sabaya

Society Religion & Philosophy
61

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ThandyMazaq: *

but any how, brother sharabi i would like to disagree with you on that issue that there is no jihad going on. there is legit jihad in chechnya, kashmir, palestine, iraq and afghanistan . there is also legitimate struggles in algeria and saudia and pakistan (these are not jihad where we can take war booty/ slaves because it is a civil war among muslims, but one side is definately wrong and one is definately right)
[/QUOTE]

Afghanistan we find muslims fighting muslims. Kashmir we find Muslims fighting the Indian soldiers for freedom of Kashmir, that is being governed by a muslim.

Jihad does not allow killing of innocent children and women. Bombing of public places is not Jihad, as is seen in Iraq, Chechneya and Kashmir.

62

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
are u kidding me? Are you telling me that in that day and age in the Arabian penninsula...women were actively fighting in war?

Because only that would explain the high number of "slave girls" being reported.
[/QUOTE]

PCG, I'm disappointed! You betray a strong lack of knowledge of military history through the ages :(

Just about every army used to be accompanied by large numbers of women in the past.

Nurses, washer-women, seamstresses, soldiers' girlfriends and wives and daughters, common whores, etc etc...

When Alexander the Great defeated the Persian Emperor Darius at the Battle of Issus (in Turkey, faaaaar from Darius capital at Persepolis in Persia), part of the booty Alexander got was: all of Darius's wives and mother. Even the leader of the Persian army would take all his women with him to war.

Naturally, Alexander's Greek army was also accompanied by a horde of women and other servants.

The Crusaders were accompanied by a huge number of women on every crusade too.

British and French armies in the Napoleonic wars were also accompanied by enormous trains of women.

In the Crimean war in 1854, when Russia attacked the Ottoman Khilafat and Britain and France fought in defence of the Ottomans, Russian officers were known to bring their wives and fiances to the battlefield so that they could watch them fight.

It has only been in the past 150 years, with the advent of industrialised warfarre, that only a handful of women accompanied armies, mainly in medical and support roles. Throughout most of recorded human history, wherever men have marched to battle their women have followed.

sigh

Why don't aaj kal ke bachiaN study ancient military history? It is actually incredibly fun...

63

abhay maddie - mujhe patha hai - but the response I got made it seem that my scenario would be completely halaal since these girls were fighting in the war. I took it to mean actively fighting as soldiers, not as in providing background support.

So lets adjust my example, and say this maiden of mine is a healer of her people that the muslims are at war with. What say you now?

Its completely proper to take a woman as a prisoner, such as my fair maiden, away from her husband and nullify her marriage and then hand her over to another man - a muslim - a complete stranger - and expect that she is this man's sexual property now, all because of a military victory and because Islam is the right religion?

And mind you - her assignment to any muslim man as such is against her consent.

64

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PyariCgudia: *
So lets adjust my example, and say this maiden of mine is a healer of her people that the muslims are at war with. What say you now?

Its completely proper to take a woman as a prisoner, such as my fair maiden, away from her husband and nullify her marriage and then hand her over to another man - a muslim - a complete stranger - and expect that she is this man's sexual property now, all because of a military victory and because Islam is the right religion?

And mind you - her assignment to any muslim man as such is against her consent.
[/QUOTE]

If she was engaged in active support of a hostile army, she becomes hostile herself and must deal with the consequences.

Frankly, she should be released. But I also believe that an Islamic state would have the theoretical right to detain her, make her state property and then place her into the custody of a citizen of the state as his property.

Whether or not you are permitted to forcefully have sex with her is arguable - I've seen a scholar argue that only consensual sex with a slave is permitted, based on Quran, Surah 24, verse 33, which includes:
"But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life.".

Certainly, consensual sex with a female slave would be permitted with little doubt.

65

brother you need to study the detailed islamic ruling on these issues before passing out fatwas. there are ten well known nullifiers of islam and i will qoute to you the relevent ones.

4 – Whoever believes that anything other than the teaching of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is more complete than his teachings, or that the rulings of anyone else are better than his rulings – such as those who prefer the rule of false laws to his rulings – is a kaafir

8 – Supporting the mushrikeen and helping them against the Muslims. The evidence for that is the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allaah guides not those people who are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)”

[al-Maa’idah 5:51]

9 – Whoever believes that some people are allowed to operate outside the law of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) just as al-Khidr operated outside the law of Moosa (peace be upon him) is a kaafir, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:85]
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=31807&dgn=4

so there you go, we see that karzai regime implements non islamic laws, and forsakes islamic law, it helps the american armies against muslims, it openly sides with the mushriks of india. so how can that be muslims fighting against muslims? it is genuine jihad waged by muslims against non believers.
and in kashmir, the people are fighting for their right of self determination, and since hindu armies are preventing them their right as muslims to live by islamic law, they are waging jihad. inshallah, it all depends on the intentinos of individuals, so there might be some secular nationalists in kashmir but the overall fight is about islam..wallah o alam

66

and bombing of public places? brother have you heard that rasul :saw: used a catapult in his wars againt a walled city? now islam does not allow for indescriminate bombings of cities to inentionally kill non combatants, but indescriminate bombings can happen in islamic law as seen by the example of catapults as catapults kill indescriminantly.
wallah o alam.

67

please provide reference…
i’ve never heard of this before…

68

Ta’if Compaign

Ta’if Campaign is in fact an extension of Hunain Ghazwah; that is because the majority of the defeated troops of Hawazin and Thaqif went into Ta’if with the general commander — Malik bin ‘Awf An-Nasri — and fortified themselves within it. So upon finishing with Hunain Invasion, he gathered the booty at Al-Ji‘ranah in the very month (i.e. Shawwal) and in the eighth year A.H.

A vanguard battalion of a thousand men led by Khalid bin Al-Waleed marched towards At-Ta’if. Whereas the Messenger of Allâh (peace be upon him) proceeded passing through Nakhlah Al-Yamaniyah, Qarn Al-Manazil and through Laiyah. At Laiyah there was a castle that belonged to Malik bin ‘Awf, so the Messenger of Allâh (peace be upon him) gave orders to have it destroyed. He resumed his march till he got to Ta’if. There he dismounted, camped near its castle and laid siege to the castle inhabitants; but not for long.

How long the siege continued, is still a matter of disagreement. It however stands between 10-20 days.

A lot of arrow-shooting and rock-hurling occurred during the siege. For as soon as the Muslims laid siege round the castle, its people started shooting arrows against them. The arrows were so intense and fierce that they looked as if they had been locusts on the move. A number of Muslims were wounded and twelve were killed.

To be far from the arrow-range, the Muslims had to ascend to a higher location and camped on — i.e. to what is now called At-Ta’if Mosque. The Prophet (peace be upon him) set up a mangonel and shelled the castle. Eventually a gap was made in the castle wall, through which a number of Muslims managed to pass into the castle, sheltered by a wooden tank, with the purpose of setting fire into it. Anyway, the enemy poured down molten hot iron on them. Affected by this the Muslims stepped out of the tank and were again exposed to arrow shooting and consequently some of them were killed.

To force the enemy to surrender, the Prophet (peace be upon him) tended to a war policy of burning and cutting the enemy’s crops. His order was to cut their vineyards and burn them. Seeing that the Muslims started rapidly cutting and burning their vines, they implored the Prophet (peace be upon him) to stop and have mercy on them for the sake of Allâh and out of kinship motives. So the Prophet agreed. When the caller of the Messenger of Allâh (peace be upon him) called out unto people saying “He whosoever descends and steps out of the castle is free.” Twenty-three men came out. One of them was Abu Bakrah who tied himself to a wall and let himself down by means of a small wheel, that would normally be used for drawing up water from a well. The way he let himself down made the Prophet nickname him “Abu Bakrah”, i.e. the man with the wheel. The Messenger of Allâh (peace be upon him) set them all free and entrusted each one of them to a Muslim to care about their living affairs, which was too hard for the castle folkspeople to bear.

Seeing that the siege lasted too long and that the castle was immune and could stand any siege (for they had already stored a supply that suffices for over a year) and that the Muslims were suffering — day by day — from arrow-shots and heated iron hooks, the Messenger of Allâh (peace be upon him) consulted Nawfal bin Mu‘âwiyah Ad-Daili about that. He said: “They are like a fox hiding inside its burrow. If you stoodfast at it you would catch it, but if you parted with it, no harm would afflict you.” The Messenger of Allâh (peace be upon him) decided to lift the siege and depart. ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, who was orderedby the Prophet to notify people, said to them “If Allâh will, we are leaving the castle and going back tomorrow.” As it was too hard for the Muslims to go back and leave the castle unconquered they complained saying, “Should we go away while the castle is still unopened?” His reply was: “Then, start fighting in the morning.” In the morning they fought and were wounded. So when he repeated this statement: “If Allâh will, we are leaving the castle and going back tomorrow”, they were pleased and carried out the order submissively and started moving, which made the Messenger of Allâh (peace be upon him) laugh.

As soon as they mounted and started moving the Messenger (peace be upon him) said:

“Say! Here we are returning, repenting, worshipping (Allâh) and to our Lord we offer praise.”
When the Messenger of Allâh was asked to invoke Allâh against Thaqif, he said:

“O Allâh, guide Thaqif and bring them to us as Muslims.”
http://www.quraan.com/index.aspx?tabindex=4&tabid=11&bid=7&cid=35

69

Thandymazaq is correct - the use of catapults during the siege of Tai'f is a well known case. Whilst Islam does not allow deliberate targetting of civilians, their deaths are acceptable as "collateral damage" while targetting military forces.

In the case of Ta'if, the Muslims were targetting the defenders and their walls, but catapults are notoriously inaccurate weapons and shots would have been landing inside the city. In short, "collateral damage" is considered permissible from attacks against military targets.

70

side topic...maybe another thread can be opened on this...but then we have no right to complain when muslims are killed by "collateral damage"?

71

Yes we do, they should not have been attacking us anyway. They attack us and then they inflict collateral damage on top of that...

72

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
Yes we do, they should not have been attacking us anyway. They attack us and then they inflict collateral damage on top of that...
[/QUOTE]
yeah and besides islam is the correct religion and their religion is false, cuz if we dont believe that then we are not muslims.

73

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ThandyMazaq: *

it all depends on the intentinos of individuals
[/QUOTE]

Not disagreeing with your entire but just this one phrase.

I think the above phrase has started to be used more vaguely by muslims now. Niyyah (intentions) need to be pure and correct and everythings going to be right. This however is not the case, apart from the Niyyah the action also has to be in accordance with the Sunnah of the Prophet, may peace and blessings be upon him. If the action is not according to the Sunnah than its wrong regardless of the Niyyah.

Just wanted to mention this, because its a leading misconception amongst muslims these days.

74

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sharaabi: *

Not disagreeing with your entire but just this one phrase.

I think the above phrase has started to be used more vaguely by muslims now. Niyyah (intentions) need to be pure and correct and everythings going to be right. This however is not the case, apart from the Niyyah the action also has to be in accordance with the Sunnah of the Prophet, may peace and blessings be upon him. If the action is not according to the Sunnah than its wrong regardless of the Niyyah.

Just wanted to mention this, because its a leading misconception amongst muslims these days.
[/QUOTE]

excellent point brother, many people use the niyah argument to justify biddah.

but then you cant say that jihad is not part of the sunnah. so as long as any one is doing the sunnah, and his niyah is correct then it is good otherwise sunnah actions without the niyah is wrong.

75

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
Yes we do, **they should not have been attacking us anyway*. They attack us and then they inflict collateral damage on top of that...
[/QUOTE]

Why they should not attack us ?

Muslims have been doing this for centuries. Atacking other countries to capture them. It was alright then ????

And if some one attacks muslim country now it is wrong. Wah !

I think USA or any other country has every right to attack any muslim country, And they have every right to defend and retaliate.

There is no question of one being supper power and other weak nation.
Supper powers have lost two major wars in recent times. They can lose another !

Off-topic..... so are last few posts :p

76

Great work guys, by the way!

In three days of discussion you have convinced any reader of this discussion that not only killing innocent civilians during a war is nothing to be ashamed of, but that if any nurses are captured helping the wounded in the battlefield, they can be your sex slaves.... and all of that is not only approved by Islam, but basically kinda like a given.

I wonder why some folks were creating a ruckus over bombings over civilian population and Abu-Gharib all this time. Get over it. If we were America, we'd do even worse.

77

^
its not attacking US or US attacking muslims thats to be bothered about....

all they r worried about is that can they do any girl that they lay their hand on during the process of offence or defence....

78

way to go guys, you have just called the mother of the son of muhammad :saw: a “sex slave” and have described the sunnah as some how “degrading”. all those sahabas were perverts and their leader muhammad rasul of allah :saw: too had sex slaves so he must be the greatest perverted..nauzibillah.

79

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Code_Red: *

Why they should not attack us ?

Muslims have been doing this for centuries. Atacking other countries to capture them. It was alright then ????

And if some one attacks muslim country now it is wrong. Wah !

I think USA or any other country has every right to attack any muslim country, And they have every right to defend and retaliate.

There is no question of one being supper power and other weak nation.
Supper powers have lost two major wars in recent times. They can lose another !

Off-topic..... so are last few posts :p
[/QUOTE]

no they dont, kafirs dont have the right to attack muslims. the kuffar have denied Allah and his messenger, so they dont even have the right to enjoy the life given to them by Allah, they dont have the right to enjoy the blessings of this dunya bestowed by allah, it is only the fact that allah wants to give them a chance to either repent or increase their sins to burn deeper in hell that they are even alive.

And your Lord is Most Forgiving, Owner of Mercy. Were He to call them to account for what they have earned, then surely, He would have hastened their punishment. But they have their appointed time, beyond which they will find no escape. (Al-Kahf 18:58)

And they ask you to hasten on the torment (for them), and had it not been for a term appointed, the torment would certainly have come to them. And surely, it will come upon them suddenly while they perceive not! (Al-'Ankabut 29:53)

so allah himself says that were it not for his appointed time, the punishment would have been hastened.

because allah hates the thankless kuffar

And (remember) when your Lord proclaimed: "If you give thanks (by accepting Faith and worshipping none but Allâh), I will give you more (of My Blessings), but if you are thankless (i.e. disbelievers), verily! My Punishment is indeed severe." (Ibrahim 14:7)

80

No one raised this topic, but you. Slavery was abolished years ago, and it was abolished for a reason. To start wondering now as to how a muslim state will reestablish slavery “because it is permitted”, and whether a muslim woman will mind if her husband has sexual intercourse with a slave-girl… now that is debasing Islam, IMO.

Anyway, continue fantasizing. Its your time and your mind.

But now I can clearly see how some muslims give such bad name to Islam, even if they are well-intentioned. And really now there is nothing to complain when we see pics of Abu Gharib. You guys will do much worse, if you get a chance. All in the name of Islam, ofcourse.