similar types of civilians? Or is it unrestrictedly forbidden, like adultery and sodomy?

 

Answer: Indeed the Sharī’ah of Islām has mentioned some situations during which it is permissible to kill the women and children of the kuffār- and has clarified that the protection [‘Ismah] of their blood is not unrestricted. Rather, there are situations when it becomes permissible to kill them, sometimes intentionally, and sometimes unintentionally. And some of these situations are as follows-

 

 

Unintentionally Killing Them:

1) When they are raided upon at night time- and according to some ‘Ulamā’, even day time- and they cannot be distinguished from their fighters, and the women and children are killed inadvertently- then in such a situation it becomes permissible. So if they are killed in this situation, their killing was permissible.

 

And the evidence for this is in the Hadīth of As-Sa'b Ibn Jathāmah, may Allah be pleased with them, when he reported:

The Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children [Tharāriyy] of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, he said: “They are from them”. Refer to “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (6/146), and “Al-Minhāj Sharh Sahīh Muslim Ibn Al-Hajjāj” (12/49).

 

Imām An-Nawawī (ra) explained this Hadīth of As-Sa’b, saying, “And this means that the Prophet ملسو هيلع للها ىلص was asked regarding the ruling of the women and children of the mushrikīn whom they are raiding, and their women and children are killed (in the process)- so he ملسو هيلع للها ىلص clarified by saying, “‘They are from their fathers.’: In other words, there is no problem with that because the rulings upon their fathers are implemented upon them in the inheritance and in marriage and in equity in penalties (Qisās) and in blood-money and in other than that. And what is meant is that if they are not intended, for other than a necessity, as for the aforementioned Hadīth about the forbiddance of killing the women and children, then what is meant is if it is possible to differentiate (between the target and those who are present from women and children). And this Hadīth, which we have just mentioned, regarding the permissibility of attacking at night and killing the women and children, during the night attack; it is our scholarly opinion (Math’hab), as well as the scholarly opinion (Math’hab) of Mālik and Abī Hanīfah, as well as the majority. And the meaning of the night attack and the attacking them at night is raiding against them at night, where the man would not be recognized apart from the woman and child. As for the “Tharārī” (offspring), with the emphasis on the (letter) “ي” (“Yā”) – or without the emphasis, according to both dialects, whereas the emphasis is more correct – and the meaning of the offspring here is the women and children. And in this Hadīth, there is evidence upon permissibility of attacking at night and the permissibility of raiding upon those who the Da’wah has reached, without informing them about that. And in it, there exists that the children of the Mushrikīn; their ruling in this life is the (same) ruling as upon their fathers. As for in the hereafter, then regarding them, if they died before maturity, there are three scholarly opinions.” Refer to “Al-Minhāj Sharh Sahīh Muslim Ibn Al-Hajjāj” (12/49-50). Notice how the Imām (ra) mentioned that there is a difference of opinion regarding the Hukm of the children in the Hereafter- but in the life of this world he did not mention any difference of opinion in his statement, “in this world, the children of the kuffār have the same Hukm (ruling) as their fathers”.

 

 

And Ibn Al-Athīr (ra) said, “At-Tabyīt: Means striking the enemy at night time, raiding them while they are not aware. And the statement of the Prophet ملسو هيلع للها ىلص “They are from them” means- the ruling regarding them is the same as the rest of their people (kuffār). And similar is the other narration in which he ملسو هيلع للها ىلص said “They are from their fathers.”Refer to “Jāmi’ Al-Usūl” (2/733).

 

Imām Ash-Shāfi’ī (ra) said, “And it is permissible to raid the kuffār during the night or day- and if their women and children are killed in the process, then there is no need to pay blood money, nor punishment, nor expiation (kaffārah).”Refer to “Al-Umm” (4/239). Notice how the Imām mentions killing the women and children during the broad day light.

 

 

 

2) When the kuffār use their women and children as human shields, then it is permissible to kill them all (the fighters, and their women and children which are being used as shields).

 

Imām An-Nawawī (ra) said, “And if there is close combat [i.e. near their homes], and the kuffār use their women and children as (human) shields, it is permissible to strike them.”Refer to “Minhāj At-Tālibīn” (4/224).

