Dublin imam takes on the fanatics

[Dawud_uk]

here is the problem i have, the suicide bomber is not the only "by-product", which by the way is a disgusting way to regard human life. These guys kill themselves along with all the people around them and I guarantee you that some if not many of the people around them are not at war with Islam. So why is it martyrdom and not murder to you? Innocent people die because of a war were you cant even effectively identify the enemy. If they are American or from the west then that is just good enough, well to me it sounds like Islam wants to destroy the west, so why shouldnt the west destroy all of Islam? What would you say if instead of the west concentrating on a certain group of people who share your religion they just said any muslim in the US is to be put to death, and then proceeded to bomb and destroy all muslim countries. This would probably happen if all Muslims thought like the extremist do, and thank God they dont and for people like this man.

I am not trying to pick a fight with you or Islam, I am just saying that this sort of violence is not the way. Not only that bad it has given your people a really bad name, that is not deserved. You can try to justify these acts of violence all you want but to me and many others you are just using your religion as a sheild or excuse to kill those that do not believe the same as you. It is sad and may God guide you onto the right path

you only say it is a disgusting regard for human life but you do not obviously have the sincerity to die or indeed kill for your belief in God,

if someone attacks islam they get both barrels back right at them. be peaceful with us and we are peaceful with you.

Abu Abdullah

 

[Abdul Fattah]

assalaamu alaykum,

if you wish to discuss the topic of suicide bombings / martyrdom operations then please start a new thread i think rather than hijack this one thanks.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

Oh so it's ok for you to claim that suicide bombings are allowed in here, but it's not ok for me to claim the opposite. I think it's vital to the tread since it's a large part of the reason you commented on this imam in the first place.

 

[Dawud_uk]

Just a point I'd like to mention: any form of explosive is considered haram with regards to Islamic warfare due to it's indiscriminate splash damage and the fact that that it affects the environment adversely.

assalaamu alaykum,

where is your daleel for this statement?

when the prophet Muhammad saws and the companions were bombarding a town with a captured roman siege weapon some of them complained about the possible death and injury to women and children to which the prophet saws is reported to have said 'but they are of them'

also, it is well known point in the fiqh of jihad that if the enemies of Allah are using muslim hostages to stop the muslims firing on them and the amir of the battle judges there to be more harm in leaving these kuffar at liberty then it is permissable to aim for the kuffar knowing the muslims might be harmed also.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

 

[Abdul Fattah]

you only say it is a disgusting regard for human life but you do not obviously have the sincerity to die or indeed kill for your belief in God,

if someone attacks islam they get both barrels back right at them. be peaceful with us and we are peaceful with you.

Abu Abdullah

He was talking about the suicide aspect and about the innocent bystanders, I don't see why you should bring up willingness to die or kill as that are two different things

 

[Abdul Fattah]

assalaamu alaykum,

where is your daleel for this statement?

when the prophet Muhammad saws and the companions were bombarding a town with a captured roman siege weapon some of them complained about the possible death and injury to women and children to which the prophet saws is reported to have said 'but they are of them'

also, it is well known point in the fiqh of jihad that if the enemies of Allah are using muslim hostages to stop the muslims firing on them and the amir of the battle judges there to be more harm in leaving these kuffar at liberty then it is permissable to aim for the kuffar knowing the muslims might be harmed also.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

Interesting, could you give a hadeeth of that? and what were they bombarding with? as far as I know they didn't have bombs that far back in history.

also it's not a matter of hostages, it's a matter of terrorist attacking in civilian grounds

Edit: here's some other hadeeths

Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.
Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.
Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

Saheeh Muslim
Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.
Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.
It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children.

Book 019, Hadith Number 4320.
Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.
It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/did_prophet_muhammad_kill_innocents.htm

 

[Keltoi]

I would think dying to protect someone is good in the eyes of God, obviously according to the situation, but dying to kill somebody? God knows, but that doesn't seem quite sane.

 

[FBI]

Lets get back on topic guys, and lets leave the Jihad discussion for another thread.

 

[azim]

Asalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barkhatu.

To all the brothers who are currently insulting and passing judgement on the Imam from Dublin, I suggest you take a moment to consider what you're saying.

Be careful in who you call misguided and astray, perhaps this Imam is more liberal than yourselves on his view on violence and fighting, but perhaps when he prays he is full of fear of Allah and khushoor, and so perhaps Allah loves him for that.

It is not the place of anyone to call someone 'a clear enemy of Allah' when he says the shahada and strives to worship him - don't you see how big that statement is? If someone is an enemy of Allah, then do you think he is going to Jannah? Do you think someone who is an enemy of Allah will be rewarded? If someone is an enemy of Allah then isn't he a disbeliever?

