Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen on Attacking the enemy by blowing oneself up in a car
G. Waleed Kavlec
Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen
Fatwa-Online
Question: What is the ruling regarding acts of jihaad by means of
suicide, such as attaching explosives to a car and storming the enemy,
whereby he knows without a doubt that he shall die as a result of this
action?
Response: Indeed, my opinion is that he is regarded as one who has
killed himself (committed suicide), and as a result he shall be punished
in Hell, for that which is authenticated on the authority of the Prophet
(sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam).
Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself,
then certainly he will be punished in the Fire
of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever,
[Bukhaaree (5778) and Muslim (109 and 110)]].
However, one who is ignorant and does not know, and assumes his action
was good and pleasing to Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Ta'aala), then we hope
Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Ta'aala) forgives him for that which he did out of
(ignorant) ijtihaad, even though I do not find any excuse for him in the
present day. This is because this type of suicide is well known and
widespread amongst the people, so it is upon the person to ask the
people of knowledge (scholars) regarding it, until the right guidance
for him is differentiated from the error.
And from that which is surprising, is that these people kill themselves
despite Allaah having fordbidden this, as He (Subhaanahu wa Ta'aala)
says:
And do not kill yourselves. Surely,
Allaah is Most Merciful to you},
[Soorah an-Nisaa., Aayah 29].
And many amongst them do not desire anything except revenge of the
enemy, by whatever means, be it halaal or haraam. So they only want to
satisfy their thirst for revenge.
We ask Allaah to bless us with foresight in His Deen and action(s) which
please Him, indeed He is all Powerful over all things.
John Berg
Do I understand correctly that the Shaykh said:
If a person undertakes an action sure to result his death, no matter what
other results may occur, that person has committed suicide and thus will go
to Hell. But if the person out of ignorance THINKS or assumes his actions
might be pleasing to Allah then the Shaykh hopes Allah will be merciful
though the Shaykh, himself, doesn't see how He could. Particularly in view
of the current day broad public awareness of these suicide bombing, the
potential bomber must seek scholarly help in seeing that ;the person's goal
is personal revenge, not to please Allah.
Others may wish to correct or clarify this restatement in clearer English.
John
"G. Waleed Kavlec" <gr...@kavalec.com> wrote in message
news:001d01c31316$1f27b4d0$d402...@bswa.com...
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen
> Fatwa-Online
>
> Question: What is the ruling regarding acts of jihaad by means of
> suicide, such as attaching explosives to a car and storming the enemy,
> whereby he knows without a doubt that he shall die as a result of this
> action?
>
> Response: Indeed, my opinion is that he is regarded as one who has
> killed himself (committed suicide), and as a result he shall be punished
> in Hell, for that which is authenticated on the authority of the Prophet
> (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam).
>
Suicide is when one despairs of the mercy of God Almighty, despite him
knowing that this life was created for trial. A person that gives up
his life because he cannot bear his own circumstances is essentially
losing hope in the mercy of God. This is why suicide is so vehemently
looked down upon in islam.
A situation where one blows himself up to save countless lives, as in
the case of a soldier who ties himself to a bomb and runs into an army
to end the onslaught of an enemy is not a person who commits suicide.
Such an act is nothing short of heroic and should be given praise.
Giving up one's life for the sake of humanity and to save countless
lives should be a manner anyone, despite religious affiliation, should
aspire to.
EAC
> But if the person out of ignorance THINKS or assumes his actions
> might be pleasing to Allah then the Shaykh hopes Allah will be
> merciful though the Shaykh, himself, doesn't see how He could.
This particular ayat might explained it:
"
And do not kill yourselves. Surely,
God is Most Merciful to you},
[Soorah an-Nisaa., Aayah 29].
"
God is quite merciful, the person will find His mercy.
Perharps he will be reincarnated and start again?
Remember, the point of this ayat is not about sending someone to the
Fire for killing oneself, but an advisory to not kill oneself, since
God is most merciful to you.
Though the next ayat (ayat 30) said on what will happen if he (killing
himself) do it in a 'certain' way. Obviously, it takes a 'certain' way
to kill oneself to end up in hell.
As for the Hadits below:
"
Indeed, whoever (intentionally) kills himself,
then certainly he will be punished in the Fire
of Hell, wherein he shall dwell forever,
[Bukhaaree (5778) and Muslim (109 and 110)]].
"
Well... We got to remember that Hadits are sometimes tend to be quoted
out of context.
Perharps this is a Hadits that is talking about a person who
repeatedly kill himself?
Now we should remember that the Qur'an has an higher authority than
the Hadits, so if the Qur'an said that God will is Most Merciful to
you, he will not end up in the Fire, IF he choosed not to go to the
Fire. Of course, IF he choosed to go to the Fire, then God will gladly
grant his wish. Like it was once said, God is quite merciful.
hasan schiers
That's probably true.
>
> Do I understand correctly that the Shaykh said:
What good does it do to quote what the Shaikh said, and not indicate what
parts you don't understand? How are we supposed to explain it, if you
haven't told us what you would like explained? Maybe we are supposed to
explain every sentence, or fragment? Here's an attempt.
>
> If a person undertakes an action sure to result his death, no matter what
> other results may occur, that person has committed suicide and thus will
go
> to Hell.
That one seems clear...as long as you understand the difference between
taking on a very dangerous task, where death is a significant possibility,
vs. taking on a task where death is CERTAIN, because you plan it to cause
your own death.
>But if the person out of ignorance THINKS or assumes his actions
> might be pleasing to Allah then the Shaykh hopes Allah will be merciful
> though the Shaykh, himself, doesn't see how He could.
Simply put, the person assumes a means- ends positive outcome would be
pleasing to Allah (swt), out of ignorance. The Shaikh says he hopes Allah
(swt) would be merciful, although the Shaikh himself doesn't see a way out,
even for this ignorant person, to commit such a heinous act. (without regard
to intention) The Shaikh is also showing at least some humility about how
Allah (swt) will judge anyone. Destination paradise or hell, is not the
purview of anyone other than Allah, Almighty and Glorious is He.
Particularly in view
> of the current day broad public awareness of these suicide bombing, the
> potential bomber must seek scholarly help in seeing that ;the person's
goal
> is personal revenge, not to please Allah.
The Shaikh appears to be saying that the potential bomber needs to consult a
knowledgable person who would properly show him (bomber) that his actions
are not "pure", his intention is wrong, and it is misguided to think he
(bomber) is trying to please Allah (swt).
Basically the Shaikh is saying it is wrong, consult someone of knowledge and
your real motives will be revealed, and prevent you from such a horrific
act.
Looks like good advice to me.
>
> Others may wish to correct or clarify this restatement in clearer English.
I tried, insh'allah
...hasan
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:92717884.03050...@posting.google.com...
> A situation where one blows himself up to save countless lives, as in
> the case of a soldier who ties himself to a bomb and runs into an army
> to end the onslaught of an enemy is not a person who commits suicide.
Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la ta/kuloo amwalakum baynakum
bialbatili illa an takoona tijaratan AAan taradin minkum wala
taqtuloo anfusakum inna Allaha kana bikum raheeman
The Qur'an enjoins us from "killing ourselves".
Your attempt to tiptoe into permission notwithstanding.
> Such an act is nothing short of heroic and should be given praise.
> Giving up one's life for the sake of humanity and to save countless
> lives should be a manner anyone, despite religious affiliation, should
> aspire to.
Intentionally killing a believer is something our Creator has EXPLICITLY
commanded us not to do.
As I have pointed out before 4:92-93 make it clear we are not to
knowingly kill a believer. Else our reward is hell.
** Even if I am the believer I kill. **
The only exceptions are the punishment for murder or spreading corruption
in the land. If we are attacked we may respond with equal force ONLY.
And what did you do to you that justifies your killing of you???
The word of Allah makes clear that such an idea is not from Him.
RISK your life for others, and let Allah take you when He will, this is
submitting to Him; but to end your life by your own hand is to say that
you have no trust in His plan.
And IT IS NO COINCIDENCE that only four ayah later He tells us...
Inna allatheena tawaffahumu almala-ikatu thalimee anfusihim qaloo feema
kuntum qaloo kunna mustadAAafeena fee al-ardi qaloo alam takun ardu Allahi
wasiAAatan fatuhajiroo feeha faola-ika ma/wahum jahannamu wasaat maseeran
[YUSUF ALI] When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their
souls, they say: "In what (plight) Were ye?" They reply: "Weak and oppressed
Were we in the earth." They say: "Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough
for you to move yourselves away (From evil)?" Such men will find their abode
in Hell,- What an evil refuge! -
004.097
Like the Shaykh I too pray for Allah to have mercy on those young people
misled into so-called 'martyrdom operations'.
As for those who twist their tongues to so mislead them?
While they have sent thier OWN sons abroad to 'study'?
I *TRUST* Allah to have a suitable reward!
Perhaps one that counts down from 60 seconds and detonates.
(Over and over and over and over and over and over...)
asimm...@yahoo.com
> <asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:92717884.03050...@posting.google.com...
>
> > A situation where one blows himself up to save countless lives, as in
> > the case of a soldier who ties himself to a bomb and runs into an army
> > to end the onslaught of an enemy is not a person who commits suicide.
>
> Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la ta/kuloo amwalakum baynakum
> bialbatili illa an takoona tijaratan AAan taradin minkum wala
> taqtuloo anfusakum inna Allaha kana bikum raheeman
>
> The Qur'an enjoins us from "killing ourselves".
> Your attempt to tiptoe into permission notwithstanding.
>
The Quran also says that one cannot take any life, EXCEPT WITHOUT JUST
CAUSE. The example of a soldier who gives his own life willingly
does not fall into the category of slaying his own self, and in fact,
falls under the category of one who willingly gives up his life for
the cause of God and humanity, thus a just cause.
Your argument is akin to saying that a Muslim state cannot kill a
believer who murdered another man.
> > Such an act is nothing short of heroic and should be given praise.
> > Giving up one's life for the sake of humanity and to save countless
> > lives should be a manner anyone, despite religious affiliation, should
> > aspire to.
>
> Intentionally killing a believer is something our Creator has EXPLICITLY
> commanded us not to do.
>
The Quran also permits us to take in life in just cause. Are you
saying one who willingly lays down his life is not performing a just
cause?
> As I have pointed out before 4:92-93 make it clear we are not to
> knowingly kill a believer. Else our reward is hell.
>
> ** Even if I am the believer I kill. **
>
These series of verse were revealed at a time when the Muslims in
Medina began to fight the people of Mecca. Many Muslims were not
given an oppurtunity by their relatives to leave. Some Muslims were
even forced to go to war with their brethren in faith. Thus the Quran
gives a series of injunctions regarding the killing of a believer that
happens by mistake. The Quran then elaborates on a situation where
one kills a believer knowingly, that eternal punishment is reserved
for them.
> The only exceptions are the punishment for murder or spreading corruption
> in the land. If we are attacked we may respond with equal force ONLY.
>
These refer to punishments applied by the state and have no relevance
to fighting a war against an enemy that has attacked the Muslim land.
The Quran itself gives a severe punishment for those that create fasad
in the land, among them exile, to chopping off the limbs and
crucifixion. Or are you saying that those we fight against, i.e.
POWs, we don't ransom, but crucify them and chop off their limbs?
Under what basis are you saying that we should respond with equal
force and what does this have to do with a soldier who willingly gives
up his life to halt the onslaught of an enemy?
If anyone is attacked in war, he is bound to fight until his force
overpowers the enemy. A Muslim is forbidden to retreat under all
costs, unless for military strategem. Or are you saying that if we
encounter a weaker opponent in battle, and he punches us, we shouldn't
punch him back with even greater force because that would be
responding with greater than allowed force?
The Quran specifies that we can only retaliate with the like or
forgive, and this has nothing to do with war. The Quran specifies
that we are not to let our hatred for others cause us to transgress
the bounds, even in war, but you have to prove that willingly giving
up one's own life in war is transgressing the rights of others.
> And IT IS NO COINCIDENCE that only four ayah later He tells us...
>
> Inna allatheena tawaffahumu almala-ikatu thalimee anfusihim qaloo feema
> kuntum qaloo kunna mustadAAafeena fee al-ardi qaloo alam takun ardu Allahi
> wasiAAatan fatuhajiroo feeha faola-ika ma/wahum jahannamu wasaat maseeran
>
> [YUSUF ALI] When angels take the souls of those who die in sin against their
> souls, they say: "In what (plight) Were ye?" They reply: "Weak and oppressed
> Were we in the earth." They say: "Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough
> for you to move yourselves away (From evil)?" Such men will find their abode
> in Hell,- What an evil refuge! -
> 004.097
This has nothing to do with a situation of defending one's own land,
or the notion of a soldier giving up his life willingly. The
believers were commanded to fight in Medina. This verse was preceded
by a group of injunctions related to the believers who were forced to
stay back, and may have become subjected to the sword by members of
the Muslim state accidently. The Quran then turns to those that have
renounced their faith because of the oppression despite their being
given an oppurtunity to migrate.
As far as the suicide bombers i concerned, I agree with you. But they
are not like soldiers and we do not know their situation, so I reserve
my judgement. But they have been driven by oppression and their is a
greater root cause to their actions.
hasan schiers
to mention intention). If one is certain that the act will result in death,
then the act is wrong. If one is merely likely to die, taking on grave
danger for a just cause, then that is a different matter entirely.
I reject completely, the idea that any manner of "blowing himself up" is
anything but suicide. In your example, there are other options for the
soldier. You could have provided a "tougher" or better example:
A grenade is rolled into your tent with five other soldiers in your
presence. The old "war movie" script calls for one noble soldier to smother
the grenade with his body, giving up his life to save the others. Is this
suicide? There's much more room for dispute in this case, than the one you
posed, strapping on the bomb and taking on the charging army. I might still
argue (pointlessly) that the act is not correct (death was not certain,
diving away may have resulted in only injuries, not death, therefore no one
had to die).