 

Imām Al-‘Izz Ibn ‘Abdis-Salām (ra) said, “We view it permissible to kill the children of the kuffār if they are used as shields.”Refer to “Qawā’id Al-Ahkām Fī Masālih Al-Anām” (1/82).

 

Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) said. “And the scholars are united that, if the armies of the kuffār shield themselves using the Muslim prisoners who are with them, and danger is feared for the (rest of the) Muslims if the kuffār are not fought- then it is permissible to fight them, even if it leads to the killing of the Muslims who were being used as shields.” Refer to “Majmū’ Al-Fatāwā” 28/537-546, 20/52

 

Shaykh Yūsuf Al-‘Uyayrī (ra) explained:

And it is obligatory to note an important matter here: and this is that there is a difference in the Hukm [ruling] if the kuffār are using Muslims as their shields, and if they are using their own kuffār women and children. So if the human shields being used are Muslims, then the enemy should not be attacked except in the case of dire necessity- meaning that if the evil harm of leaving the kuffār is worse than the evil harm of killing those Muslim human shields; for example, if those kuffār later come back and kill even a greater number of Muslims; or if leaving those kuffār would cause a low morale amongst the Muslims.

But if the kuffār use their own women and children as human shields, then this situation is not as grave as the first situation (that has just preceded). It is permissible to kill those kuffār along with those (women and children) who are (originally) protected, if there is any need to do so- even if that need is not a dire necessity; because the protection placed upon the blood of the women and children of the kuffār is less than that of a Muslim (i.e. the blood of the Muslims is more valuable and protected)..

 

So the first situation is permissible for a dire necessity, while the second is permissible for any need that arises.]

 

3) When a catapult is used, it is permissible to attack the kuffār, even if it kills their women and children in such a situation. And similarly today, a similar analogy can be made for the permissibility of the use of heavy artillery like mortars, tanks, planes, bombs, etc.

 

Ibn Rushd (ra) said, “And the jurists are all united on the permissibility of using catapults to strike the fortresses of the kuffār, regardless of whether or not their women and children are in there; due to the Prophet ملسو هيلع للها ىلص attacking the People of At-Tā’if using a catapult.”Refer to “Bidāyat Al-Mujtahid” (1/385-386).

 

 

And Ibn Qāsim, may Allāh be merciful to him, said in his commentary, “And it is permitted to fire upon the kuffār with catapults, even if children and women and old men and monks are killed unintentionally, because of the Ijmā’ concerning the permissibility of terrorizing them. Ibn Rushd, may Allāh be merciful to him, said, ‘Terrorizing is permitted by Ijmā’ against all types of kuffār. ”Refer to “Al-Hāshiyah ‘Alā Ar-Rawdh” (4/270).

Edited by SJ54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4) When there is a need to besiege, torch, burn, fumigate, drown the fortresses [and ships] of the kuffār, even if it leads to the killing/death of their women and children.

 

Imām An-Nawawī (ra) said, “And it is permissible to besiege the kuffār in their fortresses, and to drown them in water [if they are on ships], and to attack them with fire and catapults, and raiding them at night while they are unaware.” Imām Ash-Sharbīnī (ra) said in his Sharh of the above quote from An-Nawawī (ra), “and to attack them with fire and catapults”- and this also includes demolishing their homes, and throwing snakes and scorpions upon them- even if there are women and children amongst them.” Refer to “Mughnī Al-Muhtāj Sharh Al-Minhāj” (9/72).

 

Imām Ibn An-Nahhās (ra) said, “It is permissible to attack them with catapults, fire, and to drown them in water [if they are on ships] - even if there are women and children amongst them. But if there is a Muslim prisoner or merchant, or a Musta’man [a person with a covenant], then it is Makrūh [disliked], unless there is a necessity.”Refer to “Mashāri’ Al-Ashwāq” (2/1024). Notice how the Imām (ra) did not state that it is Makrūh to attack the kuffār if their women and children are present- yet, he mentioned it for the Muslim prisoner/merchant and the Musta’man.

 

Intentionally Killing Them:

 

5) When the women and children of the kuffār fight against Muslims, then it is permissible to kill them, intentionally targeting them.

 

“The ‘Ulamā’ have not disagreed concerning killing those who fight from the women and old men and that it is permissible to kill them. And also, the children who are able to fight and do fight; they are killed too.”