"Whoever is an enemy to Allah, His Angels, His Messengers, Jibrael (Gabriel) and Mikael (Michael), then verily, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers." 2:98

And I'm you're aware of the hadith where the beloved Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said that when one person calls anothe a kuffar, then surely one of the two is a kuffar (i.e. if you accuse someone of being a disbeliever, then that word will go to him/her, and if it finds iman in his heart, it will return down upon the one who said it and label him as a kuffar).

Words are heavy things, remember the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said that the main reason mankind will enter the hellfire is their tongue, and remember the hadith "you may say a thing to which you attach no importance, and because of it Allah grants you Jannah, and you may say a thing to which you attach no importance, and because of it Allah sweeps you into the hellfire".

May Allah save us from that.

People refer to the Quranic ayaah where we are warned that those who disbelieve will never truly be happy with us until we follow their way, and yet they are reading an article written by a non-Muslim and using it to say a Muslim is misguided, hoping to please the disbelievers and so forth.

We need a lot more maturity in our dealings with other Muslims. No one will ever have the exact views as another person, my views, no matter how similar they may be to my best friend - will never be exactly the same, and there will be issues on which we disagree. So within Islam - why do we expect everyone to have the same views? You will meet Muslims who will be more conservative than you, more traditional than you, more liberal than you and different from you and your views in dozens of ways - that doesn't mean one is on 'true Islam' and the other is 'misguided' - it is the plurarility of Islam that has existed since the Prophet's (pbuh) time among his sahabah.

No one is misguided unless there destination is other than the pleasure of Allah and his Jannah.

Asalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barkhatu.

 

[Dawud_uk]

Interesting, could you give a hadeeth of that? and what were they bombarding with? as far as I know they didn't have bombs that far back in history.

also it's not a matter of hostages, it's a matter of terrorist attacking in civilian grounds

Edit: here's some other hadeeths

Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.
Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.
Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

Saheeh Muslim
Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.
Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.
It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children.

Book 019, Hadith Number 4320.
Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.
It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/did_prophet_muhammad_kill_innocents.htm

assalaamu alaykum,

insha'allah i will find you the daleel,

but non of the above contradict the haddith i read, as the intention is to attack the town and its fortifications and the enemies of Allah and some non combatants could be killed as a consequence but this is not the intention.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

 

[azim]

Asalaamu alaykum.

One more thing.

12.This is not a Fiqh discussion board. Prolonged threads arguing over Fatwas and the details of Islamic law will be closed. Avoid asking questions that require a Scholar or Shaykh, as there is no one on the board qualified to answer your questions. Please use other knowledgeable means such as a scholar, Imam or knowledgeable person in your area or provide sources

 

[MTAFFI]

you only say it is a disgusting regard for human life but you do not obviously have the sincerity to die or indeed kill for your belief in God,

if someone attacks islam they get both barrels back right at them. be peaceful with us and we are peaceful with you.

Abu Abdullah

this is where you are wrong, I would die or kill for my beliefs just not kill those who are innocent. There is no amount of logic you can use to justify the actions of these people. They are murderers plain and simple and Allah or God or whoever you want to call him will judge them for what they do. No religion justifies innocent people dieing, and no religion would ever regard human life as a by-product. Point both barrels but at least point them at your enemy and not everyone or anyone in between

 

[Dawud_uk]

this is where you are wrong, I would die or kill for my beliefs just not kill those who are innocent. There is no amount of logic you can use to justify the actions of these people. They are murderers plain and simple and Allah or God or whoever you want to call him will judge them for what they do. No religion justifies innocent people dieing, and no religion would ever regard human life as a by-product. Point both barrels but at least point them at your enemy and not everyone or anyone in between

then re-read what i have put on this very discussion, i mention it has to be a valid military target according to islamic rules upon this, who mentioned killing innocents here?

Abu Abdullah

 

[Abdul Fattah]

assalaamu alaykum,

insha'allah i will find you the daleel,

but non of the above contradict the haddith i read, as the intention is to attack the town and its fortifications and the enemies of Allah and some non combatants could be killed as a consequence but this is not the intention.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

Don't bother the hadeeth you were looking for is on the same page I linked to. Apearently you didn't read trough, so allow me to copy paste them here.
Saheeh Bukhari
Volumn 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 256.
Narated By As-Sab bin Jaththama : The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."
ps: I'm told Hima is arabic for "inviolate zones". Is that right? Doesn't that mean that this exception is only an exception permissable for Allah subhana wa ta'ala and his prophet peace be upon him?