The act of strapping on explosives and intentionally detonating them, NO
MATTER how "noble" the cause, is unacceptable to me, and I find no
justification for it in Islam. These are the kinds of tortured
interpretations that only add to mistrust of the nobility, truth, and
compassion of Islam.
I find the act you praise unheroic, misguided and the very thing we should
be teaching children to revile.
Allah (swt) does not require us to intentionally kill ourselves to "save
humanity". (In fact, it is more reminicscent of the distortions Christians
have attributed to Isa, a.s.) We may have to fight, to take great risks, and
yes, to die....but that is up to Allah. When we deliberately remove all
possibility of living, we have crossed the line, dispairing of His (swt)
mercy.
I don't see any way to twist "bomb strapping" into a virtue. We are not
kamakaze's.
...hasan
<asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:92717884.03050...@posting.google.com...
Omar
>
> Do I understand correctly that the Shaykh said:
>
> If a person undertakes an action sure to result his death, no matter what
> other results may occur, that person has committed suicide and thus will go
> to Hell. But if the person out of ignorance THINKS or assumes his actions
> might be pleasing to Allah then the Shaykh hopes Allah will be merciful
> though the Shaykh, himself, doesn't see how He could. Particularly in view
> of the current day broad public awareness of these suicide bombing, the
> potential bomber must seek scholarly help in seeing that ;the person's goal
> is personal revenge, not to please Allah.
>
> Others may wish to correct or clarify this restatement in clearer English.
>
> John
Hello John,
Muhammad ibn Uthaymeen was a prominent Saudi scholar who died about
three years ago. When the Saudi mufti, Abdul Aziz Bin Baz died about a
year earlier, many people expected Shaykh Uthaymeen to take his place.
But Muhammad Uthaymeen was very deeply conservative, too conservative
even for the political culture here, and a more moderate and less well
known scholar succeeded Bin Baz.
The fatwa you cite is very clear, and it is the standard position
taken by the religious leadership here. It alludes to a fundamental
principle of Islamic law that is so very widely acknowledged that it
is rarely stated expressly. This refers to intent.
In a hadith that most children know by heart the Prophet is reported
to have said, "Deeds are but by intention, and every person shall have
that which he intends", and the import of this is that he shall have
the reward for the act which he intends to perform.
There is an ancillary matter of responsibility for acts committed in
ignorance and here Islamic law differs from Western traditions which
almost universally hold that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
These traditions are rigid, uncompromising, and fundamentally
oppressive because they are created by men who are at their core
oppressors of themselves and oppressors of one another. This is why
Muslims will never exchange that which is better for that which is
less, and will live by the Shariah regardless of the efforts of
tyranny to erase Islam and cast all humanity into the pit.
Omar
Adnan Malik
Muslims who have been driven out of the conflict and have become mere
intermediaries, considering the resistance of the Palestinian people the
sole achievement of the Ummah in the past Hijri year.
He criticised preachers who neglect the state of the Ummah, focusing instead
on individual account. His eminence called during yesterday's Friday sermon,
which came after an absence of many weeks due to travels and health
problems, for the provision of Palestinians with arms and funds which will -
if the Arabs and their leaders had a little patience - bring about victory
to the Intifada. He considered jihad to be an individual obligation on every
Muslim (fard 'ayn) and not only a collective obligation (fard kifaayah) on
the Palestinians alone, and he called on Arabs and their leaders at the
Summit to oppose the attack on Iraq and not support the U.S. in that regard.
The prominent scholar also denounced the targeting of Muslims in America and
the raiding of their institutions, while they are only active in the
cultural and educational fields and have no links to violence or terrorism
or physical jihad. The Islamic university was victim to such a raid, their
books and equipment were confiscated and its director Dr Taha Jaabir
al-'Alawani detained, and so were the Islamic Fiqh Council and the Institute
of International Islamic Thought; sisters were detained, and one had her
hands tied behind her back for 3 hours until she cried, then they kept her
hands tied to the front for 2 hours. He said: America which claims adherence
to freedom and human rights treats people in this way, detaining over 1,000
people in America, with no charge leveled at anyone except one out of 1,000!
Are these international standards? We are puzzled that America has reached
such a level of contravention of law, giving complete freedom to its
services to carry out such acts and treat people as sub-humans!! We raise
our voice, and demand that these people - many of whom are American-born -
be granted their citizenship rights and be treated with the respect and
dignity bestowed by the Creator: "And we have indeed ennobled the sons of
Adam".
His eminence began his sermon by remembering his days as a student awaiting
the advent of the new Hijri year to read what was written by writers and
poets on the occasion which was celebrated in some literary and cultural
magazines, where poets and authors used to write on the Hijri year and the
Ummah's pains and aspirations. He criticised preachers and imams who focus
on the actions of the individual and personal account, saying: "That is a
good thing, but the neglect of the state of the Ummah is a dangerous
matter". He continued, "We were concerned with the state of the Ummah, what
it has achieved and what it has lost. Islamic poets used to feed our
emotions at the time. I recall one such poet whose poems we used to
appreciate. He was a great Islamic poet, Mahmood Ghuneim who on the occasion
of a new hijri year wrote a poem lamenting the state of Muslims at the time
which he called: standing at the ruins, in which he cries,deplores and
laments saying: [..]
The Sheikh commented: "Thus this man stood watching the ruins of the past,
weeping over the state of the Ummah in those days. And its state was not
like our state now. Our state now is a deplorable state, which makes our
eyes cry and our hearts bleed."
As we say farewell to a hijri year and welcome a new one - what have we
achieved in the past year? And what gains has this Ummah made? Sharon and
his gang can say that we have done a lot and achieved a lot. He could with
his tanks destroy villages and towns, raid people's homes, enter their
bedrooms, violate their sanctity. They could spill blood, violate
everything, destroy homes, burn lands, and destroy mosques and schools.
They were not content with imposing a blockade on this people to starve it;
they wished to kill it and finish it off. Sharon did a lot, with tanks and
planes. He cared for nothing and feared no one. For he has money, arms and
the American veto, and he has the humiliation of the Arabs who silently
watched what was happening. The only thing achieved by the Ummah is the
resistance of the Palestinian people, its heroism, so let ussalute this
Palestinian people, salute the daughters of Palestine, and the mothers of
Palestine, and the elderly of Palestine, and the youth of Palestine.
Let us salute this heroic people who turned weakness into strength, and made
out of nothing everything, for it sacrificed itself for the sake of Allah
and did not fear death, offering magnificent examples- these youths who
detonate themselves and stand facing tanks and destroying them, and attack
settlements. Even the martyrdom operations have changed in nature. There is
now attack and resistance. They no longer fear tanks, nor fighter jets. They
have sacrificed all and are determined to continue their sacrifice.
Sheikh Qaradawi then addressed the Arab stance, asking: what have we, Arabs,
given to these heroes, to these fathers who refuse to accept condolences for
their sons who were martyred, and what have we given to the mothers who
welcome the martyrdom of their sons with contentment? And to the mother who
advises her son as he goes out to detonate himself, just as al-Khansaa
advised her four sons at the battle of al-Qaadisiyyah- to remain firm on the
way of Allah and to know that if he is killed he will be alive "And say not
to those who were killed in the way of Allah they are dead. Rather they are
alive, but you are not aware". He asked again, the Arab League and Arab
summits.
What have the Arabs and their leaders given? What have they done to support
their brothers? Have they given anything worthy of mention? What is the
value of this Arab League? What is the point of these summits held? What is
the role of these arms purchased for billions of dollars, which are left to
rust? Where is the united Arab defense? Where are the Arabs? Where is the
brotherhood? Where is our dignity? He then said: By Allah I do not find
anything to justify this in the history of Arabs, whether in their
Jaahiliyyah or after Islam, implying the bravery for which Arabs were known,
their support of the weak and their protection of whoever seeks their
protection with their possessions and their lives, considering that part of
their Arab dignity and generosity. How can you then ignore your brothers,
who are from amongst you, and offer them nothing?
He cited the examples of Al-Muhalhal who was known for his love of pleasure
and entertainment which he later abandoned after the killing of his brother
Kulaib living for the sole purpose of avenging his death, and the example of
'Amr Ibn Kulthoom whose mother refused to serve the King 'Amr Ibn Hind who
composed his famous poem in which he said: A word for which a battle
begins.. and the example of 'Antara. He continued to the example of Badr,
where the Arabs pledged not to mourn until they get revenge (for the 70
killed) until the battle of Uhud. And under Islam, when 'Umar Ibn al 'Azeez
heard that a Muslim was insulted in the land of the Romans, he sent a
message to the king of the Romans that: I heard that a Muslim has been
insulted, so when you receive my letter, release him or else I will invade
you with an army with its beginning in your land and its end here- for one
amn who was insulted! And we all know about the woman who was slapped in the
land of the Romans and who cried her historical cry: O Mu'tasim! Every
Muslim at that time felt that he or she had an identity and dignity and
could seek the protection of the Caliph Al-Mu'tasim who heard her cry and
said: Here I am, O sister, and sent his soldiers to attack the Romans in the
famous battle of 'Amouriyyah, eternalized in Abu Tammam's famous poem.
Dr. Qaradawi then asked: What has happened, while we see with our own eyes-
had we not seen, we may be excused- the suffering of our brothers and
sisters and daughters- has blood become frozen in our veins? Has our hot
blood cooled and become ice? What has happened to this Ummah? Why does it
not stand to save its brothers? I am amazed by the silence, and I am further
puzzled, as I heard on Wednesday one of the Quran channels report that: A
suicide operation took place yesterday, and the suicide bomber was killed! O
Allah! A Muslim and Arab radio calls these heroic martyrs suicide bombers!
And calls the operation a suicide operation! And joins the side of Israel
and behind Israel. Who is the hero then, and who is the martyr then if not
these who are carrying out the collective duty of the Ummah? Jihad is rather
no longer fard kifaayah on the Ummah but is fard 'ayn: Each has the duty to
strive with what is possible to him: his life, his words, with all he can.
Jihad is an obligation on the Ummah as a whole each in his/her own field.
How can we then say these are suicide bombers? Was it a mistake by that
radio? Was that a term it always uses? Where is the Arab world and the Ummah
of Islam?
His eminence then discussed the issue of the Arabs' reliance on America, the
supposed peace broker. But America is not neutral: for those who are
resisting Israel are considered terrorists by it: Hamas, al-Jihad, the PFLP,
Hizbullah, are all considered terrorists, and today they have added al-Aqsa
Martyr Brigades, a Fatah group. They are terrorists according to America. As
for Sharon and his gang, they have the right to defend themselves.
Palestinians are the aggressors, the transgressors, the unjust terrorists,
and all Arabs and Muslims must fight them, because you are either with us or
with terrorism. And Arabs and Muslims must fight against Hamas, Jihad,
Al-Aqsa and Hizbullah because they are all terrorists.
He then related: Last month I was in Beirut at the opening session of
Al-Quds institution, an international institution comprising Muslims and
Christians, Arabs and non-Arabs, all defending the cause of Jerusalem and
Palestine. I have been honoured by the brothers there to head its board of
trustees. I said at the session: If everyone who defends his land, and dies
defending his sacred symbols is considered a terrorist, then I wish to be at
the forefront of the terrorists. And I pray to Allah if that is terrorism,
then O Allah make me live as a terrorist, die as a terrorist, and be raised
up with the terrorists.. For in the eyes of America, Sharon is innocent, a
gentle lamb, while the Palestinians are savage wolves, violent beasts,
terrorists, people of violence, blood-thirsty, criminals, terrorists. He
then said: We support our brothers in the land of Palestine. We aid and
praise their struggle and salute their determination. We believe they can
achieve a lot. "Fighting has been prescribed for you, while you hate it".
This is the nature of fighting.
They care not for the flow of martyrs and sacrifices they offer. As for the
Israelis, they are affected by the death of one of them and any incident
that befalls them. They are severely shaken and seek to migrate out of
Palestine. Why? Because the land is the land of the Palestinians, they cling
to it. And the Palestinians have learnt from the battles of 1948 not to
abandon their homes even if they areturned into graves, while the Israelis
do not cling to the roots of the land because they have no roots there, and
are just settlers. If the Arabs and their leaders had some patience and
supported the Intifada with some aid, with funds and arms, the Intifada
would succeed to a great degree to shake Israel and the end will be victory
(Courage is patience). Alas Arabs have no patience, and wish to pressurize
the Palestinians in order to accept ceasefire. Arabs who were partners in
the battle have become intermediaries, interfering to convince Palestinians
to end the violence and sit at the negotiation table.
They have been driven out of the battle- one of Israel's achievements. It
has got rid of some key players, such as Egypt and Jordan who have now
adopted the role of intermediaries! How can we have reconciliation between
the dead body and the knife, between the victim and the murderer, between
the slaughtered and the butcher? What negotiation, O Arab brothers? Where is
self-confidence?
His eminence then turned to the solution: Why do you not revive your
self-confidence? Why do you not revitalize the Arab League? Why do Arabs not
take the stance of heroic men as expected by their peoples, and as felt
everywhere in the Arab world where the people are rising and protesting? We
have seen some of that when the people are given the chance to express how
they feel, as was expressed by university students in Egypt and in Syria and
Jordan. What we want from next week's Summit is that it not join previous
summits which meet and depart but achieve nothing. America wishes to drive
Arabs towards what it wants rather than what they want. It wants to rule the
world. It wants the Arabs to give it their approval for attacking any
country they wish to attack, especially Iraq- and what they termed the axis
of evil (Iraq and Iran) and North Korea . Will Arabs give them this open
approval? Will they sign anything America wants as they did with the attack
on Afghanistan? He considered that a great treason if that happened, and
added:
I am not a ba'thist [a supporter of al-Ba'th ruling party in Iraq] nor a
'Saddamist', and I stood against Saddam and al-Ba'th when he invaded Kuwait.
