جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Care to back up that statement?
Hartman - Germany
Title
War Ethics in Islam
Question
I am not a Muslim. Yet I’m a peace-loving person and I am eager to know whether there are ethics that govern war in your religion, especially as we know and see what happens nowadays: gross violations of all ethics and teachings. Your earliest response will be very much appreciated.
Date
01/Apr/2004
Name of Counsellor
Topic
Relations during War
Answer
In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear brother in humanity, thank you very much for having confidence in us, and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah's Sake, meet your expectations.
First of all, we would like to tell you that war is decreed in Islam in self defense. This indicates that aim behind war is to ward off aggression not to impose Islam as a religion. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily God is most powerful for their aid.” (Al-Hajj:39)
Turning to the main topic of the question concerning war ethics in Islam, we would like to develop the whole issue while dealing with the following main points:
1-Personal Behavior of the Troops:
In war, as it is in peace, the instructions of Islam are to be observed. Worship does not cease in war. Islamic jurisprudence maintains that whatever is prohibited during peace is also prohibited during war. War is no excuse to be lenient with misbehaving troops. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said: “Beware of the prayer of the oppressed; for there is no barrier between it and Allah.” Here, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, differentiates between the oppressed believers and non-believers.
2-Whom to Fight:
Fighting should be directed only against fighting troops, and not to non- fighting personnel, and this is in compliance with the Qur’anic verse that reads: “ Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors.” (Al-Baqarah: 190)
In one of the battles, a woman was found killed, and this was denounced by the Prophet saying "She did not fight" This will be further detailed under the instructions given to the armies and their commanding chiefs by the Prophet and his Caliphs.
3-The Prophet's instructions to Commanding Chiefs:
The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, used to instruct his commanding chiefs saying: “Fight in the cause of Allah. Fight those who deny Allah; Do not be embittered. Do not be treacherous. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children or those (people) in convents.”
4-Abu-Bakr's instructions to Usama's Campaign on Syria:
“Do not betray or be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut or bum palm trees or fruitful trees. Don’t slay a sheep, a cow or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in hermitages, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for.”
5-Abu-Bakr's Instructions to Yazid ibn-Abi Sufian:
“I give you ten commandments: don’t kill a woman or a child or an old person, and don’t cut trees or ruin dwellings or slay a sheep but for food. Dont burn palm trees or drown them. And don’t be spiteful or unjust.”
6-Maintaining Justice and Avoidance of Blind Retaliation:
None can be more illustrative in this respect than the words of the Qurt’an. Allah Almighty says: “ O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do.” (Al-Maidah: 8)
7-Medical and Nursing Services:
From the early days of Islam the sanctity of the medical profession was recognized. Christian and Jewish doctors were employed by the Islamic state since the days of the Umayyads, and some of them were even court and personal physicians to caliphs. Under the tolerant attitude of Islam, some of them got the chance to unfold their full scientific potential and thus contributed to the progress of medical knowledge.
Medical help was a right to all men in spite of religion or creed. That this was also extended to those amongst enemy. An example well known in the West is that of Saladin securing medical help to his opponent, Richard Lion Heart of England who was seriously ill during the Crusades. Saladin sent him his own doctor and personally supervised Richard's treatment until he became well.
In quoting this particular example, one dare say that such an attitude was quite different to the behavior characterizing the invading crusaders. When the crusaders entered Jerusalem on July 15th 1099, they slaughtered seventy thousand Muslims including women, children and old men. They broke children's skulls by knocking against the wall, threw babies from roof tops, roasted men over fire and cut up women's bellies to see if they had swallowed gold.
This description was given by Gibbon, a Christian writer, and commented on by Ludbig Wbo wondered how come after those horrible atrocities they prayed at the burial place of Christ for blessing and forgiveness (Draper/History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. 2, p. 77).
We do not mention this in bitterness or prejudice for every honest Muslim or Christian well knows that Christianity is something and many deeds of the crusaders are something else.
8-Prisoners of War:
For the first time in religious or sectarian history, Islam adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury.
Previously, it was the custom for the captive to work for his food or get it through private means. The Qur’an made it a charity to feed the prisoners saying:
“Lo! the righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of water of Kafur. A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allah drink, making it gush forth abundantly. Because they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide spreading. And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him. (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you.” (Al-Insan: 5-9)
The Prophet instructed his Companions to be good to the captives. In one of his traditions, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ordered his Companions saying: “ You should be good to the captives.”
Abu Aziz-ibn Umair, one of the captives of Badr battle, recalls:
“Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me the bread and themselves the dates, in view of the Prophet's recommendation in our favor (in that desert situation bread was the more luxurious item of food than dates)
As soon as any of them held a piece of bread, he would offer it to me. "Feeling shy, I would give it back to one of them but he would immediately return it to me."
Another, Thumama ibn-Athal, was taken prisoner and brought to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, who said: “Be good to him in his captivity.” When the Prophet went home he instructed to collect whatever food there, and ordered it sent to the prisoner.
When the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayzah were captured, loads of dates were regularly carried to them, with the Prophet's instructions to shelter them from the summer sun and to provide them with water to drink.
From the legal point of view, Muslim opinion is unanimous on the prohibition of subjecting the captives to ill treatment by withholding food, drink or clothing.
9-The Fate of War Prisoners:
This was based upon the teaching of the Qur’an:
“Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.” (Muhammad: 4)
According to Islamic law, the captive belongs to the state and not to his captor. The ruler has the ultimate option, as he sees fit, of granting freedom or doing that after taking a ransom.
Among those whom the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, granted freedom was a poet called Abu-Azza who said to the Prophet: “I have five daughters who have no one to support them, so give me away to them as a charity and I promise never to fight you or help your enemies.
Abul-As Ibn Al Rabiae was freed for a ransom, which the Prophet later returned back to him. Later, the man embraced Islam.
Umarna Ibn-Athal was set free upon his promise not to provide the enemy with food. This gentle treatment touched the man’s heart and was then converted to Islam saying to the Prophet: "There was a time when your face was the most hated face to me, and there comes a day when it is the most loved.”
Sometimes captives were exchanged for Muslim captives in enemy hands. An acceptable ransom that was quite often carried out was to teach ten Muslim children to read and write. It is noteworthy that modern international law allows for setting free a prisoner of war on equivalent lines.
Personnel were set free upon their word of honor not to fight again, and they should not be ordered by their governments to go to battle again. If they break their promise, they might be punishable by death if they are captured again.
10-Nonbelligerents
Islam never fought nations but fought only despotic authorities. Islamic war was one of liberation and not of compulsion. The freedom of the liberated people to decide their religion has already been mentioned, and it was to ensure this freedom that Muslims fought. It is interesting to mention that when Muslims fought the Romans in Egypt, the Egyptian Copts sided with and helped Muslims against the Romans who were Christians like them. This was because Christian Egypt was suffering religious oppression by the Christian Romans to compel them to adopt their religious beliefs.
One of the earliest actions of the Muslims in Egypt was the assurance of religious freedom and the reinstatement of Bejamin as Bishop of Alexandria after years of hiding from the Romans in the western desert.
But religious freedom was but one aspect that Islam gave. Whether Arab or Egyptian, Muslim or Christian, Islam built up that FELLOWSHIP that humanity aspires to, in equality and fraternity .The story is well known of the running contest held in Egypt and won by an Egyptian to the dismay of an Arab competitor who was the son of `Amru Ibn Al-`Aas, governor of Egypt. The Arab hit the boy saying 'how dare you outrun me and I am the son of the nobility." Upon which Umar, the caliph, ordered the three all the way to Madinah, and ordered the Egyptian to avenge by hitting the offending Arab, saying: "Hit him back. Hit the son of nobility." Addressing `Amru, he uttered his famous saying: “O `Amru, since when have you enslaved people while their mothers have born them free.”
10-International Law:
The process of active intervention to stop or remove aggression is a development that modem international law has recognized.