 

 

Imām An-Nawawī (ra) said, “The ‘Ulamā’ are at consensus to act upon the Hadīth of the prohibition of killing women and children as long as they do not fight- But if they fight, then the majority of the scholars say they should be killed.”Refer to “Al-Minhāj Sharh Sahīh Muslim Ibn Al-Hajjāj” (12/48).

 

Imām Ibn An-Nahhās (ra) said, “It is forbidden to kill the women of the kuffār and their children if they don’t fight according to Ash-Shāfi’ī, Mālik, Ahmad, and Abū Hanīfah- but if they fight, then they are to be killed.”Refer to “Mashāri’ Al-Ashwāq” (2/1023).

 

 

6) When any of them encourages their fighters, or supports them, or distracts the Muslims- then it is permissible to kill them.

 

Ibn Qudāmah Al-Maqdisī (ra) said, “If a woman stands in the ranks of the kuffār, or upon their fortress, and ridicules the Muslims, or reveals her naked self [as a distraction] - then it is permissible to strike her. As it is narrated on the authority of ‘Ikrimah (ra), “When the Messenger ىلصملسو هيلع للها besieged the People of At-Tā’if, a woman came up and revealed her naked body. So the Messenger ملسو هيلع للها ىلص ordered, “Strike her!” So a Muslim man struck her.” And this was not a mistake from him. And it is permissible to look at her private parts- in such a situation- since it is necessary to look at the target. And similarly, it is permissible to strike anyone who is (originally) protected from killing, such as a child or an old man and such – if she (or they) prepares arrows for the enemy, gives them water to drink, or encourages them to fight; because they will be considered as fighters.” Refer to “Al-Mughnī” (10/504).

 

7) When they apostatize, then it is obligatory to kill all apostates, even if they are women.

 

Al-Hāfith Ibn Hajar (ra) said, “And he (Ibn ‘Abbās) narrated, “And the female apostate is to be killed, and Abū Bakr (ra) killed a woman who had apostatized during his Khilāfah, and all the Companions agreed, not a single one of them objected against him…” Because the original kāfirah can be enslaved and becomes property of the Mujāhidīn, but the female apostate cannot become enslaved, so she must be killed. And in the Hadīth of Mu’āth (ra) when the Prophet ملسو هيلع للها ىلص sent him to Yemen, there are the words, “Whichever man apostatizes from Islām, then call him back. So if he returns (then let him be), but if not, then strike his neck. And whichever woman apostatizes from Islām, then call her back. So if she returns (then let her be), but if not, then strike her neck.” And the chain of narration of this Hadīth is Hasan. And it is a clear text regarding the issue being differed upon- so it is obligatory to come back to this text (and act upon it).” Refer to “Fat’h Al-Bārī”, in “Kitāb Istitābat Al-Murtaddīn”. And only a few have contradicted this ruling of the permissibility of killing women who have left Islām, claiming that the general prohibition from killing women and children of the kuffār should be applied here. Imām Ibn Hazm (ra) said regarding them in his “Kitāb Al-Jihād” from “Al-Muhallā”, “May this evil claim and its supporter(s) be destroyed!”

 

Ibn Qudāmah Al-Maqdisī (ra) said, “And he (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) said, “Whosoever turns back from Islām, from amongst the men and women, and is mature 70 and sane- they are given three days. So if they return to Islām (then let them be), and if not, then they should be killed…” There is no difference between men and women apostates in the obligation to kill them. This has been narrated from Abū Bakr (ra) and ‘Alī (ra). And this is the stance of Al-Hasan Al-Basrī, Az-Zuhrī, Ibrāhīm An-Nakh’ī, Mak’hūl, Hammād, Mālik, Al-Layth, Al-Awzā’ī, Ash-Shāfi’ī, and Is’hāq.” Refer to “Al-Mughnī” (10/74).

 

“Whosoever turns back from Islām, from amongst the men and women, and is mature..." The Salaf excluded children from this.

 

8) When they curse the Prophet ملسو هيلع للها ىلص , or ridicule anything which manifests Islām [i.e. Mus’haf, Ka’bah, etc] - it is permissible to kill them even if they are the women and children of the kuffār.