Saheeh Muslim
Book 019, Hadith Number 4321.
Chapter : Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate.
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

So some points to make here:

1. It wasn't bombarding it was a raid. The probability of innocent causalities is far lower with a night raid as it is with bombardments. No matter where you bomb, you 're bound to hit innocents because you cannot control the fire, you can however control your sword in a night raid even though you walked in the wrong room.
2. We don’t know the exact situation or what the Prophet truly meant. Maybe, maybe those particular women and children were planning to fight against the Muslims with the enemy.
3. The very fact that the companions of the Prophet asked the Prophet's permission shows that the Prophet used to be strict regarding his prohibition on the killing of women and children. However, when a situation arises and there is no choice, things could get ugly. The Prophet even forbade the cutting down of palm trees in war, however during the siege of Banu Nadir the Prophet had to make an exception. So exceptions do arise unfortunately. But that doesn't mean you and I have any authority to make a rule based on that exception.
4. Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asaqalani says in Fath Al- Baari that the point is not to target the women and children intentionally but if there is absolutely no other way to kill the enemy than by injuring the women and children because they are mixed with the men then there is no other choice. (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=4747)
5. Another possibility is that the hadith has been abrogated and that even if women and children accompany the enemy during war then they still should not be killed. (See http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=4747 for the evidence)
6. Imam Nawawi says in his tafseer of Saheeh Muslim that women and children are only killed only if they cannot be distinguished. But because it was so dark and they could not be distinguished, the Muslims had not choice. (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=4215)
7. The tafseer of Abu Dawud says the same thing here (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=4&Rec=3291)

 

[Dawud_uk]

Don't bother the hadeeth you were looking for is on the same page I linked to. Apearently you didn't read trough, so allow me to copy paste them here.
Saheeh Bukhari
Volumn 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 256.
Narated By As-Sab bin Jaththama : The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."

Saheeh Muslim
Book 019, Hadith Number 4321.
Chapter : Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate.
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

So some points to make here:

1. It wasn't bombarding it was a raid. The probability of innocent causalities is far lower with a night raid as it is with bombardments. No matter where you bomb, you 're bound to hit innocents because you cannot control the fire, you can however control your sword in a night raid even though you walked in the wrong room.
2. We don’t know the exact situation or what the Prophet truly meant. Maybe, maybe those particular women and children were planning to fight against the Muslims with the enemy.
3. The very fact that the companions of the Prophet asked the Prophet's permission shows that the Prophet used to be strict regarding his prohibition on the killing of women and children. However, when a situation arises and there is no choice, things could get ugly. The Prophet even forbade the cutting down of palm trees in war, however during the siege of Banu Nadir the Prophet had to make an exception. So exceptions do arise unfortunately. But that doesn't mean you and I have any authority to make a rule based on that exception.
4. Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asaqalani says in Fath Al- Baari that the point is not to target the women and children intentionally but if there is absolutely no other way to kill the enemy than by injuring the women and children because they are mixed with the men then there is no other choice. (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=4747)
5. Another possibility is that the hadith has been abrogated and that even if women and children accompany the enemy during war then they still should not be killed. (See http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=4747 for the evidence)
6. Imam Nawawi says in his tafseer of Saheeh Muslim that women and children are only killed only if they cannot be distinguished. But because it was so dark and they could not be distinguished, the Muslims had not choice. (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=4215)
7. The tafseer of Abu Dawud says the same thing here (Source: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=4&Rec=3291)

assalaamu alaykum,

jazakallah khairan for the link and the daleel, i think i am referring to a different instance but your's is just as valid in this case and would only be strengthened if i found further evidences of such instances.

i dont think anyone here is arguing we are allowed to rule about such exceptions ourselves, but the scholars of islam have done so in the past and today and said such matters are valid if no other means is available.

what is certain is that the mujahadeen fighting the christian crusaders used siege weapons and i trust salah ud deen and others like him over matters such as this and the fataawah of the scholars in the past as well, but i am at work and it is difficult to find daleel without just posting fataawah which we have been specifically warned not to do on this thread.

what we have a problem with here is that despite these exceptions the imam in question is willing to rule out such a tactic totally though it is possible he is doing so from a different point of objection, Allahu alim.

but he blindly condemns himself, and uses derogatory names himself but it is quite possible he was misqouted by the media.

Assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

 

[MTAFFI]

then re-read what i have put on this very discussion, i mention it has to be a valid military target according to islamic rules upon this, who mentioned killing innocents here?