The second world war for example was sparked by Germany's invasion of Poland, and drew into the fighting countries that were not direct parties to the conflict. One of the fruits of war was the creation of the United Nations in order to settle disputes between nations by peaceful means or indeed if necessary by a collective military force. No one should argue therefore that Egypt and the Roman Empire for example should have been left alone to solve their mutual problems. In modem times the rest of the family of nations consider it a duty to do something about it. Fourteen centuries prior to the establishment of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, Islam decreed such responsibility.
The legal principle of intervention to solve dispute was offered by the Qur’anic saying:
“If two parties of believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: But if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of God; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for God loves those who are fair.” (Al-Hujurat: 9)
11-Respect of Treaties and Agreements:
One of the major shortcomings of modern international politics is its meager regard to moral obligation. Time and again, treaties and agreements proved unworthy of the price of paper they had been written on. The most splendid produce of the human intellect in the field of international law might instantly vanish upon the call of greed or creed at this age that we wish to think has brought us to the epic of civilization.
And what is worse is that the most sophisticated achievements of scientific progress are often used as tools in the hands of Godless or God-disregarding policies: instead of being exploited 'in the cause of God.’
From the outset, Islam has emphatically prohibited treachery by taking the enemy by surprise attack. Recent examples of signing a pact or treaty with a nation as camouflage to hidden intent to attack it are quite contrary to Islam, as several quotations from the Qur’an reads:
“ O ye who believe! Fulfil your undertakings…”(Al-Maidah:1)
“Fulfill the convenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not your oaths after you have confirmed them; indeed you have made God your surety, for God knoweth an that you do.” (An-Nahl: 91)
If Muslims sense the treachery of any enemy with whom they had a treaty, they should declare to him the annulment of that treaty before embarking on war again.
“Thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for God loveth not the treacherous.” (Al-Anfal:85)
Although Muslims are bound to go to the help of their Muslim brethren who are religiously persecuted in the land of an enemy; they are not allowed to fulfill this duty if there is a treaty between the Muslim community and this enemy. Priority goes to honouring the treaty.
“But if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) God seeth an that you do." (Al-Anfal:72)
Now, Can any law be more idealistic!?
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear brother in humanity, thank you very much for having confidence in us, and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah's Sake, meet your expectations.
First of all, we would like to tell you that war is decreed in Islam in self defense. This indicates that aim behind war is to ward off aggression not to impose Islam as a religion. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily God is most powerful for their aid.” (Al-Hajj:39)
Turning to the main topic of the question concerning war ethics in Islam, we would like to develop the whole issue while dealing with the following main points:
1-Personal Behavior of the Troops:
In war, as it is in peace, the instructions of Islam are to be observed. Worship does not cease in war. Islamic jurisprudence maintains that whatever is prohibited during peace is also prohibited during war. War is no excuse to be lenient with misbehaving troops. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said: “Beware of the prayer of the oppressed; for there is no barrier between it and Allah.” Here, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, differentiates between the oppressed believers and non-believers.
2-Whom to Fight:
Fighting should be directed only against fighting troops, and not to non- fighting personnel, and this is in compliance with the Qur’anic verse that reads: “ Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors.” (Al-Baqarah: 190)
In one of the battles, a woman was found killed, and this was denounced by the Prophet saying "She did not fight" This will be further detailed under the instructions given to the armies and their commanding chiefs by the Prophet and his Caliphs.
3-The Prophet's instructions to Commanding Chiefs:
The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, used to instruct his commanding chiefs saying: “Fight in the cause of Allah. Fight those who deny Allah; Do not be embittered. Do not be treacherous. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children or those (people) in convents.”
4-Abu-Bakr's instructions to Usama's Campaign on Syria:
“Do not betray or be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut or bum palm trees or fruitful trees. Don’t slay a sheep, a cow or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in hermitages, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for.”
5-Abu-Bakr's Instructions to Yazid ibn-Abi Sufian:
“I give you ten commandments: don’t kill a woman or a child or an old person, and don’t cut trees or ruin dwellings or slay a sheep but for food. Dont burn palm trees or drown them. And don’t be spiteful or unjust.”
6-Maintaining Justice and Avoidance of Blind Retaliation:
None can be more illustrative in this respect than the words of the Qurt’an. Allah Almighty says: “ O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do.” (Al-Maidah: 8)
7-Medical and Nursing Services:
From the early days of Islam the sanctity of the medical profession was recognized. Christian and Jewish doctors were employed by the Islamic state since the days of the Umayyads, and some of them were even court and personal physicians to caliphs. Under the tolerant attitude of Islam, some of them got the chance to unfold their full scientific potential and thus contributed to the progress of medical knowledge.
Medical help was a right to all men in spite of religion or creed. That this was also extended to those amongst enemy. An example well known in the West is that of Saladin securing medical help to his opponent, Richard Lion Heart of England who was seriously ill during the Crusades. Saladin sent him his own doctor and personally supervised Richard's treatment until he became well.
In quoting this particular example, one dare say that such an attitude was quite different to the behavior characterizing the invading crusaders. When the crusaders entered Jerusalem on July 15th 1099, they slaughtered seventy thousand Muslims including women, children and old men. They broke children's skulls by knocking against the wall, threw babies from roof tops, roasted men over fire and cut up women's bellies to see if they had swallowed gold.
This description was given by Gibbon, a Christian writer, and commented on by Ludbig Wbo wondered how come after those horrible atrocities they prayed at the burial place of Christ for blessing and forgiveness (Draper/History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. 2, p. 77).
We do not mention this in bitterness or prejudice for every honest Muslim or Christian well knows that Christianity is something and many deeds of the crusaders are something else.
8-Prisoners of War:
For the first time in religious or sectarian history, Islam adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury.
Previously, it was the custom for the captive to work for his food or get it through private means. The Qur’an made it a charity to feed the prisoners saying:
“Lo! the righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of water of Kafur. A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allah drink, making it gush forth abundantly. Because they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide spreading. And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him. (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you.” (Al-Insan: 5-9)
The Prophet instructed his Companions to be good to the captives. In one of his traditions, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ordered his Companions saying: “ You should be good to the captives.”
Abu Aziz-ibn Umair, one of the captives of Badr battle, recalls:
“Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me the bread and themselves the dates, in view of the Prophet's recommendation in our favor (in that desert situation bread was the more luxurious item of food than dates)
As soon as any of them held a piece of bread, he would offer it to me. "Feeling shy, I would give it back to one of them but he would immediately return it to me."
Another, Thumama ibn-Athal, was taken prisoner and brought to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, who said: “Be good to him in his captivity.” When the Prophet went home he instructed to collect whatever food there, and ordered it sent to the prisoner.
When the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayzah were captured, loads of dates were regularly carried to them, with the Prophet's instructions to shelter them from the summer sun and to provide them with water to drink.
From the legal point of view, Muslim opinion is unanimous on the prohibition of subjecting the captives to ill treatment by withholding food, drink or clothing.
9-The Fate of War Prisoners:
This was based upon the teaching of the Qur’an:
“Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.” (Muhammad: 4)
According to Islamic law, the captive belongs to the state and not to his captor. The ruler has the ultimate option, as he sees fit, of granting freedom or doing that after taking a ransom.
Among those whom the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, granted freedom was a poet called Abu-Azza who said to the Prophet: “I have five daughters who have no one to support them, so give me away to them as a charity and I promise never to fight you or help your enemies.
Abul-As Ibn Al Rabiae was freed for a ransom, which the Prophet later returned back to him. Later, the man embraced Islam.
Umarna Ibn-Athal was set free upon his promise not to provide the enemy with food. This gentle treatment touched the man’s heart and was then converted to Islam saying to the Prophet: "There was a time when your face was the most hated face to me, and there comes a day when it is the most loved.”
Sometimes captives were exchanged for Muslim captives in enemy hands. An acceptable ransom that was quite often carried out was to teach ten Muslim children to read and write. It is noteworthy that modern international law allows for setting free a prisoner of war on equivalent lines.