But I will never accept the attack on an Arab people, an Arab country, an
Arab army. We will not appoint America to deal with Iraq and deal with
Saddam. The Iraqi people are the ones capable of changing their government
if they wish. It [America] has starved this people, murdered its children,
and is not satisfied with that. It wants to finish off what remains of this
people. Where is brotherhood? Where is Arab dignity and their aid? I say to
the brothers in Kuwait: The invasion of Kuwait is one matter, but the attack
on Iraq now is another matter. Iraq has nothing to do with what they call
terrorism, and they could not prove anything, hence they are now adopting
another discourse: instead of the war on terrorism, it is now war on arms of
mass murder and those who possess them. America and its allies are the ones
possessing these arms of destruction of all kinds: nuclear, biological,
chemical. while no one else has the right to them- what logic is this?
Then he said concluding the first half of his sermon: The Ummah must know
its value and its duty in this stage. And Allah will hold it accountable for
what is happening: 300 million Arabs, and one billion Muslims- how can this
Ummah be humiliated in its own lands and be led against its wishes? With
what logic, and what pretext? The ties of Islam and Arab brotherhood and the
calls of Truth and conscience all appeal to us to stand by our brothers in
Palestine and Iraq, and all the oppressed everywhere, The Arab poet rightly
said:
Either you be truly my brother so that I know where you stand or else
abandon me and take me as an enemy so that I protect my self from you and
you from me.
Johnny
> news:92717884.03050...@posting.google.com...
>
> > A situation where one blows himself up to save countless lives, as in
> > the case of a soldier who ties himself to a bomb and runs into an army
> > to end the onslaught of an enemy is not a person who commits suicide.
>
> Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la ta/kuloo amwalakum baynakum
> bialbatili illa an takoona tijaratan AAan taradin minkum wala
> taqtuloo anfusakum inna Allaha kana bikum raheeman
>
> The Qur'an enjoins us from "killing ourselves".
> Your attempt to tiptoe into permission notwithstanding.
>
Assalam Alaikum Br Waleed.
I am no fan of Osama and Co., and of course do not look positively
upon any of the so called "martyrdom operations" that are sometimes
carried out. However, my question is specifically regarding the
Palestinian attacks against the Israelis. The Palestinians do not have
an army, they cannot defend themselves against the racist Israeli
occupation forces who mercilesly slaughter them and have ethnically
cleansed them from their homeland. The homes of the Palestinians are
destroyed daily, the little bit of land they have is slowly and
gradually stolen by the Israelis for more settlements etc etc. The
Palestinians are in prison in their own land and cannot even travel to
other regions.
There is no way the Palestinians can defend themselves. Therefore, in
such a situation, where the enemy is killing you and stealing your
land, is mistreating you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do
to defend yourself, as a last resort, is it not justified to blow
yourself up in order to take as many of the enemy with you because
whether you do this or not, you will be killed anyway with your family
and your land taken at some point in time?
So why condemn these martyrdom operations, that is Palestinian
operations only, keeping in mind the above situation that exists in
Palestine? I understand that suicide is strictly and clearly
forbidden in Islam, however, the actions of the palestinians are not
equivalent to the suicide committed by people because they have lost
their jobs, had a fight with a family member etc. It is in fact a last
resort defensive action undertaken by them in order to stop the enemy.
What are your views on this matter?
Thanks.
Omar
What is the source of this Adnan?
Al-Qaradawi's position on this is well known and widely cited.
However, I see a problem here:
> He considered jihad to be an individual obligation on every
> Muslim (fard 'ayn) and not only a collective obligation (fard kifaayah) on
> the Palestinians alone, and he called on Arabs and their leaders at the
> Summit to oppose the attack on Iraq and not support the U.S. in that regard.
I suspect that this has something to do with a poor translator, or the
translator's misunderstanding of what was said. If this were fard
kifaayah it still would not be incumbant on Palestinians alone, but
would be fard kifaayah upon all Muslims. Similarly, fard ayn would
mean that all Muslims are obligated to participate in jihaad for the
liberation of Palestine.
If we say that to participate in jihad means by any means, even to
turn ones heart toward a political victory against Zionism then this,
it seems to me, is itself a re-interpretation of jihad itself for
Allah most High did mention in apposition to those who go out in the
Path of Allah, "those who sit".
The question would then be, can the mujahid also be one who sits yet
turns his heart to victory?
I suppose this might be resolved by reading the Arabic source, but
none is given.
Assalamu alaikum,
Omar
Count 1
> good thing, but the neglect of the state of the Ummah is a dangerous
> matter". He continued, "We were concerned with the state of the Ummah,
what
> it has achieved and what it has lost.
I recently read an interview with Brezynski who said;
" Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to
Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a
rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading
religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in
common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan
militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more
than what unites the Christian countries. "
What do you think of such an assessment and what are the implications for
those people arguing for a reuniting of muslims into one state?
Islamic poets used to feed our
> emotions at the time.
Great - but what feeds the intellectualism behind their statements?
> Let us salute this heroic people who turned weakness into strength, and
made
> out of nothing everything, for it sacrificed itself for the sake of Allah
> and did not fear death, offering magnificent examples- these youths who
> detonate themselves and stand facing tanks and destroying them, and attack
> settlements.
There is a lot left out here. This sheikh is referencing items he seems to
have made up. Some recent examples of suicide bombing operations in
Israel....
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/israel.blast/index.html
"The bombing, which took place at a busy cafe in the coastal town of
Netanya, injured at least 49, "
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/05/mideast/index.html
" A suicide bomber set off a powerful explosion that destroyed a suburban
bus "
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/30/bombing.british/index.html
"Israeli police said Wednesday two suicide bombers who staged an attack at a
Tel Aviv beachfront pub"
If I ever find a story like this of these 'youths who ...stand facing tanks
and destroying them" I'll let ya know. Looks like targets populated
stictly by civilians to me.
....He then said: By Allah I do not find
> anything to justify this in the history of Arabs,
*Cough* sputter, sputter.
Is he joking? In the history of Arabs there is almost no instances or unity
worthy of note. In general the history of Arabs is the history of
tribalism, not Islam, and tribalism's primary trait is divisions among
people.
How can you then ignore your brothers,
> who are from amongst you, and offer them nothing?
This is just more emotionalism, not intellectualism. The palestinians are no
more the brothers of Omanis then thre french Canadians are the brothers of
Belgians.
This is what Brezinski is saying, the notion of a 'global Islam' is a
fallacy. There is little to unite the morroccans and the Afghanis, the
Malaysians and the Turks. The fantastical ramblings of 'learned scholars'
may elude to a united Ummah but it clearly cannot exist in any kind of
practical way.
Who is the hero then, and who is the martyr then if not
> these who are carrying out the collective duty of the Ummah?
tell that to Jordan and Israel - two parts of the Ummah who recognize and
want to work in peace with Israel.
Maybe the Sheikh can elaborate on what he thinks the 'collective duty of the
Ummah' is WRT Israel and Palestinian nationhood?
I tried qaradawi.net, but could not find an english site.
But America is not neutral: for those who are
> resisting Israel are considered terrorists by it: Hamas, al-Jihad, the
PFLP,
> Hizbullah, al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades, a Fatah group. They are terrorists
according to America.
As for Sharon and his gang, they have the right to defend themselves.
> Palestinians are the aggressors, the transgressors, the unjust terrorists,
> and all Arabs and Muslims must fight them, because you are either with us
or
> with terrorism. And Arabs and Muslims must fight against Hamas, Jihad,
> Al-Aqsa and Hizbullah because they are all terrorists.
Yeah. Sounds right.
We will not appoint America to deal with Iraq and deal with
> Saddam. The Iraqi people are the ones capable of changing their government
> if they wish.
Unfortunately this sheikh is wrong on this point, one of the only statements
devoid of emotionalism which can be addressed. The Iraqi people are
incapable of changing their government, no matter what they wish, and not
without significantly more bloodshed than what happened with the invasion
affecting the regime change and starting the march to democracy I suspect
this sheikh would welcome.
I wonder, if a thriving and strong democracy in Iraq becomes a model for
arab unity and the beginnings of a functioning Caliphate, will this sheikh
then thank the West for bringing it about?
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:92717884.03050...@posting.google.com...
> The Quran also says that one cannot take any life, EXCEPT WITHOUT JUST
> CAUSE. The example of a soldier who gives his own life willingly
> does not fall into the category of slaying his own self, and in fact,
> falls under the category of one who willingly gives up his life for
> the cause of God and humanity, thus a just cause.
To 'willingly give up' is not the same as to 'deliberate cause it to end'.
Your soldier running with the bomb is deliberately causing his own death.
The death of a believer.
> Your argument is akin to saying that a Muslim state cannot kill a
> believer who murdered another man.
It is? Apparently you missed the rest of my post.
> > Intentionally killing a believer is something our Creator has EXPLICITLY
> > commanded us not to do.
> >
>
> The Quran also permits us to take in life in just cause. Are you
> saying one who willingly lays down his life is not performing a just
> cause?
To put one's life at even certain RISK for ones fellow humans is not
the same as to knowingly and willfully END it.
Am I the only one here who sees this difference? INTENT is everything
and if we INTEND our own death we will face punishment for that.
> These series of verse were revealed at a time when the Muslims in
> Medina began to fight the people of Mecca. Many Muslims were not
> given an oppurtunity by their relatives to leave. Some Muslims were
> even forced to go to war with their brethren in faith. Thus the Quran
> gives a series of injunctions regarding the killing of a believer that
> happens by mistake. The Quran then elaborates on a situation where
> one kills a believer knowingly, that eternal punishment is reserved
> for them.
But His word is law. If you are a believer as of the revelation of that
verse you are enjoined from knowingly killing you.
Show us where he provided the loophole in His law that you seem to
believe is there.
<snip>
> Under what basis are you saying that we should respond with equal
> force and what does this have to do with a soldier who willingly gives
> up his life to halt the onslaught of an enemy?
Why do you keep using that miseading phrase?
If I do battle to protect the women and children I have willingly given
up my life.
If I pick up a bomb and detonate it I have TAKEN my life.
> If anyone is attacked in war, he is bound to fight until his force
> overpowers the enemy.
Not according to the Qur'an. If they request peace we must grant it.
> A Muslim is forbidden to retreat under all
> costs, unless for military strategem. Or are you saying that if we
> encounter a weaker opponent in battle, and he punches us, we shouldn't
> punch him back with even greater force because that would be
> responding with greater than allowed force?
>
> The Quran specifies that we can only retaliate with the like or
> forgive, and this has nothing to do with war.
That sounds like an interpretation.
> The Quran specifies
> that we are not to let our hatred for others cause us to transgress
> the bounds, even in war, but you have to prove that willingly giving
> up one's own life in war is transgressing the rights of others.
Now that is an odd twist of my words. I have not said that willingly
giving up one's own life in war is transgressing the rights of others.
What I have said REPEATEDLY is that willfully TAKING ones own
life is punished by hell
I have said it because our Rabb has said it. And all the wishfull thinking
will not unsay it.
> This has nothing to do with a situation of defending one's own land,
> or the notion of a soldier giving up his life willingly.
Until you stop using that deceitful phrase I really don't care to
continue this discussion.
G.
vmi...@yahoo.com
johnny_b...@yahoo.com (Johnny) wrote:
> There is no way the Palestinians can defend themselves. Therefore, in
> such a situation, where the enemy is killing you and stealing your
> land, is mistreating you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do
> to defend yourself, as a last resort, is it not justified to blow
> yourself up in order to take as many of the enemy with you because
> whether you do this or not, you will be killed anyway with your family
> and your land taken at some point in time?
>
> So why condemn these martyrdom operations, that is Palestinian
> operations only, keeping in mind the above situation that exists in
> Palestine? I understand that suicide is strictly and clearly
> forbidden in Islam, however, the actions of the palestinians are not
> equivalent to the suicide committed by people because they have lost
> their jobs, had a fight with a family member etc. It is in fact a last
> resort defensive action undertaken by them in order to stop the enemy.
You bring up some important points.
In my view, there is certainly precedent for stepping outside the normal
code of conduct prescribed by the Qur'an under inhuman circusmtances.
And there is no record of the prophet(SAW) either condemning it, or
prescribing punishment for overstepping the limits. Note that the precedent
I refer to is from the Medina period of the prophet's mission. I had
mentioned this precedent as a rebuttal to a certain post over a year ago,
and never received a response (satisfactory, or otherwise).
The episode occured in the course of negotiation for the treaty of
Hudaibya. The Meccans demanded, and got acceptance for, a condition that if
anyone Medina sought shelter in Mecca, the Meccans will *not* return
him/her to the Muslims. However if a muslim were to escape to Medina, the
Muslims will be required to return him/her to Mecca. Even though such a
demand was laughably illogical and unjust, the prophet(SAW) accepted it in
the larger interest of securing a peace treaty.
No sooner had the treaty had been finalized and signed, a muslim held in
Mecca against his wishes, named Abu Jandal, managed to break from Mecca and
made his way to the prophet(SAW). The Quraysh immediately demanded that he,
in accordance with the treaty, be handed back to them. Scion of an
influential Meccan family, and still in chains and tears, he begged the
prophet(SAW) and the muslims to help him. The prophet(SAW) said," O Abu
Jandal, we have given our word. Bear this situation with patience.
Allah(SWT)Will Find some way for you".
Along the way back to Mecca, Abu Jandal managed to break loose, killed
his escort, and ran away.With no other means to survive, he perched himself
in the wilderness close to a crucial trade route, and occasionally attacked
unwary parties making away with their food and goods. In time a couple of
other muslims, held in Mecca by force, heard of his exploits, and managed
to escape and join him. Together,this small band made life miserable for
the Meccan trade caravans to/from Syria. Finally, seeing the illogic of
their ridiculous demand, the Meccans sent word to the prophet(SAW) begging
him to ask Abu Jandal and his band to go live in Medina and to leave their
caravans alone.
