Informative Articles On Islam

[pro_universal]

dignity:

Which major schools consider it an offense even to kill civilians accidentally in the course of a military strike? Give me the names of the major schools and give me proof that they consider it an offense even to kill civilians accidentally in the course of a military strike.

Sure:

Maliki, Hanbali, and Hanafi…Shafi’i is more flexible on the issue of collateral damage.

There is no khilâf that non-combatants or civilians cannot at all be considered collateral damage at a non-military target in a war zone, and that their deaths are not excusable by our Law, and that the one who ends up killing one of them will be sinful as in the case of murder, even though the soldier who is found guilty of it would be excused from the ordinary capital punishment [hadd], unless the killing was found to be premeditated and deliberate:

[aw ata bi-ma’siyyatin tujibu l-hadda].
If not, the murderer’s punishment in this case would instead be subject to the authority’s discretion [ta’zîr] and he would in any case be liable to pay the relevant compensation [diya].
As for a valid military target in a war zone, the Shâfi’î School have historically considered the possibility of collateral damage, unlike the position held by others that it is unqualifiedly outlawed. The following are the conditions stipulated for allowing this controversial exception (in addition to meeting the most important condition of them all: that this takes place during a valid war when there is no ceasefire

(1) The target is a valid military target.

(2) The attack is as a last resort [min darura] (such as when the civilians have been warned to leave the place and after a period of siege has elapsed).

livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html

 

[dignity]

pro_universal:

Sure:

Maliki, Hanbali, and Hanafi…Shafi’i is more flexible on the issue of collateral damage. livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html

That link only talks about the view of the Shafi’i School which you said “is more flexible on the issue of collateral damage”

What about the views of the Maliki, Hanbali, and Hanafi Schools? Show me proof that they consider it an offense even to kill civilians accidentally in the course of a military strike.

 

[discipleofJesus]

*Jihad * was pursued century after century, because jihad, which means “to strive in the path of Allah,” embodied an ideology and a jurisdiction. Both were formally conceived by Muslim jurisconsults and theologians from the 8th to 9th centuries onward, based on their interpretation of Qur’anic verses 11 (for e.g., 9:5,6; 9:29; 4:76-79; 2: 214-15; 8:39-42), and long chapters in the Traditions (i.e., “hadith”, acts and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, especially those recorded by al-Bukhari [d. 869] 12 and Muslim [d. 874] 13). The consensus on the nature of jihad from all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i) is clear:

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), Maliki jurist14

“Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals
may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim
jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the
enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except
where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting
to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared
against them.”

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), Hanbali jurist15

“Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g. by propaganda) and acts (e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).”

From the **Hanafi school ** (as given in the Hidayah) 16

" It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war… If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do."

al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), **Shafi’i jurist ** 17

“…The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…it is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached…”

Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), **jurist (Maliki), ** renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:

“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion* or by force*… The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.” 18

Taken from “Khaled Abou El Fadl: Reformer or Revisionist ?”
by Andrew G. Bostom
campus-watch.org/article/id/684
(bold and underline emphasis mine)

 

[pro_universal]

dignity:

That link only talks about the view of the Shafi’i School which you said “is more flexible on the issue of collateral damage”

What about the views of the Maliki, Hanbali, and Hanafi Schools? Show me proof that they consider it an offense even to kill civilians accidentally in the course of a military strike.

Let me requote from the above link:

As for a valid military target in a war zone, the Shâfi’î School have historically considered the possibility of collateral damage, unlike the position held by others that it is unqualifiedly outlawed.

 

[pro_universal]

discipleofJesus:

Taken from “Khaled Abou El Fadl: Reformer or Revisionist ?”
by Andrew G. Bostom
campus-watch.org/article/id/684
(bold and underline emphasis mine)

That’s a great example of an anti-muslim source quoting people who aren’t authorities of the schools they claim to represent.

Only Ibn Tamiyya’s passage discusses the issue at hand here, and Ibn Tamiyya is universally regarded as controversial and wrong on several issues, being the ideological grandfather to Wahhabism. He was criticized as a heretic in his time and continues to receive heavy criticism today.

As for the rest, the talk about conditions for making war, and since the quotes provide absolutely no context or the legal source material that the authors are employing, they do not tell you anything. That is explained very well by the fact that the article is on campus watch and written by an MD, instead of on a site for muslims written by an Islamic jurist.

 

[discipleofJesus]

pro_universal:

As for the rest, the talk about conditions for making war, and since the quotes provide absolutely no context or the legal source material that the authors are employing, they do not tell you anything. That is explained very well by the fact that the article is on campus watch and written by an MD, instead of on a site for muslims written by an Islamic jurist.

Is this a better article for you khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=11333&TagID=2
?

