clear guidance

Entries below are copied from discussion threads from Clearguidance.com forums.

Clearguidance.com is an online forum for English-speaking extremist Muslim youth - currently hosted by:

PC Warehouse & Supplies
224 W. McMillan St. Cincinnati, OH 45219
Phone: (513) 784-1818 Fax: (513) 784-1819
Saturday, June 21, 2003
 
Suicide Bombers / Attacks on civilians
salmang
The Antemortem Prayer

Brother
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Pakistan
Posts: 99
Suicide Bombers / Attacks on civilians
AsslamuAlaikum.

There has been and is so much confusion over this topic, I decided to have it clear in my mind, once and for all.

The attacks on military targets and personnel are justified, yes, I don't need a clarification there.

Are attacks on civilians justified? Take the example of Israeli, Russian and American civilians.

If they are, why?

A few days back, the argument that since all Israelis have to serve in the army, their slaughter is justified, was given. Does that mean that anyone who has ever served in an army against the Muslims can be killed, even if he is not in the army at the time he is killed?

The American citizens are deemed 'not innocent' because they elect their leaders, because the decisions of their leaders represent the American people, because they pay taxes and thus fund these wars. But is not that the order in every state, and has that not been the order in every state in the history? A Muslim Khalifa elected by Muslim people, will any decision taken by him make the slaughter of Muslim civilians lawful? Also, Muslim women used to give jewellery and other valuables they possessed to the Prophet [pbuh] during times of Jihad. And though I do not have evidence of this, but this being a way of the time, the non-Muslim women of other empires may have done the same. Was the slaughter of these women then justified?

Back to the point, is the killing of civilians justified? Why?

A few requests before my query is answered. If there is a long article you want me to read, just post the link and not the article. Long articles copied from somewhere serve to make you miss important posts above and below the copied article, and make threads all the more confusing.

Also, if there's an article that does not specifically deal with this question, select the information and type/paste it here. However, I'll be happy to look for it myself in the case that you lack time.

Back up arguments with the Quran or the Hadith.

My last request - please, refrain from making this a personal battle with anyone instead of keeping it a discussion, and please answer with all sincerity, knowing that Allah is watching you.

I'll be immensely thankful, and may Allah reward anyone who replies for his reply.

AlaykumuSalam.


__________________
The Muslim Candidate.. grades, or I suicide bomb University of Cambridge..


Last edited by salmang on 06-20-2003 at 03:39 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

06-20-2003 03:35 AM



salmang
The Antemortem Prayer

Brother
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Pakistan
Posts: 99
I quote the following from Abu Dujanah,

quote:
- "Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyahwith willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. " Surat at-Tawbah, ayah 29.

- "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]." Al-Anfaal: 39.

- "Say (O Muhammad ) to the bedouins who lagged behind: "You shall be called to fight against a people given to great warfare, then you shall fight them, or they shall surrender. Then if you obey, Allah will give you a fair reward, but if you turn away as you did turn away before, He will punish you with a painful torment." Surat al-Fath: 16.

And the like, of these passages from the Qur'aan.

- And, from the well-known hadeeth of the Messenger, from Ibn 'Umar, "I have been ordered to fight the people, until they say Laa ilaha illa Allah", in the Sihaah.

Thus the origin in the blood of the disbeliever is the permissablity (to shed it), as, as 'Umar bin al-Khattab said, their blood is dirtier than the blood of the dogs, and there are similar statements from the great scholars of Islaam. And this is the harbi, the other category of the kufaar are Ahl ath-Thimmah - the thimmi.

It would be useful and important to note something here, and that is, that the scholars of Islaam have divided the harbi into two categories:

- Those whom da'wah has not reached. And these people, it is not obligatory or permissable to kill them, although there is no diyyah or kafaarah (blood money, or expiation) if they are killed. But, the reason stated for the prohibition, is that we lose giving da'wah to them, and this was held by a group of the people of knowledge, although, other scholars - and this is what seems to be stronger, wallahu a'lam - hold that the da'wah to the kufaar has been given, and there is no one in the modern developed world who hasn't heard of Islaam or Muhammed, (which are the things that one must hear in order to have the hujjah established upon him).

