they're both war games with depictions of people and a world as well as man made war vehicles like tanks, planes, ships, guns, and violence but it is a team game and it teaches me the importance of teamwork and has no mental effect i play because it's connected to a hobby of mine a non violent hobby and i like playing it and want to know if it's haram even if it makes me sad and i am addicted i would really like know if it's haram

Assalamu Alaikum I have a friend who doesn't beleive in the death penalty for apostasy, so I tried to convince him using the example of the Sahabah, that they fought the the apostate tribes, and forced them to convert to Islam and pay Zakah. However, he thinks that theses tribes (like Banu Hanifah) 'claimed to be muslim' (even though, they obviously weren't muslim as they had accepted a false prophet), which is why it was necessary to compel them into giving Zakah. In other words, he beleives that if they had explicitly renounced Islam, Abu Bakr RA would have had no option but to take Jizya from them. So what I'm looking for here, is authentic/sound narrations to prove that any of these tribes had explicitly renounced Islam or explicitly denied the shahadah becuase he thinks that these tribes still beleived Muhammad SAW to be a Messenger, just not the last Prophet (which is obviously also kufr, but not explicit). So can y'all find some please :)

Bismillah, I've seen many answers on this website, and passages of books of fiqh where the author uses the verse of the sword (9:5): "kill the polytheists wherever you find them", to argue that all polytheists, everywhere in the world must be killed excluding the Jews, Christians and Magians (excluding the apostates among them). However, it apparently seems to me that this interpretation contradicts the very next verse which says: "and if any of the polytheists asks you for protection, then give hive him protection until he hears the word of Allah, then transfer him to his place of safety", so it seems that any polytheist can simply get away from execution by simply asking for amnesty! Now, I know that Imams Shafii and Ahmad RH were obviously not so dumb, that they would ignore the literal next verse. So I really wanted to understand it. I thus referred to modern commentaries like that of Mufti Taqi Uthmani, as well as the classical masterpiece called Tafsir alTabari. However, neither of them explained the verse to me in a satisfactory way. I'm still really confused about what kind of protection (or 'amanah' in Arabic) this verse is referring to, how long it's supposed to last, and most importantly, if it can save a polytheist from death if he refuses to convert to Islam. I'ld really appreciate a detailed tafsir using references from the Prophet SAW, Sahabah, and senior tabi'in. Jazak Allah! Edit: I also checked the tafsir of Imam Ibn Abi Hatim RH. There, [he narrated from Mujhaid bin Jabr RH](https://shamela.ws/book/8658/1746#p1) that, "transfer him to his place of safety" means to return him to wherever he came from. However, I'm even more confused now, as I'm wondering if this means that muslims can immediately kill him once he's been returned to his place of origin as the amnesty is now over!

Quran 9:29 says: > **Sahih International:** Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His > Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of > truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they > give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. > > **Yusuf Ali:** Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His > Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) > of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing > submission, and feel themselves subdued. How is this ayat be interpreted? Does it mean that Muslims are responsible to physically fight non-believers? Reference: Quran.com

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?

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?

I want to say that we are seeing how are the current world leaders killing our Muslim brothers for no reason. And the current Muslim leaders are behaving like they are seeing nothing. Some of them for their own interests and some of them fear current world leaders more than ALLAH. Of course they will be punished for both reasons because they didn't help their brothers in danger. Most probably, more difficult time is coming for Muslims. Now as normal Muslim, I want to know what should I do at the bad times of my brothers?

What is Ghazwa-e-Hind? Is it authentic according to Islam?

I find a deep discrepancy between the Holy Quran and the later histories of Muhammad ﷺ: In the Quran, we find the words of guidance that our last Prophet received during the battle against the polytheists in Mecca in Sura At-Tawba, but there is no indication of any other war that he may have fought after that; the Suras that are said to have been revealed after that do not give any indication of any war activity. In contrast, Islamic traditions mention many (25 to 29, see here ) battles, suggesting that he never stopped waging wars after this. None of these battles seem to have been recorded outside Islam. I suspect that the hadiths reporting Muhammad's exuberant war activities were invented by later Islamic leaders who successfully conquered many regions to justify their actions. Are there any authors who support my suspicion, based on the Qur'an, that Muhammad was much less belligerent and much more inclined to peace than the traditions suggest?

Soldiers are like slaves to their commanders and have to do whatever they are told to do. If not, in war like situation, they can be punished by their commanders. So will the soldiers be accountable for the killing they do ? The question came to mind because of the recent war in Palestine. The jews who are fighting Palestinians are doing so because they have to do compulsory military service, so even if they dislike killing people, they are compelled to do so. Note: I have asked same question in Judaism section also. Actually Muslims and Jews are brothers who are descended of our patriarch Abraham (Peace be upon him), It is sad to see them fighting each other, I feel like they are forced to fight each other by some who have vested interest in this conflict.

Hitting the bare face of someone is considered to be haram based on the hadiths of the prophet (PBUH): > “When any one of you fights, **let him avoid (striking) the face**.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, 5/215). > > ‘**Stone her, but avoid the face.**’ (Narrated by Abu Dawood, 4/152) Of course, it is seen that Islam values and acknowledges the sanctity and nobleness of the face and hence forbids it from being struck. If one strikes to obliterate/ destroy the face, surely it transgresses the moral code of the face being valued and hence considered a sin. However, when it comes to say war or self-defence. Should this rule still stand? Of course, it is safe to assume that during self defense and war it's about life and death and one surely can't help but strike the face. What can we say of such a situation? If such a situation is approved as an exception to the ruling, then would it be forbidden to practise one's combat skills (for either self-defence or war) which includes punching the face? Given, for certain techniques to be applied in the streets and war, they need to be practised and pressure tested. In addition, to my question of whether striking the face is legal under certain situations. Could we argue that striking the face is halal, **in combat sports training**, as long as we make sure we don't harm our partner (i.e. wearing protective headgear and trading light punches)? I hope, someone out there can clarify my concerns regarding this topic. Jazzakallahu Khair

The title is only really one half of the question, as what I'm really unsure about is the fact that the majority of slaves throughout the Islamic slave trade were bought and not acquired through war. I would be under the assumption that with how much the prophet ﷺ abhorred capturing free folk and kidnapping them, that it would be prohibited in turn to purchase slaves from foreign bodies which they had acquired via the very kidnapping which was not forbidden for them. > Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Allah says, 'I will be against three persons on the Day of Resurrection: -1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but he proves treacherous. -2. One who sells a free person (as a slave) and eats the price, -3. And one who employs a laborer and gets the full work done by him but does not pay him his wages.' " Sahih al-Bukhari 2227 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2227 Yet that leads to another problem in which how could it then be possible for any of the slaves acquired by non-muslim forces to be permissable in that sense as they have not acquired them from a holy war, nor have they had to follow any of the islamic principles. The reason why I say it's only one half is because I'm also wondering what the actual stipulations are for Muslims to capture slaves. I keep seeing contradicting answers on this site or it just being incompletely explained elsewhere, but is the acquisition of slaves only the combatants and non combatants who were present at the battle or does it include the cities of conquest? Because even if a minority of slaves historically were gained from Muslim conquest, there's no way so many women would be present in the battle fields throughout history for Muslims to have such a large ratio of female slaves and concubines. As such I'd be led to believe that POWs included the common folk of cities under siege and conquest by the Muslims as well, but is it so? And finally, sorry for adding an emotional response rather than rational one at the end, but is it not unfair that in the case that we could trade and buy slaves from non Muslims regardless of how they were acquired, or rather the fact that they ended up slaves for reasons unrelated to being against the Muslims in any way shape or form? They were not fighting the Muslims, they were not complicit in anything, in the case of kidnapping they had been guilty of absolutely nothing. > Shaykh al-Shanqiti (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “The reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allah and His Messenger. When Allah enables the Muslim mujahidin who are offering their souls and their wealth, and fighting with all their strength and with what Allah has given them to make the word of Allah supreme over the kuffar, then He makes them their property by means of slavery unless the ruler chooses to free them for nothing or for a ransom, if that serves the interests of the Muslims.” (Adwa al-Bayan, 3/387) Of course this builds upon the idea that my first supposition is true though lol.

السلام عليكم When is ownership of spoils of war and captives established for soldiers? Do spoils of war and captives have to be transferred from Dar al Harb to Dar Al Islam before establishing ownership? Did any Madhab allow the distribution of spoils of war & captives among soldiers in Dar Al Harb?

Islam permits slavery but I haven't been able to find anything regarding keeping slaves who are Muslims. Considering a hypothetical scenario taking place during the early Islamic days where one Muslim nation goes to war with another Muslim nation and one of them comes out victorious. What would the ruling be in context of Islamic Doctrine regarding taking war booty and slaves from the fallen Muslim nation? Are there any ruling at all in Quran or Hadith? Thank you.

> Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... 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 replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." > > — [Bukhari](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3012) Because some non Muslims interpret this as "In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings" . Please explain it

السلام عليكم Is it permissible to use missles and rockets to attack a city where there will be women and children, doesn’t missles and rockets also come under the prohibition from the hadith “No one may punish using fire other than the Lord of the Fire (Allaah).” Abu dawud

Now that war is going on in the middle east, whole over the world people across religion, caste and creed are praying for the children killed in the war. But no one seems to pray for the killers, that is Israeli Army. We know the fate of children killed in war, they are guarenteed to be in Paradise as they never did any sin. But what about those who are doing the killings, that is the Israeli Army. I feel pity for them as I think their fate is Hell, if they do not repent. So can I pray for the Israeli Army, So that they are guided to truth, at least to what is mentioned in Old testament ? My question is specific to Israeli Army, so the other questions do not answer my question.

Why does Islam promote the spreading of the faith through war? This verse in the Quran also states the same. Why doesn't Islam promote the spreading of faith peacefully like Buddhism and Jainism?

Lets say there are villages in settlements outside of dar al islam. Are muslim armies allowed to kill and enslave them by surprise if they are in dar al harb? Is asking them to convert or pay jizya a pre-requisite before attacking them? Are civilians of a settlement, tribe or village killed if they are non-combatants?

Is it permissible to kill all men from the kuffar when a city or a land have been conquered by muslims, there will be men who actually fought against the muslims and there will be some men who never participated in the fight but rather they were just civilians or non combatants who did not resist the muslims advancement into a said city or land, so are these type of men permissible to be killed while advancing or after being captured? I am not talking about old,sick or other types of men mentioned in hadith but men who are capable of fighting and are sane but did not actively participate in war