Here is a short quote from it to give you a sample of what the article states

As for the opinion that Jihaad in Islam is defensive and not offensive by using the evidence (and similar evidences):

وَإِن جَنَحُواْ لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do you (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that Hears and Knows (all things)” (tmq 8:61)

وَقَاتِلُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلاَ تَعْتَدُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يُحِبِّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.” (tmq 2:190)

This is also incorrect and invalid for its application upon this matter is incorrect for the following reasons:

1. The evidences of Jihaad are general ‘mutlaq’ evidences and include all offensive and defensive actions e.g. waging warm to pre-empt an attack, to protect the borders, killing on the battlefield. To restrict or specify the evidences only to defensive and not offensive Jihaad, requires a textual evidence to show that the Jihaad is restricted to defensive Jihaad only. And there is no such text in the Quran or the Sunnah that restricts or specifies this. Therefore, the evidences regarding Jihaad remain general and to be used for all types of war and all types of fighting with the enemy.

So it is invalid (baatil) to use the verse,

here’s another quote from the same article

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”, (tmq 9:29) which is at the time of war and fighting. So peace and fighting are two situations, which remain un-abrogated, i.e. neither abrogates the other.

1. In addition to this, the saying and actions of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) show that Jihaad definitely is to start (offensive) fighting the kuffar to make the Words of Allah the highest and to propagate (da’wa) the call of Islam. Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said,

امرت ان اقاتل الناس حتى يشهدوا ان لا اله الا الله وان محمد رسول الله,ويفيموا الصلاة ويؤتوا الزكاة,فإذا فعلوا ذلك عصموا من دماءهم واموالهم إلا بحقها وحسا بهم على الله
I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that, ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’ and they establish the prayer and the zakat. And if they do this, then from me is protected their blood and their wealth except by the right granted by Allah.

As for his (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) actions, they are full of actions that show Jihaad is to start the fighting. So when he went out to Badr to take the caravan belonging to the Quraysh, this was going out to fight, this is offensive – as Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) initiated the action before the Quraysh. Likewise, when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) invaded Hawazin in the battle of Hunayn, when he (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) seiged Ta’if and the battle of Mutah to fight the Romans and the Battle of Tabuk – all of these are evidences to show that Jihaad is to start fighting kuffar (offensive). This should clarify the erroneous view that in origin Jihaad is defensive.

1. From Ijma as-Sahabah, it is clear that Jihaad is fighting Fi Sabeel Lillah to carry Islam and that it is offensive. The evidence, which is sufficient to explain this, is the opening of Iraq, Persia, Sham, Egypt and North Africa. They were all opened at the time of the Sahabah with their Ijma’ (consensus).

Therefore, all what we mentioned are sufficient evidences to refute the claim that Jihaad is defensive.

 

[pro_universal]

discipleofJesus:

Is this a better article for you khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=11333&TagID=2
?

Here is a short quote from it to give you a sample of what the article states

here’s another quote from the same article

You posted a statement from one of the most ideologically radical groups. (Look at the black flag in the top right corner of the page…it should remind you of flags you’ve seen on the news.)

The Shafi’i article I posted specifically refutes every single one of the arguments in a professional and well-reasoned manner, and cites the traditional authorities in Islam to do it.

These sites no more represent Islam than Jack Chick represents Christianity.

 

[dignity]

pro_universal:

Let me requote from the above link:

As for a valid military target in a war zone, the Shâfi’î School have historically considered the possibility of collateral damage, unlike the position held by others that it is unqualifiedly outlawed

.

By saying “unlike the position held by others” could that not be referring to only one of the other Schools rather than all of the other Schools?

Could that not be referring to other Muslims who do not follow any of the four major Sunni Schools?

Could that not even be referring to heretical Muslims?

In fact, could that not even be referring to people who aren’t Muslims?

If you disagree with the above, please explain why.

 

[pro_universal]

dignity:

By saying “unlike the position held by others” could that not be referring to only one of the other Schools rather than all of the other Schools?

Read the article. It goes through a lengthy comparative analysis of the different rulings from the four Sunni schools on warfare before that section, so yes, it’s referring to the others.

dignity:

Could that not be referring to other Muslims who do not follow any of the four major Sunni Schools?

No. It’s an orthodox website, and it doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of non-orthodox jurisprudence. It has a pretty detailed historical list of authorities to support its view.

dignity:

Could that not even be referring to heretical Muslims?

I would recommend reading the article. He’s explaining why the Islamist position that civilians can be attacked is heretical.

dignity:

In fact, could that not even be referring to people who aren’t Muslims?

If you disagree with the above, please explain why.

There is no possible way to read the article and come up a vague conclusion as to what he’s talking about there. I don’t want to post the entire thing, since it is long, but I recommend that you read it in its entirety before you wonder what it does or does not imply.