In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
All praise is to Allah and peace and blessings on our Prophet Muhammad and his righteous companions and followers
Dear brothers and sisters
Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.

All praise is to Allah the Lord of the Worlds, we ask Allah Almighty to accept all our efforts. We ask Allah Almighty that he provides us with beneficial knowledge.

As was announced that the topic of this lecture is the[b] "Battle of Hearts and Minds"[/b], and I started by, reading to you a quote from a report from Rand Institute in 2007 which states that:
"The struggle under way throughout much of the Muslim world is essentially a war of ideas, its outcome will determine the future direction of the Muslim world".

So there is the struggle of ideas going on, right now, in the Muslim world.
And according to the Defense department, the US Defense Department in its quadrennial
defense review report
"The United states is involved in a war that is both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas. A war in which, ultimate victory, will be achieved only when extremist ideologies are discredited in the eyes of their host populations and passive supporters ".

So according to Rand and according to the Pentagon and truth fully so, there is a struggle of ideas going on in the Muslim world, but what is their position regarding this internal affair, this affair that concerns Muslims, this battle of ideas between those who want to follow Islam as it was reveled to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah on him), they want to follow Islam in its entirety and those who want to pick and chose from Islam, they want to follow Islam selectively. Now, this issue is not new with Muslims, In every age, there are Ahl-Haq (1), and there are those who want to deviate from the true path, through out our history this was a struggle that Allah destined to remain and it even existed among the believing nations before us.

For example, with Banu Israel (2), there were those who held on to the truth and then there were those whom Allah Almighty said about in Quran

"They change the meanings of the words" (3).
So, they would take the words of the Bible and they would change it. And some of that was done to please the authorities of the time, because we know that Bani Israel lived under various nations. For example they lived under the Roman rule, and that time the Romans were pagan. And they lived under the rules of the kings of Babel, and they were pagans too. And according to a story mentioned in Tafseer (4), that at a particular time some of the Rabbis of Bani Israel gave a Fatwa to the King of Babylon allowing him to have a forbidden relationship, but they gave him such a fatwa to please that king. So they changed the rule of Allah the Almighty, in order to please a human being!

So this conflict of ideas, that is going on in the Muslim world, what are these non- Muslims doing about it! According to the US news and World report,

"Today Washington is fighting back after repeated missteps since the 911 attacks, the US government has embarked on a campaign of political warfare unmatched, since the height of the cold war. From military psychological operations teams and CIA covert operatives to openly funded media and think tanks, Washington is plowing tens of millions of dollars into a campaign to influence not only Muslim societies but Islam itself:'

Now hear this again "The US is trying to change Islam itself! ! ! ". Without any shame, they are openly stating that we have a desire not only to influence the Muslim societies but we want to change the religion itself! Probably at the time of Bani Israel those Rabbis who were changing the book of Allah never dared to say so openly! These, without even hiding it, are saying that we want to change Islam, yes we do!
And then the article carries on to say that...

"In at least two dozen countries, Washington has quietly funded Islamic radio and TV shows, course work in Muslim schools, Muslim think tanks, political workshops or other programs that promote moderate Islam. Federal aid is going to restore Mosques, even build Islamic schools".

Well as we see here, they are trying to promote this modern Islam, modern according to their definition, and they are spending millions of dollars to do so.

Bothers and sisters, when a Muslim, a true Muslim, hears this, he hears that non-Muslims who have no knowledge about the religion, who do not believe in Allah Almighty who don't believe in Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and don't take Quran as the book of Allah, when a Muslim hears that such a people, are openly claiming that we want to change your religion, this should make any Muslim who has any love of Allah Almighty angry!

How dare you?! And who are you?! To tell us what Islam is and isn't.


In fact we even find that President Bush is standing in front of the microphone, teaching us about Islam, giving us Khutbah about Islam. In an address he gave in 2002, he asserted, "Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion by round the world and has made brothers and sisters of every race it is a faith based upon love not hate".

Now his statement is true, I mean that Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people around the world and it has made brothers and sisters of every race and is a religion that is based upon love not hate. I mean that the statement to some extent is right. But who is Bush to tell us what Islam is and isn't? Who gave him the authority, to speak for Islam?
And, praise is to Allah we found that some Muslims at the time were happy and proud that Bush has spoken in this way about Islam. But the issue shows the arrogance and the condescending view that these Kuffar (6) have, they think that we are in need of somebody to tell us what Islam is and what it isn't. In fact, this condescending view didn't go unnoticed even from some non-Muslim commentators.

One of them said, sarcastically that the
"Political leadership collectively appears to have acquired an instant post graduate degree in Islamic studies enabling them to lecture the population concerning the true nature of Islam" .
In another report by Rand, and by the way, Rand is a sixteen hundred employee non- profit organization that provides analysis to the US Department of Defense. So it is connected to the Pentagon and some how Rand Cooperation has taken in liking, lately, on this issue of "Battle of minds and hearts" and they have written more than one publication on this topic. And I will, during this talk, quote from some of their publications.

In this report titled "Civil democratic Islam" by Sheryl Bernard, she is a Jew married to an apostate, it can't get any worse! Her husband is Zalmai Khaleel Zad, the apostate if he
ever was a Muslim, who held some very high posts as you know in the US administration. He was an ambassador to the UN at one point, ambassador to Afghanistan, ambassador to Iraq, so they are putting him in some pretty sensitive posts!
So this Sheryl Bernard is his wife, she published her report, for Rand titled "Civil Democratic Islam" so from the title you can see what kind of Islam they want! What kind of Islam they want to force upon us! And by the way, they are willing to go to the extent of sending their armies to enforce on us their particular version of Islam that we are supposed to follow. Brothers, praise is to Allah, Muslims should stand up and unite against such arrogance!
Some of her recommendations, she said that, she is talking about these moderate Muslims


"Publish and Distribute their works at subsidized costs",

Before I go any further, who is the moderate Muslim, according to them? Well, they have even provided a list to define, who is a moderate Muslim and who is not; you know they have pretty detailed work! Let's see here who is the moderate Muslim according to them.
"Characteristics of moderate Muslims " this is from Rand publication.

[b

]1) Democracy
So a moderate Muslim is who believes in democracy and believes in the democratic system.
Now, there are some Muslims who adopt democracy and they say that Shura , the Islamic system of Shura, is similar to democracy, so we could use the term democracy as Muslims, in reality we believe in Shura, but they say it is more appealing for the West, when we talk about democracy, because they don't understand the Islamic concept of Shura. I am quoting to you what some Muslims believe and what some Muslims say. And they believe that they could get the aid and the assistance of the West to change the dictatorship that exists in the Muslim world if they mark themselves as people who want to bring in democracy and there is a serious problem with that, because[/b]

1) Democracy isn't Islamic, democracy is a system and Islam has brought us a completely different system. And a few in reality, believe in the system of the Islamic state and Shura, then say Shura call it what it is and don't call it democracy. That's number one.

2) This trick is not going to pass on these people at Rand because they have given a detailed definition of what democracy do they expect from a moderate Muslim!
The Shura Council is the council of elite Muslim scholars that are consulted by the Amir in the matters of the State.

3) So they say and I am quoting here "A commitment to democracy as understood in the liberal western tradition"
So don't tell me democracy, as I understand it from Islamic point of view. No! That is not satisfactory! What we want is a commitment to democracy as understood in the western liberal tradition!
And they went further to say "Support for democracy implies opposition to the concept of the Islamic state"
So a moderate Muslim, is a Muslim who believes in a democratic system that is opposed to the Islamic state!

And then they say

"It follows from the above that for a group to declare itself democratic, in the sense of favoring elections as the vehicle for establishing government as in the case of the present Egyptian Muslim brotherhood is not enough."


2) The second characteristic of this moderate Muslim is '"''acceptance of non-sectarian sources of law''''
Meaning you follow man made law willingly and openly and they say here in the report "the dividing line between moderate Muslims and radical Islamist is whether Sharia should apply "
So to them any Muslim who wants Sharia to apply, is an extremist and a moderate Muslim is a Muslim willing to accept French law or the British law or International law or call it whatever, as long as it is manmade.

3) The third characteristic of a moderate Muslim is "respect for the rights of women and religious minorities"
Now we believe in rights of women and we believe in rights of religious minorities, but not according to their definition. According to their definition, if there is an Islamic state that enforces hijab, that is extremism. If it charges the Christians and Jews jizyah (tax) they are extremists !


4) And then the fourth characteristic of a moderate Muslim is "opposition to terrorism and illegitimate violence"

Cc:
usermane, AbdelKabir, AlBaqir, Empiree, fundamentalist, demmzy15.

Especially demmzy15 who says Anwar Al Aulaqi is a terrorist.

I advise anyone (Muslim) reading this to read with open mind and pay attention to everything written especially the bolded and coloured parts

continuation...

So a Muslim who defends his lands, a Muslim who refuses occupation, a Muslim who wants to live according to Islamic rule, is an extremist. And the moderate Muslim is a Muslim, who invites the US army to come and invade his land, and is happy to follow manmade laws and is a person who has no honor and dignity to defend himself against aggression. This is a moderate Muslim!

So from what you see, a moderate Muslim to them, is in reality a non-Muslim! Because according to these four definitions, the definitions that they gave, this is Kufr this is not Islam! So from now on, I am not going to call it a moderate Muslim but I think a more appropriate term would be a "Rand Muslim".

Then they have a questionnaire, to hand over to a Muslim for him to answer, and then they would categorize him as being a moderate or being an extremist, and praise be to Allah, you would not fail to see the arrogance in all of this and the condescending view they have of Muslims, here they are testing our Aqeedah , they are testing our faith and they are giving us the scores!

The questionnaire is:

"Does the group or individual support or condone violence, if it does not support or condone violence now, has it supported it or condoned it in the past"
So they are not going to even leave you alone if you speak against violence now. If you have a history of violence in the past then you are going to be held responsible about that.

Next question,

"Does it support democracy, and if so does it define democracy broadly in terms of individual rights?"
Following question,
"Does it support internationally recognized human rights? "

Next question,

"Does it make any exceptions? For example, regarding freedom of religion"
So if you want to enforce the law of Riddah (10) then that's extremism!
"Does it believe that changing religions is an individual right?"

IdisuleOurOwn:
Cc:
use.rmane, Abd.elKabir, Al.Baqir, Em.piree, fundamentalist, dem.mzy15.

Especially dem.mzy15 who says Anwar Al Aulaqi is a terrorist.

# Even shaytan tells truth sometimes as we've seen some of his "quotes" in the Qur'an and ahadith. Anwar Al-Awlaqi is a terrorist.

IdisuleOurOwn:
Cc:
usermane, AbdelKabir, AlBaqir, Empiree, fundamentalist, demmzy15.

Especially demmzy15 who says Anwar Al Aulaqi is a terrorist.

I advise anyone (Muslim) reading this to read with open mind and pay attention to everything written especially the bolded and coloured parts

continuation...

I'm only replying because you quoted me .

Sincere advice: just because someone "quotes" verses of the Qur'an doesn't automatically means he understands the meaning, anwar awlaki included. His views and those of Abdullah Faisal , Abu hamza, muhammad yusuf (boko haram ), etc are one and the same . They are very good in preparing lectures but that doesn't mean they understand they ways of the righteous companions and scholars of high eminence of this generation like shaykh Albani, ibn baaz , salih fawzaan , ibn uthaymeen etc and even those of past generation like ibn taymiyyah .

Why is their lecture so much centered on democracy ?

Let me educate you on what they are trying to pass to you , what they are saying in essence is that if you call yourself a Muslim but the society you reside in is a mixed(unislamic) society your Islam is not complete . If you like pray, fast, do all sorts of Ibadah your faith is not complete even if you believe in your heart with firmness that democracy is unislamic . This is what they are saying

Let me remind you that the prophet stayed in Makkah for 13 years preaching Islam, the majority of dwellers were pagans , the ka'aba was full of idols (360 ) and yet revelations were still coming . This continued till the 8th year after hijrah . What are the lessons to be learnt

The ka'aba is the most holiest site in Islam , Allah described it as a sacred house and yet idols were in it . How did the prophet react ? Allah describes him as someone worthy to be emulated in all his ways (the sunnah )

Al-Ahzab 33:21

لَّقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِى رَسُولِ ٱللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُوا ٱللَّهَ وَٱلْيَوْمَ ٱلْءَاخِرَ وَذَكَرَ ٱللَّهَ كَثِيرًا

There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.

Why is this verse missing in anwar awlakis lecture ?

The prophet focused on educating people on Allah worship (Tawheed ) for that period of time . This lasted for 21 solid years . Revelations were still coming. We had some companions whom died during that time in a disbelieving land . Were they more interested in politics of the pagans or seeing people understanding the religion of Islam ? Please answer

Between someone who believes in Allah, establishes regular prayers, fast, etc but lives in a society full of disbelievers but yet a devout and dedicated Muslim and strives to see that people accept the religion and an individual (s) who calls himslef a Muslim but lives in a so called "islamic society " but yet doesn't apply Allah rules and regulations to himself neither does he believes in them , which of these two are in accordance with Allah's word and the sunnah ?



This same ideology or similar is what is been preached by the Muslim brotherhood and their subsidiaries around the world today .

Since hassan albanna started this ideology in 1948 supported by saeed qutub , how has their new found ideology faired . In fact Muhammad qutub, the brother of saeed qutub, was quoted to have said " if the Muslim brotherhood had focus's itself in educating the people about their religion, we would not be where we are today "

If truely what these individuals that you are glorifying their knowledge are saying is true , what has been their impact to the greater Muslim society , positive or negative ? Please answer . If you say positive please mention these "good "developments.

Their lectures are very popular among vibrant youths in colleges, universities and polytechnics in Nigeria especially the MSSN.

Very good examples of people whom followed this steps of the prophet include

Muhammad ibn Abdulwahab . The present day Saudi Arabia was full of graves were " Muslims " worship saints and dead individuals etc was prevalent 300 years ago. All he did was educate the populace about Allah and his messenger .He didn't see the end of his struggles but his descendants saw it . And that is the Islamic Saudi state you are witnessing today same applied to Usman bin fodio in northern Nigeria Hausa kings mixed Islamic religion with traditional Hausa culture which has elements of shirk , he preached not only that the king didn't like it but they also aged war on him . Part of what he ledt is what northern Muslims are enjoining today .

Ahmad ibn Taymiyahh Also comes to mind , also is imam Ahmad, imam malik , imam shafi you can't can't compare their ideologies with that of anwar awlaki and his entities .

The so called scholars you are quoting are looking for shortcut in the name of dawah . Even the messenger preoccupied himself in teaching basic aspects of the religion.

What has anwar awalik left for Muslims of this generation

Beware of whom you take your religion from

Fundamentalist:


I'm only replying because you quoted me .

Sincere advice: just because someone "quotes" verses of the Qur'an doesn't automatically means he understands the meaning, anwar awlaki included. His views and those of Abdullah Faisal , Abu hamza, muhammad yusuf (boko haram ), etc are one and the same . They are very good in preparing lectures but that doesn't mean they understand they ways of the righteous companions and scholars of high eminence of this generation like shaykh Albani, ibn baaz , salih fawzaan , ibn uthaymeen etc and even those of past generation like ibn taymiyyah .

Why is their lecture so much centered on democracy ?

Let me educate you on what they are trying to pass to you , what they are saying in essence is that if you call yourself a Muslim but the society you reside in is a mixed(unislamic) society your Islam is not complete . If you like pray, fast, do all sorts of Ibadah your faith is not complete even if you believe in your heart with firmness that democracy is unislamic . This is what they are saying

Let me remind you that the prophet stayed in Makkah for 13 years preaching Islam, the majority of dwellers were pagans , the ka'aba was full of idols (360 ) and yet revelations were still coming . This continued till the 8th year after hijrah . What are the lessons to be learnt

The ka'aba is the most holiest site in Islam , Allah described it as a sacred house and yet idols were in it . How did the prophet react ? Allah describes him as someone worthy to be emulated in all his ways (the sunnah )

Al-Ahzab 33:21

لَّقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِى رَسُولِ ٱللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُوا ٱللَّهَ وَٱلْيَوْمَ ٱلْءَاخِرَ وَذَكَرَ ٱللَّهَ كَثِيرًا

There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.

Why is this verse missing in anwar awlakis lecture ?

The prophet focused on educating people on Allah worship (Tawheed ) for that period of time . This lasted for 21 solid years . Revelations were still coming. We had some companions whom died during that time in a disbelieving land . Were they more interested in politics of the pagans or seeing people understanding the religion of Islam ? Please answer

Between someone who believes in Allah, establishes regular prayers, fast, etc but lives in a society full of disbelievers but yet a devout and dedicated Muslim and strives to see that people accept the religion and an individual (s) who calls himslef a Muslim but lives in a so called "islamic society " but yet doesn't apply Allah rules and regulations to himself neither does he believes in them , which of these two are in accordance with Allah's word and the sunnah ?



This same ideology or similar is what is been preached by the Muslim brotherhood and their subsidiaries around the world today .

Since hassan albanna started this ideology in 1948 supported by saeed qutub , how has their new found ideology faired . In fact Muhammad qutub, the brother of saeed qutub, was quoted to have said " if the Muslim brotherhood had focus's itself in educating the people about their religion, we would not be where we are today "

If truely what these individuals that you are glorifying their knowledge are saying is true , what has been their impact to the greater Muslim society , positive or negative ? Please answer . If you say positive please mention these "good "developments.

Their lectures are very popular among vibrant youths in colleges, universities and polytechnics in Nigeria especially the MSSN.

Very good examples of people whom followed this steps of the prophet include

Muhammad ibn Abdulwahab . The present day Saudi Arabia was full of graves were " Muslims " worship saints and dead individuals etc was prevalent 300 years ago. All he did was educate the populace about Allah and his messenger .He didn't see the end of his struggles but his descendants saw it . And that is the Islamic Saudi state you are witnessing today same applied to Usman bin fodio in northern Nigeria Hausa kings mixed Islamic religion with traditional Hausa culture which has elements of shirk , he preached not only that the king didn't like it but they also aged war on him . Part of what he ledt is what northern Muslims are enjoining today .

Ahmad ibn Taymiyahh Also comes to mind , also is imam Ahmad, imam malik , imam shafi you can't can't compare their ideologies with that of anwar awlaki and his entities .