Abu Abdullah

tell me one suicide bomb that didnt kill at least one innocent

 

[Abdul Fattah]

assalaamu alaykum,
i dont think anyone here is arguing we are allowed to rule about such exceptions ourselves, but the scholars of islam have done so in the past and today and said such matters are valid if no other means is available.

Actually most scholars have ruled against these bombings. For various reasons, not just the innocent bystanders which besides these hadeeth still raises a lot of questions, but also because of the suicide aspect and the death by fire, and so on...

what is certain is that the mujahadeen fighting the christian crusaders used siege weapons and i trust salah ud deen and others like him over matters such as this and the fataawah of the scholars in the past as well, but i am at work and it is difficult to find daleel without just posting fataawah which we have been specifically warned not to do on this thread.

A siege weapon? that's just a device to brake down a fortwall, it has nothing to do with fire and innocent victems (unless civilians were taking refuge right next to the fort-wall during an invasion which seems pretty improbable) or suicide.

what we have a problem with here is that despite these exceptions the imam in question is willing to rule out such a tactic totally though it is possible he is doing so from a different point of objection, Allahu alim.

Yes and as I pointed out he is not the only one and there are a whole variety of reasons to do so. That exception b.t.w; seems to be a right only of Allah subhana wa ta'ala and his prophet peace be upon him according to one of those two hadeeth. All reasons I haven't seen responded so far, and the few response I did got only raised more questions rather then answering.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

This is a very emotive subject and I feel we need to go away and pray before we post on this thread again. I feel we need to walk away and not reply for at least an hour without first reflecting on the effect we have on others. There is this great need to find peace in our own hearts, and peace for all our fellow brothers and sisters, no matter what faith they may be.

We are all created by the same Creator, and we shall all have to answer to the same creator.

I am away for twenty four hours, and I would love to come back and sense calm.

In the spirit of seeking justice, peace and reconciliation.

Eric

 

[SilentObserver]

SilentObserver, just because you think he is presenting something, doesn't mean you really understood what either person is actually saying.

Malaikah, just because you think I am presenting something, doesn't mean you necessarily understand what is actually being said.

 

[SilentObserver]

i wonder how much he cost?

or is he one of the genuine misguided fools who believes this crap and spreads it to please the kuffar?

either way he speaks rubbish and is a clear enemy of Allah and of islam, may Allah swt guide him.

such people should put up or shut up, they should either present their case in debate about whether they represent the true islam or they should shut up because their daleel and views can usually be destroyed as the falsehood it is with ease by genuine scholars of islam.

assalaamu alaykum,
Abu Abdullah

I have reread the article, slowly and clearly. I have read through the thread. And I come back to this post.

fools who believes this crap

Crap? This guy is preaching peace and tolerance. And you call it crap.
It is clear that you are not willing to live peacefully with nonmuslims. With that chip on your shoulder it is not possible. People will respond to your attitude accordingly, and then you will say, "see! I was right!" But I tell you, if I encountered you in the world with that chip on your shoulder, I wouldn't treat you very nice either. You don't want to get along, and so you make it happen that nonmuslims treat you differently with your bad attitude. That's fine just don't pout or be surprised when you are treated roughly by others.

I have known many muslims. Some have been wonderful people that I enjoyed being around, and we had a mutual respect. A few others were jerks. I was a nonmuslim and 'out to get them'. Real twits. Seriously. The paranoia was rediculous. I did treat them differently. It was true that I didn't like them. Not because they were muslim, because they were paranoid jerks.

either way he speaks rubbish and is a clear enemy of Allah and of islam, may Allah swt guide him.

I'm not a muslim, but I know that you have sinned with this statement. I think by definition, a muslim cannot be an enemy of islam. You accuse this imam of not being a muslim. I don't know the verse, but I have read it before in the Quran that you are not to say that one who claims to be muslim is not.

whether they represent the true islam or they should shut up because their daleel and views can usually be destroyed as the falsehood

Why do you think that he does not represent 'true islam'? What is it in his message that you don't like? Is it the peace or the tolerance?

 

[Malaikah]

^I didn't mean to offend you but neither person provided enough depth in his post for you to say that one person was talking more rightly than the other, or making more sense, because each post was highly generalised and not linked to a certain situation in which the post can be interpreted, nor was any evidence given from the Quran or sunnah. Both posts could have meant *almost* anything, which is why I suggested it was too early to make a conclusion since either person could have meant something totally different to what they seem to be saying.

And I have noticed that especially with dawud_uk's posts about suicide bombers, everyone just keeps disagreeing with him on the basis of killing civilians because they are obviously interpreting what he meant in the context of what they see on the news, i.e. people bombing civilians, whereas dawud_uk explicitly said that the target should be legit, and civilians are not legit.