In the name of Almighty Allah, the beneficent the merciful.

Islam sets down clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and clear guidelines as to how such a war should be conducted. In brief, war is permitted:

1. In self-defense.

2. when other nations have attacked an Islamic state.

3. if another state is oppressing its own Muslims.

War should be conducted:

1. in a disciplined way.

2. so as to avoid injuring non-combatants

3. with the minimum necessary force

4. without anger

5. with humane treatment towards prisoners of war.

Muslims must ONLY wage war according to the principles of Allah's justice (Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan {Qur'an 4:76}).

Islam allows war in self-defence (Qur'an 22:39), to defend Islam (rather than to spread it), to protect those who have been removed from their homes by force because they are Muslims (Qur'an 22:40), and to protect the innocent who are being oppressed (Qur'an 4:75).

But some Muslim thinkers in the past, and some more radical Muslim thinkers today, take a different view. They say that other verses in the Qur'an, the so-called 'sword verses', have "abrogated" (revoked or anulled) the verses that permit warfare only in defence. They used these 'sword verses' to justify war against unbelievers as a tool of spreading Islam (Qur'an 9:5, 9:29).

Others take this further and regard non-Muslims, and Muslims who don't conform rigorously to the Islamic code, as non-believers and thus as "enemies of God" against whom it is legitimate to use violence.

But the idea of a total and unrestricted conflict is completely unIslamic (Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors {Qur'an 2:190})


Islam is in favour of peace and against violence. Murdering the innocent leads to punishment in Hell: If anyone killed a person - unless it was for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed the whole people {Qur'an 5:32}.

The aims of war

The Qur'an emphasises that war should be fought only for noble motives without seeking any earthly reward: (Those who readily fight in the cause of God are those who forsake this world in favor of the Hereafter. Whoever fights in the cause of God, then gets killed, or attains victory, we will surely grant him a great recompense {Qur'an 4:74}).

The conduct of war

Islam bans the killing of non-combatants (Qur'an 2:190, above), or of a combatant who has been captured.

Muslims are forbidden from attacking wounded soldiers (unless the wounded person is still fighting).

The Prophet's view of non-combatants is shown by a hadith in which Muhammad sees a woman killed in the battlefield and condemns the action.

When an enemy is defeated he should be made prisoner rather than be killedSo when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates {Qur'an 47:4}).

Abu Bakr (the First Caliph) gave these rules to an army he was sending to battle: Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path.

You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone {Abu Bakr}.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml

# An excellent piece.

# The truth is Islamic rules of engagement can only be defended within the period of the holy Prophet, peace be upon him and his purified households.

# Post-Muhammad's life saw Muslims deviating completely from Islamic rules of engagement. Aggressive wars were fought and unspeakable evil acts were committed in the name of Islam.

# Trying to absolve the first Khalifah, Abubakr Ibn Abi Quhafah as submitted in the write up is contrary to history. The very first war he fought was against his fellow Muslims/sahabah who refused to pay him Zakat. Abubakr's interpretations was that whoever refused to pay him Zakat should be killed. Even his right hand man, Umar Ibn Khattab disagreed with him. A whole community was carnaged and massacred. The leader of Abubakr's army, Walid even raped the beautiful wife of that community's leader who was a Sahabi.

# Ever since then till date, Muslim's history in war front has always been the same, aggressiveness and no mercy. Even at home, the story of the Fulani conquerors led by their terrorist scholar Uthman dan Fodio is known. They were brutal and direct: accept Islam or be killed. That was the style of the cursed Najdi scholar, Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahab.

AlBaqir:
[s] An excellent piece.

# The truth is Islamic rules of engagement can only be defended within the period of the holy Prophet, peace be upon him and his purified households.

# Post-Muhammad's life saw Muslims deviating completely from Islamic rules of engagement. Aggressive wars were fought and unspeakable evil acts were committed in the name of Islam.

# Trying to absolve the first Khalifah, Abubakr Ibn Abi Quhafah as submitted in the write up is contrary to history. The very first war he fought was against his fellow Muslims/sahabah who refused to pay him Zakat. Abubakr's interpretations was that whoever refused to pay him Zakat should be killed. Even his right hand man, Umar Ibn Khattab disagreed with him. A whole community was carnaged and massacred. The leader of Abubakr's army, Walid even raped the beautiful wife of that community's leader who was a Sahabi.

# Ever since then till date, Muslim's history in war front has always been the same, aggressiveness and no mercy. Even at home, the story of the Fulani conquerors led by their terrorist scholar Uthman dan Fodio is known. They were brutal and direct: accept Islam or be killed. That was the style of the cursed Najdi scholar, Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahab. [/s]

Who noticed that this hypocritical kafir didn't mention anything about:

1. Bloody campaigns of early Shias (Qaramatians) in which thousands of Muslims were killed.

2. Betrayal of the Muslims by Shi'a Al Toosi and Al Qaim which led to the deaths of millions of Muslims in Iraaq.

3. Forceful conversion of Sunnis of Iran and Azerbaijan by the cursed Shi'a army of Shah Isma'il which led to deaths of thousands.

4. Current bloody Jihad of Shi'as around the world against the Muslims of Syria in which more than 450,000 are dead(majorly Sunnis). There's presently an onslaught in Ghouta, 500 are dead in just 3 days.

Demmzy15:

Who noticed that this hypocritical kafir didn't mention anything about:

1. Bloody campaigns of early Shias (Qaramatians) in which thousands of Muslims were killed.

2. Betrayal of the Muslims by Shi'a Al Toosi and Al Qaim which led to the deaths of millions of Muslims in Iraaq.

3. Forceful conversion of Sunnis of Iran and Azerbaijan by the cursed Shi'a army of Shah Isma'il which led to deaths of thousands.

4. Current bloody Jihad of Shi'as around the world against the Muslims of Syria in which more than 450,000 are dead(majorly Sunnis). There's presently an onslaught in Ghouta, 500 are dead in just 3 days.

Ma sha Allah! So you now recognise "Shia" to be Muslims when we are discussing how Muslims generally continue to deviate from Islamic teachings on the rule of engagement. Whao!


# Your brain perhaps due to pressure has been programme that I was accusing "Sunni Muslim's" history. I can leave with Shi'a Muslims dark side of history. The point is can you leave with yours? People like you at all cost are ready to defend what is not defendable.

# On this thread, Islam is one thing, but Muslims (were) are many different thing when it comes to the "rule of engagement". Both Sunni and Shia had abuse power when opportunity present itself all in the name of making one sect prevail over the other.

# Alhamdulillah we have clear this long time ago on this thread:

www.nairaland.com/3351465/shiite-safavids-desecration-grave-imam

Muhammad and his followers might have started a "war" as a form of self-defense as many Muslims believe, maybe because of the weakness of the group population at the beginning they were on low-key, but we can not rule out Muhammad and his followers fought for a cause to spread the religion and gain political power!

AlBaqir:


Ma sha Allah! So you now recognise "Shia" to be Muslims when we are discussing how Muslims generally continue to deviate from Islamic teachings on the rule of engagement. Whao!

Olodo it's called a tu quoque argument, your standard for a perfect jihad should be from your sect and perspective, and I can bet you can't give any.

# Your brain perhaps due to pressure has been programme that I was accusing "Sunni Muslim's" history. I can leave with Shi'a Muslims dark side of history. The point is can you leave with yours? People like you at all cost are ready to defend what is not defendable.

This is exactly what you've been doing since you've started collecting your paycheck from those chimpanzees you call "Ayatoilet"

# On this thread, Islam is one thing, but Muslims (were) are many different thing when it comes to the "rule of engagement". Both Sunni and Shia had abuse power when opportunity present itself all in the name of making one sect prevail over the other.

Why did you ignore the Shi'a part? There's no time this issues are mentioned, you quickly jump like a frog on Sunnis. You even go as far as mentioning Uthman Dan Fodio. Olodo parakun!

# Alhamdulillah we have clear this long time ago on this thread:

www.nairaland.com/3351465/shiite-safavids-desecration-grave-imam

This guy, you always make me laugh. You just like hyping yourself You didn't clear anything up, the thread is still available for anyone interested to view.