Personnel were set free upon their word of honor not to fight again, and they should not be ordered by their governments to go to battle again. If they break their promise, they might be punishable by death if they are captured again.
10-Nonbelligerents
Islam never fought nations but fought only despotic authorities. Islamic war was one of liberation and not of compulsion. The freedom of the liberated people to decide their religion has already been mentioned, and it was to ensure this freedom that Muslims fought. It is interesting to mention that when Muslims fought the Romans in Egypt, the Egyptian Copts sided with and helped Muslims against the Romans who were Christians like them. This was because Christian Egypt was suffering religious oppression by the Christian Romans to compel them to adopt their religious beliefs.
One of the earliest actions of the Muslims in Egypt was the assurance of religious freedom and the reinstatement of Bejamin as Bishop of Alexandria after years of hiding from the Romans in the western desert.
But religious freedom was but one aspect that Islam gave. Whether Arab or Egyptian, Muslim or Christian, Islam built up that FELLOWSHIP that humanity aspires to, in equality and fraternity .The story is well known of the running contest held in Egypt and won by an Egyptian to the dismay of an Arab competitor who was the son of `Amru Ibn Al-`Aas, governor of Egypt. The Arab hit the boy saying 'how dare you outrun me and I am the son of the nobility." Upon which Umar, the caliph, ordered the three all the way to Madinah, and ordered the Egyptian to avenge by hitting the offending Arab, saying: "Hit him back. Hit the son of nobility." Addressing `Amru, he uttered his famous saying: “O `Amru, since when have you enslaved people while their mothers have born them free.”
10-International Law:
The process of active intervention to stop or remove aggression is a development that modem international law has recognized.
The second world war for example was sparked by Germany's invasion of Poland, and drew into the fighting countries that were not direct parties to the conflict. One of the fruits of war was the creation of the United Nations in order to settle disputes between nations by peaceful means or indeed if necessary by a collective military force. No one should argue therefore that Egypt and the Roman Empire for example should have been left alone to solve their mutual problems. In modem times the rest of the family of nations consider it a duty to do something about it. Fourteen centuries prior to the establishment of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, Islam decreed such responsibility.
The legal principle of intervention to solve dispute was offered by the Qur’anic saying:
“If two parties of believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: But if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of God; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for God loves those who are fair.” (Al-Hujurat: 9)
11-Respect of Treaties and Agreements:
One of the major shortcomings of modern international politics is its meager regard to moral obligation. Time and again, treaties and agreements proved unworthy of the price of paper they had been written on. The most splendid produce of the human intellect in the field of international law might instantly vanish upon the call of greed or creed at this age that we wish to think has brought us to the epic of civilization.
And what is worse is that the most sophisticated achievements of scientific progress are often used as tools in the hands of Godless or God-disregarding policies: instead of being exploited 'in the cause of God.’
From the outset, Islam has emphatically prohibited treachery by taking the enemy by surprise attack. Recent examples of signing a pact or treaty with a nation as camouflage to hidden intent to attack it are quite contrary to Islam, as several quotations from the Qur’an reads:
“ O ye who believe! Fulfil your undertakings…”(Al-Maidah:1)
“Fulfill the convenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not your oaths after you have confirmed them; indeed you have made God your surety, for God knoweth an that you do.” (An-Nahl: 91)
If Muslims sense the treachery of any enemy with whom they had a treaty, they should declare to him the annulment of that treaty before embarking on war again.
“Thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for God loveth not the treacherous.” (Al-Anfal:85)
Although Muslims are bound to go to the help of their Muslim brethren who are religiously persecuted in the land of an enemy; they are not allowed to fulfill this duty if there is a treaty between the Muslim community and this enemy. Priority goes to honouring the treaty.
“But if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) God seeth an that you do." (Al-Anfal:72)
Now, Can any law be more idealistic!?
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear brother, thanks a lot for your good question. We commend your efforts in pursuit of knowledge.
First of all, it should be clear that Islam maintains the protection of life and does not sanction any violation against it, irrespective of the people’s religion, race, sect, etc.. The Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder, “…Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.” (Al-An`am: 151) “Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand Qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law)” (Al-Isra’: 33)
According to the Qur’an, killing any person without a just cause is as big a sin as killing the whole humanity and saving the life of one person is as good deed as saving the whole humanity. (See Al-Ma’idah: 32) Muslims do not hate – let alone kill - non-Muslims, be they Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhist or followers of any religion or no religion. Our religion does not allow killing any innocent person regardless of his or her religion. The life of all human beings is sacrosanct according to the teachings of the Qur’an and the guidance of our blessed Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and upon all the Prophets and Messengers of Allah.
When we Muslims state that Islam is a religion of peace, we are not trying to prove something unreasonable or solve a crossword puzzle. Rather, we are just stating a fact backed by clear-cut evidence and unquestionable proofs. Even we don’t need to state this fact, for Islam, in itself, is self-explanatory, in terms of its meaning, its noble teachings and the core of its message conveyed by the Prophets Allah sent to mankind.
With that statement, we don’t intend to sound apologetic, for Islamic concept of peace is very clear. It does not mean weakness, slavishness or surrendering to aggression and injustice. The Islamic concept of peace aims at securing security and harmony for the whole world, without any discrimination as to religion, race or color. Thus, Islam, right from its inception, waged a total war against injustice and oppression. It has made it clear that people should not be deprived of having access to the light of guidance. But throughout its history you can never find any trace of infringing upon people’s right to self expression, even at times that such right was misused. The cogent example to be mentioned here is the way the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, received the two envoys sent by Musailamah Al-Kazzab (the Liar). His fine remarks always ring in mind whenever the issue of diplomatic immunity comes to fore. He, peace and blessings be upon him, told the envoys when they addressed him in a very provocative way: “If not that the envoys should not be killed, I’d have ordered for you to be beheaded”, thus laying down the rule that was later codified as one of the principles of the modern international law.
The point here is, it’s not of the Islamic teachings to kill people just because they happen to be non-Muslims or happen to disagree with Muslims on some points. What attests to this is the fact that the first war in the Islamic history would have never occurred if not that the enemies of Islam could not be satisfied with expelling Muslims from their home (Makkah), rather they planned to carry the aggression to Madinah in order to exterminate Muslims once and for all. So the question that should have been asked is: why do opponents are always on the trail of Muslims?
Focusing more on your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and an Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:
“Islam is indeed a religion of love and peace. Islam does not teach people to kill all those who disagree with them simply because they disagree with them. If certain bigoted Muslims did so that is not the fault of Islam. How unjust would it be to say that Christianity is a religion that teaches violence and blood shed by looking at the historical performance of some so-called Christians: After all, Hitler who committed genocide against the Jews, the white supremacists in South America who practiced barbarities against the blacks, the Serbs who committed genocide against the Muslims in Bosnia, those who systematically practiced mass slaughter of Muslims and Jews in Spain, and burned heretics, etc. all claimed to be Christians. What about the Christians still killing each other in Ireland? So why use double standards in judging Islam? Stereotyping is wrong regardless of against whom we use it.
Vast majority of Muslims have nothing to do with such violence or bloodshed that may or may not have been committed by those who claim to be Muslims. According to the strict verdict of the Qur’an, taking life of a single human being unjustly is akin to taking the life of all humanity. A good Muslim, therefore, is one who believes in sanctity of all life. The Prophet, peace be upon him, taught us that if a person were to kill even a single little sparrow, it would appear before the Lord of the worlds seeking God’s justice against the person!” (Source: www.islam.ca)
That sure does explain the crusades and the current colonial settler Zionist state of Israel!
On Wednesday morning, March 3, 2008, a group of prominent rabbis issued an unprecedented fatwa allowing the Israeli occupation army to bombard the Palestinian civil gatherings. The fatwa also called upon this army to annihilate and burn the Palestinian civilians.
Is this reasonable? And what is the Islamic attitude toward killing civilians?
Jazakum Allahu khayran.
Jazakum Allahu khayran.
