Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

[Saif-Uddin]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

Hi brothers and sisters can you help me with a question that i have, i just watched a video which is titled "The Quran and the Siege of Paris" its by the evangelist David wood who have criticized Islam many times, He claims that according to Islam it was right to attack the civillians in Paris because Muhammad (pbuh) commanded them to do it.

Here is the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur7Ttz0q0o4

He uses Surah maidah verses 32-33 and hadits like sunan ibn majah 2759 sahih al bukhari 2843

Evangelists are Nutjob Loons,

I have one at work, a Born again Cultist I have to deal with,

stay away from them,

secondly these Sicko's have deep rooted Hatred against Islam,

and have clearly not read their Bible properly,

the Bible promotes Mass Genocide/Infanticide, the Killing of Women, Women and Children.

several Verses can be cited to prove this,

:jkk:

[ExNihilo]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

One can read from Peace4's and Ex Nihilo's posts the effort by some to curtail and misrepresent the Truth so as things fit the global imperial narrative. They admittedly distort my clear statements based on decisive and extensive texts, attempting to spread falsehoods and distortions about them to serve their imperial narrative agenda.
.

Every post you make is part of your own imperialist agenda. You can't see or comment on a single event without feeling the need to slot it into your preconceived analysis. As a result you look at the world yet see nothing except your own reflection.

From the first Isis have targeted civilians and nothing that anyone else has done is an excuse for that.

Isis morality is non existent because, by their own admission, they will sink to the lowest standards of those around them.

[Abu Kamel]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

لسَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُl

my view is not only the imperials narrative bro, it also happens to be the narrative of mainstream Islam

What is "mainstream Islam"? Who leads it?
Who is responsible for it?
What does it consist of, as in institutions, organizations, governments?
What is its history and connection with the Prophet and the khulafa of Islamic history?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...-gOofuULy8togE

Since you want to say you represent the "mainstream Islam", then you should be held accountable for what you say.

What you have done with your commentary on this authentic evidence is YOU HAVE EXXAGARATED THE TEXT by inventing a category "innocents" and then imposing it on the text to suit your notion, your worldview, your misinterpretations of text.

You do it again by identifying "innocents" with "civilians".

Thus, by your conniving, dishonest way, you have applied Taghut law onto Shariah by misinterpreting texts.

By your readIng, citizens are innocent and should not be touched.

But that is NOT Shariah nor from the Prophet .

First, the Prophet did NOT SAY DO NOT HARM CIVILIANS BECAUSE THEY ARE INNOCENT which is what you implied by your deviant interpretation.

Second, he said (what means) "...this is not one with whom fighting should have taken place. ...say to Khalid 'do not kill women and hired servants."

This and many other evidences have established among righteous ulama that the category is whether a person poses a threat were he of she would be come armed and trained for war.
Hence, tne TRUTHFUL category is whether a person fits the category to pay JIZYA.

The one who fulfills the category to pay JIZYA is also the one who can be targetted in war.

That category for centuries meant kafir, adult (puberty) male, free, sane, healthy , earning a livable income.

This is what imam Abu Yusuf (rh) stated in his work Kitabul Kharaj and qadi Shaybani (rh) indicated in his work and one could find it in all the madhahib a d from the righteous ulama of the salaf was salih.

Those who do not fulfill the category to pay jizya: physically sick/elderly, slaves, children below puberty, women (who are untrained fighters), poor servants laborers, are not categorized as "civilians" or " innocents".

Rather, the classic ulama recognized that if they are from kafir harbi with no treaty or contract with the khilafah, then they can be enslaved if the khalifah chooses to rule as such, or set free to live with the Islamic state, or allowed to return to darul harb, or ransomed.

Those who know Shariah and Islamic history know that this is how Islam was applied, NOT BY FOLLOWING TAWAGHIT KUFAR LAW and adopting the idea of "civilians".


In the past 100 years, the Tawaghit following their manmade ideologies chose to place the burden of war on the poor and just recently, on women as well. And if they can, they will place it on even children and the sick while keeping themselves, the rich elites untouched.

This evil injustice of pushing the duties of war on others while avoiding war themselves, is a result of secular democracy and liberal capitalism. As the corrupt ruling class have become empowered to determine laws and even war for their own profit and personal gain ( eg. Bush family etc) , this is the result of reality today.

Thus, where the kufar have trained and armed poor (minorities, foreign residents, etc) and women (eg. Israel, etc) then they become legitimate targets of war.