 

Allāh (Most High) says,

َأ ْاوُثَكَّن نِإَوَنوُهَتنَي ْمُهَّلَعَل ْمُهَل َناَمْيَأ َلا ْمُهَّنِإ ِرْفُكْلا َةَّمِئَأ ْاوُلِتاَقَف ْمُكِنيِد يِف ْاوُنَعَطَو ْمِهِدْهَع ِدْعَب نِّم مُهَناَمْي

“But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of kufr- for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions).” At-Tawbah: 12

 

Al-Hāfith Ibn Kathīr (ra) said while explaining the above Verse, “And from this Verse, it is understood that whosoever insults the Prophet ىلصملسو هيلع للها , or curses the Dīn of Islām, then such a person is to be killed.” Refer to “Tafsīr Al-Qur’ān Al-‘Athīm” (2/352).

 

 

And Ibn ‘Abbās (ra) narrated, “A blind man had a wife ( Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) in “As-Sārim Al-Maslūl” explains that this woman was a Jew Thimmiyyah.) who used to revile the Prophet ملسو هيلع للها ىلص . So the man prohibited her, but she did not cease; he scolded her, but she continued. So during one night, she began reviling the Prophet ملسو هيلع للها ىلص and insulting him. So the husband took a dagger and put it in her stomach till he had killed her. And a child had come to her, and the blood splattered upon everything that was there. So when morning came, this [murder] was mentioned to the Messenger ملسو هيلع للها ىلص . So he gathered the people and announced, “Allāh has notified (me) that a man has perpetrated this. I have a right upon him! Will he not stand up?”So the blind man stood up and walked between the people, trembling, till he sat in front of the Prophet هيلع للها ىلصملسو . He said, “O Messenger of Allāh- I am her husband, and she used to curse you and revile you; and I forbid her, but she continued, I restrained her, but she did not cease. So I took my dagger and put it in her stomach till I had killed her.” So the Prophet ملسو هيلع للها ىلص replied, “Nay, all of you (should) testify that her blood was worthless.” Refer to “Sahīh Abī Dāwūd” (3665), and “Sunan An-Nasā’ī”.

 

Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) explained this incident, and said, “And this Hadīth is a text which proves the permissibility of killing her due to her revilement of the Prophet ملسو هيلع للها ىلص ; and this also is an evidence for killing a Thimmī.” Refer to “As-Sārim Al-Maslūl ‘Alā Shātim Ar-Rasūl” (62).

 

9) When they are the leaders of their people, it is permissible to kill them, even if they are women and children, queens or princes, or sorceress/witch.

 

“Fight (you) the leaders of kufr.” At-Tawbah: 12

 

Imām Al-Mubārakfūrī (ra) said, “[Quoting Ibn Al-Humām] ‘And the queen is to be killed even if she does not fight, and likewise the child king [As-Sabiyy Al-Malik], and also the insane king. And this is because killing them breaks the determination of the enemies, as is mentionedin “Al-Mirqāt Al-Masābīh” [of Al-Mullā ‘Alī Al-Qārī].’ I say: Some of Ibn Al-Humām’s words have wisdom in them- so ponder upon this.” Refer to “Tuhfat Al-Ahwathī”, in the “Kitāb As-Siyar”.

 

10) When the kuffār break their covenant, the Imām can choose to kill them all, including their women and children, or to save part of them.

 

Imām An-Nawawī (ra) said in the chapter entitled, “Chapter: The Permissibility of Fighting Those Who Betray Their Covenant- and to Appoint a Just Ruler to Give the Verdict [i.e. fate] upon the [betraying] Town’s People.” Refer to “Al-Minhāj Sharh Sahīh Muslim Ibn Al-Hajjāj” (12/92).

 

“And this is what happened to Banū Quraythah. The Messenger للها ىلصملسو هيلع told Sa’d Ibn Mu’āth (ra), “Give your judgment upon them [i.e. Banū Quraythah], O Sa’d!” Sa’d replied, “Allāh and His Messenger are more worthy of judging.” So the Prophet ملسو هيلع للها ىلص said, “Indeed Allāh has ordered you to judge upon them!” 84 And Sa’d (ra) gave the judgment for their men to be killed, and their properties/wealth, women, and children to be distributed amongst the Muslims.” Refer to “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (7/329, 411-414), and “Al-Minhāj Sharh Sahīh Muslim Ibn Al-Hajjāj” (12/92-93).