The so called scholars you are quoting are looking for shortcut in the name of dawah . Even the messenger preoccupied himself in teaching basic aspects of the religion.

What has anwar awalik left for Muslims of this generation

Beware of whom you take your religion from

I guess this sums it up, this is my position as well. A man that preaches that innocent men, women and children can be killed just because they are non-Muslims is no doubt a terrorist. You can't whitewash it, except you are treading his path which of course makes you the same with him.

How on earth can you justify treachery? Please and please, stop listening to that man.

Demmzy15:

I guess this sums it up, this is my position as well. A man that preaches that innocent men, women and children can be killed just because they are non-Muslims is no doubt a terrorist. You can't whitewash it, except you are treading his path which of course makes you the same with him.

How on earth can you justify treachery? Please and please, stop listening to that man.

# Wallahi, sometimes you cannot blame them except you are playing hypocrisy. They follow the "law and practice" to the letter. Consider this:



Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih, English translation, Volume 4, Book 52, Hadith 256, documents:

Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/221


Commenting on this report, Shaykh al-‘Uthaymīn, says in his Sharḥ Bulūgh al-Marām, vol. 5, pp. 467-468:

"One of the benefits of this ḥadīth is the indication towards what the scholars mention, that what is not permissible in the case of a single individual becomes permissible in the case of a group. This is through the permissibility of killing women and children during this night raid. The general provision is that the killing of women and children is not permissible, because women and children become slaves and properties of the Muslims, and it is not permissible to destroy properties of Muslims. However, this is due to a necessity, and because what is not permissible in the case of a single individual becomes permissible in the case of a group."

AlBaqir:



# Wallahi, sometimes you cannot blame them except you are playing hypocrisy. They follow the "law and practice" to the letter. Consider this:



Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih, English translation, Volume 4, Book 52, Hadith 256, documents:

Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/221


Commenting on this report, Shaykh al-‘Uthaymīn, says in his Sharḥ Bulūgh al-Marām, vol. 5, pp. 467-468:

"One of the benefits of this ḥadīth is the indication towards what the scholars mention, that what is not permissible in the case of a single individual becomes permissible in the case of a group. This is through the permissibility of killing women and children during this night raid. The general provision is that the killing of women and children is not permissible, because women and children become slaves and properties of the Muslims, and it is not permissible to destroy properties of Muslims. However, this is due to a necessity, and because what is not permissible in the case of a single individual becomes permissible in the case of a group."

I've read a detailed explanation of this some years back, I'll search for it and post

Following question,
"Does it support internationally recognized human rights? "
Next question,
"Does it make any exceptions? For example, regarding freedom of religion"
So if you want to enforce the law of Riddah (10) then that's extremism!
"Does it believe that changing religions is an individual right?"
(9) Aqeedah- Belief, Imaan, Faith
(10) Riddah- apostasy
So if a Muslim wants to become a Jew, if a Muslim wants to become a Christian, if a Muslim wants to worship a cow, or a monkey or a snake, they should have the right to do so! If a Muslim who was guided to the straight path and honored by becoming Muslim and he knew Allah the Almighty and he followed Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be on him), if such a person whom Allah Almighty has blessed, wants to worship a cow after that, he should have the right to do so !
"Does it believe that the state should enforce the criminal law component of Sharia?"
So there should be no Hudood (11)!
"Does it believe that the state should believe the civil law component of Sharia?"
Regarding for example, marriage issues, polygamy.
"Or does it believe there should be non-Sharia options?"
Praise is to Allahl What are we talking about here? In a vegetable market buying potatoes and onions?! What are you talking about non-Sharia options? No country in the world, gives you options regarding law. There is one law, regarding every issue. Here they want us to have options, so you walk in to court and you are handed out a multiple-choice question 'Which law do you.

Allah Almighty says,
Allah Almighty says in this ayah (verse)
"But no, by thy Lord, they can have no real faith until they make you judge in all disputes between them and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions but accept them
with the fullest conviction" (12).
No Muslim is a Muslim, if he does not accept the law of Allah Almighty. No Muslim, is a Muslim if he refuses to accept the Sunnah of the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
(11) Hudood- Plural of Hadd, legal limits that have punishments in the Islamic law
(12) (Surah Nisa'a 65)
And then the questionnaire carries on
"Does it believe that numbers of religious minorities should be entitled to the same rights as Muslims? Does it believe that a member of religious minority could hold high political office in a Muslim majority country?"
And we answer no to that question; they cannot hold high office because Allah Almighty says,
want to follow' ! ! !

Demmzy15:

I've read a detailed explanation of this some years back, I'll search for it and post

What about this from a lecture (The dust will never settle down) he (Anwar) gave?

Below..

Lets look at the interesting case of these women. Number one, dear brothers and sisters you all know that women are not to be killed! The
Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has prohibited the killing of
women yet these were specifically mentioned in this list to be killed. Number two, we know that women, if they join in the fighting against Muslims they can be killed, but these women were not fighting and did not participate in any fighting. In fact, they were in a
state of complete surrender!
Number three, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had given
peace and security to all the people of Makkah and he singled them out!
Also add this issue that they were not free women but they were slaves, and the issue of freewill
plays an important part in the rules and legislations of punishment in Islam, as the slave does not
have freewill the punishment are reduced. These women were not free in choosing to sing
against the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) but they were ordered
to do so by their masters, Abu Lahab and Abdullah bin Khatal, and yet they were singled out and
told to be killed!
Ibn Taymiyah talks about this ìItís a clear and strong evidence that the greatest crime of all is
blasphemy against the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) because
with all of these factors -the fact that he gave security to the people of Makkah, and the fact that
they are women, and the fact that they did not fight, and the fact that they were slaves- they were
singled out for capital punishment! This tells you that this is a great crime!î Then we have another man who was on this black list his name is AlHuairith bin Nuqaydh. He
used to also harm the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) with his
tongue. He was hiding in his house; Ali bin Abi Talib came to his house asking about him, so they
said he was not there and that he left to Badiyah-to outside Makkah. And they told Huairith that
Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) came looking for you. Ali went and hid behind the house. When Huairith wanted to run away to another house, Ali bin
Abi Talib cut him off and killed him. 14
Another example is Kaíb ibn Zuhair. Kaíb ibn Zuhair was a poet, his brother was a poet and his
father Zuhair bin Abi Salma, was one of the greatest poets, he was one of those who had the
Muaílaqaat. The Arabs used to honor the best pieces of poetry by hanging them on the Kaíbah;
this was to express the beauty of this piece of work. Zuhair bin Abi Salma was one of these who
had his poems hanging on the Ka'bah, his sons Kaíb and Bujair were both poets. But Bujair was
a Muslim and Kaíb was a non-Muslim and used to make poetry against the Messenger of Allah
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). So when the Muslims entered into Makkah, Bujair wrote a letter to his brother and he told him that
the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is killing the men of Makkah
who had poetry against him. Kaíb was not in Makkah at that time, but his brother sent him a letter
beforehand warning him that, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
is killing all of the people who spoke against him and that the ones who are left like Abdullah ibn
Zabariyyah and Mughirah ibn Abi Wahb, are trying to flee and run away because the Prophet has
issued his orders to kill anybody who speaks against him!
So this is another example of the greatness of this crime!
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was merciful and used to
forgive his enemies, but with this particular crime things were different. And then we have the story of Uíqbah ibn Abi Muíeet and Nadr bin Abi Harith.
In the battle of Badr, there were seventy prisoners of war from the disbelievers of Quraysh. The
Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) asked that they be presented to
him, so that he would look at them one by one. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was starring at Nadr bin
Harith. Nadr bin Harith looked in to the eyes of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him) and saw something, so he told the man next to him, ìListen, I am going to be
killed, I can see death in the eyes of the Messenger of Allah! î The man told him ìNo, you are just exaggerating, you are too afraid, you are just terrified!î He said ìNo, I am telling you, I saw death in the eyes of the Messenger of Allah (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him)î. Then Nadr bin Hartih called Musíab bin Uímayr who was his relative and he told him ìGo to the
Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and tell him to treat me like
everybody else, treat me like a man from my people, if he is going to kill them then let him kill me,
if he is going to forgive them let him forgive me!î. Musíab bin Uímayr told him ìYou are the one who said what you have said about the Messenger
of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and you are the one who spoke against the
Book of Allah!î Nadr bin Harith was the one who used to hold the Halaqa 15 next to the Messenger of Allah
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to compete with him. He traveled to Persia to learn
stories and then he came back and told the disbelievers ìMuhammad (peace and blessings of
Allah be upon him) is telling you tales, I have some better tales to tell you, come and listen to
me!î He told him ìPlease Musíab speak to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him)î He said, ìArenít you the one who used to torture his companions!î The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) called Nadr bin Harith and
told Ali bin Abi Talib to execute him. He was singled out!
At that time they were traveling back to Madina. When they reached a particular area he
executed Nadr bin Harith and then when they traveled a little further he summoned Uíqbah ibn
Abi Muíeet for execution. Uqbah said ìWoe onto me, why am I singled out for execution! All of the men here with me are
your enemies, all the men here with me have fought you, all of the men with me are from Quraysh
-

Cc: Albaqir.

I will try and open a thread on the topic for general discussion

ìNo two goats shall butt heads about it!î And we will talk about this story, itís mentioned by Al Waqidi. This womanís name was Asmaí bint Marwan, she was a good poet from the Ansar but would
speak against the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and speak
against Islam and she would try to cause Fitnah among people. She would tell them ìThis man
does not belong to our tribe how come we are hosting him and causing ourselves all of this
trouble, how come we are giving him safe-haven to stay among us, just drive him out!î The Ansar
suffered a lot because of the Hijrah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him). They suffered financially, many of them were killed, their city was besieged, but they
were doing it for the sake of Allah Almighty and that is why they were called the Ansar -the ones
who gave victory to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Oímair bin Ali, a blind man who was from her family said, ìIn the name of Allah I make this vow
that if the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) returns to Madina I
shall kill her!î The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was at that
time at Badr. When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) returned, Oímair bin Ali
went to her in the middle of the night and went straight to her room. She was surrounded by her
children who were asleep and one of them was breast-feeding from her. He touched around and
saw that she was holding this child, so he held the child with his hands and put the child next to
her and then he took his sword and placed it in her chest. And then he went and prayed Fajr with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be
upon him). When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) finished
prayer he looked at Oímair and told him ìDid you kill the daughter of Marwan?î He said, ìYes, I sacrifice my father for you O Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be
Now Oímair was worried that he might have done something wrong and he should have sought
the permission of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), as the
Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was the Wali al Amr 17. So he
asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ìIs there anything
wrong in what I did O Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? î What did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say?
Did he say, ìYou should have sought my permissionî?
He said, ìNo two goats shall butt heads about her!î Meaning this issue is so clear that no two goats will have a difference of opinion about it; not even
the animals will have difference of opinion about this. And now, praise is to Allah! We find that there is a difference of opinion on this!
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is saying that even animals
should understand this; it is so straightforward that no two goats shall butt heads about it! So how
come we find that intelligent men are butting heads about this issue!?
How come there can be any difference of opinion on this issue that is so clear and so
straightforward that it is a consensus of the scholars, as we will talk about InshAllah. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) looked at those around him
Ö» »حببتم »‰ تنظرÊ» »لى —جل نصر »الله Ê—سولھ بالغیب فنظرÊ »لى عمیر »بن عدand said, Ì
ìIf you want to see a man who has supported and given victory to Allah and his Messenger then
look at Oímair ibn Ali!î Omar bin al Khattab said ìLook at this blind man who went out at night in obedience of Allah
Almighty!î The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, لبصیر« لاكنھÊ لأعمى« تقل لا
ìDonít say he is a blind man because he is man with very clear vision!î18
There are many blind men today! There are many blind men today!
When Oímair went back he found the children along with some tribe members of this woman
burying her. They came to him and threatening him said, ìO Oímair! You are the one who killed
her!î These were fighters; we are talking about the men from Aíws and Khazraj, people who were
born into the fighting!
He said, ìYes! And I challenge you all, all of you gather together, if any one of you would say
anything similar to what she said1 I am going to fight you all until I either kill you all or I die! î What were the results of this action, did it cause them to flee away from Islam, as this was soon
after the Hijrah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) just after

Mr idisuleourown , if you condemn the activities of bokoharam and you wholeheartedly supports Anwar Awlaki , your hypocrisy knows no bound.

He passed away 6years ago. We have responsibility as Muslims to send peace and salutations to all our deseased Muslim brothers and sisters regardless of circumstances.

I'd prefer we view their speeches in the right context. Awlaki was once pro-West. They didn't call him terrorist at the time because he was doing their bidding until he turned away from them because of their attrocities.

Remember his words before he was radicalized?. I hope you brothers remember that. He's long gone now. His affairs solely with his Creator. Calling him a terrorist will not change his status before Him.

What's this one saying, Muhammad yusuf was also a "nice guy " before bokoharam

Its not about how you started but how you end, all those people who were killed by his followers , how would you answer that ?

Karun was a student and follower of prophet Musa , How did the Qur'an describe him at the end , a good man abi ?

Please stop playing with people's intelligence



As I have said earlier you cannot be condemning some groups of fanatics and shielding others , its one and the same

This is what happens when you spend too much time seeking knowledge from the internet without having a filter, and when advised to stop taking knowledge from somebody you refuse..... This is the result.

Demmzy15:

I've read a detailed explanation of this some years back, I'll search for it and post

Its very simple, albaqir just want to cause mischief.... When the enemies are attacked at night suddenly and it becomes difficult to distinguish who can be killed and who cannot and you MISTAKENLY kill the set of people that has been made haraam for you to kill, then you don't have any blame, the hadeeth is not pointing to permissibility ofkilling women and children that did not fight you. You just have to make sure you didn't kill them intentionally.


And here we are talking about proper jihaad, not what boko haraam doing and Isis, proper jihaad that has its complete conditions like it did in the time of the prophet.

AbdelKabir:


Its very simple, albaqir just want to cause mischief.... When the enemies are attacked at night suddenly and it becomes difficult to distinguish who can be killed and who cannot and you MISTAKENLY kill the set of people that has been made haraam for you to kill, then you don't have any blame, the hadeeth is not pointing to permissibility ofkilling women and children that did not fight you. You just have to make sure you didn't kill them intentionally.

# You wanna read the "hadith" once again, and of course its Tafsir by one of your scholars. There is no hanky panky in the hadith. It is crystal clear.

# Attacking enemies at night without notification whereby their women and children will also suffer. Here you are with your usual dishonesty fabricating: "...you MISTAKENLY kill the set of people..." Haba!

# The "hadith" even goes to the extent of saying, "They (vulnerable women and children) are part of them".

# Below hadith is another justification for the ISIS, et al. with their criminal acts.

Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed,

(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.'' This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih.[/color]

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=684&Itemid=59

AlBaqir:


# You wanna read the "hadith" once again, and of course its Tafsir by one of your scholars. There is no hanky panky in the hadith. It is crystal clear.

I have read it, the hadeeth and shaykh ibn uthaymeen telling us ONE OF THE BENEFITS from this hadeeth. The hadeeth talks about raiding the enemies at night when they are as asleep as per war tactics soldiers do raid at night too, don't they?? So what's wrong with raiding people you have fight with at night??

# Attacking enemies at night without notification whereby their women and children will also suffer. Here you are with your usual dishonesty fabricating: "...you MISTAKENLY kill the set of people..." Haba!

You are very unreasonable, if you want to attack your enemies, do you tell then you want to attack them? So why should you notify them? Your aim is for them.to be caught unawares! And by the way, from the same book you quoted shaykh ibn uthaymeen, he mentions:

from this hadeeth is a proof that raiding the disbelievers at night is permissible and there might be a need for it(like winning the enemies easily by attacking them unawares) due to no suitable time for that in the day time, so they get raided at night

So from here the shaykh explains raiding at night is permissible when there is need for that or it is needed for strategical purpose.

And did you say I made a fabrication?? OK why exactly did the sahabi ask? Because he knows there is a prohibition of killing women and children but at night it might become difficult to differentiate who to kill and who not to kill, so the prophet has given them the go ahead that if someone who is not to be killed gets killed in the process due to their mixing with the person that should be killed, then his killing won't harm the killer in anyway.

But the primary thing is you don't kill a woman or a child intentionally

# The "hadith" even goes to the extent of saying, "They (vulnerable women and children) are part of them".

Are they not? If the father dies won't they inherit from him?

AlBaqir:
# Below hadith is another justification for the ISIS, et al. with their criminal acts.

Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed,

(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.'' This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih.[/color]

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=684&Itemid=59

This hadeeth is applicable if the jihaad has its conditions met for it to be called jihaad, like it was in the time of the prophet! This criminals Isis and bokoharam what they are doing is not jihaad, cuz I don't know under which khalifah RECOGNISED BY THE SHARIAH they are fighting, because it is that imam (khalifah) that should declare the jihaad if they have the ability to do so. So if all the conditions of fighting jihaad is complete, then this hadeeth is applicable, except if you want to challenge the ayah of the Quran that said slaves are permissible for their owners.

AbdelKabir:


I have read it, the hadeeth and shaykh ibn uthaymeen telling us ONE OF THE BENEFITS from this hadeeth. The hadeeth talks about raiding the enemies at night when they are as asleep as per war tactics soldiers do raid at night too, don't they?? So what's wrong with raiding people you have fight with at night??


You are very unreasonable, if you want to attack your enemies, do you tell then you want to attack them? So why should you notify them? Your aim is for them.to be caught unawares! And by the way, from the same book you quoted shaykh ibn uthaymeen, he mentions:

# So, why are you fabricating "mistaken killing of women and children" before?

# The purpose of bringing this "hadith" is to expose that your dear fellow brother Anwar Awlaqi whom all of you continue to denouce, and your other fellow brothers in ISIS, boko haram et al have justifications to series of their raid attacks of their enemies whereby they kill mercilessly involving children and women. This was how your terrorist Imam Ibn Abdulwahab fought his evil Jihad against those he pronounced takfiri upon.


# Anyway, you don't raid your enemies when there is no war. This your hadith for mentioning "women and children" clearly showed the raiding is allowed not only during war time or zone. Vulnerable children and women don't come to war zones.


# Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 190:

And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.


* All Mufassirun (including your prestigious Ibn Kathir) submitted that "...and do not exceed the limits..." includes prohibition of killing women and children.
www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=234

* For the "hadith" to clearly sanctioned exposing vulnerable women and children to danger and saying, there is no problem because "they are from them (the enemies)" left me speechless.

# So, Mr Kabiru sokoto, do not condemn your brothers in ISIS, BOKO HARAM again o.

AbdelKabir:



This hadeeth is applicable if the jihaad has its conditions met for it to be called jihaad, like it was in the time of the prophet! This criminals Isis and bokoharam what they are doing is not jihaad, cuz I don't know under which khalifah RECOGNISED BY THE SHARIAH they are fighting, because it is that imam (khalifah) that should declare the jihaad if they have the ability to do so. So if all the conditions of fighting jihaad is complete, then this hadeeth is applicable,

# Yeah I understand that is how it is in your manhaj. You have free licence of s.exual inter.course with your captive women DURING WAR. Pregnant or not, on her period or not, waiting period or not; none of it matter. Just get down with them and enjoy yourself.

AbdelKabir:

except if you want to challenge the ayah of the Quran that said slaves are permissible for their owners.

# Oh, the ayah is crystal clear but you have no brain to comprehend. The ayah is simply telling you that you can marry captives of war as wife (be it married or single among them). The ayah is not telling you to take advantage of their captivity and mess them.


22. And marry not women whom your fathers married,-
except what is past: It was shameful and odious,- an
abominable custom indeed.


23. Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers,
daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters;
brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers
(....

24. Also (prohibited are) women already married, except
those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah
ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all
others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with
gifts from your property,-


# Captive women are regarded as divorcee if ransom are not paid for their freedom. Yet, in the Fiqh of Aimmah Ahl al-bayt nabiy, captive women need to undergo waiting period before you can MARRY them.

www.nairaland.com/3186021/he-left-islam-because-ayah

AlBaqir:


# Yeah I understand that is how it is in your manhaj. You have free licence of s.exual inter.course with your captive women DURING WAR. Pregnant or not, on her period or not, waiting period or not; none of it matter. Just get down with them and enjoy yourself.

Na'am if you have captives during war, then no harm upon you if you sleep with them, many verses of the Quran say this, one of them is:

Surah Al-Maarij, Verse 29-30:

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ

And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ

Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed,

via iQuran

They are part of your properties according to this aayah and going on to them, you have no blame just as how you have no blame if you go on to your wives, even if they were married before they became captive.

This aayah and its likes stand till this day as proof against people like you.

# Oh, the ayah is crystal clear but you have no brain to comprehend. The ayah is simply telling you that you can marry captives of war as wife (be it married or single among them). The ayah is not telling you to take advantage of their captivity and mess them.


22. And marry not women whom your fathers married,-
except what is past: It was shameful and odious,- an
abominable custom indeed.


23. Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers,
daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters;
brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers
(....

24. Also (prohibited are) women already married, except
those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah
ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all
others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with
gifts from your property,-

Stop trying to force your interpretation on the Quran, Allaah mentions that married women are prohibited for you to marry but if they are your slaves that you gained properly, then they are lawful for you and it is known that there is no need for nikkah here as they are your properties due to the other verse I just quoted where Allaah tells us to guard our private parts except from those we have married or the slaves we have, the onus lies on you to tell us where it is you must marry them first!

IBRAHIM alayhi salaatu wa salaam slept with his slave hajar that gave birth to ismaa'eel pls did he also marry her before entering upon her??

# Captive women are regarded as divorcee if ransom are not paid for their freedom. Yet, in the Fiqh of Aimmah Ahl al-bayt nabiy, captive women need to undergo waiting period before you can MARRY them.

Mtcheeeew...

www.nairaland.com/3186021/he-left-islam-because-ayah

He was afflicted with leaving Islam because he didn't study properly before going to debates.

AlBaqir:


# So, why are you fabricating "mistaken killing of women and children" before?

What else all you call it if not mistakenly kill? The sahabi that asked, asked with regards night raiding because HE KNOWS THERE IS PROBABILITY OF KILLING WOMEN MISTAKENLY , and the prophet made them understand that they don't have issue if that happens........ But as i have said earlier you don't go intending to kill women and children as the sahabi that asked was clear about that.

# The purpose of bringing this "hadith" is to expose that your dear fellow brother Anwar Awlaqi whom all of you continue to denouce, and your other fellow brothers in ISIS, boko haram et al have justifications to series of their raid attacks of their enemies whereby they kill mercilessly involving children and women. [S]This was how your terrorist[/s] Imam Ibn Abdulwahab fought his evil Jihad against those he pronounced takfiri upon.

Just as how they justify suicide bombing as well with Islam! Justifying isn't the thing but thing is are they interpreting the texts properly? Their so called jihaad is not for Islam but against Islam, they don't have the conditions of jihaad.

# Anyway, you don't raid your enemies when there is no war. This your hadith for mentioning "women and children" clearly showed the raiding is allowed not only during war time or zone. Vulnerable children and women don't come to war zones.


# Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 190:

And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

There is no such thing as only defensive jihaad, there is offensive as well if you have the power to do so, and it happened in the time of the prophet as well.....Allaah says:


وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلَّهِ

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone).

There can be offensive jihaad if Muslims have the power and it is declared by an imam recognized by the shariah, not what the Isis and boko haram fools are doing...

* All Mufassirun (including your prestigious Ibn Kathir) submitted that "...and do not exceed the limits..." includes prohibition of killing women and children.
www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=234

* For the "hadith" to clearly sanctioned exposing vulnerable women and children to danger and saying, there is no problem because "they are from them (the enemies)" left me speechless.

Except if you don't have brain to think..... that hadeeth has been explained, that the primary thing is killing of women and children are prohibited, but if it is a night raid, and they got killed in this raid unintentionally then there is no harm on the killer...

Abi you want to force explanation on us??

AbdelKabir:


Na'am if you have captives during war, then no harm upon you if you sleep with them, many verses of the Quran say this, one of them is:

# Like I said that's your manhaj. Why condemning your terrorist brothers for playing by the book?

# How do you sleep with a captured woman at war front? Obviously its through rape. A woman you just kill her father or husband or his son or his children will never ever offer herself freely for you. Its either rape or at sword point.

AbdelKabir:

Surah Al-Maarij, Verse 29-30:

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ

And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ

Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed,

via iQuran

They are part of your properties according to this aayah and going on to them, you have no blame just as how you have no blame if you go on to your wives, even if they were married before they became captive.

This aayah and its likes stand till this day as proof against people like you.

# Kabiru sokoto, the ayah is never talking about messing with captives at war zones. Get that to your skull. Besides, the ayah is from a Makki sura. Sura Nisa: 24 which is Madina, had abrogate it.

# Besides, Islam has rules for everything. Islam never preaches you treat your slave as sex machine. Captives are to be respected in their own right. Either you "marry" them or you set them free; not using them as sex machine.

AbdelKabir:

Stop trying to force your interpretation on the Quran, Allaah mentions that married women are prohibited for you to marry but if they are your slaves that you gained properly, then they are lawful for you

# Exactly how I interpreted the ayah. The ayah is extra clear. In fact, before you even marry such captive, you need to offer her Islam first.

# Umm al-mu'mineen Safiyyah was a jewish captive of Khaybar. Nabi married her, not jumped on her as your wicked hadith portrayed. Khaybar took place in Madina in 7 A.H.

AbdelKabir:

and it is known that there is no need for nikkah here as they are your properties due to the other verse I just quoted

# In your evil manhaj @underline.

AbdelKabir:


Abi you want to force explanation on us??

# How can I force my explanation on terrorist's explanations?! If I do, your brothers ISIS, BOKO HARAM et al that repeatedly practising it would have listen naw.


# Kindly give me a single Jihad led by Nabi Muhammad that was offensive or whereby they raided their opponents off guard. Just one clear example will do.

# Even, at Khaybar that Muslims besieged the Jew's fortress, those coward Jews were called out to surrender. And when their soldiers came out, it was one to one battle. Nabi, even with such huge advantage, never raided them at night and endangered their vulnerable women and children.

AlBaqir:


# Like I said that's your manhaj. Why condemning your terrorist brothers for playing by the book?

Like I said for people that have sense which you don't seem like one, they are some conditions to be met before jihaad can be done, Isis and bokoharam did not meet that conditions and they even make takfeer of Muslims and the Muslims suffer more from their wickedness, so its not the same...

# How do you sleep with a captured woman at war front? Obviously its through rape. A woman you just kill her father or husband or his son or his children will never ever offer herself freely for you. Its either rape or at sword point.

Do you have sense at all? How do you capture somebody whose men you are still fighting? Is it not after the war is over they share war booties? I doubt if you have sense Mr sumonu.

# Kabiru sokoto, the ayah is never talking about messing with captives at war zones. Get that to your skull. Besides, the ayah is from a Makki sura. Sura Nisa: 24 which is Madina, had abrogate it.

Like I have said, war booties are shared after war not during war.

# Besides, Islam has rules for everything. Islam never preaches you treat your slave as sex machine. Captives are to be respected in their own right. Either you "marry" them or you set them free; not using them as sex machine.

There is no where in the shariah that says you must marry them first! And hey do you think? How do you marry a slave that is yours already?! Do you beg for permission before riding your own car?? You are a village man....

# Exactly how I interpreted the ayah. The ayah is extra clear.

# Umm al-mu'mineen Safiyyah was a captive of Khaybar. Nabi married her, not jumped on her as your wicked hadith portrayed. Khaybar took place in Madina in 7 A.H.

Did the prophet marry Maariyah that gave birth to his son Ibrahim??

# In your evil manhaj @underline.

And the manhaj of the prophets because Ibrahim Alayhi salaatu wa salaam.had sex with his slave hajar that gave birth to ismaaeel, the prophet had sex with maariyah that gave birth to Ibrahim....so Mr sumonu go and hit your head on the wall because of that...

AlBaqir:



# Kindly give me a single Jihad led by Nabi Muhammad that was offensive or whereby they raided their opponents off guard. Just one clear example will do.

The hadeeth in sahih Bukhari


Narrated Ibn `Aun:

I wrote a letter to Nafi` and Nafi` wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet (ﷺ) had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet (ﷺ) got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi` said that Ibn `Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn `Umar was in that army.

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/49/25

Are you happy??

AbdelKabir:


Do you have sense at all? How do you capture somebody whose men you are still fighting? Is it not after the war is over they share war booties? I doubt if you have sense Mr sumonu.

Like I have said, was booties are shared after war not during war.

Your tale can never shield you from the bullet.

# Again, how do you sleep with a woman you just captured, killed her husband, her children, her brother, her father or uncle?

You can either forced sleep with her via sword or rape her.

AbdelKabir:

There is no where in the shariah that says you must marry them first! And hey do you think? How do you marry a slave that is yours already?! Do you beg for permission before riding your own cow?? You are a village man....

# Again, why did Nabi MARRIED safiyyah, a captured Jewish lady?

Simple question. Why running away?

AbdelKabir:

Did the prophet marry Maariyah that gave birth to his son Ibrahim??

# Maryam (RA) was never a captive of Nabi.

AbdelKabir:


The hadeeth in sahih Bukhari


Narrated Ibn `Aun:

I wrote a letter to Nafi` and Nafi` wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet (ﷺ) had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet (ﷺ) got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi` said that Ibn `Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn `Umar was in that army.

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/49/25

Are you happy??

# Hmmmm....another boko haram supported bogus hadith. Therefore, why condemning BOKO HARAM? Are they not playing by the rule? Like I said, that's how your manhaj stained the noble Prophet. Your wicked hadith is for your manhaj.

AlBaqir:


Your tale can never shield you from the bullet.

# Again, how do you sleep with a woman you just captured, killed her husband, her children, her brother, her father or uncle?

You can either forced sleep with her via sword or rape her.

To you....

# Again, why did Nabi MARRIED safiyyah, a captured Jewish lady?

Simple question. Why running away?

He didn't marry maariyah that gave birth to Ibrahim....its a two way thing

Maryam (RA) was never a captive of Nabi.

I believe you wanted to write "maariyah", so if you claim she was not a captive, was she a wife? You have to prove the prophet married her....

And if you can't prove she was a wife then your argument has fallen, because IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROPHET HAD HIS SON IBRAHIM THROUGH HER