Again, the matter resides with the threat of the kafir harbi

Thus, your "deviant fatwa"
[/QUOTE]"...it is one thing to kill a civilian by mistake but to deliberately target them is totally and utterly forbidden[/QUOTE]

This shows me that you do not have actual knowledge from Islam. Instead, you are innovating Taghut law into Islam by misinterpreting texts.

Allah hadeek.

[Abu Kamel]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

As for the rest of your post:

You said hamza yusuf said:

In Islam, the only wars that are permitted are between armies and they should engage on battlefields and engage nobly. the prophet Muhammad said, ``do not kill women or children or non-combatants and do not kill old people or religious people,'' and he mentioned priests, nuns and rabbis. and he said, ``do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies.''*- see more at:*http://shaykhhamza.com/transcript/sa....cnp4r4gb.dpuf

Idon't want to get into the misunderstandings of Hamza Yusuf, except to say that he follows shaykh Abdullah bin Bayyah. Bin Bayyah appears to have tasked Hanson with his deviations and corruptions of Shariah and Islam for interests that serve the murtadeen regimes and their relations with the enormous Taghut power: America. Bin Bayyah has passed fatawa reenforcing all kinds of fasadul ard and Hanson is caught in the middle, serving his teacher who serves the murtadeen who serve the Taghut.

Thus, Allah states (what means) 2:216:

Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.

And 2:191

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Not Hanson nor Bin Bayyah get to decide when and where to fight. Allah only forbid al Masjudul Haram as a refuge, not the capitals of those waging war against Muslims.

And Allah made clear statements: if they fight you, then fight them. If monks rabbis nuns women children ( kafir Kurds are arming chikdren to fight in Shaam) take up arms against Muslims, then they can be fought.

...your statements are the same as that which i've read on alqaeeda website bro; their rationale for killing civilians; anwar al awlaki said the same things when he was explaining why umar faruk wanted to blow up civilian plane; basically if you didn't mean it as it is ok to kill non-combatant then do you see why any non-muslim will think that you are in so many words?we have to do our utmost to attract people to Islam bro and beating around the bush regarding matters which are henious to anyone does not help at all*even if the enemy kill our civilians we are not allowed to kill theirs; shaykh hamza yusuf gave an evidence of that once in a beutiful hadith [sorry forgot the ref]; he said, once a muslim approached the commander of the Muslim army and said, 'lets kill the prisoners of war', the commander replied, 'no'!, the muslim said, 'but they kill our prisoners', the commander replied, 'they are not our teachers'

I do not and have never taken from nor follow Al Qaida.
Nor do I read their literature, nor do I study from them.

I studied under ulama from al Azhar.

Again, you use the kafir Taghut law term "civilian" when discussing Shariah.

Your problem seems to be you dont know Shariah and have adopting the thinking of manmade ideologies. So you try to apply these kufr concepts to Islam and use deviant and misguided figures like Hanson who are themselves serving interests other than Islam. So when actual Shariah and Islam is applied, it appears to you as "extremism" or "terrorism", both concepts from kufr ideology.

First, a hadith in Shariah refers to a narration linked to the Prophet as words, action, observation of, or a matter in which the Prophet was involved. So what you mentioned is NOT a hadith. Rather, it appears to be a quote Hanson liked.

Second, see my thread "Calicificying the Ulama". I explained how there are ulama today who do NOT want a khilafah, instead thry wsnt to keep things so they are in power.

Third, Hanson and Bin Bayyah have never engaged in war for the sake of Allah. In fact, Bin Bayyah visited the White House to discuss with them about arming Syrians. What was said in their meeting i dont know, but it is highly dangerous and suspicious that an alim of Bin Bayyah's stature to go to the White House for any reason, let alone confer with the worst enemy of Islam and possibly discuss killing Muslims.

Fourth, this thread was a question about an aspect of Islamfrom someone who didnt know.

[Peace4mankind]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

What is "mainstream Islam"? Who leads it?
Who is responsible for it?
What does it consist of, as in institutions, organizations, governments?
What is its history and connection with the Prophet and the khulafa of Islamic history?



Since you want to say you represent the "mainstream Islam", then you should be held accountable for what you say.

What you have done with your commentary on this authentic evidence is YOU HAVE EXXAGARATED THE TEXT by inventing a category "innocents" and then imposing it on the text to suit your notion, your worldview, your misinterpretations of text.

You do it again by identifying "innocents" with "civilians".

Thus, by your conniving, dishonest way, you have applied Taghut law onto Shariah by misinterpreting texts.

By your readIng, citizens are innocent and should not be touched.