 

Ibn Hajar (ra) said, “And the Prophet ملسو هيلع للها ىلص killed some of the kuffār on the Day of Badr, and ransomed others, and released others; and similarly he killed (every male from) Banū Quraythah; and released Banū Al-Mustaliq; and he killed Ibn Khatal and others at Makkah, and released the rest; and he enslaved Hawāzin; and he released Thumāmah Ibn Uthāl. So all these prove that the saying of the majority of the scholars is most correct- that the judgment is up to the Imām.” Refer to “Fat’h Al-Bārī” (6/152).

 

11) When kuffār target the women, children, and the elderly of the Muslims- then it is permissible in this situation to do the same thing to the women, children and elderly of the kuffār.

 

As Allāh (Most High) has said:

َلَع ْاوُدَتْعاَف ْمُكْيَلَع ىَدَتْعا ِنَمَفَنيِقَّتُمْلا َعَم َهّللا َّنَأ ْاوُمَلْعاَو َهّللا ْاوُقَّتاَو ْمُكْيَلَع ىَدَتْعا اَم ِلْثِمِب ِهْي

Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allāh, and know that Allāh is with the pious.”

Al-Baqarah: 194

 

اَل ُهَّنِإ ِهَّللا ىَلَع ُهُرْجَأَف َحَلْصَأَو اَفَع ْنَمَف اَهُلْثِّم ٌةَئِّيَس ٍةَئِّيَس ءاَزَجَو َنوُرِصَتنَي ْمُه ُيْغَبْلا ُمُهَباَصَأ اَذِإ َنيِذَّلاِإ ٍليِبَس نِّم مِهْيَلَع اَم َكِئَلْوُأَف ِهِمْلُظ َدْعَب َرَصَتنا ِنَمَلَو َنيِمِلاَّظلا ُّبِحُي َساَّنلا َنوُمِلْظَي َنيِذَّلا ىَلَع ُليِبَّسلا اَمَّنِروُمُأْلا ِمْزَع ْنِمَل َكِلَذ َّنِإ َرَفَغَو َرَبَص نَمَلَو ٌميِلَأ ٌباَذَع مُهَل َكِئَلْوُأ ِّقَحْلا ِرْيَغِب ِضْرَأْلا يِف َنوُغْبَيَو

And those who, when an oppressive wrong is done to them, they take revenge. The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof, but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allāh. Verily, He likes not the wrong-doers. And indeed whosoever takes revenge after he has suffered wrong, for such there is no way (of blame) against them. The way (of blame) is only against those who oppress men and wrongly rebel in the earth, for such there will be a painful torment. And verily, whosoever shows patience and forgives that would truly be from the things recommended by Allāh.” Ash-Shūrā: 39-43

 

َنيرِباَّصلِّل ٌرْيَخ َوُهَل ْمُتْرَبَص نِئَلَو ِهِب مُتْبِقوُع اَم ِلْثِمِب ْاوُبِقاَعَف ْمُتْبَقاَع ْنِإَو

And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allāh), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for the patient ones.” An-Nahl: 126

 

Conclusion:

 

These are some of the situations which are exceptions to the general prohibition against killing women and children of the kuffār; amongst these situations, it is permissible to sometimes kill them intentionally, and also unintentionally- as long as there is a Maslahah [benefit (in this case, greater than the benefit of enslaving them)] for the Muslims and Mujāhidīn in doing so.

So all these prove that the protection [‘Ismah] of their blood is not unrestricted- unlike the prohibition of fornication and sodomy and the likes, which are unrestrictedly forbidden. Rather- the Sharī’ah of Islām has made the blood of their women and children permissible in these exceptions. So this reveals the mistake of the people who claim that their protection [‘Ismah] is unrestricted and absolute under all circumstances.

 

 

And it is not a strange matter that it is permissible to do something by Qisās, which would otherwise be forbidden in normal situations.

 

ْمُكْيَلَع ىَدَتْعا اَم ِلْثِمِب ِهْيَلَع اوُدَتْعاَف ْمُكْيَلَع ىَدَتْعا ْنَمَف ٌصاَصِق ُتاَمُرُحْلاَو

“And for the prohibited things, there is the Law of Equality (Qisās). Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him.” Al-Baqarah: 194

 

Imām At-Tabarī (ra) said while explaining this Verse, “This means (that Allāh is saying)… Because I have made the forbidden things a matter of Qisās- So whichever mushrikīn makes permissible- O Mu’minīn- the sanctity of My Sanctuary [Al-Masjid Al-Harām], then you too make it permissible (Istihlāl) similarly.”