There is *absolutely* no sanction in Islam to, otherwise, justify what
Abu Jandal and his band did. There is also no record of the prophet(SAW)
expressing displeasure and condemnation of their actions.
Is there any lesson in all this which is applicable to other unbearable
situations?
Whether there is, or not, it makes little difference based on what one sees
in this forum.
It seems that we all seek affirmation of our own biases in the words of the
Holy Qur'an.
With every passing day muslims are drifting apart from each other,
especially in the Western world.
Is it for the Sake of Allah(SWT) that we do it?
Little wondeer that the writing on the wall is becoming increasingly
clearer.
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service New Rate! $9.95/Month 50GB
John Berg
suicide bombing has become well known to most in these days. Perhaps there
was a first time when a person impulsively rushed forward to detonate a bomb
and the Shaykh hopes this unthinking person finds Allah's mercy.
But things are different now and we all know about suicide bombings.
1. We know that the bomber is indoctrinated and equipped by third parties
working within an organization. And these organizers never choose paradise.
2. We know the bomber has been equipped with a engineered device which s/he
is assured will instantly blow the person to pieces with minimal pain "to
wake in paradise." The explosive device may even be equipped with a remote
detonator (secretly or not) so the organization can ensure use of the
device.
3. We know the targets are selected by the suicide bomber's handlers for
maximum terror in a wholly premeditated fashion.
Hence the Shaykh's additional advice to seek a wiser, less political
counselor which must be added for today.
John Berg
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@kavalec.com> wrote in message
news:Y2adnWlNJZp...@intertex.net...
asimm...@yahoo.com
> To 'willingly give up' is not the same as to 'deliberate cause it to end'.
>
> Your soldier running with the bomb is deliberately causing his own death.
>
> The death of a believer.
>
This is a standard that you are making up. A soldier who willingly
gives his life up is deliberately causing his own death.
Let me repeat:
One can kill a believer if he violates the shareeah by killing another
human being. It does not mean that the person who kills him will be
punished in the fire eternally nor does it mean the soldier is
committing suicide.
This verse you have quoted is a general rule about murder, and that is
why it is preceded by verses that refer to situations where a believer
is killed by accident or a mistake.
Suicide is an act of desparation of one's own situation. People kill
themselves when they lose hope of God's mercy and fail to realize that
this life is a test.
> > >
> >
> > The Quran also permits us to take in life in just cause. Are you
> > saying one who willingly lays down his life is not performing a just
> > cause?
>
> To put one's life at even certain RISK for ones fellow humans is not
> the same as to knowingly and willfully END it.
>
There are situations in war when one has to willingly give up his life
to promote the truth. Many scholars have faced death because they
would not change their words, but they chose death. A soldier can
choose death in the same fashion to save countless lives. And I am
not referring to kamikaze bombers.
> Am I the only one here who sees this difference? INTENT is everything
> and if we INTEND our own death we will face punishment for that.
>
This is absurd. Ultimately, the intention of the soldier is not to
give his own life because he cannot bear his own circumstances, but
his intent is to save many countless lives. His intent is to save his
fellowman and is he has to knowingly give up his own life, than it is
not suicide. He may not wish to die, but he realizes it to be the
only option. How in the world can you liken this to suicide?
>
> But His word is law. If you are a believer as of the revelation of that
> verse you are enjoined from knowingly killing you.
>
No, you are giving your own intepretation and using a verse about
MURDERING a believer INTENIONALLY WITHOUT JUST CAUSE.
As I stated before, a believer can be killed if he violates God's law
by murdering another. This verse of killing a believer intentionally
means murdering someone without any just cause and is not applicable
to a soldier that willingly gives his life.
Many Pakistani soldiers willingly gave their lives up by strapping
bombs to their own bodies to end the onslaught of Indian forces, who
if they crossed the bridge or certain other areas, would have killed
countless lives and threatened the very existence of the state. Are
you saying these people committed suicide and this was an act of
suicide?
>
> If I do battle to protect the women and children I have willingly given
> up my life.
>
> If I pick up a bomb and detonate it I have TAKEN my life.
>
Notice that your whole basis for your argument rests on this verse
about killing a belieevr intentionally, i.e. murdering someone. But
as is shown in the Quran killing a belieevr can be done with just
cause. It is not aplicable to a soldier in such a situation.
>
> Until you stop using that deceitful phrase I really don't care to
> continue this discussion.
>
What deceipt? Your argument is based upon a verse that is about
unlawful murder. It is preceded by verses about killing somebody by
accident. Thus, what is absollutely clear is that this verse pertains
to murdering somebody unlawfully and has no bearing upon a soldier in
the above situation.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> I don't see any way to twist "bomb strapping" into a virtue. We are not
> kamakaze's.
>
> ...hasan
>
>
The kamikaze bomber is not like a soldier, strapping a bomb to himself
and blowing himself up on the bridge where the enemy tanks are
crossing because land is about to be rolled over and his people
destroyed. The Japanes commited an act of aggression and not only
that, there was no way there act was one of defense.
The argument that what soldier does, and many Pakistani soldiers did
such acts in their wars with India, is suicide is an injustice to
their sacrifice.
Amr Sabry
> But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism,
> moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or
> Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the
> Christian countries. "
Actually there is something here.... The governments of those
countries are very different and pursue self-interests but the masses
of these countries (or at least significant percentages of them) are
indeed united. Just watch the Hajj and see Muslims from all over the
world be united. --Amr
hasan schiers
blowing up a bridge. There has to be a better way. I do not consider your
bridge example heroic or "sacrificial". I consider it misguided. We just
disagree. Other than the issue of "who started it", I see little difference
between the kamakaze and the self-killing bridge destroyer. Both
deliberately killed themselves to either inflict losses on the enemy or
advance the cause of their military campaign. Who was on offense of defense
is a matter for history. (who started what) and not relevant. Being on the
defensive side does not, to my way of thinking, justify self-killing.
The issue is intent combined with certainty and until we deal with those
issues honestly, I'm not buying blowing oneself up as heroic, sacrificial or
anything to be condoned, much less admired....period.
If you intend to kill yourself, it is, to my understanding, wrong.
If you merely take great risk, not intending to die, but to act honorably,
leaving the chance for life or death up to Allah, Almighty and Glorious is
He, that's a totally different manner.
Taking a great risk to wire the bridge, and getting killed in the process is
one thing. Wiring yourself up and detonating yourself to blow up the bridge
is quite another.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I find nothing in Islam to
justify your approach to intentional self-killing.
This is my last post on the matter. I don't much like hypothetical
discussions anyway and this one has drifted badly.
...hasan
<asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:92717884.0305...@posting.google.com...
G. Waleed Kavalec
> It seems that we all seek affirmation of our own biases in the words of the
> Holy Qur'an.
>
Salaam
To that I have to plead guilty as charged.
But how do we differentiate the sense of right vs. wrong,
as promised us in 2:256, from our own biases?
Prayer. And trust in our Rabb. It is all we have.
>
> Viqar Ahmed
Peace
G.
G. Waleed Kavalec
> >
> > Your soldier running with the bomb is deliberately causing his own death.
> >
> > The death of a believer.
> >
>
> This is a standard that you are making up. A soldier who willingly
> gives his life up is deliberately causing his own death.
Did he shoot himself? Did he set off a bomb while he knew
he was still in range?
Then you are correct.
Otherwise it is rhetoric. The man who fired the gun killed him.
Or the man who threw the bomb, etc.
And in Islam it is the KILLER, who kills without just cause,
who is punished by Allah.
Who did the killing?
If the soldier did the killing, of himself!, what was was his crime?
>
> Let me repeat:
>
> One can kill a believer if he violates the shareeah by killing another
> human being. It does not mean that the person who kills him will be
> punished in the fire eternally nor does it mean the soldier is
> committing suicide.
"Do not kill yourselves" is stated in VERY CLEAR LANGUAGE.
The fact that you feel for the soldier in your example does
not save him from the fire. Only Allah can do that, and you
have yet to show us a verse in which He gives such a promise
for such cases.
> This verse you have quoted is a general rule about murder, and that is
> why it is preceded by verses that refer to situations where a believer
> is killed by accident or a mistake.
Your hypothetical soldier is not acting 'by accident' or
'by mistake'.
> Suicide is an act of desparation of one's own situation. People kill
> themselves when they lose hope of God's mercy and fail to realize that
> this life is a test.
You can analyze the likely psychological condition of
peacetime suicides if you wish, but psychology is not the
subject we are discussing.
We are discussing Allah's command not to kill ourselves.
He does not say "Do not kill yourselves unless it isn't an
act of desparation".
He says "Do not kill yourselves."
> > Am I the only one here who sees this difference? INTENT is everything
> > and if we INTEND our own death we will face punishment for that.
> >
>
> This is absurd. Ultimately, the intention of the soldier is not to
> give his own life because he cannot bear his own circumstances...
WHERE IN THE WORD OF ALLAH IS THIS LOOPHOLE YOU KEEP TRYING TO INVOKE?
Where does it say "You CAN kill yourselves if it's not
because you cannot bear your own circumstances."
Show us, if you are truthfull.
> How in the world can you liken this to suicide?
>
The Qur'an does not say:
"Do not commit suicide."
The Qur'an says:
"Do not kill yourselves."
If YOU wish to change "kill yourselves" to "commit suicide"
and argue against non-existant words, why discuss them here?
No one here has said them!
> No, you are giving your own intepretation and using a verse about
> MURDERING a believer INTENIONALLY WITHOUT JUST CAUSE.
In Islam it is the killer, who kills without just cause,
who is punished by Allah.
Who did the killing?
If the soldier did the killing, of himself!, what was was his crime?
> As I stated before, a believer can be killed if he violates God's law
> by murdering another. This verse of killing a believer intentionally
> means murdering someone without any just cause and is not applicable
> to a soldier that willingly gives his life.
And, as I have stated now, numerous times, your phrase
"gives his life" borders on deceitful.
> Many Pakistani soldiers willingly gave their lives up by strapping
> bombs to their own bodies to end the onslaught of Indian forces, who
> if they crossed the bridge or certain other areas, would have killed
> countless lives and threatened the very existence of the state. Are
> you saying these people committed suicide and this was an act of
> suicide?
That is not for me to judge. Nor is is for any human to judge.
It is certainly a good argument from emotion, it twists my heart
to imagine that scenario.
Are you telling us that you can see into the hearts of these
men and that you can tell us what the status of their iman
was?
Allah has not given me that power. I can only go by what He has
said, and it is by His words I will try to live.
> > If I do battle to protect the women and children I have willingly given
> > up my life.
> >
> > If I pick up a bomb and detonate it I have TAKEN my life.
> >
>
> Notice that your whole basis for your argument rests on this verse
> about killing a belieevr intentionally, i.e. murdering someone.
We are also told not to kill ourselves. Why ignore that?
> But as is shown in the Quran killing a believer can be done with
> just cause. It is not aplicable to a soldier in such a situation.
How do you jump from the first statement to the second?
What was YOUR crime such that it becomes just for you
to kill YOU?
I keep asking this. You have yet to answer.
> > Until you stop using that deceitful phrase I really don't care to
> > continue this discussion.
> >
>
> What deceipt?
The deceipt of saying that those who kill themselves
in battle or attack have "GIVEN" their lives.
Perhaps they thought so, but they have also TAKEN that
same life.
> Your argument is based upon a verse that is about
> unlawful murder. It is preceded by verses about killing somebody by
> accident. Thus, what is absollutely clear is that this verse pertains
> to murdering somebody unlawfully and has no bearing upon a soldier in
> the above situation.
So show us.
Where is it said to be lawful to kill a believer in the
above situation?
Peace
G.
Tamim
snip
> his life because he cannot bear his own circumstances is essentially
> losing hope in the mercy of God. This is why suicide is so vehemently
> looked down upon in islam.
Depends a little on the definition of suicide, doesn't it? Imam Hussein
commited suicide outside of Kerbala, by all but the strictest of
definitions. Pulling the trigger doesn't kill you; the bullet does.
Attacking against overwhelming foe doesn't kill you; the enemy does.
Altway
"G. Waleed Kavalec" <G.Wa...@Kavalec.com> wrote in message
news:47594d65.03051...@posting.google.com...
> > It seems that we all seek affirmation of our own biases in the words of
the
Holy Qur'an.
> To that I have to plead guilty as charged.
> But how do we differentiate the sense of right vs. wrong,
as promised us in 2:256, from our own biases?
> Prayer. And trust in our Rabb. It is all we have.
Comment:-
No, there are also instructions in the Quran to acquire knowledge,
to ponder and meditate and to cultivate humility
and set aside opinions, speculations, conjectures and guess work
and accept what Allah has given.
There is no teaching in the Quran that justify self-centredness.
A Muslim is required to be a servant of Allah.
But the deed is judged by the motive and the motive
by the teachings of Allah.
---
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
vmi...@yahoo.com
I believe we have more than that. We have documented history and
traditions which we can use in order to come to more unbiased conclusion
(at least, as much as possible). Prayer and trust in Rabb are fine,
but trust in Rabb is not indicated where personal opinions start
assuming a dogmatic dimension.
I have cited a documented historical precedent from the prophet's life
itself. Someone should either:
- convince me that it not true; that it is something I have simply
fabricated to support my argument, OR
- convince me that the conduct of Abu Jandal(RA) in robbing and scaring
trade caravans was entirely Islamic, OR
- convince me that his conduct was unIslamic and the prophet(SAW) condemned
it and punished him, OR
- accept that his conduct, though not supported by Islamic teachings, was
understandable under the extremely extenuating circumstances.
In the meantime, we can all stop mouthing off our biased opinions (this
Shaykh or that Shaykh included), and leave the matter to The Judgement of
Allah(SWT).