But that is NOT Shariah nor from the Prophet .

First, the Prophet did NOT SAY DO NOT HARM CIVILIANS BECAUSE THEY ARE INNOCENT which is what you implied by your deviant interpretation.

Second, he said (what means) "...this is not one with whom fighting should have taken place. ...say to Khalid 'do not kill women and hired servants."

This and many other evidences have established among righteous ulama that the category is whether a person poses a threat were he of she would be come armed and trained for war.
Hence, tne TRUTHFUL category is whether a person fits the category to pay JIZYA.

The one who fulfills the category to pay JIZYA is also the one who can be targetted in war.

That category for centuries meant kafir, adult (puberty) male, free, sane, healthy , earning a livable income.

This is what imam Abu Yusuf (rh) stated in his work Kitabul Kharaj and qadi Shaybani (rh) indicated in his work and one could find it in all the madhahib a d from the righteous ulama of the salaf was salih.

Those who do not fulfill the category to pay jizya: physically sick/elderly, slaves, children below puberty, women (who are untrained fighters), poor servants laborers, are not categorized as "civilians" or " innocents".

Rather, the classic ulama recognized that if they are from kafir harbi with no tr<script id="gpt-impl-0.07790712180458153" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_76.js"></script>eaty or contract with the khilafah, then they can be enslaved if the khalifah chooses to rule as such, or set free to live with the Islamic state, or allowed to return to darul harb, or ransomed.

Those who know Shariah and Islamic history know that this is how Islam was applied, NOT BY FOLLOWING TAWAGHIT KUFAR LAW and adopting the idea of "civilians".


In the past 100 years, the Tawaghit following their manmade ideologies chose to place the burden of war on the poor and just recently, on women as well. And if they can, they will place it on even children and the sick while keeping themselves, the rich elites untouched.

This evil injustice of pushing the duties of war on others while avoiding war themselves, is a result of secular democracy and liberal capitalism. As the corrupt ruling class have become empowered to determine laws and even war for their own profit and personal gain ( eg. Bush family etc) , this is the result of reality today.

Thus, where the kufar have trained and armed poor (minorities, foreign residents, etc) and women (eg. Israel, etc) then they become legitimate targets of war.

Again, the matter resides with the threat of the kafir harbi

Thus, your "deviant fatwa"
"...it is one thing to kill a civilian by mistake but to deliberately target them is totally and utterly forbidden

This shows me that you do not have actual knowledge from Islam. Instead, you are innovating Taghut law into Islam by misinterpreting texts.

Allah hadeek.

mainstream Islam are the majority of Islamic Scholars [and the majority of muslim laymen follow them] ; it is they that form the ahlus sunnah wal jamaah bro; they are Scholars of the four madhabs and Ashari and maturidi in aqeedah:

(1) Imam Abu Dawood (Rahimahullah) has quoted the well known Hadith concerning the division of the Muslim Ummah into seventy-three sects in his Sunan (3/4580, English edn):

Abu Amir al-Hawdhani said, "Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with him) stood among us and said, 'Beware! The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood among us and said': 'Beware! The People of the Book before (you) were split up into 72 sects, and this community will be split up into 73, seventy-two of them will go to Hell and one of them will go to Paradise, and it is the majority group (Jama'ah).'

Abdal Hakim Murad (the translator of the above book) said in the footnote to the fiftieth branch of faith: 'Orthodoxy in Islam is defined as the doctrine of ahl al-sunna wa'l jama'a, the People of the Sunna and the Community. To know whether a doctrine or practise is orthodox or heretical, the Muslim is required to find out whether it is recognised by the majority of Muslim scholars (see later for Imam al-Munawi's commentary). Thus even without looking into their theology, he will know that sects such as the Isma'ilis, the Khariji's, the Wahhabi's, the Twelver Shi'a and others (not to mention anti-Islamic groupings such as the Ahmadiya and the Bahais) are to be repudiated.'"

http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/ahlsunna.htmhttp://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq2.htm


if Prophet [saw] sais we do not kill non-combatants, and we can see in hadith where a woman of the enemy came ... but Prophet [saw] said since she has not come to fight us it is unlawful to kill her, then what we mean by 'innocents' is the non-combatants bro, not that they are innocent of sin but innocent enough not to be killed

[Abu Kamel]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

mainstream Islam are the majority of Islamic Scholars [and the majority of muslim laymen follow them] ; it is they that form the ahlus sunnah wal jamaah bro; they are Scholars of the four madhabs and Ashari and maturidi in aqeedah:

(1) Imam Abu Dawood (Rahimahullah) has quoted the well known Hadith concerning the division of the Muslim Ummah into seventy-three sects in his Sunan (3/4580, English edn):

Abu Amir al-Hawdhani said, "Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with him) stood among us and said, 'Beware! The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood among us and said': 'Beware! The People of the Book before (you) were split up into 72 sects, and this community will be split up into 73, seventy-two of them will go to Hell and one of them will go to Paradise, and it is the majority group (Jama'ah).'