 

 

“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allāh), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted.” An-Nahl: 126

 

But he preferred to forgive and pardon, by taking the Statement of Allāh,

ِروُمُأْلا ِمْزَع ْنِمَل َكِلَذ َّنِإ َرَفَغَو َرَبَص نَمَلَو

And verily, whosoever shows patience and forgives that would truly be from the things recommended by Allāh.” Ash-Shūrā: 39-43

 

Although this is obviously incorrect- due to the fact that kufr is not permissible except in the condition of Ikrāh (forced coercion) - but despite this fact, this demonstrates how the Salaf had understood these Verses of Qisās. And indeed- unlike magic- the killing of women and children is far from kufr- and it is permissible in many situations- so how can it be argued that the Verses of Qisās cannot be applied to the women and children of the kuffār- even though the kuffār kill our women and children?

 

And the Verses of Allāh:

اَهُلْثِّم ٌةَئِّيَس ٍةَئِّيَس ءاَزَجَو

The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof.” Ash-Shūrā: 40

 

 

ِهِب مُتْبِقوُع اَم ِلْثِمِب ْاوُبِقاَعَف ْمُتْبَقاَع ْنِإَو

And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allāh), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted.” An-Nahl: 126

 

ْمُكْيَلَع ىَدَتْعا اَم ِلْثِمِب ِهْيَلَع ْاوُدَتْعاَف ْمُكْيَلَع ىَدَتْعا

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

 

 

 

Assalamualikum

Edited by SJ54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maaan You are twisted SJ54.

 

You have essentially picked verses in isolation. You can never prove that its ok to bomb buses and market places in a city.

 

Its sad to see your understanding of Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, what garbage website have you copied that from? You are attempting to justify the intentional targeting and killing of civilians, but Islam never allows the intentional killing of civilians (unless they're collateral damage). I was talking about Al-qaeda and its associates who have bombed buses, nightclubs and other civilian targets.

 

 

Offcourse if they targeted A Military target (as they have done in 2000 with the USS COLE) and there were some unintentional civilians killed in the process, then that would be Islamically OK, but NEVER TO SPECIFICALLY TARGET CIVILIANS, WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

 

You must be really twisted , as Bro Student has previously stated, if you think that Islam allows the intentional killing of civilians.

 

Salam

Edited by anthony19832005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamualikum

 

ok i might be "twisted"..........but was the prophet Mohamad (saw) "twisted when he used a catapult to hurl stones into taif during the seige of taif when innocent people could get hurt...

 

and was he (saw) twisted for: As-Sa'b Ibn Jathāmah, may Allah be pleased with them, when he reported:

The Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children [Tharāriyy] of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, he said: “They are from themâ€. Refer to “Fat’h Al-Bārī†(6/146), and “Al-Minhāj Sharh Sahīh Muslim Ibn Al-Hajjāj†(12/49).

 

AND PLAESE READ PROPERLY AND READ THE RESONS WHY .........AND THEN DEBATE IT AND BRING YOUR PROOF......CALLING ME "TWISTED" WITHOUT SUCCESSFULLY DEBATING AGAINST WHAT I HAVE POSTED MEANS YOU JUST THREW IN THE TOWEL.

 

 

and what about the following:

 

As Allāh (Most High) has said:

óáóÚ úÇæõÃóÊúÚÇóà úãõßúíóáóÚ ìóÃóÊúÚÇ öäóãóÃóäíöÞøóÊõãúáÇ óÚóã óåøááÇ øóäóà úÇæõãóáúÚÇóæ óåøááÇ úÇæõÞøóÊÇóæ úãõßúíóáóÚ ìóÃóÊúÚÇ Çóã öáúËöãöÈ öåúí

“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allāh, and know that Allāh is with the pious.â€

Al-Baqarah: 194

 

 

 

óäíÑöÈÇøóÕáøöá ñÑúíóÎ óæõåóá úãõÊúÑóÈóÕ äöÆóáóæ öåöÈ ãõÊúÈöÞæõÚ Çóã öáúËöãöÈ úÇæõÈöÞÇóÚóà úãõÊúÈóÞÇóÚ úäöÅóæ

