i remember reading about a battle in which the muslim army under Khalid bin Waleed laid siege to a city with a trench around it and Khalid RA had the old and weak camels slaughtered to fill up the trench and cross it. What was the name?

Salaam everyone, Why did Muhammad (s) make a surprise attack on Banu Mustaliq. In books of sirah, it says Banu Mustaliq were preparing to make an attack, but I don't trust books of sirah. Please can someone provide me a sahih/hasan hadith or a commentary on hadith (e.g. An-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar) on the reason behind the attack on Banu Mustaliq

When the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) became prophet, he did not actively fight the Meccans until he immigrated to Medina after three years. Afterwards, he had multiple wars with the Meccans (e.g. the Battle of Badr , the battle of Uhud and the Battle of the Trench ). Why did the Prophet wait three years to battle them, while during this time the Meccans were hostile to the Prophet and the Muslims and killed many of them during these three years?

There is a saying attributed to the Prophet during the Battle of Uhud: >  فتى إلا علي لا سيف إلا ذو الفقار‎ لا > > 'There is no hero like Ali; There is no sword like Dhu-l-Fiqar' Now the Shia say it was said by archangel Jibril/a voice on the battlefield etc (something along those lines, correct me if I'm wrong). My question is what is the Sunni view on the authenticity of this quote, because the Ottoman Janissaries had this quote on their flags and they were Sunni. Also is it permissible to wear a zulfiqar (for a Sunni)? Not trying to mimic the Shia or Alevi.

As per my understanding, Gazwa-E-Hind is the prophecy that one day war will be brought upon the Indian subcontinent to invade these lands. Two groups will lead this war on the Indian subcontinent. But my question is, why will there be a need for this? Why bring war? What's the background behind this hadith? Why only the Indian subcontinent and not any other land mass? Please clarify.

It seems like forceful conversion and I do not understand why it shouldn't: >[2:191] وَٱقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ ۚ وَٱلْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ ٱلْقَتْلِ ۚ وَلَا تُقَـٰتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ ٱلْمَسْجِدِ ٱلْحَرَامِ حَتَّىٰ يُقَـٰتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ ۖ فَإِن قَـٰتَلُوكُمْ فَٱقْتُلُوهُمْ ۗ كَذَٰلِكَ جَزَآءُ ٱلْكَـٰفِرِينَ ١٩١ > >And kill them [in battle] wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Ḥarām until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of disbelievers. — Saheeh INTERNATIONAL >[2:192] فَإِنِ ٱنتَهَوْا۟ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌۭ رَّحِيمٌۭ ١٩٢ > >AND IF THEY CEASE, then indeed, Allāh IS FORGIVING AND MERCIFUL. — Saheeh International What will ALLAH forgive about them besides their repentance to Islam? >2:193 وَقَـٰتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌۭ وَيَكُونَ ٱلدِّينُ لِلَّهِ ۖ فَإِنِ ٱنتَهَوْا۟ فَلَا عُدْوَٰنَ إِلَّا عَلَى ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ ١٩٣ > >Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] religion [i.e., worship] is [acknowledged to be] for Allāh. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression [i.e., assault] except against THE OPPRESSORS. — Saheeh International Again the word with the root ظ ل م is used. And there is a verse saying those who sin do injustice to themselves. Disbelief is a sin and therefore injustice. So does this actually mean it's supporting forceful conversion? even reading Tafsir Ibn Kathir, I did not find an alternative interpretation.

We know that despite declaring a general indemnity, a few individuals of the Mecca were sentenced to death by the Prophet, even if they were found under the veil of Kaba. My question is: 1. The source of this **"even if they were found under the veil of Kaba."** comment. 2. Who were they? 3. How many of them were executed?

Muhammad engaged in a number of battles in his lifetime; see Wikipedia for a list. If it were anyone else, it stands to reason that he could have been killed in any of these. Of course, Muhammad had an essential task to accomplish, conveying the Qur'an, and being killed would have left it incomplete. So perhaps Allah would not have allowed this to happen. **Question**: Could Muhammad have been killed in battle? I'm seeking scholarly opinion on this matter, i.e., what's generally agreed upon, and not simply some Internet theory. So please back up any answers. What I know so far: - Qur'an 2:61 says "...that was because they [repeatedly] disbelieved in the signs of Allah and **killed the prophets without right**...". So it seems it is possible to kill prophets without Allah's intervention. - Muhammad did eventually die. As I understand, he was eventually killed by being poisoned: > A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Messenger. -- Narrated Anas bin Malik (sunnah.com ) Googling the title of this question yields a bunch of unflattering and unhelpful webpages. Actually, I'm not sure where to look in answering this question. (And apologies for asking about this unpleasant topic.)

> Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The flourishing state > of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of > Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great > war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of > Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the > Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This > is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn > Jabal) > > Sunan Abi Dawud 4294 (sunnah.com ) Is this hadith is a authentic or inauthentic (fabrication)? There are similar hadiths to this but are regarded as da'eef.

This is the hadith. > Abdullah said that five signs have (become things) of the past (and > have proved the truth of the Holy Prophet): > > (Enveloping) by the smoke, inevitable (punishment to the Meccans at > Badr), (the victory of) Rome, (violent) seizing (of the Meccans at > Badr) and (the splitting up of) the Moon. Now, Abdullah (the narrator) is saying that these have become things of the past, which implies that Rome has already been conquered, but Rome was never conquered by the Muslims. Attempts were made, but the Muslims never succeeded. So, according to the hadith, will the conquest of Rome by Muslims take place in the future?

I heard that Rasulullah (P.B.U.H) migrated from Mecca to Medina (Hijra) as many muslims were being tortured and killed,to retaliate, he raided many caravans coming from Mecca, is this completely true, if so, why did the Prophet (SAW) do this?

The user owari on This Question commented that Iblis was a child and its parents got killed in battle.
What battle is he talking about, What is this story?

Let me post hadith first and i will ask my question at last It is from Sahih al-Bukhari >Narrated Ibn 'Umar: > Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." > حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْمُسْنَدِيُّ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو رَوْحٍ الْحَرَمِيُّ بْنُ عُمَارَةَ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ وَاقِدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبِي يُحَدِّثُ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ، وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلاَةَ، وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ، فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلاَّ بِحَقِّ الإِسْلاَمِ، وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ ‏"‏‏.‏ >Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 25 In-book reference : Book 2, Hadith 18 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 2, Hadith 25 (deprecated numbering scheme) Here is hadith from Sahih Muslim > It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that when the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) breathed his last and Abu Bakr was appointed as his successor (Caliph), those amongst the Arabs who wanted to become apostates became apostates. 'Umar b. Khattab said to Abu Bakr: > Why would you fight against the people, when the Messenger of Allah declared: I have been directed to fight against people so long as they do not say: There is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was granted full protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right? His (other) affairs rest with Allah. Upon this Abu Bakr said: By Allah, I would definitely fight against him who severed prayer from Zakat, for it is the obligation upon the rich. By Allah, I would fight against them even to secure the cord (used for hobbling the feet of a camel) which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (as zakat) but now they have withheld it. Umar b. Khattab remarked: By Allah, I found nothing but the fact that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr for (perceiving the justification of) fighting (against those who refused to pay Zakat) and I fully recognized that the (stand of Abu Bakr) was right. > حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا لَيْثُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ عُقَيْلٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ لَمَّا تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَاسْتُخْلِفَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ بَعْدَهُ وَكَفَرَ مَنْ كَفَرَ مِنَ الْعَرَبِ قَالَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ كَيْفَ تُقَاتِلُ النَّاسَ وَقَدْ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ فَمَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ فَقَدْ عَصَمَ مِنِّي مَالَهُ وَنَفْسَهُ إِلاَّ بِحَقِّهِ وَحِسَابُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَاللَّهِ لأُقَاتِلَنَّ مَنْ فَرَّقَ بَيْنَ الصَّلاَةِ وَالزَّكَاةِ فَإِنَّ الزَّكَاةَ حَقُّ الْمَالِ وَاللَّهِ لَوْ مَنَعُونِي عِقَالاً كَانُوا يُؤَدُّونَهُ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم لَقَاتَلْتُهُمْ عَلَى مَنْعِهِ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا هُوَ إِلاَّ أَنْ رَأَيْتُ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ قَدْ شَرَحَ صَدْرَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ لِلْقِتَالِ فَعَرَفْتُ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ‏.‏ Reference : Sahih Muslim 20 In-book reference : Book 1, Hadith 32 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 1, Hadith 29 (deprecated numbering scheme) My question is Hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari says prophet Muhammed(pbuh) said that he will fight against the people untill they giving zakath But hadith from Sahih Muslim says entirely different where when abu Bakr take sword aginst those who didnt give zakath .. Umar ibn al-Khattab saying to abu Bakr that prophet Muhammed said that we should not fight against the people of Muslims who beliefs in Allah and prophet... (Saying on node zakath is not that much important to fight) as well as even abu Bakr didnt reply to 'Umar that "No! prophet messenger did say that to fight against zakath" instead abu Bakr said "By Allah zakath is also obligatory one so i will fight against them" So my question is whether 'Umar and abu Bakr both forget what prophet Muhammed(pbuh) said about fight against people for zakath.. or I'm understanding in a differenr way?? Why Umar Khattab need to say Muhammed(pbuh) didn't mentioned anything about zakath??

In the verse 30:2-3 , Allah says, > The Byzantines have been defeated in the nearest land. But they after > their defeat will overcome According to a lot of Muslims including the person in this video , this battle took place in the shoreline of the dead sea, which is the lowest point of dry earth. But according to Wikipedia and WikiIslam this battle took place elsewhere. So which one of the information is true? Please provide your answer with accurate references. I'm really in need of an answer as this is troubling my faith a lot! If there's any problem in my question please inform me. Thanks!

In Sura 3, Verse 13 , the verse in English translation is > Already there has been for you a sign in the two armies which met - > one fighting in the cause of Allah and another of disbelievers. They > saw them [to be] twice their [own] number by [their] eyesight. But > Allah supports with His victory whom He wills. Indeed in that is a > lesson for those of vision. I know that the context of this verse is Battle of Badr. But who saw who twice ? The Muslims or disbelievers ?

Did Islam have some rules of engagement in military conflicts, concerning women, children and old men? Were there any rules for not touching them after conquering a city or territory? Did Muhammad have such rules in his expeditions (military conflicts)? Rules change in time - for example in the Ottoman Empire they took non-Muslim children by force from their parents, periodically, to make them soldiers. So I am interested about the rules in the times of Muhammad and a few centuries after him.

As possibly many of you know, at the time of Imam Hussain (a.s.) there was a tragedy event which was and is famous as Battle-of-Karbala. For more info. you can read the following link: www.al-islam.org/the-tragedy-of-karbala I was wondering regarding its women numbers. In other word, I wonder how many women were with Imam Hussain at the event of Battle-of-Karbala? Is there any statistics concerning that? **Note:** As much as possible, I’m looking for the Shia view (references). Although Sunni’s views would be appreciated as well.

In his al-Bidaya wa-Nihaya ibn Kathir quotes a hadith he says that only al-Bazzar أبو بكر البزار has compiled it: > وقال الحافظ أبو بكر البزار : حدثنا محمد بن معمر ، حدثنا مؤمل ، يعني ابن إسماعيل ، حدثنا حماد ، يعني ابن سلمة ، عن عبد الكريم ، يعني ابن أبي المخارق ، عن مجاهد ، عن جابر بن عبد الله : أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم شغل يوم الخندق عن صلاة الظهر ، والعصر ، والمغرب ، والعشاء ، فأمر بلالا فأذن وأقام فصلى الظهر ، ثم أمره فأذن وأقام فصلى العصر ، ثم أمره فأذن وأقام ، فصلى المغرب ، ثم أمره فأذن وأقام ، فصلى العشاء ، ثم قال : " ما على وجه الأرض قوم يذكرون الله في هذه الساعة غيركم " > . تفرد به البزار ، وقال لا نعرفه إلا من هذا الوجه ، وقد رواه بعضهم عن عبد الكريم ، عن مجاهد ، عن أبي عبيدة ، عن عبد الله . Abu Bakr al-Bazzar said we don't know of it except this way (version?), And some narrated it from Abdulkarim, from Mujahid, from Abu 'Obaydah, from Abdullah (ibn Masu'd) (for example in Jami' at-Tirmidhi ). According to al-Haythami -in his majma' az-Zawaid - Abdulkarim is ibn al-Mukhariq (a da'if narrator, see also https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/42715/is-there-hadith-for-the-maliki-way-of-praying), this might lead to the conclusion that this hadith might be weak. But at-Tabarani الطبراني has quoted a similar narration in his al-Mo'jam al-Awsat too and commented the narrator chain saying: > " لم يرو هذا الحديث عن حماد بن سلمة إلا مؤمل " None else has narrated this ahdith from Hammad ibn Salamah except with al-Mu'ammil. The major difference to me seems to be the wording: > على ظهر الأرض (at-Tabarani): on the surface of the earth على وجه الأرض (al-Bazzar): upon the face of the earth Which seems to mean the same, both ahadith are compiled on the authority of Jabir ibn Abdullah. Now here's my translation of this Hadith -take it carefully-: > Jabir ibn Abdullah said that the prophet Allah's prayers and blessings be upon him was occupied from praying dhohr, 'asr, maghrib, 'isha' (on time) then he ordered Bilal to call for prayer (Adhan), Bilal then performed the adhan then the iqamah and he (the prophet as imam of congregation) prayed dhor, then he (the prophet) ordered him (Bilal) again, he (Bilal) performed adhan and iqamah and he(they) prayed 'asr, then he ordered him again, he performed adhan and iqamah and he prayed maghrib, then he ordered him again, he performed adhan and iqamah and he prayed 'isha', Then he (the prophet) said: "There's none (no group of people) on the surface of earth remembering Allah at this hour (moment) except for you." **I'd like to know the authenticity of this hadith** especially as it seems to have been narrated via -at least- three different chains on the authority of Jabir ibn Abdullah: 1. al-Bazzar-> Muhammad ibn Ma'mar-> Mu'ammil ibn Isma'il > Hammad ibn Salamah -> Abdulkarim -> Mujahid -> Jabir ibn Abdullah 2. ... ->Abdulkarim-> Mujahid ->Abu 'Obaydah -> Abdullah. 3. at-Tabarni -> Ahmad > Muhammad ibn Ma'mar al-Bahrani > Mu'ammil ibn Isma'il -> Hammad ibn Salamah -> Mujahid -> Jabir ibn Abdulah. **Also, could it be that Hammad here just jumped a narrator in the 3rd chain?**

In recent news, ISIS is reported to have destroyed the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, Iraq. CNN reports: > The United States and Iraq said **ISIS blew up a historic mosque in Mosul** that was the ideological heart of the terror group and the birthplace of its self-declared caliphate. > > Iraq Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said the ISIS act amounts to "an official announcement of their defeat." His military commanders said militants blew the mosque up after troops closed in. **(However, this is contested by ISIS.)** Whether or not this report is accurate, this leads me to question: **Question**: Is it forbidden to destroy a mosque during times of battle? It sounds like it should be forbidden. I'm aware of numerous things that the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade during times of battle; here's just one example: > It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) forbade the killing of women and children. -- Sahih Muslim 1744 An answer to this question doesn't immediately arise when searching for hadith destroy mosque nor site:sunnah.com destroy mosque .

Islam has days for voluntary fasting , e.g., Mondays and Thursdays, and Muhammad was known to fast on these days (e.g. Aishah narrated: "The Prophet used to try to fast on Mondays and Thursdays." sunnah.com ) and others ("He observed Sawm on many days of the year..." Al-Islam ). I'm wondering if, during times of battle, Muhammad continued these voluntary fasts, given that it might impair his ability to fight. **Question**: Did the Prophet Muhammad fast voluntarily during times of battle? I found one pertinent sahih hadith: > Narrated Abu al-Darda: **We went out along with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) for some battle** in intense heat, so much so that one of us placed his hand on his head, or placed his palm on his head, due to intense heat, **No one of us fasted except the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and 'Abd Allah b. Rawahah.** -- Sunan Abi Dawud 2409 [grade: sahih] (sunnah.com ) This implies he fasted despite battle, but it doesn't clarify if this was a voluntary or obligatory fast. I also found one weak hadith, which I'm not sure if I should take seriously: > Ma'mar bin Abi Huyaiyah narrated that: he asked Ibn Al-Musaiyab about fasting on a journey, so he narrated to him that Umar bin Al-Khattab said: **"We fought in two battles along with the Messenger of Allah during Ramadan; the Day of Badr, and the Conquest (of Makkah), so we broke our fast during them."** -- Jami` at-Tirmidhi 714 [grade: da'if] (sunnah.com )