Abdal Hakim Murad (the translator of the above book) said in the footnote to the fiftieth branch of faith: 'Orthodoxy in Islam is defined as the doctrine of ahl al-sunna wa'l jama'a, the People of the Sunna and the Community. To know whether a doctrine or practise is orthodox or heretical, the Muslim is required to find out whether it is recognised by the majority of Muslim scholars (see later for Imam al-Munawi's commentary). Thus even without looking into their theology, he will know that sects such as the Isma'ilis, the Khariji's, the Wahhabi's, the Twelver Shi'a and others (not to mention anti-Islamic groupings such as the Ahmadiya and the Bahais) are to be repudiated.'"

http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/ahlsunna.htmhttp://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq2.htm


if Prophet [saw] sais we do not kill non-combatants, and we can see in hadith where a woman of the enemy came ... but Prophet [saw] said since she has not come to fight us it is unlawful to kill her, then what we mean by 'innocents' is the non-combatants bro, not that they are innocent of sin but innocent enough not to be killed

Brother,

In shaykh Ibn Rushd's (rh) work Bidayatul Mujtahid, in his 'chapter' on Jihad, section 3 "Identification of the harm permitted to be inflicted upon the enemy" [volume 1], he cites:

"... there is no dispute among them that it is not permitted to slay minors or women, as long as they are not waging war. If a woman fights the shedding of her blood is permissible. This was established as "the Prophet prohibited the killing women and children, and said when he saw a slain woman "she was not one who would have engaged in fighting."

Here, "no dispute among them" refers to the three primary madhahib at that time: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii. It also refers to the several leading ulama who some say were mujtahideen mutlaq and did not follow these three, like sh. Ibn Hazm al Zahiri (rh). Although Ibn Rushd wrote especially about the three schools.

And here, "she was not one who would have engaged in fighting" the Prophet indicated the principle of the jurisprudence refers that women, even children, can be killed IF they engaged in fighting.

Here, I have presented the sources and the opinions based on established jurisprudence.

On the contrary, your original posts were of the opinion, as I mentioned, "civilians" are "innocent". And you later modified your idea that "civilians" are "noncombatants".

The reality is: "civilian" is a kufr legal concept imposed from the centuries of Taghut rule over the Ummah.

Islam stands alone and separate from contemporary ideologies from the West.
There is no need to go to these dangerously misguiding ideologies for ethical guidance.
This is evident in Abdul Hakim Murad's own life, where he has denounced and rescinded his previous condemnation of homosexuality

But the issue should be no one, including myself, should attempt to impose foreign ideologies onto the Hukm Sharii, the Address of the Legislator. If the Prophet says something, it is not for us to REinterpret it to suit "modern times" and "contemporary political ideologies".

As far as the point Murad raised about "majority of Muslim scholars", this criteria should be placed in some context.
I provided a legitimate context, as in the "salaf was salih" of the three madhahib and other leading ulama.

So the matter of seeking the "majority of Muslim scholars" should be based on them being of "salaf was salih", not merely the majority of a particular time. The majority of scholars at the time of imam Ahmad (rh) supported the the Mutazila.

And it should be noted that Abdul Hakim Murad is a publicly scrutinized Cambridge college professor who was/is a student and subject of Abdullah bin Bayyah, both who joined the British government funded Radical Middle Way.

Allah knows best.

[Peace4mankind]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

Brother,

In shaykh Ibn Rushd's (rh) work Bidayatul Mujtahid, in his 'chapter' on Jihad, section 3 "Identification of the harm permitted to be inflicted upon the enemy" [volume 1], he cites:

"... there is no dispute among them that it is not permitted to slay minors or women, as long as they are not waging war. If a woman fights the shedding of her blood is permissible. This was established as "the Prophet prohibited the killing women and children, and said when he saw a slain woman "she was not one who would have engaged in fighting."

Here, "no dispute among them" refers to the three primary madhahib at that time: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii. It also refers to the several leading ulama who some say were mujtahideen mutlaq and did not follow these three, like sh. Ibn Hazm al Zahiri (rh). Although Ibn Rushd wrote especially about the three schools.

And here, "she was not one who would have engaged in fighting" the Prophet indicated the principle of the jurisprudence refers that women, even children, can be killed IF they engaged in fighting.

Here, I have presented the sources and the opinions based on established jurisprudence.

On the contrary, your original posts were of the opinion, as I mentioned, "civilians" are "innocent". And you later modified your idea that "civilians" are "noncombatants".

The reality is: "civilian" is a kufr legal concept imposed from the centuries of Taghut rule over the Ummah.

Islam stands alone and separate from contemporary ideologies from the West.
There is no need to go to these dangerously misguiding ideologies for ethical guidance.
This is evident in Abdul Hakim Murad's own life, where he has denounced and rescinded his previous condemnation of homosexuality

But the issue should be no one, including myself, should attempt to impose foreign ideologies onto the Hukm Sharii, the Address of the Legislator. If the Prophet says something, it is not for us to REinterpret it to suit "modern times" and "contemporary political ideologies".

As far as the point Murad raised about "majority of Muslim scholars", this criteria should be placed in some context.
I provided a legitimate context, as in the "salaf was salih" of the three madhahib and other leading ulama.

So the matter of seeking the "majority of Muslim scholars" should be based on them being of "salaf was salih", not merely the majority of a particular time. The majority of scholars at the time of imam Ahmad (rh) supported the the Mutazila.

And it should be noted that Abdul Hakim Murad is a publicly scrutinized Cambridge college professor who was/is a student and subject of Abdullah bin Bayyah, both who joined the British government funded Radical Middle Way.

Allah knows best.

the point is bro from that hadith ulema have come to conclusion that no civilian is to be killed at all; surely you do not think that Mufti Ibn Adam who is a deobandi Hanafi scholar lied when he said that do you or that he learnt wrong? and civilian is what we deal with today; this is what non-combatants are today and although the concept of civilian was ignored by the traditional Scholars yet the concept exists for treaty of Medinah where non-muslims did not pay any jiziyah and were basically fully enfranchised, this is what a civilian is

as for the term 'innocent', it should be obvious what is meant here bro; no muslim thinks that even muslims are free of sin let alone kaafir; all we mean is that they weren't guilty to be killed

now whatever you may think of Abdullah bin Bayyah, it don't hurt to listen to evidences and reasonings to see if they are sound; listen to him talk about the concept of civilian in Islam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU_u...kPiZlX-sxWyQdV



Abdul Hakim murad just cited the view of the consensus of ahlus sunnah there bro; nothing he made up from his own mind

[MoMo.]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

There is no such thing as a civilian in Islam. What happened in Paris was retribution for the French airstrikes that killed 30 children and countless other Muslim. Alhamdulillah

[shay5]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

There is no such thing as a civilian in Islam. What happened in Paris was retribution for the French airstrikes that killed 30 children and countless other Muslim. Alhamdulillah

You sound crazy...God forbid if someone killed my family member, I wouldn't go shoot random people just to get my revenge..?

[MoMo.]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

You sound crazy...God forbid if someone killed my family member, I wouldn't go shoot random people just to get my revenge..?

Qisas is a part of Islam.

[shay5]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

Qisas is a part of Islam.

When did qisas mean kill anyone you like if they're from the same country as the person who killed your family member?

[AshrafM]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

I couldn't agree more with the brothers who are advising against watching videos like that. As a revert, it was perhaps one of the best pieces of advice I was given in the beginning. Watching random videos, made by random people who often have not the faintest idea what they are talking about just leads to confusion at best and misguidance at worst. I watch video by people like mufti menk and videos recommended to me by brothers I trust like brother Mikha'eel who has sent me videos to watch in the past. Beyond this, I would just say to study the proper Islamic texts - The qu'ran and sunnah.

[Poster]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

Qisas is a part of Islam.

An individual kills someone. Do you then kill their family?

Subhan'Allah, how is that Qisas?

[MoMo.]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

An individual kills someone. Do you then kill their family?

Subhan'Allah, how is that Qisas?

What? We are at war with the kuffar nations and you are talking about individuals? You're comment doesn't even make sense.

[shay5]

Re: Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tell muslims to attack civillians ?

What? We are at war with the kuffar nations and you are talking about individuals? You're comment doesn't even make sense.

Do you not take into consideration that there are Muslims in those kuffar nations and that many kuffar themselves are against the wars ..who are the scholars that yoy follow..please name them :jkk: