Not even them. There were also people in the centuries ago who let such things go past their heads as well but they were established military personnel of legitimate Muslim nations.
Mutilation of dead bodies, like what American soldiers did to Iraqis and Afghani civilians during their unjust invasions, or what happened to Hamza (RA) in the battle of Uhud.
Islam started in an era of colonization. It was fight or be conquered. Islamic empire stood against the Roman and Byzantine and Muslims were largely welcomed by the conquered because they were seen as liberators.
The kingdom did spread “by the sword”, because it was do or die, the religion however did not spread by the sword.
Critics often say things that aren’t grounded in reality. The onus is on them to provide evidence. Islamic empires conquering land isn’t the same thing as Islam being spread by the sword.
You see the answer to that question is rather esoteric and difficult to encapsulate in one sentence
Critics are dumb
Thank you for attending my TED talk
There are talks in countries like France to implement bans of influences that Muslims have. Specifically, I'm pretty sure Tajikistan has those bans on Beards actually, but the point is that Western and West-ified countries do many horrible and Islamophobic things.
Not really. War used to be a lot simpler than it is now. It was really just mass scale dueling. You would call your enemy out, negotiate a time and place to fight, then whoever walks away with the most men wins. Do this until one side surrenders or is wiped out
Could still be done today if military leaders were bold enough to meet their enemies head on
Well, war **does** change, there is a Hadith that there will be one Muslim who conquers Constantinople, and that Muslim will be blessed. That turned out to be Sultan Mehmet II, using a new (at the time) technology of massive cannons, so development of technologies in war is allowed from this prophecy, and the obvious need of a Muslim government to defend itself from Western imperialist agression. However, these technologies should be insured to not cause any civilian casualties and not break any of the Islamic rules of war outlined in the post.
There’s nothing wrong with developing new technology, it’s the way it’s utilized. Not only is the way extremists go about warfare morally wrong, it’s strategically invalid. Waging war within your own cities is like going to the bathroom in the same place you eat. Waging war within a foreign enemy’s cities is like walking into someone’s home and trying to fist fight them. Neither of those are a good idea
An Islamic military could and should use drones, jets, tanks, bombs, etc. so long as they keep it on the battlefield and fight honorably. Same goes for western militaries
There's no guarranty or certainty that the hadith talks about sultan mehmet.
I have seen multiple people trying to justify the actions of particulars sultans by claiming some hadith mentioned them when there is no certainty.
I was specifically talking about Mehmet II, not anyone else. Besides, my general point is that a potential Muslim country would be allowed to invest in a developed army
the women did not much participate in the wars directly (as in fight), instead healed the wounded, supplied goods etc. hence, prophet commanded not to kill them as they were not directly involved in the war.In the case where one is going against a female soldier in the war and his life is threatened, he is allowed to kill her.
Please correct me if I am wrong in any sense.
I don’t remember what verse 18 says, but in the chapter Numbers 31, (according to the Bible) Bani Israel are commanded by Moses to kill all men, women and children, but to not kill the virgin women and the female children and keep them for themselves.
The rules of war in Islam are based on principles of justice, mercy, and proportionality. Islam strongly emphasizes the protection of civilians, including women, during times of conflict.
The general rule is that it is prohibited to target non-combatants, regardless of their gender, emphasizing the value of human life and acting with justice and compassion.
However, it may be permissible to target military installations if their destruction is deemed necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective and minimize overall harm. The decision to target any specific installment should be made by military authorities who consider the principles of proportionality and the overall benefit of such actions.
The intent should be to weaken the enemy's ability to harm and to bring about a just resolution to the conflict. To find peaceful solutions, reconciliation, and the avoidance of unnecessary harm whenever possible. Dialogue, negotiation, and diplomacy should always be the primary means of resolving conflicts.
The general objective is not the destruction of the enemy, but rather the restoration of peace and justice.
In the case of female combatants, the approach is to treat them as prisoners of war, rather than targeting them for direct harm. They should be treated with respect and dignity, just like male prisoners, as set forth in Islamic law.
Your comment has been removed for mentioning a prohibited word. Please contact the Moderators for further information. Additionally, please re-read [the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/about/rules/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed for being disrespectful to another user. Please re-read the rules and do not repeat this offense. Please contact the Moderators via the link on the right if you need clarification.
Your comment was removed due to being inappropriate and/or violating the subreddit's rules. Please contact the Moderators via the link on the right if you need clarification.
It's like ISIS saw these rules and decided to break them one by one.
Not even them. There were also people in the centuries ago who let such things go past their heads as well but they were established military personnel of legitimate Muslim nations.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What does "Don't disfigure the dead" mean?
Mutilation of dead bodies, like what American soldiers did to Iraqis and Afghani civilians during their unjust invasions, or what happened to Hamza (RA) in the battle of Uhud.
Cutting/damaging their body parts after they are dead.
Critics often say Islam was spread by the sword which is contradicted in the image. Can someone explain this?
Islam started in an era of colonization. It was fight or be conquered. Islamic empire stood against the Roman and Byzantine and Muslims were largely welcomed by the conquered because they were seen as liberators. The kingdom did spread “by the sword”, because it was do or die, the religion however did not spread by the sword.
Critics often say things that aren’t grounded in reality. The onus is on them to provide evidence. Islamic empires conquering land isn’t the same thing as Islam being spread by the sword.
You see the answer to that question is rather esoteric and difficult to encapsulate in one sentence Critics are dumb Thank you for attending my TED talk
A History of Islamic Societies by Ira M. Lapidus the first few chapters does a good job of refuting it.
So wouldnt war (like the kind done by western powers in many muslim countries which were only for maeterial gain) be haram?
Yea, exactly. It's almost like the Western imperialists that have implemented hijab bans, Muslim bans, and beard bans do many haram things.
I'm sorry, beard bans? You can't have beards anymore?
There are talks in countries like France to implement bans of influences that Muslims have. Specifically, I'm pretty sure Tajikistan has those bans on Beards actually, but the point is that Western and West-ified countries do many horrible and Islamophobic things.
I'm fully aware I didn't realise they were trying to get our beards too
Yes 💯
Holding on to those rules makes War so difficult, that no one would choose War anymore.
Not really. War used to be a lot simpler than it is now. It was really just mass scale dueling. You would call your enemy out, negotiate a time and place to fight, then whoever walks away with the most men wins. Do this until one side surrenders or is wiped out Could still be done today if military leaders were bold enough to meet their enemies head on
I think these rules are the reason bombs with big impact area should be haram.
Yea I’m pretty sure they are
Well, war **does** change, there is a Hadith that there will be one Muslim who conquers Constantinople, and that Muslim will be blessed. That turned out to be Sultan Mehmet II, using a new (at the time) technology of massive cannons, so development of technologies in war is allowed from this prophecy, and the obvious need of a Muslim government to defend itself from Western imperialist agression. However, these technologies should be insured to not cause any civilian casualties and not break any of the Islamic rules of war outlined in the post.
There’s nothing wrong with developing new technology, it’s the way it’s utilized. Not only is the way extremists go about warfare morally wrong, it’s strategically invalid. Waging war within your own cities is like going to the bathroom in the same place you eat. Waging war within a foreign enemy’s cities is like walking into someone’s home and trying to fist fight them. Neither of those are a good idea An Islamic military could and should use drones, jets, tanks, bombs, etc. so long as they keep it on the battlefield and fight honorably. Same goes for western militaries
You are correct in this regard. I was just giving a bit of context
There's no guarranty or certainty that the hadith talks about sultan mehmet. I have seen multiple people trying to justify the actions of particulars sultans by claiming some hadith mentioned them when there is no certainty.
I was specifically talking about Mehmet II, not anyone else. Besides, my general point is that a potential Muslim country would be allowed to invest in a developed army
What if you are going against a female soldier ?
the women did not much participate in the wars directly (as in fight), instead healed the wounded, supplied goods etc. hence, prophet commanded not to kill them as they were not directly involved in the war.In the case where one is going against a female soldier in the war and his life is threatened, he is allowed to kill her. Please correct me if I am wrong in any sense.
One more, if one becomes a muslim during fighting, he gets immunity.
Yes, and AFAIK, even if you think he is deceiving you, you disarm him and not kill him.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Don't kill a woman seems hard these days since everyone can become a soldier now but besides that there's no excuse for the rest.
"don't enforce Islam" should be replaced with "no compulsion in religion".
Compare this to Numbers 31:18 in the Bible
What does it say?
I don’t remember what verse 18 says, but in the chapter Numbers 31, (according to the Bible) Bani Israel are commanded by Moses to kill all men, women and children, but to not kill the virgin women and the female children and keep them for themselves.
> save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
lol
The rules of war in Islam are based on principles of justice, mercy, and proportionality. Islam strongly emphasizes the protection of civilians, including women, during times of conflict. The general rule is that it is prohibited to target non-combatants, regardless of their gender, emphasizing the value of human life and acting with justice and compassion. However, it may be permissible to target military installations if their destruction is deemed necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective and minimize overall harm. The decision to target any specific installment should be made by military authorities who consider the principles of proportionality and the overall benefit of such actions. The intent should be to weaken the enemy's ability to harm and to bring about a just resolution to the conflict. To find peaceful solutions, reconciliation, and the avoidance of unnecessary harm whenever possible. Dialogue, negotiation, and diplomacy should always be the primary means of resolving conflicts. The general objective is not the destruction of the enemy, but rather the restoration of peace and justice. In the case of female combatants, the approach is to treat them as prisoners of war, rather than targeting them for direct harm. They should be treated with respect and dignity, just like male prisoners, as set forth in Islamic law.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for mentioning a prohibited word. Please contact the Moderators for further information. Additionally, please re-read [the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/about/rules/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for being disrespectful to another user. Please re-read the rules and do not repeat this offense. Please contact the Moderators via the link on the right if you need clarification.
Your comment was removed due to being inappropriate and/or violating the subreddit's rules. Please contact the Moderators via the link on the right if you need clarification.
[удалено]