Or, would we rather prefer to be *scholars* assuaging our egos at the
expense of continually dividing the remining, tattering, semblance of
ummah?
Why is it that when specific questions are asked point blank, we prefer to
evade answering them? Is it because the questions are so dumb?
> Peace
> G.
wa alaykum al Peace.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> who is punished by Allah.
>
> Who did the killing?
>
1. 4:29 is translated as:
29. O ye who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves in
vanities: But let there be amongst you Traffic and trade by mutual
good-will: Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily Allah hath
been to you Most Merciful!
The verse is not even an injunction about suicide, and it is known
even by the CONTECT. The subject is about spending one's wealth, and
is made in the context of the dealings of society in general. The
injunctions are made specifically in this context of the dealings with
women, and their maintenance in general. The Quran beautifully, in
between the discussion of women and wealth, reminds man of the general
conduct he is to display with his wealth.
Thus, as is alluded to, even in the translation, the word "kill" can
be taken as destroy. It is akin to the statement in english, "Do not
kill youself by attemting to lift so much heavy weight." The verse is
saying do not detsroy yourself by uselessly spending your wealth.
Such spending, i.e extravangance and useless spending to compete with
others in vanities, leads to the detsruction of society in general.
One should conduct business in good-will and trade mutually
benefitting each other.
Such an attitude, as is often alluded to elseweher in the Quran, leads
to the destruction of one's own society and it is akin to killing
oneself. It is like the Quran saying "Do not sell the verses of God
for such a paltry price." This does not mean that one can sell God's
revelation for 1,000,000 dollars but is demonstrating rhetorically
that no price can equal following the revelation of God. And no price
is worth making every efforts to hindering the spread of God's
message.
2. The other verse quoted, as is clear, is about murder and unlawfully
taking one's life. The verse is about killing somebody without any
just cause, WHICH IS MURDER. A person who straps himself to a bomb,
and runs into a bride because that may be the only option left is NOT
COMMITTING SUICIDE and is not unlawfully murdering somebody.
> "Do not kill yourselves" is stated in VERY CLEAR LANGUAGE.
>
> The fact that you feel for the soldier in your example does
> not save him from the fire. Only Allah can do that, and you
> have yet to show us a verse in which He gives such a promise
> for such cases.
Read the above. Originally, I thought you were pointing to a
different set of verses.
It is not suicide and there is no loophole. Once again, you are
playing on word's and isolating statements out of context. Suicide is
not this type of act, because a person may have no wish to die but he
still does it to save his country or land.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Abu Jandal and his band did. There is also no record of the prophet(SAW)
> expressing displeasure and condemnation of their actions.
>
There is record of the Prophet (S) expressing displeasure, and exterem
displeasure at Abu Jandal's actions.
"His mother be cursed, if he is able to find some supporters he is
bound to ignite the flames of war. (Bukhari: No. 2734)"
Islam does not tolerate actions where a a few men may jeopardize by
their actions the well-being of the majority. The Prophet (S)
disaffiliated himself from them, and LEGALLY he was not even bound to
their actions by the treaty. The Prophet (S) hated such an act and he
was not part of it. And the Quraysh could not even ascribed such an
action to the Prophet (S) because he neither supported it, nor
approved it, nor did any among his followers within the confines of
the treaty perform the act.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> snip
> > his life because he cannot bear his own circumstances is essentially
> > losing hope in the mercy of God. This is why suicide is so vehemently
> > looked down upon in islam.
> snip
>
> Depends a little on the definition of suicide, doesn't it?
That is exactly what it is. It depends on the defnition of suicide
and sucide is taking one's own life out of despair.
Imam Hussein
> commited suicide outside of Kerbala, by all but the strictest of
> definitions. Pulling the trigger doesn't kill you; the bullet does.
> Attacking against overwhelming foe doesn't kill you; the enemy does.
And it was his sacrifice that revived the truth. Many people who
strap themselves to a bomb love their lives, and families as much as
any of us do. They would love to live and enjoy the moments with
their parents, children, and the like. They do not want to die. How
can their act be akin to suicide?
vmi...@yahoo.com
> > There is *absolutely* no sanction in Islam to, otherwise, justify what
> > Abu Jandal and his band did. There is also no record of the
> > prophet(SAW) expressing displeasure and condemnation of their actions.
> >
>
> There is record of the Prophet (S) expressing displeasure, and exterem
> displeasure at Abu Jandal's actions.
>
> "His mother be cursed, if he is able to find some supporters he is
> bound to ignite the flames of war. (Bukhari: No. 2734)"
In that case, I stand corrected. My apologies to the readers of SRI for
using this incident as a precedent.
Jazak Allah Khayran.
wasSalam
asimm...@yahoo.com
> others in vanities, leads to the detsruction of society in general.
Clarification needs to be made. The verse actuall begins with an
injunction forbidding the devouring of each other's wealth through
false methods. It then refers to the proper ethical manner in which
to conduct business. The statement of "Do not kill yourselves" is
made in this context as I stated before.
Devouring each other's wealth through forbidden means leads one on the
path to self-destruction, and is aking to "killing oneself". All
types of crimes are the result of such false methods.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > There is record of the Prophet (S) expressing displeasure, and exterem
> > displeasure at Abu Jandal's actions.
> > "His mother be cursed, if he is able to find some supporters he is
> > bound to ignite the flames of war. (Bukhari: No. 2734)"
>
> In that case, I stand corrected. My apologies to the readers of SRI for
> using this incident as a precedent.
>
> Jazak Allah Khayran.
Salam:
I did a search of Sahih Bukhari, and was unable to find censure for the
actions of the band of Abu Basir and Abu Jandal, in attacking the caravans,
by the prophet(SAW).
On the other hand, when the Quraysh wrote to the prophet(SAW) to call the
band to come and live in Madinah, he(SAW) wrote a letter instructing Abu
Basir and Abu Jandal (among others) to do so, so that they could be subject
to the treaty. Nearly all narratives in Bukhari indicate that both Quraysh,
as well as the prophet(SAW), understood that, as long as the band of Abu
Basir and Abu Jandal was in no man's land outside Madinah, they were not
subject to the treaty of Hudaibya. The question of starting a war against
the muslim community in Madinah, because of the action of muslim renegades
attacking the trade caravans, thus does not arise. Neither did the Quraysh
threaten any such action.
The following is quoted from Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:
"The people of Quraish sent a message to the Prophet requesting him for the
Sake of Allah and Kith and kin to send for (i.e. Abu Basir and his
companions) promising that whoever (amongst them) came to the Prophet would
be secure. So the Prophet sent for them (i.e. Abu Basir's companions) and
Allah I revealed the following Divine Verses":
"And it is He Who Has withheld their hands from you and your hands From
them in the midst of Mecca, After He made you the victorious over them. . .
.. the unbelievers had pride and haughtiness, in their hearts . . . the
pride and haughtiness of the time of ignorance." (48.24-26) And their pride
and haughtiness was that they did not confess (write in the treaty) that he
(i.e. Muhammad) was the Prophet of Allah and refused to write: "In the Name
of Allah, the most Beneficent, the Most Merciful,"
The above does not exactly sound like a censure and condemnation of the
band members by Allah(SWT) and His Messenger(SAW). On the other hand,
Qur'an seems to suggest that Allah(SWT) turned something that the Quraysh
must have thought was to their advantage, into something to their
disadvantage.
The prophet's statement, that you cite, was seemingly in referenc to Abu
Basir's second attempt to join the muslim community in Madinah, following
his first unsuccessful attempt when the prophet(SAW) returned him to the
Meccans sent to Madinah to gain custody of him. It is no less, and no more.
Incidentally, the prophet's prediction about Abu Basir came true when other
suffering muslims escaped from captivity in Mecca, and joined him.
While I Seek Refuge from Allah(SWT) that I should mislead readers, it seems
to me that extra-Islamic conduct under extreme suffering and oppression,
need not be condmned. Neither need it be justified and glorified. I simply
wish to set the record straight. Fasad breeds fasad; that is why Allh(SWT)
Abhors it.
The Judgement of muslims who step outside the boundary under extreme
persecution, especially when their actions are targetted on legitimate
non-civilian targets, is Up to Allah(SWT). And I, for one, am content to
leave it at that.
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
In the very same narration it says:
When the other gave it to him, he hit him with it till he died, and
his companion ran away till he came to Medina and entered the Mosque
running. When Allah's Apostle saw him he said, "This man appears to
have been frightened." When he reached the Prophet he said, "My
companion has been murdered and I would have been murdered too." Abu
Basir came and said, "O Allah's Apostle, by Allah, Allah has made you
fulfill your obligations by your returning me to them (i.e. the
Infidels), but Allah has saved me from them." The Prophet said, "WOE
TO HIS MOTHER! WHAT EXCELLENT WAR KINDLER WOULD HE BE, SHOULD HE ONLY
HAVE SUPPORTERS." When Abu Basir heard that he understood that the
Prophet would return him to them again, so he set off till he reached
the seashore. Abu Jandal bin Suhail got himself released from them
(i.e. infidels) and joined Abu Basir. So, whenever a man from Quraish
embraced Islam he would follow Abu Basir till they formed a strong
group. By Allah, whenever they heard about a caravan of Quraish
heading towards Sham, they stopped it and attacked and killed them
(i.e. infidels) and took their properties. The people of Quraish sent
a message to the Prophet requesting him for the Sake of Allah and Kith
and kin to send for (i.e. Abu Basir and his companions) promising that
whoever (amongst them) came to the Prophet would be secure. So the
Prophet sent for them (i.e. Abu Basir's companions) and Allah I
revealed the following Divine Verses:
> The prophet's statement, that you cite, was seemingly in referenc to Abu
> Basir's second attempt to join the muslim community in Madinah, following
> his first unsuccessful attempt when the prophet(SAW) returned him to the
> Meccans sent to Madinah to gain custody of him. It is no less, and no more.
>
It is clear what is meant. The Prophet made this statement of
disapproval of the actions of Abu Basir and you originally claimed
that there was no disapproval of it.
> The Judgement of muslims who step outside the boundary under extreme
> persecution, especially when their actions are targetted on legitimate
> non-civilian targets, is Up to Allah(SWT). And I, for one, am content to
> leave it at that.
>
You have to qualify it with "targetted on LEGITIMATE NON-CIVILIAN
TARGETS", but that does not mean they are taking the proper approach.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> The following is quoted from Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:
>
> "The people of Quraish sent a message to the Prophet requesting him for the
> Sake of Allah and Kith and kin to send for (i.e. Abu Basir and his
> companions) promising that whoever (amongst them) came to the Prophet would
> be secure. So the Prophet sent for them (i.e. Abu Basir's companions) and
> Allah I revealed the following Divine Verses":
>
> "And it is He Who Has withheld their hands from you and your hands From
> them in the midst of Mecca, After He made you the victorious over them. . .
> .. the unbelievers had pride and haughtiness, in their hearts . . . the
> pride and haughtiness of the time of ignorance." (48.24-26) And their pride
> and haughtiness was that they did not confess (write in the treaty) that he
> (i.e. Muhammad) was the Prophet of Allah and refused to write: "In the Name
> of Allah, the most Beneficent, the Most Merciful,"
>
The Quran itself is not referring to the actions of Abu Jandal and Abu
Basir, but the Prophet and His Companions. "Allah sent down his
tranquility to HIs Messenger and to the Believers, AND MADE THEM STICK
CLOSE TO THE COMMAND OF SELF-RESTRAINT, AND WELL WERE THEY ENTITLED TO
IT AND WORTHY OF IT. And Allah has full knowledge of everything."
The verse is actually drawing attention to the behaviour of the
disbelievers as compared to the believers, the former taking full
advantage of the situation and boasting about their position. It was
the Prophet (S) and His Companions that did not dispute in vain about
such words as "Ar Rahman" and "Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah", and
the disbelievrs because of their own pride and haughtiness nagged and
argued over such trivial matters, while the Prophet got "the substance
of their demands embodied in the treaty without worrying about words".
Ultimately, God Almighty turned the course of events and fulfilled the
vision of the Prophet (S).
Then the Quran speaks about the Blessed Companions (R), and their
being so united, and refers to the Unbelievers who fill with rage.
The verses are actually praising the Companions (R).
> The above does not exactly sound like a censure and condemnation of the
> band members by Allah(SWT) and His Messenger(SAW). On the other hand,
> Qur'an seems to suggest that Allah(SWT) turned something that the Quraysh
> must have thought was to their advantage, into something to their
> disadvantage.
>
The whole treaty was thought to be of advantage to the disbelievers,
and God Almighty proved it to be the opposite. The Arabian peninsula
converted to Islam in numbers through the peaceful propagation of the
faith and it was ultimately the prid and huaghtiness of the
unbelievers that broke the treaty.
saifu
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, Wasselaati Wasselaam 'alaa Resulillah,
> > > There is *absolutely* no sanction in Islam to, otherwise, justify what
> > > Abu Jandal and his band did. There is also no record of the
> > > prophet(SAW) expressing displeasure and condemnation of their actions.
> > >
> >
> > There is record of the Prophet (S) expressing displeasure, and exterem
> > displeasure at Abu Jandal's actions.
> >
> > "His mother be cursed, if he is able to find some supporters he is
> > bound to ignite the flames of war. (Bukhari: No. 2734)"
>
> In that case, I stand corrected. My apologies to the readers of SRI for
> using this incident as a precedent.
>
There was an error in the translation of the above Hadith. It also
contains a major flow (even if it were the correct translation, which
is not) in the words "His mother be cursed" which would have made the
hadith questionable. The Hadith Scholars would have discribed it as
Munkar (denounced). In general, a text (matn) containing a vulgar
expression, or an erroneous statement is rejected by the Scholars of
Hadith - even if the Isnad were sound. How can one attribute "His
mother be cursed" to the Messenger of Allah (sallahu 'alaihi wassalla)
in the case of Abu Jandal. Abu Jundal and Abu Mus'ab were true
believers who made Hijra for the sake of Allah (subhanehu wat'alaa).
Even a text of the hadith confirms that: "Abu Jandal had been tortured
severely for the Cause of Allah.". Before attempting to translate, one
has to carefully consider the context and the complete text of the
narration. A word for word translation would present the unintended
meaning. Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajer commenting on the hadith writes: The
Arabs use a disparaging word "Wayl" to prase, and they do not imply
the disparaging meaning.
As for Viqar's fiqh consideration, it is sound. Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajer
writes, "the Prophet (sallalhu 'alaihi wasallam) did not disapprove of
Abu Baseer having killed the ambassador nor did he order him to pay
the blood money or ransom, Wa-Allahu A'alam" - see Fath Al-Bari Kitaab
As-Shurut v. 5, Baab As-Shrut Fi Al-Jihad wa al-Musalaha ma' Ahl
Al-Harb ...
A contemporary scholar - Shaikh Safar Al-Hawali, using the story Abu
Jandal as an example wrote:
"We can learn from this the following.
ONE: The one killed from the Polytheists was a messenger (an
ambassador) and messengers as is well known are not to be killed.
Despite that the Prophet (s.a.w) did not disapprove of Abu Baseer
having killed him nor did he order him to pay the blood money or
ransom, but affirmed Abu Baseer's saying, as is reported in another
narration, "O Messenger of Allah, there is no covenant or pact between
me and them." So that was an approval from the Prophet for what he
did, and that he has an independent liability and guarantee, separate
to that of the Muslims, and if the Prophet waved the (demands on the)
blood of that messenger then others besides him are more fitting of
that. [See Fath (vol 5, pp412)]."
> Jazak Allah Khayran.
>
> wasSalam
>
> Viqar Ahmed
Saifu,
asimm...@yahoo.com
> There was an error in the translation of the above Hadith. It also
> contains a major flow (even if it were the correct translation, which
> is not) in the words "His mother be cursed" which would have made the
> hadith questionable. The Hadith Scholars would have discribed it as
> Munkar (denounced).
This is absurd and is not based upon valid reason other than "the
hadeeth scholars WOULD HAVE DESCRIBED IT AS MUNKAR." The reason they
have not described it as denounced could have been for a number of
reasons, among them:
1. They understood that the verse was expressing extreme displeasure
at the actions of Abu Jandal and not a 'LITERAL PHRASE'. Such
statements are often recorded in hadeeth literature, when the Prophet
(S) is reported to have made a comment in regards to the actions of
his wives "You are like the women of Joseph (AS)". These statements
are not to be taken literally.
2. The narration is in Bukhari and the majority of hadeeth scholars
recognized it as authentic from the very beginning.
Abu Jundal and Abu Mus'ab were true
> believers who made Hijra for the sake of Allah (subhanehu wat'alaa).
> Even a text of the hadith confirms that: "Abu Jandal had been tortured
> severely for the Cause of Allah.".
This is irrelevant. The intentions of Abu Jandal (R) were pure, but
one is TALKING ABOUT THE ACTIONS OF OF ABU JANDAL that do not find any
support in the actiosn of the Prophet (S). This is not an argument
about their intentions.
In my opinion, by praising the actions of Abu Jandal (R), it is akin
to putting the Prophet (S) in a bad light. It is tantamount to saying
that the Prophet (S) made a TREATY TO THE QURAYSH, and WISHED THAT THE
TREATY IN LETTER AND SPIRIT WAS VIOLATED BASED UPON A LOOPHOLE.
Before attempting to translate, one
> has to carefully consider the context and the complete text of the
> narration. A word for word translation would present the unintended
> meaning. Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajer commenting on the hadith writes: The
> Arabs use a disparaging word "Wayl" to prase, and they do not imply
> the disparaging meaning.
>
This is rejected by THE CONTEXT, especially when the words "HE IS
ABOUT TO IGNITE THE FLAMES OF WAR' is made following the statement.
How badly have you disparaged the Prophet (S) through the
intepretation for the sake of defending what others do in today's
world. Are you saying that the Prophet (S) praised Abu Basir and Abu
Jandal, and secretly cheered that the whole treaty in spirit was being
violated by praising his actions and wanted the FLAMES OF WAR TO
IGNITE?
vmi...@yahoo.com
> > The following is quoted from Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:
> >
>
> In the very same narration it says:
>
> When the other gave it to him, he hit him with it till he died, and
> his companion ran away till he came to Medina and entered the Mosque
> running. When Allah's Apostle saw him he said, "This man appears to
> have been frightened." When he reached the Prophet he said, "My
> companion has been murdered and I would have been murdered too." Abu
> Basir came and said, "O Allah's Apostle, by Allah, Allah has made you
> fulfill your obligations by your returning me to them (i.e. the
> Infidels), but Allah has saved me from them." The Prophet said, "WOE
> TO HIS MOTHER! WHAT EXCELLENT WAR KINDLER WOULD HE BE, SHOULD HE ONLY
> HAVE SUPPORTERS." When Abu Basir heard that he understood that the
> Prophet would return him to them again, so he set off till he reached
> the seashore.
I fail to see the point here. I had already stipulated in my post that the
prophet(SAW) expressed disapproval. But it was towards Abu Basir's attempt
to re-enter Madinah following his escape from his escorts. It does not
equate to condemnation of the band's actions in attacking the trade
caravans. This would be, at best, a conclusion; one that I find weak for
the following reasons:
1) The prophet's censure of Abu Basir and refusal to grant him shelter in
Madinah was understandable. The prophet(SAW) was the head of an Islamic
state which had concluded a treaty of peace with Quraysh. Had he granted
Abu Basir shelter in Madinah, the Islamic state would be in violation of
the terms of that peace treaty. This *would* have constituted grounds for
Quraysh abrogating the treaty and possibly declaring war on the muslims in
Madinah.
By his decision, he(SAW) fulfilled his moral obligation and pre-empted this
scenario from occuring.
2) However, the treaty *did not* make the muslims in Madinah responsible
for apprehending and returning muslim escapees. It only required that they
not be shelterd by the muslims in Madinah. Neither did the prophet order
that Abu Basir(RA) be captured and punished and/or returned to Mecca. He
understood, as well as did the Quraysh, that any muslims outside the
jurisdiction of the muslim state in Madina were not the reponsibility of
the muslims; that they were outside the terms of the treaty.
3) For the same reason, the Quraysh never held the muslim state responsible
for the actions of the band attacking the trade caravans, or for stopping
or apprehending them. And the prophet(SAW) did not order that the band
members be apprehended and returned to the Quraysh. Had the Quraysh deemed
that the prophet(SAW) and muslims were, even morally, responsible to get
Abu Jandal's band to desist, they would have certainly brought it up with
the prophet. Also, I am unaware of any comments from the prophet
specifically regarding the actions of Abu Jandal's band. Of course, he(SAW)
also did not praise such actions, or express any approval for them.
4) The question of the actions of the band endangering the majority muslim
community in Madina, which you alluded to in an earlier post, does not
arise. To the best of my understanding, you may be mistaken on this one.
The best recourse for the muslims regarding extra-Islamic actions in the
face of oppression and injustice, in my opinion, is to emulate the example
of the prophet(SAW). That is, to neither approve of, or to condemn, it.
And Allah(SWT) Knows Best.
>
> It is clear what is meant. The Prophet made this statement of
> disapproval of the actions of Abu Basir and you originally claimed
> that there was no disapproval of it.
If that is what I conveyed, then I apologize. But I thought I specifcally
referred to condemnation of the actions of Abu Jandal and his band.
> > The Judgement of muslims who step outside the boundary under extreme
> > persecution, especially when their actions are targetted on legitimate
> > non-civilian targets, is Up to Allah(SWT). And I, for one, am content
> > to leave it at that.
> You have to qualify it with "targetted on LEGITIMATE NON-CIVILIAN
> TARGETS", but that does not mean they are taking the proper approach.
I never said that it is proper, or that I approve of it. But I do strongly
feel that I am not in the position to judge that it is improper either. I
am simply following the practice of the prophet(SAW), unless you can
convince me otherwise with proper daleel.
The Detemination of what is proper/improper is up to Allah(SWT). And Unto
Him is the journeying.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> prophet(SAW) expressed disapproval. But it was towards Abu Basir's attempt
> to re-enter Madinah following his escape from his escorts. It does not
> equate to condemnation of the band's actions in attacking the trade
> caravans.
The Prophet's (S) statement of disapproval was because it could
generate into war. Thus "If he would find a band of supporters"
obviously points to the actions of Abu Basir in general in his escape
and his influencing others to take the same course.
The point I was emphasizing was not the legality of the treaty not
being broken, or the Prophet (S) not being bound by the actions of Abu
Basir. In fact, I pointed this out specifically that there was no way
possible the Quraysh could even attribute the actions of Abu Basir to
the Prophet (S) and His Companions (R) in Medina. The issue is trying
to derive an expression of approval from the actions of Abu Basir or
moral approval of the actions. What is clear is that there is no
basis at all to seek justification that the Prophet (S) approved of
such actions.
He
> understood, as well as did the Quraysh, that any muslims outside the
> jurisdiction of the muslim state in Madina were not the reponsibility of
> the muslims; that they were outside the terms of the treaty.
"When Abu Basir heard that he understood that the Prophet would return
him to them again, so he set off till he reached the seashore." The
Prophet (S) was bound by the Treaty of Hudaybia to return any
emigrants that tried to escape into Medina, thus Abu Basir left Medina
immediately. Otherwise, the Prophet (S) would have sent him back to
the fate of the Quraysh.
The Prophet's (S) advice to the Muslims was to bear patiently, for
ulitmately God would find them a way out.
> 4) The question of the actions of the band endangering the majority muslim
> community in Madina, which you alluded to in an earlier post, does not
> arise. To the best of my understanding, you may be mistaken on this one.
>
The point I was making is more general. Any situation that causes
more fitna is not allowed in Islam, despite the circumstances one may
be facing. No Muslim can perform actions that cause even more fitna,
and it is only the mercy of God Almighty that can forgive. I do not
judge those that do it, and it is only because of God's grace that I
am not. But it is wrong, pure and simple.
That is why every single classical scholar said it is forbidden to
wage jihad without an Islamic state, and further, any deep study of
the Quran reveals that jihad was only allowed for the Prophet's (AS)
after migration. Actions of violence that do not lead to stability
are not approved by Islam AT ALL.
The actions of Abu Basir, in light of the Prophet's opinion, could
generate into a situation that would turn out of control for people in
general. "He would ignite the flames of war".
saifu
Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, Wasselaatu Wasselam 'alaa Resulillah,
> > Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajer commenting on the hadith writes: The
> > Arabs use a disparaging word "Wayl" to prase, and they do not imply
> > the disparaging meaning.
> >
>
> This is rejected by THE CONTEXT, especially when the words "HE IS
> ABOUT TO IGNITE THE FLAMES OF WAR' is made following the statement.
Please, adher to one translation: you have already posted - in
addition to the abive version - in your reply to Viqar, another
version which imply praise. You wrote:
"The Prophet said, "WOE TO HIS MOTHER! WHAT EXCELLENT WAR KINDLER
WOULD HE BE, SHOULD HE ONLY HAVE SUPPORTERS.""
> How badly have you disparaged the Prophet (S) through the
> intepretation for the sake of defending what others do in today's
> world. Are you saying that the Prophet (S) praised Abu Basir and Abu
> Jandal, and secretly cheered that the whole treaty in spirit was being
> violated by praising his actions and wanted the FLAMES OF WAR TO
> IGNITE?
Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajer (in His indespensible commentary of Sahih
Al-Bukhari)
writes:
"the Prophet (sallalhu 'alaihi wasallam) did not disapprove of
Abu Baseer having killed the ambassador nor did he order him to pay
the blood money or ransom, Wa-Allahu A'alam" - see Fath Al-Bari v. 5,
Baab Ash-Shrut Fi Al-Jihad wa al-Musalaha ma' Ahl Al-Harb ...
My intention was to correct an erroneous interpretation, and I have
fulfilled my responsibility. This is my final word on the issue.
And Allah A'alam,
Saifu,
vmi...@yahoo.com
asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What is clear is that there is no
> basis at all to seek justification that the Prophet (S) approved of
> such actions.
I never said that I aim to seek justification of extra-Islamic
behavior. Extra-Islamic behavior is extra-Islamic. It cannot be
justified. But it can be understood. Lack of justification does not
automaticall imply condemnation, and vice versa.
I think I have written enough on this issue and I doubt there is any
marginal benefit in goin on and on.
I have made clear my position in this matter. I shall not condemn
suicide attack on legitmate military and economic targets; neither will
I glorify or justify them.
It is not my belief that schools, buses, shopping malls, beaches, and
night clubs are legitimate targets for such action, and I will continue
to condemn such actions.
> The Prophet's (S) advice to the Muslims was to bear patiently, for
> ulitmately God would find them a way out.
Then (ma'adhAllah) the prophet(SAW) was wrong. For we know of no other
way that God(SWT) ultimately Found for Abu Jandal and his band, or for
any other muslims in similar circumstances, except the one that is
documented. Does that tell us anything?
> The actions of Abu Basir, in light of the Prophet's opinion, could
> generate into a situation that would turn out of control for people in
> general. "He would ignite the flames of war".
Honestly speaking, no real excuse is needed if one is bent upon indulging
in war, as we all well know. This or that action, or ostensible weapons of
mass destruction are but pathetic excuses.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<92717884.03051...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Bismillah, Alhamdulillah, Wasselaatu Wasselam 'alaa Resulillah,
>
> > > Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajer commenting on the hadith writes: The
> > > Arabs use a disparaging word "Wayl" to prase, and they do not imply
> > > the disparaging meaning.
> > >
> >
> > This is rejected by THE CONTEXT, especially when the words "HE IS
> > ABOUT TO IGNITE THE FLAMES OF WAR' is made following the statement.