“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allāh), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for the patient ones.†An-Nahl: 126

 

And the Verses of Allāh:

ÇóåõáúËøöã ñÉóÆøöíóÓ òÉóÆøöíóÓ ÃÇóÒóÌóæ

“The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof.†Ash-Shūrā: 40

 

 

COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THESE VERSES PLAESE...AND IF I AM "TWISTED" .... THEN PLEASE TEACH ME THE 'RIGHT WAY' BY BRINGING IN YOUR PROOF.........AND READ PROPERLY ...READ THE REASONS WHEN AND WHY ITS ALLOWED ..........

 

AND IF YOU DONT HAVE ANY COUNTER-ARGUMENT OR ANY PROOF AGAINST IT THEN I ADVICE YOU TO SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

 

:sl:

 

Assalamualikum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but NEVER TO SPECIFICALLY TARGET CIVILIANS, WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

 

Assalamualikum

 

please read what i have posted PROPERLY........no one said "specifically"............all it says is that during an operation civillians might get hurt but that doesnt mean you stop the operation..........once more please read properly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

all it says is that during an operation civillians might get hurt but that doesnt mean you stop the operation.

 

THen I agree with you. But why did you copy and paste all of the stuff above about all the hadiths etc? I said that he is a terrorist because of the actions of his organisation such as the madrid, london, bali etc bombings, and you started posting all that stuff about how its ok to kill civilians in certain circumstances, I thought you're trying to justify and defend the targeting of non-combatants on buses, trains, nightclubs etc.

 

Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
about how its ok to kill civilians in certain circumstances, I thought you're trying to justify and defend the targeting of non-combatants on buses, trains, nightclubs etc.

 

Assalamualikum

 

yeah but the madrid bombings or whatever were ok because...........

 

As Allāh (Most High) has said:

óáóÚ úÇæõÃóÊúÚÇóà úãõßúíóáóÚ ìóÃóÊúÚÇ öäóãóÃóäíöÞøóÊõãúáÇ óÚóã óåøááÇ øóäóà úÇæõãóáúÚÇóæ óåøááÇ úÇæõÞøóÊÇóæ úãõßúíóáóÚ ìóÃóÊúÚÇ Çóã öáúËöãöÈ öåúí

“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allāh, and know that Allāh is with the pious.â€

Al-Baqarah: 194

 

 

 

óäíÑöÈÇøóÕáøöá ñÑúíóÎ óæõåóá úãõÊúÑóÈóÕ äöÆóáóæ öåöÈ ãõÊúÈöÞæõÚ Çóã öáúËöãöÈ úÇæõÈöÞÇóÚóà úãõÊúÈóÞÇóÚ úäöÅóæ

“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allāh), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for the patient ones.†An-Nahl: 126

 

And the Verses of Allāh:

ÇóåõáúËøöã ñÉóÆøöíóÓ òÉóÆøöíóÓ ÃÇóÒóÌóæ

“The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof.†Ash-Shūrā: 40

 

 

they do worse to us..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

yeah but the madrid bombings or whatever were ok because

 

Your misconception is a common one. Yes, muslims are allowed to fight back, but ONLY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES SET BY Islam You will not find any of the 4 madhabs agreeing to the Madrid/London Bombings because they targeted specifically civilian targets and killed civilians exclusively.

 

It is one thing to attack a military target in which there might be some civilians, but it is another thing altogether to attack a strictly civilian target. The latter is not allowed.

 

It is laughable that you actually believe that was allowed........ Please follow your own advice and read up on Islamic law , preferrably from a reputable scholar of the madhabs.

 

Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamualikum

 

anthony, could you just explain the following:

 

 

As Allāh (Most High) has said:

óáóÚ úÇæõÃóÊúÚÇóà úãõßúíóáóÚ ìóÃóÊúÚÇ öäóãóÃóäíöÞøóÊõãúáÇ óÚóã óåøááÇ øóäóà úÇæõãóáúÚÇóæ óåøááÇ úÇæõÞøóÊÇóæ úãõßúíóáóÚ ìóÃóÊúÚÇ Çóã öáúËöãöÈ öåúí

“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allāh, and know that Allāh is with the pious.â€

Al-Baqarah: 194

 

 

 

óäíÑöÈÇøóÕáøöá ñÑúíóÎ óæõåóá úãõÊúÑóÈóÕ äöÆóáóæ öåöÈ ãõÊúÈöÞæõÚ Çóã öáúËöãöÈ úÇæõÈöÞÇóÚóà úãõÊúÈóÞÇóÚ úäöÅóæ

“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allāh), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for the patient ones.†An-Nahl: 126

 

And the Verses of Allāh:

ÇóåõáúËøöã ñÉóÆøöíóÓ òÉóÆøöíóÓ ÃÇóÒóÌóæ

“The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof.†Ash-Shūrā: 40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

You are taking verses out of context, and interpreting them according to your desires. You or I are not scholars. I ask you again, look into the rules of combat laid out by the knowleadgeable scholars of the 4 madhabs. You will find that they unanimously agree that attacking civilian targets is forbidden by Islam.

 

Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anthony: you see my friend, you also have found your voice, and it is pure.

 

 

peace and love. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when he used a catapult to hurl stones into taif during the seige of taif

 

The important words here are "DURING THE SEIGE OF"

 

Now which city/state/town have the people who bomb buses laid seige upon. Laying seige means that an army or a group of men were taken. The people upon whoom the seige was made know they are under seige. Thus giving then enough oppourtunity to choose to run/hide/believe/fight/reject.

 

Bro please mind your language when you use the words "Mohammed Sal allahu alayhi waassallam" dont use him as an expamle to even utter words like was .... twised when he did such and such.

I personally find it reprehensible. please at least dont use such language when you write in such places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And peace and blessings be on the Last of the Prophets, who said to his Companions, “Advise me! Do you think we should target the children of those who helped them (the enemies), so we kill them; and if they remain sitting, then they will sit as those whose families have been killed, and property been seized, even if they survive

 

SO what was the advice ?? you never mentioned that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the Campaign of Khaybar........

 

The important words here are 'Campaign' which is usually under a leader of the state. Now what was the campaign under which Busses were bombed. and who was the leader ?

 

polytheists being killed during the night raid

The important word here is 'night raid' The group of people carried out a raid (common during those times).

What is bombing of busses called and Who ordered to carry it ??

 

in one Question and answer you pasted

it is our scholarly opinion (Math’hab), as well as the scholarly opinion (Math’hab) of Mālik and Abī Hanīfah

Who's scholarly opinion are you speaking about ? And do you folow the madhab of Malik and Abu Hanifa both or just one of them. For whoom is this opinion obligatory to follow. When a sclohar says its his opinion it can be followed or not followed, but when comes in the practice and command of the Rasooulllaah sal allau alayhi waasallam then we follow his command and his practice. His command was to not kill children and women. while his practice was to ignore this rule when a town was beseiged.

 

In what kind of bombing bussess do we say we have laid seige upon something and so we shall ignore the command of our rasool sall alllahu alayhi wa assallam.

 

use their women and children as human shields

When was bombing busses consider 'they using women/children as human sheilds.

Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah ............ if the armies of the kuffār shield themselves using the Muslim prisoners ...............it leads to the killing of the Muslims who were being used as shields

 

The important words here are 'Armies of "

When did bombing busses target armies.

 

So the first situation is permissible for a dire necessity, while the second is permissible for any need that arises

What need are we talking about here ?? we never began to discuss that did we ?

 

Ibn Rushd (ra) said, “And the jurists are all united on the permissibility of using catapults to strike the fortresses of the kuffār

The important words here are fortresses. Which fortresses is being attacked by bombing busses ?

 

 

This is the reason why i said you pick and choose. You have brought verses out of context. Look again to what you printed in bold text and compare it what you left out.

“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allāh), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for the patient ones.†An-Nahl: 126

Why not make the sentence of "..........But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for the patient ones" in bold.

 

Most importantly you never stated who should do all that, should one man do it, a group of men, or the state. And wh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:

 

SJ54, it is the process, not the result (nominal number of enemies' death). even if all Muslims would eventually die in their fight, but if it is done correctly, Insha Allah there is nothing to lose.

 

If you kill all of your enemies for the sake of your brothers and sisters and religion (you think), but He does not accept it. What gives?

 

Wassalam,

Yasnov

Edited by Yasnov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×