- The other category, are those whom da'wah has reached. And these are the ones, whom, if they do not have a convenant with the people of Islaam, or the khaleefah, then it becomes permissable - and even obligatory - to fight them, and have them killed if they don't accept Islaam.

And in this category, the women, children and old men, should be avoided as much as possible.

So, in summary then, we have four groups:

- The thimmi, or mu'aahid (the one with a covenant), or musta`man (the one with amnesty); and killing them there is blood-money, although there is a large dispute over this.

- The harbi whom da'wah has not reached, and killing him is not permissable, although if he is killed, then there is no blood-money or expiation.

- The harbi whom da'wah has reached, and he is from those who are capable of fighting - the men and anyone who supports them from the women, even if it may be by providing water for the enemies of Allah - then, these people it is obligatory kill, and it is permissable to kill.

- The harbi, who is not from those who fight, like the women, children and the like, then it is not permissable to kill them, because they are property, and wealth for the Muslims.

This is how it is generally, there is much more detail. But this was intended as a summary.

And Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala knows best.



So, does that answer my question? I or someone has to call any non-Muslim who is a Harbi to Islam, and if they refuse, I sink a dagger down their chest - true?

Or does this apply only when there exists a Khilafah, and battle is waged under orders of the Khalifah.. ?

Also, the Quran says,
"Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued . " Surat at-Tawbah, ayah 29.

What if the Muslims are weaker than the non-Muslims against whom war is waged? Is it permissible, in such a case, to sign a treaty which favours the non-Muslims, and by which they are not 'subdued'? Similar to that in Hudaiybiyah.

Or have I gotten everything wrong, because the verse was said in a particular context and addresses a particular group of non-Muslims?


Oh and, respond.


__________________
The Muslim Candidate.. grades, or I suicide bomb University of Cambridge..


Last edited by salmang on 06-20-2003 at 10:44 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

06-20-2003 10:36 AM



Abu Dujanah
ÞÇÆÏ ÇáãÌæÚÉ¡ Úáíå ÑÍãÉ Çááå

Brother
Registered: Dec 2001
Location:
Posts: 1733
quote:
So, does that answer my question? I or someone has to call any non-Muslim who is a Harbi to Islam, and if they refuse, I sink a dagger down their chest - true?


Two issues here, one is the issue of has da'wah reached them or not, we'll avoid that for now, because it isn't that important.

Second issue is, is it an immediate obligation to kill the harbi who does not enter Islaam?

The Salaf spoke of this issue, ultimately, they should be fought, but as for fighting them immediately, then that goes down to the benefits and harms. If there is benefit in killing him, then do so. But there isn't, then don't. But "do so" and "don't" are not Islaamic rulings, in the same way as halaal, haraam, etc. It's permissable (mubaah), but if the benefit dictates that it isn't the right course of action, or isn't to our benefit, then we don't do it, and we cannot criticise the other Islaamic groups or Muslims who do it and call it haraam on this basis alone (i.e. that there is no benefit in it, like some people did with September 11, calling it haraam, not on a fiqhi basis, but because, in their view, it was a harm).

Let's take the Christians of Egypt, the Coptics. It is permissable to kill them? Yes. Does killing them though, benefit the Islaamic groups there? The leaders of these groups say, no.

Who sets the benefits and harms? The Sharee'ah really, with it's objectives, and those who understand the Sharee'ah, apply it to the waaqi' and see. These people are the consultative councils, the leaders of the Mujahideen and the righteous active scholars.

Two different things.

The ruling, and implementing the ruling in reality.

And Allah knows best.



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

06-20-2003 08:01 PM

Powered by Blogger