>
> Please, adher to one translation: you have already posted - in
> addition to the abive version - in your reply to Viqar, another
> version which imply praise.
There is no praise implied in the narration. Whether one reads it in
the below translation, or one reads it in the first translation, the
meaning is the SAME. You seemed to have missed the relevant point.
Are you implying that the Prophet (S) secretly desired the flames of
war to be ignited, while he signed a treaty for peace and stability in
the region, and FUTHER ABU BASIR UNDERSOOD THAT THE PROPHET (S) WAS
GOING TO RETURN HIM back to the Quraysh?
>
> My intention was to correct an erroneous interpretation, and I have
> fulfilled my responsibility. This is my final word on the issue.
>
You have 'corrected' and eroneuous intepretation or you have chosen to
remain silent on the issue. ibn Hajr is wrong, and your intepretation
disparages the intentions of the Prophet (S). The Prophet (S) was not
bound to Abu Baseer by the treaty. Your intentions were not to
correct an erroneuous interpetation but find an intepretation that
suits your own school of thought.
That is the reality of the matter.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Then (ma'adhAllah) the prophet(SAW) was wrong. For we know of no other
> way that God(SWT) ultimately Found for Abu Jandal and his band, or for
> any other muslims in similar circumstances, except the one that is
> documented. Does that tell us anything?
>
Are you implying that those that bore patiently the brunt of
persecution, despite the actions of Abu Baseer were not given a way
out? The Prophet's (S) statement was made in reference to THOSE
MUSLIMS THAT BORE PATIENTLY, not those that went and performed their
own actions.
The Treaty of Hudaybia was not ended as a result of the actions of Abu
Baseer, but were ended by the Quraysh instigating a tribe to attack
and murder some Muslims. Abu Sufyan proclaimed his innocence in the
matter and attempted to try and reinforce the terms of the Treaty.
The reason for this violation was that Islam gained tremendous grounds
THROUGH PEACEFUL MEANS, and that was irrespective of the actions of
Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> > The Prophet's (S) advice to the Muslims was to bear patiently, for
> > ulitmately God would find them a way out.
>
> Then (ma'adhAllah) the prophet(SAW) was wrong. For we know of no other
> way that God(SWT) ultimately Found for Abu Jandal and his band, or for
> any other muslims in similar circumstances, except the one that is
> documented. Does that tell us anything?
>
The Prophet (S) told the PEOPLE OF MECCA, partiuclarly Abu Jandal, to
face the situation with PATIENCE and CONSTANCY, and God would find
them a way out. And it was the violation of the Treaty of Hudaybia by
allies of the Quraysh, upon the instigation of the latter, who killed
a group of Muslims sent to perform dawaa. God Almighty did find a way
out for those that bore patiently in Mecca, or are you implying that
the people that stayed in Mecca and did not resort to the tactics of
Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer were not given a way out?
There is not a single shred of histoircal evidence that points to the
fact that it was the action of this group that led to the
nullification of the Treaty, and as we both agree upon the Prophet (s)
was not responsible for them. They faced the consequences of their
own actions, whether they turned out to be good or bad.
God found a way out, and the Muslims did not break the Treaty.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> Are you implying that those that bore patiently the brunt of
> persecution, despite the actions of Abu Baseer were not given a way
> out? The Prophet's (S) statement was made in reference to THOSE
> MUSLIMS THAT BORE PATIENTLY, not those that went and performed their
> own actions.
No. That is not what I meant. What I meant was that the way that God(SWT)
Provided for Abu Jandal (RA) is the *the way the things turned out*. My
inference is based on the folowing logic:
1. When the prophet(SAW) turned Abu Jandal back at Hudaibiya, he(SAW)
promised him that God(SWT) Will Find a way for him (Abu Jandal).
2. Therefore, it follows that this promise must have materialised.
(ma'adhAllah) The prophet could not have made a hollow promise.
3. I am not aware of *any other* way that God(SWT) Provided to deliever
Abu Jandal. If you do, please let us know.
4. Therefore, it follows that the way God delievered Meccan muslims is the
way that the events transpired. In other words, Abu Jandal escaping form
Mecca, joining the band of Abu Basir, and harassing the caravans, is the
way God(SWT) turned the machinations of the kuffar on themselves, forcing
them to beg the prophet(SAW) to (essentially ignore the kuffar imposed
terms of the treaty of Hudaibiya, and) allow Abu Jandal and his band to
enter and live in Medina where they will be bound by the terms of the
treaty.
5. It is evident that the prophet(SAW) did do just that. If you have any
evidence that, in doing so, he also castigated Abu Jandal and his band,
please let us know.
6. The very fact that the way events transpired was in accordance with
the Divine Plan, makes it clear that what happened was not condemnable.
The Quraysh invited it on themselves by foolishly insisting on terms which
were inhuman and unacceptable. Even so, the prophet(SAW) did keep his end
of the bargain. There was, on the other hand, no such compulsion on the
escapees from Mecca. By blocking their entry into Medina, the Quraysh
forced them outside the jurisdiction of the treaty. Consequently, they got
their just desserts.
6. What is it in what I have said above, that you (and those issuing
blanket condemnation of muslims subjected to inhuman persecution) do not
understand? Are you all suggesting that muslims, no matter what their
circusmstance, should be convenient fodder for their enemies? If this is
what you all think, then know that I am free of what you believe. For me is
my deen, and for you is yours.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> The Prophet (S) told the PEOPLE OF MECCA, partiuclarly Abu Jandal, to
> face the situation with PATIENCE and CONSTANCY, and God would find
> them a way out. And it was the violation of the Treaty of Hudaybia by
> allies of the Quraysh, upon the instigation of the latter, who killed
> a group of Muslims sent to perform dawaa. God Almighty did find a way
> out for those that bore patiently in Mecca, or are you implying that
> the people that stayed in Mecca and did not resort to the tactics of
> Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer were not given a way out?
This is certainly a novel insight on the *real* reasons for the opening
of Mecca. God(SWT) Did it in order to deliever the persecuted muslim
converts in Mecca, not to peacefully establish the supermacy of His deen
on the Arabian peninsula.
Abu Jandal, Abu Basir, and their band were hasty, impatient, flouted the
prophet's admonition, and undercut the Divine Plan by bolting out on their
own and persistently indulging in violent extra-Islamic conduct.
God Knows that there were three in Medina who were completely ostracized
by the community including their close relatives, even wives, until the
"earth, in spite of its vastness, clamped up onthem", and they wished
they were dead rather than alive, for merely disobeying the
prophet's command. Yet, neither the Qur'an, nor the prophet(SAW), not
to speak of the whole community, so much as castigate Abu Jandal and his
crew for their actions. Some, of weak faith, even had the audacity to
suggest that had there been any latitude to disobey the prophet, they would
have done so on the day he(SAW) handed Abu Jandal back to his Meccan
oppressors.
I look at the totality of all these events in Islamic history, and feel
compelled to disagree with your interpretation.
> There is not a single shred of histoircal evidence that points to the
> fact that it was the action of this group that led to the
> nullification of the Treaty, and as we both agree upon the Prophet (s)
> was not responsible for them.
There is'nt, so I was surprised when you suggested that the actions of
Abu Jandal and his band could have put the majority in Medina at risk by
exposing them to possible military action by Quraysh. There was never
any basis for such assertion.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Are you implying that those that bore patiently the brunt of
> > persecution, despite the actions of Abu Baseer were not given a way
> > out? The Prophet's (S) statement was made in reference to THOSE
> > MUSLIMS THAT BORE PATIENTLY, not those that went and performed their
> > own actions.
>
> No. That is not what I meant. What I meant was that the way that God(SWT)
> Provided for Abu Jandal (RA) is the *the way the things turned out*. My
> inference is based on the folowing logic:
>
> 1. When the prophet(SAW) turned Abu Jandal back at Hudaibiya, he(SAW)
> promised him that God(SWT) Will Find a way for him (Abu Jandal).
>
And your assumption is wholly based upon the argument that the Prophet
(S) was telling Abu Jandal ALONE that he would find him a way out.
But it is clear THE STATEMENT OF THE PROPHET (S) WAS MADE IN THE
CONTEXT OF BEARING PATIENTLY SO THAT GOD WOULD FIND THEM A WAY OUT.
The two did not bear patiently, so they would have bore the
consequences of their own actions if things did not turn out how they
liked. But those that bore patiently, GOD DID FIND THEM A WAY OUT.
Are you all suggesting that muslims, no matter what their
> circusmstance, should be convenient fodder for their enemies? If this is
> what you all think, then know that I am free of what you believe. For me is
> my deen, and for you is yours.
>
No I never said that. I said actions such as these create more fitna
and chaos, and innocent people are killed in the process. One immoral
act does not justify another immoral act, and the Prophets (AS) bore
even greater persecution for God Almighty's sake.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> This is certainly a novel insight on the *real* reasons for the opening
> of Mecca. God(SWT) Did it in order to deliever the persecuted muslim
> converts in Mecca, not to peacefully establish the supermacy of His deen
> on the Arabian peninsula.
The whole mission of the Prophet (S) centered around the revival of
the deen of Ibraheem (AS), and the ultimate expression of this act was
the retaking of the Kaaba, the center of tawheed established by
Ibraheem (AS). The Prophet (S) had argued that he was the rightful
heir to Ibraheem (AS), and the Quraysh, who were leaders of the Kaaba,
claimed that it was there right to hold the Kaaba.
The Quraysh understood that with the establishment of the true way of
life, all their embezzlement of the funds from the Kaaba and
distortion of the purpose of the Kaaba for their own worldy ends would
come to a total halt. It was NO COINCIDENCE THAT THE TREATY OF
HUDAYBIA WAS FORMULATED UPON THE PILGRIMAGE TO THIS HOUSE WHICH WAS
INITIATED BY THE VISION OF THE PROPHET (S) THAT HE AND HIS COMPANIONS
WERE PERFORMING THE TAWAAF AROUND THE KAABA. And it is no coincidence
that in surah Baqarah, when God Almighty is alluding to the formation
of the new coomunity, the theme revolves around the eatsblishment of
the House of God by Ibraheem and the direct command of turning to the
Kaaba is made an emphatic three times.
The Quran itself alludes to this as the 'final victory' and says in
the Quran, to summarize, "We have sent thee with the religion of truth
and deen to make it supreme over all other ways of life, even though
the disbelievers may be averse."
>
> Abu Jandal, Abu Basir, and their band were hasty, impatient, flouted the
> prophet's admonition, and undercut the Divine Plan by bolting out on their
> own and persistently indulging in violent extra-Islamic conduct.
>
Whoever said they undercut the Divine Plan? Don't make this an issue
of qadr.
Your assumption is based upon the fact that the Prophet's (S)
statements were that the state of Medina was threatened by the actions
of Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal? I never said it was, that is why I
mentioned from the very beginning the Prophet (S) was NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR THEIR ACTIONS AND THE QURAYSH KNEW IT AND FULLY WELL UNDERSTOOD
IT.
The point is that the actions of Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal could have
created more fitna, and the Prophet (S) made his remarks known in this
context and situation. "May his mother be cursed, if he finds a band
of supporters he will ignite the flames of war." What else does this
statement mean?
1. "May his mother be cursed"
2. "Band of supporters"
3. "Ignite the flames of war"
Was it because he returned to Medina, yet he did not have a band of
supporters at that time?
> God Knows that there were three in Medina who were completely ostracized
> by the community including their close relatives, even wives, until the
> "earth, in spite of its vastness, clamped up onthem", and they wished
> they were dead rather than alive, for merely disobeying the
> prophet's command.
The Muslim community had to take a stringent role with them, BECAUSE
THE QURAN WAS DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY IN MEDINA
AND ITS OBLIGATION TO SPREAD AND DEFEND THE DEEN AT ALL COSTS. It was
a situation that, IF TRUE, i.e. the Syrians ammassing at the border,
would have wreaked havoc on the Muslim state of Medina, and in such a
situation NO MUSLIM SHOULD HAVE TURNED BACK.
How can you liken the Quran making a comment on them, and relate it to
the actions of Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer? They left Medina and
settled on the SHORE WHICH IS AT LEAST @ HOURS DRIVING LET ALONE
TRAVELLING IN THE DESERT, i.e. the shore is almost akin of the
travelling journey from Mecca to Medina.
Yet, neither the Qur'an, nor the prophet(SAW), not
> to speak of the whole community, so much as castigate Abu Jandal and his
> crew for their actions.
WHY? They were residing on the border halting the caravans of
Quraysh, and had nothing to do with the Muslim community. There is
not a single shred of evidence that points to the Muslim community
even associating with them at all, until the Quraysh came begging to
the Prophet (S) to take them in.
An as I stated before, if Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal's situation turned
out for the worse, they would have been ultimately to BLAME.
Some, of weak faith, even had the audacity to
> suggest that had there been any latitude to disobey the prophet, they would
> have done so on the day he(SAW) handed Abu Jandal back to his Meccan
> oppressors.
>
And your point is? It still does not justify the actions of Abu
Jandal and Abu Baseer from what they did. There were people in Mecca
that STAYED BACK AND BORE PATIENTLY AND GOD ULTIMATELY FOUND THEM A
WAY OUT.
>
> There is'nt, so I was surprised when you suggested that the actions of
> Abu Jandal and his band could have put the majority in Medina at risk by
> exposing them to possible military action by Quraysh. There was never
> any basis for such assertion.
>
I said the actions of Abu Jandal could have led to even more FITNA,
AND I DO NOT REMEMBER EVEN SAYING THAT THE MAJOIRTY OF MEDINA WOULD
HAVE BEEN AT RISK. I argued in the beginning that the Prophet (S) was
not reponsible for them, and the Quraysh could in no way implicate
them. The statement of the Prophet (S) pointed to the fact that
actions that can ignite the flames of war are not given any
justification in Islam and to praise their actions or even use them
with religious authoiryt are baseless.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> God Knows that there were three in Medina who were completely
> ostracized by the community including their close relatives, even
> wives, until the "earth, in spite of its vastness, clamped up onthem",
> and they wished they were dead rather than alive, for merely disobeying
> the prophet's command.