Date
12/Mar/2008
Name of Mufti
Topic
Relations during War, Jihad: Rulings & Regulations
Answer
Wa`alaykum as-salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear sister in Islam, thank you for the confidence you place in us, and we implore Almighty Allah to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake.
Islam stands against killing innocents. Even in war times, Islam does not allow killing civilians who have nothing to do with war, women, children, and worshippers in their places of worship. Also, it does not allow demolishing places of worship or destroying trees.
This clarifies that war in Islam is not meant to destroy and ruin. War in Islam should abide by morality and the ethics and regulations abided by Islam. Given this, the difference between Zionists' destructive wars and our moral wars becomes clear.
In his response to your question, Dr. Muhammad Abdel-Latif Al-Banna, the managing editor of IslamOnline.net's (Arabic) Shari `ah Department, said,
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear sister in Islam, thank you for the confidence you place in us, and we implore Almighty Allah to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake.
Islam stands against killing innocents. Even in war times, Islam does not allow killing civilians who have nothing to do with war, women, children, and worshippers in their places of worship. Also, it does not allow demolishing places of worship or destroying trees.
This clarifies that war in Islam is not meant to destroy and ruin. War in Islam should abide by morality and the ethics and regulations abided by Islam. Given this, the difference between Zionists' destructive wars and our moral wars becomes clear.
In his response to your question, Dr. Muhammad Abdel-Latif Al-Banna, the managing editor of IslamOnline.net's (Arabic) Shari `ah Department, said,
People can see the difference between Zionists' destructive wars and our moral wars, but it is quite strange that their wars are now backed by rabbinic fatwas based on the Torah. That is why we are going to highlight and affirm the difference between their wars and our morality-based wars where women, old people, and civilians are not to be killed, and as long as the person in question is not a warrior. Adversely, in their wars children are killed, houses demolished, electricity cut, blockade imposed, and starvation spread. This clearly shows the immoral features of their wars and that they never comply with any peace pact. Even the absence of international condemnation testifies to collusion with them.
Zionists' War: Destructive
Now, it is not strange that such a fatwa be issued by Jewish rabbis, especially after destroying the infrastructures in Lebanon and killing civilians during their wars in different countries. For instance, they killed the students of Bahr Al-Baqar School in Egypt, murdered summer visitors in Palestine, and destroyed residential buildings in Beirut. They do all this under a religious cover or legitimacy. In my opinion, this legitimacy is most obviously based on the religious Hebraic state as a reference, because their Torah allows killing civilians and destroying humans and facilities.
Such is their distorted Torah on which they depended in issuing such fatwas that contradict all agreements and covenants. In spite of this, we have not heard – so far – any international jural organization blaming them, correcting their notions, or condemning what they have said.
Our Wars: Moral
They called upon their army to destroy and kill others, although this army was in no need for their fatwa. On the other hand, our Islamic Shari`ah is moral and decent in all its wars. It preserves lives, maintains honors, and never destroys people's facilities or property.
Concerning the battlefield where everybody is either killing or killed, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) taught his Companions that the message of fair war in Islam should make it clear to all people that Muslims are heralds of peace. Therefore, if they indulge in any war, it should be undertaken through their morals, including justice with which no one is to be wronged.
It has been narrated by Abu Dawud on the authority of Khalid ibn Al-Fazar, who said, "Anas ibn Malik told me that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'Set out in the Name of Allah, with (the help of) Allah, and according to the religion of the Messenger of Allah. Do not kill any man far advanced in years, nor a child, a baby, or a woman. And do not go into excesses. Gather your spoils of war together, do what is right, and do good; truly, Allah loves the good-doers'" (Abu Dawud, Sulayman ibn Al-Ash`ath, Sunan, the book of Jihad, hadith No. 2247, Dar Al-Hadith, Cairo).
This text clarifies that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) specified certain categories to be exempted from killing in wars; including:
Old people, children, and women: not to be killed
Old people:
In principle, they are not to be fought because of their old age. Thus, as a sign of respecting their old age and because they do not (usually) indulge in war, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded that they are not to be killed.
Yet still, we should differentiate between two kinds of old people: First, those who only seek to find their livelihood with no intention of fighting; such have nothing to do with war or fighting; second, those who set plans for war, conspire against Muslims, and dedicate all their experience in life to this goal; it is permissible to fight such people.
Sheikh MuhammadAbu Zahrah, the well-known Muslim scholar, (may Allah have mercy upon him) said, "Old people are of two types: Those who are in charge of wars and have relevant (effective) opinions, and those who are not competent for this, nor do they have anything to do with war. The latter are not to be killed, because there are not enough reasons that obligate fighting (or killing) them. The former, however, can be legally killed, for they are warriors because of their opinions, planning, and conspiring.
In this regard, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered that Durayd ibn As-Simmah be killed in the battle of Hunayn. Although he was one hundred and twenty years old (120), this man was mindful enough to give effective advice, which he had already given in that battle, so he was a warrior because of this" (Muhammad Abu Zahrah, Nazariyyat Al-Harb fi Al-Islam, p. 38).
Women, Workers, and Children:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade killing these people, because they do not usually indulge in war. This is because – in principle – women do not fight and children do not carry weapons, choose (to fight), or realize (what war means). By the same token, workers are originally meant for construction, and war in Islam is not meant for destruction.
I mentioned these categories together under this title because the (relevant religious) texts have something in common concerning them, and these people themselves have a common denominator: They do not usually indulge in war. Moreover, in most cases war is imposed on them. For all these reasons, they have been tackled together under one title.
There are many texts to this effect, including a hadith narrated on the authority of Rabah ibn Rabi`, who said, "We were with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in a battle when he saw the people assembling around something. He ordered a man to go and see what those people were assembling for. The man came back and said they were assembling around a killed woman. He (the Prophet) said, 'This (woman) would not fight for sure.' " The narrator said, "Khalid ibn Al-Waleed was in charge of the vanguard, so he (the Prophet) sent a man to Khalid to tell him: 'Do not kill a woman or a wageworker' " (Narrated by Abu Dawud, Book of Jihad, Hadith No. 2295).
This hadith includes two important remarks: First, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) denounced that a woman be killed; and secondly, he (peace and blessings be upon him) directly ordered Khalid – as well as all Muslim leaders – not to kill a woman or a wageworker.
This clearly indicates that killing women and wageworkers is not permissible as long as they do not fight or indulge in war. If, however, they do so, it will then be permissible to kill them, because leaving them would be (a support for) killing Muslims.
The reason why workers are not to be killed is that "they do not fight, nor do they have anything to do with war. This is because such people would not fight, as war is usually connected to warriors, and because war (in Islam) is not meant for fighting nations, but for warding off the powers of evil and mischief. That is why it is to be with those who carry weapons and fight, or those who set plans and plots. Moreover, workers – who are totally busy with cultivation or handiwork – are constructors, while war in Islam is not for deconstruction; it is only for warding off corruption. It is further because such workers are (in many cases) wretched under the dominion of unjust rulers, so they should not be a fuel for a war from which they would benefit nothing but suffering" (Muhammad Abu Zahrah, Nazariyyat Al-Harb fi Al-Islam, p. 38).
Just as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade killing women and wageworkers, he also forbade killing children, because they have not done anything wrong to be killed for. It has been narrated on the authority of Qatadah who narrated from Al-Hasan that Al-Aswad ibn Sari` said that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent an expedition on the Day of Hunayn. As they were fighting the polytheists, they killed (some of their) offspring (children). When they returned, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) asked them, "Why did you kill offspring?" They replied, "O Messenger of Allah! (It is) only (because) they were children of the polytheists." He said, "Is it not that the best of you are children of polytheists?! By Him in Whose Hands Muhammad’s soul is, no person is born except on fitrah [Arabic for: natural disposition of belief in Allah] until his tongue expresses (this belief or otherwise)" (Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, The Makkans' Musnad, 15.36).
This is a form of reprimanding those who killed the polytheists' children, because those children had not yet realized (what was meant by war or polytheism), nor had they chosen that (war). Our Islamic Shari`ah requires reaching the age of puberty, sanity, and choosing (not to be under coercion) for a person to be legally responsible (for his actions). Therefore, it is not reasonable that this matter is such clear in our Shari`ah then we would act otherwise.
According to the narration of Ad-Darimi, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) confirmed that children must not be killed. Al-Aswad ibn Sari` said, "We went out with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in some battle where he overcame the polytheists, so the people (Muslims) speeded up to kill (them) so much that they killed children. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was told about that, he said, 'Why have some people hastened to kill (even) children? Behold! No children are to be killed!' repeating it three times" (Ad-Darimi, Sunan, the book of Siyar, Hadith No. 2354).
This denunciation – followed by forbiddance – confirms that Islam is keen on sparing the life of children in all cases. This is because "no aggression is expected from such weak children, so how should they bear the burden of others' aggression? War in Islam is not for annihilating enemies, but for preventing aggression. Therefore, it is not permissible that fighting should go beyond the motives for which it is originally stimulated" (Muhammad Abu Zahrah, Nazariyyat Al-Harb fi Al-Islam, p.38).
Contemporary Opinions on Killing Civilians
In a fatwa issued by Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, vice president of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR), concerning killing civilians in wars especially from Jews, he said,
Originally, it is prohibited to kill civilians, women, and children, but certain cases are exempted from this:
1. When all individuals on the enemy side participate in war, as then the term "civilian" would not apply to them.
2. When civilians do things to help militants, as then what they do would be regarded as a "military action."
3. When warriors use civilians, women, and children as a shield and there is no way for Muslim warriors to reach those militants except by killing those civilians.
4. When the enemies kill Muslim civilians, for then their civilians may be treated the same.
5. When a civilian "accepts" usurping a (Muslim) land, he is considered an occupier, and is not a civilian any more.
6. When children themselves are not intended (or targeted) to be killed (deliberately) without doing anything wrong or committing any crime.
It is well known that Israelis, men and women, indulge in war against Palestinians, so they are warriors. They are also usurpers of the (Palestinian) land, because the Jews in Palestine have emigrated from various countries, and they have no right in this land. In Islam, it is obligatory to liberate any Islamic land from occupation. It should also be known that jihad against the Jews is not because they are Jews, but because they are usurpers and warriors.
The same opinion was adopted by:
Dr. Ahmad Nawfal, professor of Shari`ah in Jordan;
Dr. Sheikh Hamid Al-`Ali, professor of Islamic culture in the faculty of Elementary Education, Kuwait;
Dr. Nizar `Abd Al-Qadir Rayyan, participant professor of the science of Hadith, Gaza University;
Sheikh Jalal Yusuf Ash-Sharqi, a personal status judge in Bahrain;
Zionists' War: Destructive
Now, it is not strange that such a fatwa be issued by Jewish rabbis, especially after destroying the infrastructures in Lebanon and killing civilians during their wars in different countries. For instance, they killed the students of Bahr Al-Baqar School in Egypt, murdered summer visitors in Palestine, and destroyed residential buildings in Beirut. They do all this under a religious cover or legitimacy. In my opinion, this legitimacy is most obviously based on the religious Hebraic state as a reference, because their Torah allows killing civilians and destroying humans and facilities.
Such is their distorted Torah on which they depended in issuing such fatwas that contradict all agreements and covenants. In spite of this, we have not heard – so far – any international jural organization blaming them, correcting their notions, or condemning what they have said.
Our Wars: Moral
They called upon their army to destroy and kill others, although this army was in no need for their fatwa. On the other hand, our Islamic Shari`ah is moral and decent in all its wars. It preserves lives, maintains honors, and never destroys people's facilities or property.
Concerning the battlefield where everybody is either killing or killed, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) taught his Companions that the message of fair war in Islam should make it clear to all people that Muslims are heralds of peace. Therefore, if they indulge in any war, it should be undertaken through their morals, including justice with which no one is to be wronged.
It has been narrated by Abu Dawud on the authority of Khalid ibn Al-Fazar, who said, "Anas ibn Malik told me that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'Set out in the Name of Allah, with (the help of) Allah, and according to the religion of the Messenger of Allah. Do not kill any man far advanced in years, nor a child, a baby, or a woman. And do not go into excesses. Gather your spoils of war together, do what is right, and do good; truly, Allah loves the good-doers'" (Abu Dawud, Sulayman ibn Al-Ash`ath, Sunan, the book of Jihad, hadith No. 2247, Dar Al-Hadith, Cairo).
This text clarifies that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) specified certain categories to be exempted from killing in wars; including:
Old people, children, and women: not to be killed
Old people:
In principle, they are not to be fought because of their old age. Thus, as a sign of respecting their old age and because they do not (usually) indulge in war, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded that they are not to be killed.
Yet still, we should differentiate between two kinds of old people: First, those who only seek to find their livelihood with no intention of fighting; such have nothing to do with war or fighting; second, those who set plans for war, conspire against Muslims, and dedicate all their experience in life to this goal; it is permissible to fight such people.
Sheikh MuhammadAbu Zahrah, the well-known Muslim scholar, (may Allah have mercy upon him) said, "Old people are of two types: Those who are in charge of wars and have relevant (effective) opinions, and those who are not competent for this, nor do they have anything to do with war. The latter are not to be killed, because there are not enough reasons that obligate fighting (or killing) them. The former, however, can be legally killed, for they are warriors because of their opinions, planning, and conspiring.
In this regard, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered that Durayd ibn As-Simmah be killed in the battle of Hunayn. Although he was one hundred and twenty years old (120), this man was mindful enough to give effective advice, which he had already given in that battle, so he was a warrior because of this" (Muhammad Abu Zahrah, Nazariyyat Al-Harb fi Al-Islam, p. 38).
Women, Workers, and Children:
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade killing these people, because they do not usually indulge in war. This is because – in principle – women do not fight and children do not carry weapons, choose (to fight), or realize (what war means). By the same token, workers are originally meant for construction, and war in Islam is not meant for destruction.
I mentioned these categories together under this title because the (relevant religious) texts have something in common concerning them, and these people themselves have a common denominator: They do not usually indulge in war. Moreover, in most cases war is imposed on them. For all these reasons, they have been tackled together under one title.
There are many texts to this effect, including a hadith narrated on the authority of Rabah ibn Rabi`, who said, "We were with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in a battle when he saw the people assembling around something. He ordered a man to go and see what those people were assembling for. The man came back and said they were assembling around a killed woman. He (the Prophet) said, 'This (woman) would not fight for sure.' " The narrator said, "Khalid ibn Al-Waleed was in charge of the vanguard, so he (the Prophet) sent a man to Khalid to tell him: 'Do not kill a woman or a wageworker' " (Narrated by Abu Dawud, Book of Jihad, Hadith No. 2295).
This hadith includes two important remarks: First, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) denounced that a woman be killed; and secondly, he (peace and blessings be upon him) directly ordered Khalid – as well as all Muslim leaders – not to kill a woman or a wageworker.
This clearly indicates that killing women and wageworkers is not permissible as long as they do not fight or indulge in war. If, however, they do so, it will then be permissible to kill them, because leaving them would be (a support for) killing Muslims.
The reason why workers are not to be killed is that "they do not fight, nor do they have anything to do with war. This is because such people would not fight, as war is usually connected to warriors, and because war (in Islam) is not meant for fighting nations, but for warding off the powers of evil and mischief. That is why it is to be with those who carry weapons and fight, or those who set plans and plots. Moreover, workers – who are totally busy with cultivation or handiwork – are constructors, while war in Islam is not for deconstruction; it is only for warding off corruption. It is further because such workers are (in many cases) wretched under the dominion of unjust rulers, so they should not be a fuel for a war from which they would benefit nothing but suffering" (Muhammad Abu Zahrah, Nazariyyat Al-Harb fi Al-Islam, p. 38).
Just as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade killing women and wageworkers, he also forbade killing children, because they have not done anything wrong to be killed for. It has been narrated on the authority of Qatadah who narrated from Al-Hasan that Al-Aswad ibn Sari` said that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent an expedition on the Day of Hunayn. As they were fighting the polytheists, they killed (some of their) offspring (children). When they returned, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) asked them, "Why did you kill offspring?" They replied, "O Messenger of Allah! (It is) only (because) they were children of the polytheists." He said, "Is it not that the best of you are children of polytheists?! By Him in Whose Hands Muhammad’s soul is, no person is born except on fitrah [Arabic for: natural disposition of belief in Allah] until his tongue expresses (this belief or otherwise)" (Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, The Makkans' Musnad, 15.36).
This is a form of reprimanding those who killed the polytheists' children, because those children had not yet realized (what was meant by war or polytheism), nor had they chosen that (war). Our Islamic Shari`ah requires reaching the age of puberty, sanity, and choosing (not to be under coercion) for a person to be legally responsible (for his actions). Therefore, it is not reasonable that this matter is such clear in our Shari`ah then we would act otherwise.
According to the narration of Ad-Darimi, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) confirmed that children must not be killed. Al-Aswad ibn Sari` said, "We went out with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in some battle where he overcame the polytheists, so the people (Muslims) speeded up to kill (them) so much that they killed children. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was told about that, he said, 'Why have some people hastened to kill (even) children? Behold! No children are to be killed!' repeating it three times" (Ad-Darimi, Sunan, the book of Siyar, Hadith No. 2354).
This denunciation – followed by forbiddance – confirms that Islam is keen on sparing the life of children in all cases. This is because "no aggression is expected from such weak children, so how should they bear the burden of others' aggression? War in Islam is not for annihilating enemies, but for preventing aggression. Therefore, it is not permissible that fighting should go beyond the motives for which it is originally stimulated" (Muhammad Abu Zahrah, Nazariyyat Al-Harb fi Al-Islam, p.38).
Contemporary Opinions on Killing Civilians
In a fatwa issued by Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, vice president of the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR), concerning killing civilians in wars especially from Jews, he said,
Originally, it is prohibited to kill civilians, women, and children, but certain cases are exempted from this:
1. When all individuals on the enemy side participate in war, as then the term "civilian" would not apply to them.
2. When civilians do things to help militants, as then what they do would be regarded as a "military action."
3. When warriors use civilians, women, and children as a shield and there is no way for Muslim warriors to reach those militants except by killing those civilians.
4. When the enemies kill Muslim civilians, for then their civilians may be treated the same.
5. When a civilian "accepts" usurping a (Muslim) land, he is considered an occupier, and is not a civilian any more.
6. When children themselves are not intended (or targeted) to be killed (deliberately) without doing anything wrong or committing any crime.
It is well known that Israelis, men and women, indulge in war against Palestinians, so they are warriors. They are also usurpers of the (Palestinian) land, because the Jews in Palestine have emigrated from various countries, and they have no right in this land. In Islam, it is obligatory to liberate any Islamic land from occupation. It should also be known that jihad against the Jews is not because they are Jews, but because they are usurpers and warriors.
The same opinion was adopted by:
Dr. Ahmad Nawfal, professor of Shari`ah in Jordan;
Dr. Sheikh Hamid Al-`Ali, professor of Islamic culture in the faculty of Elementary Education, Kuwait;
Dr. Nizar `Abd Al-Qadir Rayyan, participant professor of the science of Hadith, Gaza University;
Sheikh Jalal Yusuf Ash-Sharqi, a personal status judge in Bahrain;
Esther 9:2 The Jews assembled in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their harm; and no one could stand before them, for the dread of them had fallen on all the peoples.
It is amazing considering half the people you are addressing here are converts from Christianity!
Islam is the only way of life to Muslims, and should indeed be the law of the lands to the 1.86 billion of them!
so? much has been written about the pagan origin of the cross indeed I agree
In reading the New Testament we must cease to think of the man Jesus, and even of the “Son of God”, and think of him rather of the sun of god, for this is a solar myth, and its dying hero, a dying sun. [1]
The cross is a pagan symbol that was adored in Egypt thousands of years before Jesus was born. The Roman Catholic Church adopted the cross symbol at least 600 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified. Even the early Christians of North Africa rejected the wooden cross after Tertullian condemned it.
Tertullian confessed that pagans worshipped crucified saviors hanging on a cross.
"Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners, and flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it." [1]
The pagan roots of Christianity are clearly indicated by this confession. Tertullian was a Christian who later became a Gnostic. He implies that Christians borrowed the sun-god myth.
(Wilkinson's Egyptians, Sir John Gardner Wilkinson 1837-41)
The Pagan philosopher and satirist Celsus criticized Christians for trying to pass off the Jesus story as a new revelation when it was actually an inferior imitation of pagan myths. He asks:
Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians-and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.
The early Christians were painfully aware of such criticisms. How could Pagan myths which predated Christianity by hundreds of years have so much in common with the biography of the one and only savior Jesus? Desperate to come up with an explanation, the Church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the Devil had plagiarized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead people astray! Knowing that the true Son of God was literally to come and walk the Earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysus.
The Church father Tertullian writes of the Devil's diabolical mimicry in creating the Mysteries of Mithras:
The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine.
Studying the myths of the Mysteries it becomes obvious why these early Christians resorted to such a desperate explanation. (The Jesus Mysteries, pp. 26-27)
The scholar Timothy Freke says:
The Vatican was constructed upon the site of an ancient Pagan sanctuary because the new is always built upon the old. In the same way Christianity itself has as its foundations the Pagan spirituality that preceded it. (ibid, p. 12)
Amazingly, the bishop Tertullian believed Jesus was crucified, but he rejected the cross as pagan. This probably means the Church of Carthage also believed what Tertullian believed: The wooden cross is pagan.
Tertullian used to mark the forehead with a cross:
"In all our travels and movements", says Tertullian (De cor. Mil., iii), "in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross" [2]
It seems Tertullian acknowledged Jesus died on a cross, but rejected wooden crosses. Nevertheless, he unambiguously said that Christianity borrowed the cross and the concept of “dying for the sins of mankind”. Therefore, Christianity is rehashed paganism and the New Testament is recycled pagan myth!
The followers of Tammuz also marked the forehead with a cross!
A pagan sign of the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and the Egyptians, this cross was a symbol of the Roman god Mithras and the Greek Attis, and their forerunner Tammuz, the Sumerian solar god, consort of the goddess Ishtar. Conveniently, the original form of the letter 'T' was the initial letter of the god of Tammuz. During baptism ceremonies, this cross was marked on the foreheads by the pagan priest. [3]
The cross symbol (T) was the original cross of Jesus:
The cross of Christ, as experts seem to agree, was actually a bar placed across the top of an upright, so it was not a cross at all. It was a “Tee” (T), called “Taw” in Hebrew and “Tau” in Greek. So the cross that the victim was suspended from was actually a crossbar, and perhaps in those days this was called the cross. The “Taw” sign was the symbol of the dying and rising god, Tammuz, and “Taw” was the sign that was made on the heads of those marked for salvation by the god. So, crucifixion images might not be as conventional as the ones based on the Catholic crucifix. [1]
After the Egyptian/Greek/Roman pagans converted to Christianity, “these different signs of the cross were united in one large sign such as we now make. In the Western Church the hand was carried from the left to the right shoulder; in the Eastern Church, on the contrary, it was brought from the right shoulder to the left, the sign being made with three fingers. This apparently slight difference was one of the (remote) causes of the fatal Eastern Schism. [2]
The early Christians of Egypt were accused of sun-worship:
A letter ascribed in the Augustan History to the Emperor Hadrian refers to the worship of Serapis by residents of Egypt who described themselves as Christians, and Christian worship by those claiming to worship Serapis:
The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. (Augustan History, Firmus et al. 8) [1]
The cross was adopted six hundred years after Jesus’ departure.
It will come as a surprise to many that the first known figure of a god on a cross is a likeness of the sun god Orpheus from some three centuries B.C.E. The crucifix on the amulet on the cover of The Jesus Mysteries, by Freke and Gandy, clearly depicts this image. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, pp. 45-46)
"That which is now called the Christian cross was originally no Christian emblem at all, but was the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians -- the true original form of the letter T -- the initial of the name of Tammuz [...] That mystic Tau was marked in baptism on the foreheads of those initiated in the Mysteries, and was used in every variety of way as a most sacred symbol. [...] The Vestal virgins of Pagan Rome wore it suspended from their necklaces, as the nuns do now. The Egyptians did the same [...] There is hardly a Pagan tribe where the cross has not been found. The cross was worshipped by the Pagan Celts long before the incarnation and death of Christ."
"The ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol of life -- the ankh, a tau cross surmounted by a loop and known as crux ansata -- was adopted and extensively used on Coptic Christian monuments." (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1995, volume 3, page 753)
"A still more curious fact may be mentioned respecting this hieroglyphical character [the Tau], that the early Christians of Egypt adopted it [...] numerous inscriptions, headed by the Tau, are preserved to the present day on early Christian monuments." (Wilkinson's Egyptians, by Sir J. G. Wilkinson, volume 5, page 283-284)
The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times, and among non-Christian peoples, may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship."
(The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, 1910, volume 7, page 506)
Here is an excerpt from Misha'al ibn `Abdullah Al-Kadhi
The ancient Egyptians also adopted the cross as a religious symbol of their pagan gods. Countless Egyptian drawings depict themselves holding crosses in their hands. Among them, the Egyptian savior Horus is depicted holding a cross in his hand. He is also depicted as an infant sitting on his mother's knee with a cross on the seat they occupy. The most common of the crosses used by these pagan Egyptians, the CRUX ANSATA, was later adopted by the Christians.
The Egyptian savior, Osiris, the Egyptian god of the dead and the underworld, is sometimes represented holding out this cross to mortals signifying that this person has discarded mortality for the life to come.
Another cross has been unearthed in Ireland. It belongs to the cult of the Persian god of the sun "Mithra" and bears a crucified effigy. The Greeks and Romans too adopted the cross as their religious symbol many centuries before Christianity did the same. An ancient inscription in Tessaly is accompanied by a Calvary cross. More crosses can be found to adorn the tomb of king Midas in Phrygia. The above references may be referred to for many more examples. [1]
(Orpheus crucified)
The legendary stories of ‘man-god’ saviors dying for the sins of their people (and rising three days later) were very common. Christianity is based on the sun-god myth. In fact the whole religion was fabricatedafter the departure of Jesus. None of these saviors are historical, but only personifications of the sun.
Here is an excerpt from Mather Walker’s essays:
Orpheus (from whom the Orphics received their name) and Dionysus went to Hades and returned. The Christians created the tradition that during the three days while Jesus was dead before his resurrection He went to hell and preached to the souls in prison.
Significantly, Plato, who follows the Orphic and mystery teachings throughout his dialogues, has the following to say, in the Republic II (362e), referring to the just man:
"What they will say is this, that such being his
disposition the just man will have to endure the lash,
the rack, chains, the branding iron in his eyes, and
finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will
be crucified."
The Orphics had a number of books which contained the details of their theology.These books have been lost, but I have no doubt this little jewel from Plato came straight from one of these. Dionysus was known by the name "Pentheus", i.e. "man of suffering." [1]
The Babylonian god Tammuz also died and resurrected.
Tammuz was a god of Assyria, Babylonia and Sumeria where he was known as Dumuzi. He is commemorated in the name of the month of June, Du’uzu, the fourth month of a year which begins at the spring equinox. The fullest history extant of this saviour is probably that of Ctesias (400 BC), author of Persika. The poet has perpetuated his memory in rhyme.
Trust, ye saints, your Lord restored,
Trust ye in your risen Lord;
For the pains which Tammuz endured
Our salvation have procured.
Tammuz was crucified as an atonement offering: “Trust ye in God, for out of his loins salvation has come unto us.” Julius Firmicus speaks of this God rising from the dead for the salvation of the world. This saviour which long preceded the advent of Christ, filled the same role in sacred history. (Warning: atheist website [2]
Christianity is based on the sun-god myth.
Source: [1] [2]
The doctrine of salvation by crucifixion had, like many of the ancient forms of religious faith, an astronomical origin. The sun is hung on a cross or crucified when it passes through the equinoxes. People in northern climates were saved by the sun’s crucifixion when it crossed over the equatorial line into the season of spring, at the vernal equinox at Easter, and thereby gave out a saving heat and light to the world and stimulated the generative organs of animal and vegetable life. (*)
This pagan festival is actually a combination of both Astoria (from which the word Easter is derived from), the female goddess of fertility of the northern European Saxons and the Isis-Osiris cult. The lover of Astoria, Attis, dies and is reborn annually, in conjunction with the summer solactice (spring time), the time of the year of the Easter celebrations. The theology of Attis was incorporated into the events of Prophet Jesus (as), according to the Christian church that is. The symbol of Astoria is the EGG, which is part of the Easter celebration (Easter Egg). In the Isis-Osiris cult of ancient Egypt, crucifixion was often a required means of sacrificing the King as the INCARNATION OF GOD for the SALVATION of man. Such bloody sacrifices were accompanied by the belief that the saviour’s flesh and blood had to be eaten and drank in a cannibalistic sacrament. This is currently practiced by the Catholic church, metaphorically, in all their masses. Yet, one cannot ignore the pagan roots of this act. The Catholic church actually believes in the transubstantiation of this ceremony, instituted by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 12th century, meaning, the Catholics believe that the bread and wine used turns into the actual flesh and blood of Prophet Jesus(as), exactly in line with the ceremony of the Isis-Osiris cult, which dates back to 1700 BC. The notion that Prophet Jesus(as) had to be sacrificed for the salvation of all mankind traces back to this older barbarism. [1]
The scholar Tom Harper states:
“The divine teacher is called, is tested by the “adversary”, gathers disciples, heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. (The Pagan Christ, p. 145)
When the Council of Nicea took place, the Emperor Constantine
- Declared the Roman Sun-day to be the Christian Sabbath.
- Adopted the traditional birthday of the Sun-god, and the twenty-fifth of December, as the birthday of Jesus;
- Borrowed the emblem of the Sun-god, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity;
- And, although the statue of Jesus replaced the idol of the Sun-god, decided to incorporate all the ceremonies which were performed at the Sub-gods birthday celebrations into their own ceremonies.
Christianity betrays the True Jesus as portrayed in the Quran, and there is no other alternative but to accept the True Jesus. The only Revelation of God that does not degrade Jesus is the Quran. All other Scriptures must be abrogated in favor of the Quran alone.
Here is the evidence for my assertions.
The fertilizing winter sun having been crucified, and the summer sun risen into the heavens in resurrection, the blood of the grape, ripened by its the heat, was symbolically “the blood of the cross,” or “the blood of the Lamb.” Jesus is not the true vine for no reason.
Because of our Christian culture and its imagery, the cross is necessarily the instrument of the saviour god’s torture. However, because the celestial origin of crucifixion in solar myths is that the sun crosses over the celestial equator, the heavenly sign of the equinoxes, the image of a crossover in the sky would be a cross like the Greek letter Chi (X) not a Plus (+). (Warning:Atheist website [1])
The evidence that Christianity was in its beginnings firmly rooted in an Egyptian-style, equinoctial mode of thinking still abounds today. The birthday of Jesus Christ was first celebrated by the earliest Church in the spring of the year. But in 345, Pope Julius decreed that the birthday (nobody knew any precise date for it, suggesting again that the entire thing was pure myth) should thenceforth be held on December 25, three days after the “death” of the winter solstice and the same day on which the births of Mithras, Dionysus, the Sol Invictus (unconquerable sun), and several other gods were traditionally celebrated. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 82).
The sun is born on the 25th of December, the birthday of Jesus Christ. The first and greatest of the labors of Jesus Christ is his victory over the serpent, the evil principle, or the devil. In his first labor Hercules strangled the serpent, as did Krishna, Bacchus, etc. his is the sun triumphing over the powers of hell and darkness; and, as he increases, he prevails, till he is crucified in the heavens, or is decussated in the form of a cross (according to Justin Martyr) when he passes the equator at the vernal equinox. (Lloyd Graham, Myths and Deceptions of the Bible, p. 208)
"Although surprising to us now, to writers of the first few centuries CE these similarities between the new Christian religion and the ancient Mysteries were extremely obvious. Pagan critics of Christianity, such as the satirist Celsus, complained that this recent religion was nothing more than a pale reflection of their own ancient teachings. Early 'Church Fathers,' such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, were understandably disturbed and resorted to the desperate claim that these similarities were the result of diabolical mimicry. Using one of the most absurd arguments ever advanced, they accused the Devil of "plagiarism by anticipation," of deviously copying the true story of Jesus before it had actually happened in an attempt to mislead the gullible!" Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999).
Julius Firmicus was a Christian author of the fourth century. He wrote a book called "The Errors of the Profane Religions." He found that many of these pagan religions of the Roman world had Saviors or Redeemers. He learned that every year the birth of these gods was celebrated, often in mid-winter, and every year, often about the time of our Easter, the death and resurrection of the gods were celebrated. He discovered that in some of these religions bread and wine were used at the altar, and candles and incense and sacred water were part of the ritual. (Joseph McCabe (1867-1955) The Story of Religious Controversy. Chapter 2)
“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.” Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
The desperate response by Christians to solve these parallels is weak because the Gospel story doesn’t have to be
100% plagiarized! For example, Osiris was ripped to pieces and restored to life, but Jesus was never “ripped to pieces and restored to life”.
The cult of Osiris had a particularly strong interest towards the concept of immortality. According to the myth surrounding the cult, Set (Osiris's evil brother) fooled Osiris into getting into a coffin, which he then shut and threw into the Nile. Osiris's wife searched for his remains until she finally found them and brought them back to Egypt. Once Osiris's evil brother found out, he cut the body into pieces, and again threw them into the Nile. The faithful companion of Osiris, Isis, gathered up all the parts of the body and bandaged them together for a proper burial. The Gods were impressed by the devotion of Isis and thus restored Osiris to life in the form of a different kind of existence as the god of the underworld. [1]
Okay, we know Osiris died and resurrected differently from Jesus, but the story is the same: A “man-god” who dies and resurrects. The idea was borrowed by the Church, not the story itself. (*)
The website Tektonics confesses that Tammuz ‘resurrected’, but it has “no parallel to the Christian religion” which is nonsense. The early Church borrowed the idea.
The death and "raising" of Tammuz occurs every year and corresponds with the natural cycle of vegetation. This provides no parallel at all for the Christian religion, expect by redefining terms into meaninglessness (i.e., "resurrection" meaning not just a specific Jewish concept, but any dead-alive transition!) and ignoring vast differences in meaning. [2]
Nobody worships Tammuz today, but millions of Christians worship Jesus as the “crucified savior who rose again”. The writer desperately says “this provides no parallel at all to the Christian religion”. But the parallels are very striking and evident. The Greeks and Romans converted to Christianity because it resembled their previous beliefs!
A true Jew would have immediately recognized the teaching of Jesus as a reaffirmation of what Moses had taught. But to many a pagan, it must have seemed new and strange and perhaps a little complicated. Most of the pagans still believed in a multitude of gods who, it was thought, mixed freely with human beings, mated with them, and took part in every sphere of human life. To the common people of Greece, any description of Jesus must have seemed like a description of one of their gods, and they were probably quite ready to accept Jesus in this capacity. There was always room for one more god. However, the actual teaching of Jesus negated all their gods, since it affirmed the Divine Unity”. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 62)
Whatever else one may believe about Jesus, it is clear both from the New Testament documents and from the creeds of the early Church that he was a fully human being. He knew hunger, thirst, weariness; he endured pain, grief, and the agony of doubt; he experienced birth and death. His appearance must have been ordinary, for on several occasions when trouble was brewing he was able to simply lose himself in the crowds. The Church of the first few centuries had little trouble selling the idea of God-in-human form to a non-Jewish audience: this kind of myth was commonplace at this time. (Tom Harper, For Christ’s Sake, p. 32)
Paul produced a religion which encompassed different contradictory elements. He took the Unitarianism of the Jews and added to it the philosophy of the pagans”. (Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 71)
This shift of emphasis from Jesus as a man to the new image of Christ, who wasdivine, enabled the intellectuals in Greece and Rome to assimilate into their own philosophy what Paul and those who followed him were preaching. (ibid, p. 70)
“…By using material familiar to these congregations, even while reshaping it for his own purposes, Paul was performing as an accomplished rhetor. That would not have been unusual for the times. (Mack Burton, Who Wrote the New Testament? p. 77)
Paul abolished the Law, which was followed and preached by Jesus (pbuh), and corrupted the whole religion, giving it a new form. The main ambition behind all this was, in his own words, “to win a larger number” of followers; the followers of a new religion “the Pauline Christianity”. (Roshen Enam, Follow Jesus or Follow Paul p. 69)
The following is a list of dying-rising gods.
- Aboriginal mythology
- Akkadian mythology
- Arabian mythology
- Aztec mythology
- Celtic mythology
- Christian mythology
The above crucified saviors are personifications of the sun, or symbolizing the birth and death of vegetation. The Gospel story of Jesus is plagiarized from the pagan myths.
According to the Bible, Jesus died on a tree
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (Acts 5:30, 10:39)
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13)
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Peter 2:24)
The scholar Arthur Weigall describes that Osiris was crucified upon a tree, like many previous ‘man-gods’, the cross was not unique, its pagan symbol. The Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus was crucified upon a ‘stake’.
The ‘tree story’ was indeed plagiarized from the story of Osiris and Isis.
The Popular and widespread religion of Osiris and Isis exercised considerable influence upon early Christianity, for these two great Egyptian deities, whose worship had passed into Europe were revered in Rome and in several other centres, where Christian communities were growing up. Osiris and Isis, so runs the legend, were brother and sister and also husband and wife; but Osiris was murdered, his coffined body being thrown into the Nile, and shortly afterwards the widowed and exiled Isis gave birth to a son, Horus. The coffin, meanwhile, was washed up on the Syrian coast, and became miraculously lodged in the trunk of a tree, so that Osiris, like other sacrificed gods, could be described as having been.' slain and hanged on a tree.' (The Paganism in Our Christianity, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p118)
Islam has destroyed the false charges against Jesus.
Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (Al-Quran 5:75)
O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light,- guideth them to a path that is straight. (Al-Quran 5:15-16)
[1] (Lloyd Graham, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 361)
see above.. there is alot of mythology that historians have written about.. what is your point?
You should question indeed what became of them
The Argument of Jeremiah 8:8 Still Standing!
Jeremiah 8:8
8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?
indeed, wrote as they pleased to conform to the Man/God myth of Greece Zeus/Hercules his son from a mortal woman.. except even there the two characters weren't one in the same!
Does that apply to you? Because that is actually where you should start before quoting us from faith freedom and prophet of doom!
care to back that up with something other than your own assertion?
The fact that he couldn't read or write and came up with something as magnificent as the Quran which reads in entirety like a poem that none were able to produce a chapter therein like unto it is enough a testament to its divine origin.. can we say the same for the bible, where God accurses the earth he allegedly created because it didn't bare him fruit? or foresaking himself the night after he prayed to himself in the garden of Gesthmane, not only falling short to keep his promise to himself but to all of man-kind, and later abrogating his commandements from the OT through his nemesis Saul/Paul.. why would anyone worship such an ineffectual God, least of which when he has already paid for your sins in a self immolating moment thus giving you a carte blanche to do as you please?
Thank God Islam doesn't resemble either.. Now there is a matter of you asking your pals from the OT why they don't believe in your God Jesus?
all the best!
Last edited:
