Salam, in war, is it permissible to stop the supply of water and food. Given that there are women and children inside the town/fortress?

Orthodox Islamic scholars are in agreement that Jihad can be initiated even if we are not attacked first. For example: > يجب علينا أن نبدأهم بالقتال وإن لم يقاتلونا ... وعليه إجماع الأمة > > It is obligatory on us to initiate fighting them even if they do not fight us ... and on this the Ummah has a consensus > > — [Tabyeen al-Haqaa’iq](https://shamela.ws/book/23023/867#p1) - Fakhr al-Din al-Zayla'i However the Quran says: >لا ينهاكم الله عن الذين لم يقاتلوكم في الدين ولم يخرجوكم من دياركم أن تبروهم وتقسطوا إليهم إن الله يحب المقسطين > > Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. > > — [Quran 60:8](https://quran.com/60/8?translations=20) Some people think that this verse negates Jihad except in self defense or against those who do not begin the war with us first. How is this verse reconciled with offensive Jihad?

My question is like hindus are polytheists like pagan Arabs so if we somewhere in future conquer india how would they be treated will they be given a dhimmi status or not.

If their intention is to make Allah's word supreme etc, then does the hadith about deeds judged by intent mean they'll be rewarded for their actions even though they're haram (killing non-combatants)?

As the title says, what is considered a non-fighter in each of the 4 madhabs? Is it restricted to only woman and children, or is the status extended to other categories like the elderly, monks, and laborers? I understand that there have been a couple posts similar to this, however unlike those posts, I am specifically looking for a comprehensive explanation of what each of the 4 madhabs' mutamads relay regarding this topic.

A quote attributed to Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi'i states that during Jihad: > One must destroy their useless books. However, when I searched online, most results were from anti-Islamic blogs and forums that merely repeat the quote without offering any context. I would like to read the original quote in its full context. Additionally, I want to understand its proper meaning as understood by devout Muslims. Does it mean that all books are to be destroyed, or is there a specific criterion that makes a book "useless"?

السلام عليكم Is there any specific ahkam related to the re-enslavement of a kafir slave who was freed by his Muslim master but traveled and settled in the land of Dar al Harb & muslim seized him in Jihad or was captured by other Kuffar? Is it permissible for the Muslims to buy and keep him/her as a slave or he must be set free? Note: Slave is still Kafir

Is a Harbi a person who's at war with Muslims? Or does merely living in a non Muslim state with no treaty make one a Harbi? If a person did not do anything to harm the Muslims can he be considered a Harbi?

>“Ibn Uthaymeen said: and the second benefit is; the prohibition of killing women and children during war. > >And if it is said, if they did this to us, that they killed our children and women, can we kill them? **What is apparent, is that it is allowed for us to kill their women and children, even if that were to cause us to miss taking them as wealth, due to what this contains from breaking the hearts of the enemies and weakening them, and due to the generality of Allah’s saying**, “And whoever transgresses against you, then transgress against them the like of what they have transgressed against you, — Q2:194.” > >The questioner continues: then we are allowed to kill their women and children. But O sheikh, they, the men are the ones who killed the women, and the women are innocent, so how can they be punished due to the crimes of men? > >Ibn Uthaymeen replied: **This is because of the greater benefit, the greater benefit to those who are fighting. Because if we do not do to them what they do to us, this would be humiliation in front of them.** > >Ibn Uthaymeen continued: **Justice with their woman is incomprehensible, they killed our women, we kill their women. This is justice. It is not justice that we say, if they kill our women we will not kill their women. Also, we note that this influences them greatly.**” > >*— Bulugh Al-Maram, Explanation by Ibn Uthaymeen, Tape 3, Side B.* The focus of this ticket is as follows: 1. What is the reliability of this attribution to Ibn Uthaymeen? 2. If it's reliable, is he really saying that, based off of Q2:194, if the enemy kills our non-fighters; more specifically, woman and children who do not take part in battle, we may do the same to them as a form of retaliation? 3. Most importantly, how well reflected is this position within the mainstream/ classical understanding Islamic jurisprudence; the opinions of the fuquha within the 4 madhabs?

In Ibn Hajar Haytami 's list of "enormities", item 111 is: > Dying the beard or hair black for other than jihad or the like. (Also mentioned at Islam Q&A .) **Question**: Does dying one's beard or hair black play a role in jihad? I'm not sure how reliable this enormity is. The answers to https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/16162/17163 don't list jihad as an exception to the ruling against dying one's hair and/or beard black.

In this Hadith prophet is allowing the polytheists the option of Jizyah: >...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action... Invite them to (accept) Islam.... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya....**[ [Muslim](https://sunnah.com/muslim:1731a) ]** But in The Sword Verse, (it appears to me) the muslims are ordered to fight until the polytheists until those polytheists convert to Islam, and the jizya is not given as an option: >And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. **[ 9:5 ]** And further, Ibn Kathir quotes in his tafsir of 9:5 > 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." **[ [Bukhari](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:25) ]** And again, there is the omission of the Jizya option. While in the first Hadith it says polytheists can be offered the option of Jizya. So im confused can polytheists pay the Jizya or not?(thanks)

> Narrated Abu Huraira: The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam. (Sahih Al-Bukhati, Book 60, hadith 80 ) Could anyone provide me with the interpretation of this hadith. What does it mean by "chains on their necks"?

I have heard that its prohibited to hurt women, children and those who are not fighting you, during wars. But we still hear that women were taken as slaves during war, and they were distributed as part of booty. How is that possible ?

It is narrated in Ibn Ishaq 992: >“fight everyone in the way of allah and kill those who disbelieve in allah“ I know Ibn Ishaq is generally a weak source, however I'd like to know just how weak this is. Does it reach the level of fabrication for example? Likewise, what is the context of the situation? If this is a general narration applicable for everyone, does it not contradict the fact we are only supposed to kill non-combatants and ask for Jizya beforehand?

Did our prophet[pbuh] order the sahabah to murder sleeping people according to Sahih al-Bukhari 3022 ? The true prophet did something like this? Or what's the context behind it? Please answer with detailed reference. The thing is causing a lot of trouble in my head.

When it comes to these two ahadeeth from the prophet (sws): > "Verily, the worst transgressors to Allah are those who kill in the sacred mosque, those who kill whoever did not fight him, or those who kill with the vindictiveness of ignorance." Source : Musnad Ahmad 6681 > "Verily, the most tyrannical of people to Allah Almighty is one who kills those who did not fight him, or he demands the blood feuds of ignorance be settled by the people of Islam, or he claims his eyes have seen in a dream what they did not see.” Source : Musnad Ahmad 16376 Did the prophet say that in a context of a hudna between Muslims and kuffaar (or any other peace treaty that protects kuffaar's blood and wealth)? Or was he talking exclusively about the Muslims (whose blood and wealth are protected if they do not fight other Muslims)? Or was he talking about the kuffaar who are not capable of fighting (women, children, the blind, old ones and monks)? Or was he talking about all people who are non-combatants (including adult males among the kuffaar when there's no peace treaty)?

- As per 9:5, Jihad is warranted against all Mushrikin (except Daar al-'Ahd) - As per 9:7, It is said that only Mu'ahadat made at al-Masjid al-Haram are valid - As per 9:28, Mushrikin are not allowed to come near al-Masjid al-Haram Mushrikin includes all non-Muslims, but Ahl al-Kitab has the option of paying Jizya to become Ahl al-Dhimma as per 9:29. But that doesn't explain formation of a Mu'ahadah to become Daar al-'Ahd. As per Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 9:6, the Ahl al-Harb are allowed to come in to Daar al-Islam as Musta'min to make Mu'ahadat with the Muslims. > In summary, those who come from a land at war with Muslims to the area of Islam, delivering a message, for business transactions, **to negotiate a peace treaty**, to pay the Jizyah, to offer an end to hostilities, and so forth, and request safe passage from Muslim leaders or their deputies, should be granted safe passage, as long as they remain in Muslim areas, until they go back to their land and sanctuary. How is this possible if al-Masjid al-Haram is off limits? As per the Tafsir Tazkirul Quran by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, no further treaty was signed with the Ahl al-'Ahd (Banu Kinana, Banu Khuza’a, Banu Dhamra) after the expiry of their treaties. That seems about right. So, are Muslims not violating the Islamic Ahkam by having Mu'ahadat signed with Mushirikin? That too, being not in fixed terms. What are the views on the matter by the Madhaahib? Is this only done strategically and by breach of Ahkam for the greater purpose of calling more people to Islam?

As per fuqaha of 4 Madhab can Dar Al Islam revert Back To Dar Al Kufr/Dar Al Harb? What Is the Majority Opinion among Fuqaha **Note: Would Prefer Hanbali Position** > تحوّل دار الإسلام إلى دار كفر > > 6 - اختلف الفقهاء في تحوّل دار الإسلام إلى دار للكفر‏.‏ > > فقال الشّافعيّة‏:‏ لا تصير دار الإسلام دار كفر بحال من الأحوال، وإن > استولى عليها الكفّار، وأجلوا المسلمين عنها، وأظهروا فيها أحكامهم‏.‏ > لخبر‏:‏ «الإسلام يعلو ولا يعلى عليه» وقال المالكيّة، والحنابلة، وصاحبا > أبي حنيفة ‏"‏ أبو يوسف، ومحمّد ‏"‏‏:‏ تصير دار الإسلام دار كفر بظهور > أحكام الكفر فيها‏.‏ > > وذهب أبو حنيفة إلى أنّه لا تصير دار كفر إلاّ بثلاث شرائط‏:‏ > > أ - ظهور أحكام الكفر فيها‏.‏ > > ب - أن تكون متاخمةً لدار الكفر‏.‏ > > ج - أن لا يبقى فيها مسلم، ولا ذمّيّ آمناً بالأمان الأوّل، وهو أمان > المسلمين‏.‏ > > ووجه قول الصّاحبين ومن معهما أنّ دار الإسلام ودار الكفر‏:‏ أضيفتا إلى > الإسلام وإلى الكفر لظهور الإسلام أو الكفر فيهما، كما تسمّى الجنّة دار > السّلام، والنّار دار البوار، لوجود السّلامة في الجنّة، والبوار في > النّار، وظهور الإسلام والكفر إنّما هو بظهور أحكامهما، فإذا ظهرت أحكام > الكفر في دار فقد صارت دار كفر، فصحّت الإضافة، ولهذا صارت الدّار دار > إسلام بظهور أحكام الإسلام فيها من غير شريطة أخرى، فكذا تصير دار كفر > بظهور أحكام الكفر فيها‏.‏ > > ووجه قول أبي حنيفة‏:‏ أنّ المقصود من إضافة الدّار إلى الإسلام والكفر > ليس هو عين الإسلام والكفر، وإنّما المقصود هو‏:‏ الأمن، والخوف، > ومعناه‏:‏ أنّ الأمن إن كان للمسلمين في الدّار على الإطلاق والخوف > لغيرهم على الإطلاق فهي دار إسلام، وإن كان الأمن فيها لغير المسلمين على > الإطلاق والخوف للمسلمين على الإطلاق فهي دار كفر، فالأحكام عنده مبنيّة > على الأمان والخوف، لا على الإسلام والكفر، فكان اعتبار الأمن والخوف > أولى‏.‏ وينظر التّفصيل في ‏(‏دار الحرب‏)‏‏.‏ > > دخول الحربيّ دار الإسلام > > 7 - ليس للحربيّ دخول دار الإسلام إلاّ بإذن من الإمام أو نائبه، فإن > استأذن في دخولها فإن كان في دخوله مصلحة، كإبلاغ رسالة، أو سماع كلام > اللّه تعالى، أو حمل ميرة أو متاع يحتاج إليهما المسلمون، جاز الإذن له > بدخول دار الإسلام إلاّ الحرم، ولا يقيم في الحجاز أكثر من ثلاثة أيّام، > لأنّ ما زاد على هذه المدّة في حكم الإقامة، وهو غير جائز‏.‏ وفي غير > الحجاز يقيم قدر الحاجة‏.‏ أمّا الحرم فلا يجوز دخول كافر فيه وإن كان > ذمّيًّا بحال من الأحوال عند جمهور الفقهاء‏.‏ لقوله تعالى‏:‏ ‏{‏يَا > أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلاَ > يَقْرَبُواْ الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَـذَا‏}‏‏.‏ > وللتّفصيل ينظر‏:‏ ‏(‏أرض العرب، حرم‏)‏‏.‏ **Source:** كتاب: الموسوعة الفقهية الكويتية

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

On a website name Jihadica, various fatwas containing Daesh insignia were collected by certain academicians and researchers in 2014. Fatwa No. 68 is translated by UC Berkeley medical anthropology doctoral candidate, Khashayar Beigi (below): *" the experts of the Shafi'i and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence permitted killing of the warring infidels or apostates under the constraining circumstances of eating their flesh to stay alive. Imam Alnawawi says, “**There is permission to kill the warring party, the apostate, and moreover to eat their flesh carries no punishment** .” If the experts of jurisprudence have allowed under war conditions believers to eat the flesh of the infidel in order to prevent harm and loss of life, these apply as well to the transplant of organs from the apostate to the Muslim. The life and organs of the apostate are not protected by Muslim jurisprudence."* While the opinions of Daesh certainly do not matter, I want to know whether the opinion they impute on Imam Shafi'i (RA) and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (RA) are accurate or not? Is cannibalism on the kuffar and murtadeen haram or halal?