How can you liken the Quran making a comment on them, and relate it to
the actions of Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer? They left Medina and
settled on the SHORE WHICH IS AT LEAST @ HOURS DRIVING LET ALONE
TRAVELLING IN THE DESERT, i.e. the shore is almost akin of the
travelling journey from Mecca to Medina.
> Yet, neither the Qur'an, nor the prophet(SAW), not
> to speak of the whole community, so much as castigate Abu Jandal and
> his crew for their actions.
WHY? They were residing on the border halting the caravans of
Quraysh, and had nothing to do with the Muslim community. There is
not a single shred of evidence that points to the Muslim community
even associating with them at all, until the Quraysh came begging to
the Prophet (S) to take them in.
An as I stated before, if Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal's situation turned
out for the worse, they would have been ultimately to BLAME.
My Response:
For some odd reason, I strongly belive that one does not ever come to a
good end by using the wrong means. In this case, not only did the band
disregard the prophet's admonition, they indulged in violence, looting
and, possibly, killing. Yet, in the end, they got to live in Medina just
like all other muslims in the community. NOt even a slap on the wrist?
> Some, of weak faith, even had the audacity to
> > suggest that had there been any latitude to disobey the prophet, they
> > would have done so on the day he(SAW) handed Abu Jandal back to his
> > Meccan oppressors.
And your point is? It still does not justify the actions of Abu
Jandal and Abu Baseer from what they did. There were people in Mecca
that STAYED BACK AND BORE PATIENTLY AND GOD ULTIMATELY FOUND THEM A
WAY OUT.
My Response:
Let us, please, get TWO things clear.
FIRST, for the umpteenth time, I am NOT JUSTIFYING the actions of the band.
I am SIMPLY LEAVING the Judgement of ALL SUCH ACTIONS, UNDER ALL INHUMAN
CIRCUMSTANCES, to God(SWT), WITHOUT CONDEMING THEM OR GLORIFYING THEM.
SECOND, disobeying the prophet(SAW) HAS NEVER BEEN A LIGHT MATTER for
muslims AT ANY TIME, then or now. The companions(RAA) fully realized it.
That is why we hear them say,"if it was, at all, possible to disobey the
prophet ...". That is THE ONLY REASON why an enraged OMAR(RA) swallowed his
emotions and obeyed the prophet at Hudaibya. THAT IS WHY the Qur'an went to
the extent of explicitly recognizing the importance of trusting in, and
obeying the wishes of, the prophet when it stated the "God(SWT) was
Pleased with the muslims ...", and promised them a greater victory for
their patience and fortitude. THAT IS WHY the three in Medina were put
through such a gut wrenching ordeal. BECAUSE, THEY DISOBEYED THE PROPHET.
There is no doubt in my mind but that Abu Jandal and his band were AT
LEAST guilty of ignoring the prophet's wishes. It does not matter, even one
iota whether the circumstances under which they did it were different from
the situation when the three in Medina were slack about obeying him.
And this is not so for the prophet(SAW) alone. None of the Israelites who
DISOBEYED Moses(PBUH) in Sinai, ever got to see a glimpse of the promised
land.
> > There is'nt, so I was surprised when you suggested that the actions of
> > Abu Jandal and his band could have put the majority in Medina at risk
> > by exposing them to possible military action by Quraysh. There was
> > never any basis for such assertion.
> >
>
> I said the actions of Abu Jandal could have led to even more FITNA,
> AND I DO NOT REMEMBER EVEN SAYING THAT THE MAJOIRTY OF MEDINA WOULD
> HAVE BEEN AT RISK.
You did state in one of your earlier post that Islam does not tolerate
actions where a a few men may jeopardize by their actions the well-being
of the majority. I fail to understand in what other sense were the actions
of Abu Jandal's band jeopardizing the majority, if not by putting them
at risk of military action from the Quraysh? And which majority was it,
BTW, if not the muslim community in Medina?
I think at this point we are talking past each other. I remain fully
convinced that if the actions of Abu Jandal and his band were so abhorrent,
either the Qur'an, or the prophet(SAW) himself, would have explicitly
admonished the muslim community to refrain from such actions under all
circumstances. And I do not find such condemnation either in the qur'an or
the sunnah.
And Allah(SWT) Knows Best.
wasSalam
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> For some odd reason, I strongly belive that one does not ever come to a
> good end by using the wrong means. In this case, not only did the band
> disregard the prophet's admonition, they indulged in violence, looting
> and, possibly, killing. Yet, in the end, they got to live in Medina just
> like all other muslims in the community. NOt even a slap on the wrist?
>
1. You initially stated that you did not find even the slightest
disapproval of the actions of the individuals from the Prophet (S).
2. I said specifically that the Prophet (S) made the comment "May his
mother be cursed, If he were to find a bad of supporters, he would
ignite the flames of war."
3. You then argued that it had nothing to do with the actions of Abu
Baseer in general of creating war, but of his returning to Medina.
4. As has been established, the Prophet (S) gave his disapproval of
the actions by this statement.
Now, this was never an issue about the intentions of Abu Jandal or Abu
Baseer. The issue was using them as a justification to perform such
acts.
>
> My Response:
>
> Let us, please, get TWO things clear.
>
> FIRST, for the umpteenth time, I am NOT JUSTIFYING the actions of the band.
> I am SIMPLY LEAVING the Judgement of ALL SUCH ACTIONS, UNDER ALL INHUMAN
> CIRCUMSTANCES, to God(SWT), WITHOUT CONDEMING THEM OR GLORIFYING THEM.
>
This was never a case about their intentions. The clear case is that
the Prophet (S) expressed his disapproval of the action and he
expressed it in very strong terms. This does not mean that
> SECOND, disobeying the prophet(SAW) HAS NEVER BEEN A LIGHT MATTER for
> muslims AT ANY TIME, then or now.
Where in the treaty did it say the Meccan Muslims could not escape?
It stated that if the Meccan Muslims had come to Medina to seek refuge
they would be returned. IN FACT, the Quran emphatically says that
there was not the least iota of responsibility for those who satyed
behind in Mecca and did not migrate by the Prophet (S) and His
Companions (R).
Since when did the Prophet (S) put any conditions of what the people
of Mecca were to do. The Prophet (S) advised them to bear patiently
and that God would finf them a way out. It was not a divine order,
and if it were than the latter would have been guilty.
"God(SWT) was
> Pleased with the muslims ...", and promised them a greater victory for
> their patience and fortitude. THAT IS WHY the three in Medina were put
> through such a gut wrenching ordeal.
They were put through such a great ordeal, BECAUSE JIHAD was one of
the ways in which God cleansed the Muslims of the hypocrites. The
three stayed behind not out of hypocrisy but because of their
slackness when the matter was so serious that there should have not
been the least amount of slackness. That is why even the Quran brings
in an eloquent manner their forgiveness speaking of their sincerity,
as opposed to the hypcrites.
There was NO DIVINE ORDER for Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer. There was an
obligation for the people of Medina to defend Islam, especially at
such a pristine time.
>BECAUSE, THEY DISOBEYED THE PROPHET.
They did not intentionally disobey the Prophet (S) but procrastinated
to such an extent that the latter had left by the time they realized.
> And this is not so for the prophet(SAW) alone. None of the Israelites who
> DISOBEYED Moses(PBUH) in Sinai, ever got to see a glimpse of the promised
> land.
>
Are you likening the attitde of the Bani Israel with the Muslims of
Mecca and Medina? The Quran does not condemn for weaknesses of human
nature, but consistent denial by the Bani Israel and their constant
pestering of the Prophet Musa (AS).
> > > There is'nt, so I was surprised when you suggested that the actions of
> > > Abu Jandal and his band could have put the majority in Medina at risk
> > > by exposing them to possible military action by Quraysh. There was
> > > never any basis for such assertion.
> > >
> >
> > I said the actions of Abu Jandal could have led to even more FITNA,
> > AND I DO NOT REMEMBER EVEN SAYING THAT THE MAJOIRTY OF MEDINA WOULD
> > HAVE BEEN AT RISK.
>
> You did state in one of your earlier post that Islam does not tolerate
> actions where a a few men may jeopardize by their actions the well-being
> of the majority. I fail to understand in what other sense were the actions
> of Abu Jandal's band jeopardizing the majority, if not by putting them
> at risk of military action from the Quraysh? And which majority was it,
> BTW, if not the muslim community in Medina?
I ask you again what does "he is about to ignite the flames of war"
mean? And why is it preceded by "May His other be cursed"
>
> I think at this point we are talking past each other. I remain fully
> convinced that if the actions of Abu Jandal and his band were so abhorrent,
> either the Qur'an, or the prophet(SAW) himself, would have explicitly
> admonished the muslim community to refrain from such actions under all
> circumstances.
The Prophet (S) NEVER ALLOWED his Sahabah (R) to engage in activity
that would threaten the Muslim community. The Prophet (S) expressed
his disapproval of what they did and it was because it "would ignite
the flames of war".
Saqib Virk
"Johnny" <johnny_b...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a867f173.03050...@posting.google.com...
>
> I am no fan of Osama and Co., and of course do not look positively
> upon any of the so called "martyrdom operations" that are sometimes
> carried out. However, my question is specifically regarding the
> Palestinian attacks against the Israelis. The Palestinians do not have
> an army, they cannot defend themselves against the racist Israeli
> occupation forces who mercilesly slaughter them and have ethnically
> cleansed them from their homeland. The homes of the Palestinians are
> destroyed daily, the little bit of land they have is slowly and
> gradually stolen by the Israelis for more settlements etc etc. The
> Palestinians are in prison in their own land and cannot even travel to
> other regions.
SV
This is all true. Unfortunately the reality of the situation is kept from
most Americans whom the corporate media does a fairly good job of
brainwashing.
> There is no way the Palestinians can defend themselves.
SV
Are they not Muslim for the most part? How do you say there is no way?
Hopelessness and despair are great sins and practically amount to disbelief
in God.
> Therefore, in
> such a situation, where the enemy is killing you and stealing your
> land, is mistreating you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do
> to defend yourself, as a last resort, is it not justified to blow
> yourself up in order to take as many of the enemy with you because
> whether you do this or not, you will be killed anyway with your family
> and your land taken at some point in time?
SV
First, a suicide bomber is not likely to be killed anyway. Most Palestinians
are not killed by Israelis. Secondly, your claim that there is nothing the
Palestinians can do is false. They have other options.
> So why condemn these martyrdom operations, that is Palestinian
> operations only, keeping in mind the above situation that exists in
> Palestine?
SV
I find it regrettable that Muslims would even use terms like "martyrdom
operations". On the other hand "suicide bomber", while a far more correct
term, seems to belittle the reasons for the attack. Perhaps they should be
called freedom fighters or freedom kamikazes. Let me quickly add that I
completely disagree with their tactics and with anyone who believes their
actions are supported by the Quran or the practice of the Holy Prophet.
Let us pretend a Palestinian smuggles a machine gun into an Israeli mall and
kills 15 people before he is shot dead. Is what he has done any different
than a Palestinian who smuggles a bomb into the mall and kills 15 people
plus himself? I don't think so. Both realized they would be dying after
doing whatever damage they could. Bomber or gunman; it amounts to the same
thing. The issue of suicide is, in my opinion, only a side issue. The main
question is; does the Palestinian, by Islamic standards, have the right or
obligation to enter Israel and kill people?
Of course the answer is no. Suicide bomber, machine gun toting martyr, knife
wielding freedom fighter or Palestinian avenger armed with only fists and
teeth; it makes no difference. It is against Islamic principles... as I see
them.
The Palestinians, if they consider their struggle and Islamic one, have
several options which include;
1. Accept that they the Jews will continue to oppress them and sue for some
sort of peace even if the terms are humiliating. Have faith in God that He
will help them prevail and those that oppress the believers will never
succeed. The Holy Prophet once accepted seemingly humiliating terms to avoid
bloodshed.
2. Raise an army and fight the Jews who are clearly at fault. Cries of "we
are too weak" reflect only a weakness of faith. The Jews themselves were
punished for such lack of faith when they refused to enter the very land
they now occupy. They lived in the desert for 40 years until the weak died
off and a new generation was raised to enter the land. The Bible and Quran
both state that the believers will gain victory even if they are heavily
outnumbered or seemingly weak in arms as long as they have faith. Did not
the first battle of Islam see 313 Muslims, weak in numbers and arms but
strong in faith , defeat 1000 strong in arms? If the Palestinians believe
their struggle is an Islamic struggle then they should have no fear. Declare
war and engage in regular battle against the enemy instead of engaging in
the completely un-Islamic practice of attacks that target non-combatants,
women, children and the elderly.
"O Prophet, urge the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty who are
steadfast, they shall overcome two hundred; And if there be a hundred of
you, they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they
are a people do not understand." [Quran 8:65]
"...How many a small party has triumphed over a large party by God's
command! And God is with the steadfast." [Quran 2:249]
3. Employ non-aggressive resistance. A video, broadcast the world over, of a
Muslim run over by a Jewish bulldozer, while standing in front of his home
will engender much greater understanding and sympathy for the Palestinian
fate than videos of Jews crying over dead victims of a Muslim bomber.
4. Accept that Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the promised Messiah and accept
that the reformation of Islam is at hand. Consider that Jesus came to the
Jews 1300 years after the time of Moses when the they first gained Israel.
The Jews rejected Jesus and quickly lost the land of Israel. Consider that
Ahmad came 1300 years after the time of Muhammad when the Muslims first
gained the land. The Muslims rejected Ahmad and quickly lost the land of
Israel. Perhaps it is a sign.
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk