New Age Islam
Mon Jun 14 2021, 02:32 AM

Radical Islamism and Jihad ( 13 Jan 2013, NewAgeIslam.Com)

Comment | Comment

The Truth behind Taliban's Fatwa Justifying Killings of Innocent Civilians - Part-10: Islamic armies in the past only fought combatants

 By Sohail Arshad, New Age Islam

Jan 14, 2013

In the 7th part of his article, Sheikh Al Abeeri has tried to directly justify the terrorist and subversive activities from the point of view of Sharia which is a very condemnable act and is another attempt at distorting the image of Islam.

In earlier parts, Al Abeeri had tried to legitimise the killings of women, children and the elderly people on the pretext of their indirect support of the enemy such as by espionage, providing advice or by extending financial support to them.  He had quoted the verses of the Quran, the hadiths and the judgments of Islamic jurists and misinterpreted them to prove his stand right and we had refuted his wrong interpretations by quoting the verses, hadiths and jurists to give a clear picture of the Islamic stand on these issues. So, going back to the same discussion is not necessary.

Al Abeeri has applied the same theory of Goebbels that if a lie is repeated a hundred times, it becomes a truth or people accept it as a truth.  By repeatedly misquoting and misinterpreting the Quran and the hadith and jurists, he has tried to create the impression that Islam permits the killing of women, children and the elderly people of the enemy whereas the truth is that it is against the Islamic principles and against the principle of huquq ul Ibad (rights of citizens, or human rights).

In Islamic history, whenever Islamic army has gone on a war, they have fought only the combatants, though the majority of the community they represented might have morally supported them but only those who took up arms against them were targeted or killed. But Al Abeeri says that those supporting the enemy included those innocent people who are called civilians in modern lexicon.

Later he says that since the American people vote their president to power and they know in advance about their anti Islam programmes and plans for the future, they (the common people) will also be considered guilty of the actions of their president and their army. Therefore, from this point of view, the killing of American women, children and the common men will be permissible by the Shariah.

The first point is that the children in any country do not have the right to vote and also they do not have any knowledge or understanding of the plans and programmes of their Presidents. So, killing the children from this point of view is also not justifiable. Secondly, the President of America or of any other democratic country is elected only on the basis of only 50 to 60 percent of total votes polled and the remaining percentage of votes goes to the opposition candidate. A considerable percentage of the population does not vote altogether. Moreover, people do not vote on the basis of a single programme but they vote on the basis of the programmes, schemes and plans relating to various internal departments of the country like health, jobs, education, minority affairs etc that has a direct impact on the lives of the voters or the future of their children. Therefore, the common men of America or any other country for that matter, in spite of not supporting or approving the external or military policy of their president, may vote him because of his plans and programmes relating to health, jobs, education and other departments that might have a direct bearing on their lives.

Similarly, in India, all those who vote for Narendra Modi do not necessarily support his anti-Muslim policy, rather hate it but still vote him because of their local priorities, compulsions and because of the schemes and plans that might have a better prospects for their future. Therefore, this argument of Al Abeeri is also unfounded.

The hadiths and the instructions of the rightly guided caliph prohibiting the burning of crops and date trees and destruction of buildings during the war has already been quoted but Al Abeeri has again raised the issue and tried to justify it.

Since Taliban is a terrorist organisation and its war strategy is based on terrorist and subversive activities, Al Abeeri focuses only on those of Islamic wars that give him the slightest room for justifying the terrorist activities of the Taliban. During wars, sometimes difficult situations arise and difficult and painful decisions have to be taken in defence but these decisions remain an exception and do not assume the status of golden rules of war. Not at least in Islam. The verses of the Quran, the hadiths and the expositions of the jurists are very clear on this issue. This aspect has been discussed in earlier parts.

Yousuf Al Abeeri quotes the statement of Imam Al Hajar who says that “majority of ulema have accepted the argument in favour of burning them (date trees and houses of the enemy) and also the justification of destructive activities in the enemy country whereas Imam Auza’ee, Al Laith and Abu Thur (R.A.) considered it undetestable and presented the argument in favour of Abu Bakr’s disapproval citing the tradition relating to Hadhrat Abu Bakr in which he said that all this (burning of date trees, houses etc ) should not be done.”

It is evident from the excerpt quoted above itself that the majority of ulema have disapproved the burning of date trees and the houses of the enemy and have said that the position of Hadhrat Abu Bakr should be held as a model to be followed and not the other way round as Al Abeeri has tried to infer.

Al Abeeri contradicts himself on yet another point. He says, “Burning the enemy is one of the war strategies of the holy Prophet (pbuh).” In this context, he quotes a hadiths in which the holy Prophet (pbuh) said to Hadhrat Usama “Attack them in the morning and set them on fire.”

But later he quotes another hadith that contradicts the above quoted hadith. While dispatching an army, the holy Prophet (pbuh) said to Hadhrat Hamza (R.A.), “If you grab such and such person, burn him.” But when Hadhrat Hamza turned back to leave, the holy Prophet (pbuh) called out to him and said, “If you grab such and such a person, slay him and do not burn him because no one but God puts sinners into fire.”

Thus, Al Abeeri contradicts himself by quoting contradictory hadiths and  proves his stance wrong that one of the war strategies of the holy Prophet (pbuh) was setting the enemy on fire.

However, by quoting the hadith in which the holy Prophet (pbuh) reportedly says to Hadhrat Usama, “Attack them in the morning and set them on fire”, Al Abeeri unintentionally exposes his own lie. In an earlier episode he had tried to prove that carrying out night raids against the enemy was justified by the hadiths. But the hadith quoted above proves that the holy Prophet (pbuh) disapproved of night raids and attacking the enemy’s women and children in a sudden move as he (pbuh) said, “Attack in the morning…” that is, wait till the morning breaks. He (pbuh) did not ask him to attack at night.

Sohail Arshad is a regular columnist for New

URL of Part 1:–-part-1/d/9696


URL of Part 2:–-part-2/d/9711


URL of Part 3:


URL of Part 4:–-part-4/d/9768


URL of Part 5:


URL of Part 6:


URL of Part 7:,terrorism-and-jihad/sohail-arshad,-new-age-islam/the-truth-behind-taliban-s-fatwa-justifying-killings-of-innocent-civilians-part-7/d/9817

URL of Part 8:

URL of Part 9: