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.

So we all hear that Islam prohibits against fighting civilians. I’m just trying to understand whether that’s a modern term in terms of Islamic jurisprudence or not. To my knowledge, only men who are of age to fight are allowed to be k*lled if they refuse Islam or Jizya (if they have the option of Jizya). So, is permissibility to k*ll based purely on status and capacity (being an able-bodied adult male) alone and is enough of a reason, or does actual ability to fight matter aswell? In other words, does Islamic law consider every adult man a lawful target regardless of whether he has any fighting skill or combat role? I’m asking what type of grown up, healthy men can be fought and k*lled.

I would like to ask, is Islam really a religion of peace? My question arises because, why in some of your Quranic verses does Allah encourage you to kill specially those who do not believe in Islam? Quran (2:191-193 ) And Fight for the cause of Allah? Quran (2:244 ) And your God will kill those who do not accept this religion. Quran (3:56 ) I am a Catholic so to speak, and I made this question as a part of my research paper. Since I do not know any Muslim, I thought of asking it here. I ask for your wisdom, that is all.

It is narrated in Ibn Ishaq 992: > اغزوا جميعا في سبيل الله، فقاتلوا من كفر بالله > >“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?

From my understanding it seems to be a somewhat modern notion that military jihad is only halal when it is in self-defense. I'm wondering if that narrative has any backing in pre-modern fiqh; while it's easy to find opinions that consider jihad for the purpose of conquest to be a communal obligation, I can't find anyone that says that this is haram in principle. Note that I'm not talking about scholars that say the ummah has to keep the peace treaties it enters into, as the caliph can decide whether or not to conclude such a treaty, making that optional and not a principled stance. I'm asking for legal opinions that conclude that war for purposes other than self-defense is haram in principle. **Question:** Which pre-modern scholars (say, before the 19th century CE), if any, considered jihad for purposes other than self-defense to be haram in principle?

> 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"?

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests) has a decent overview over early conquests of the Islamic empire. The expansion seems to have been one of the most rapid in history. I'm not aware of any Muslim scholar who opposed the expansionism that was pursued by the caliphate, neither that of the Rashidun, the Umayyads, or later caliphs. However, as far as I can tell, the dominant trend on islam.se seems to be to claim or suggest that warfare in general is a purely defensive construct in Islam, see e.g. [here](https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/1091/17702) or [here](https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/12766/17702) or [here](https://islam.stackexchange.com/a/33226/17702) . If that is correct, then the ulama likely opposed Islamic expansionism on doctrinal grounds, and no scholars would have condemned them as kuffar for doing so. **Question:** if any, which ulama opposed Islamic expansionism, what were their arguments for doing so, and what was the reception of their ideas in among the other ulama?

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)?

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)

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 ?

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)?