_ living islam : Islamic tradition _ https://www.livingislam.org/ Hadiths On Avoiding Civilian Casualties Of War Q: [A] question about the language of two narrations: Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama: [...] A: This translation is incorrect. The wording related from al-Sa`b ibn Jaththama is very pointed as the question was a legal issue. The translation should be: The Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, passed by me in al-Abwa or in Waddan. He was asked about the kinfolk inside a house spending the night among the [combating] pagans, as a result of which some of their women and children will get killed. He replied, "They have the same status / They are the same [lit. They are from them]." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Messenger." Q: > My question is about the language used here. Some people portray the > response "They are for them" as a lack of regard for non-Muslim women and > children, that is, they portray Islamic military ethics as "playing it > loose" with regards to women and chidren, even though they admit that > Islam prohibits the intentional killing of women and children. What they > take issue with here is the lack of regard supposedly portrayed in the > quote. What does "They are from them" mean, according to the scholars, > because some peopel would want it to mean "it's ok, they're from the > pagans". It means (i) there is no violation of the house's sanctity for entering someone's house in nighttime combat; and (ii) there is no blood-price to be paid for accidental manslaughter of non-combatants the way there would be if a pagan non-combatant had been maliciously victimized. The hadith shows a juridical concern and scrupulosity for exceptional situations in difficult circumstances (combat in the dark in enemy territory). Otherwise the other hadiths in al-Bukhari and Muslim are explicit that (i) the Prophet never fought at night precisely to avoid unintentional casualties; and (ii) it is forbidden to kill women and children. This has been the default in 1,400 years of Muslim law. Al-Nawawi placed the heading inside Sahih Muslim here: "The possibility of killing women and children at night unintentionally" while Suhnun was asked about the use of catapults and fire projectiles against a fort in a siege he said: "I have never heard of it and I think it is an abomination." The questioner said: "But did not Malik permit it?" Suhnun said: "Only if there are no dependents, when there are only men fighting inside." Furthermore, it is known that the dialogue reported by al-Sa`b ibn Jaththama took place in the Year 7 and most scholars consider its stipulations abrogated by the absolute prohibition, a position alluded to by Suhnun as that of Imam Malik in the excerpt above; while the great hadiths of the prohibition of killing offspring and women post-date it - such as those narrated: (1) by al-Aswad ibn Sari`: "Killing got them carried away to the point they started killing children. When the news reached the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, he said: "Are not the best among you children of pagans? There is no child born but with belief and submission to God ingrained in them until they can speak, at which time their parents turn them into Jews, Christians or Zoroastrians." Musannaf `Abd al-Razzaq, Musnad Ahmad, Sunan al-Darimi, etc. See its full documentation in the margins of Sahih Ibn Hibban (1:341). A variant narration has the strong wording: "Listen! Do not kill the dependents! Listen! Do not kill the dependents!" (2) from `Abd al-Rahman ibn Ka`b ibn Malik in the Muwatta': When the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, gave permission for the raid against Ibn Abi al-Haqiq [in Khaybar] he specifically forbade the killing of women and children. (3) from Ibn `Umar in the Muwatta' and also with a sound chain through the narrators of al-Bukhari and Muslim, the well-known hadith of the Prophet's condemnation of the killing of a woman in one of his military expeditions, and he categorically prohibited the killing of women and children. Imam al-Shafi`i relates from Sufyan ibn `Uyayna that al-Zuhri never narrated the hadith of Sa`b ibn Jaththama except he immediately followed it up with that of Ka`b ibn Malik. Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (1:347) makes a point of showing the same historical sequence and status of abrogation. Q: > [Question concerning a] second narration: > > This tradition > has been narrated by the game authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a > different > chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of > one > of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of > Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the > children, so thou shouldst not kill them UNLESS YOU COULD KNOW WHAT > KHADIR HAD > KNOWN ABOUT THE CHILD HE KILLED, OR YOU COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A CHILD > WHO > WOULD GROW UP TO BE A BELIEVER (AND A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A > NON-BELIEVER), > SO THAT YOU KILLED THE (PROSPECTIVE) NON-BELIEVER AND LEFT THE > (PROSPECTIVE) > BELIEVER ASIDE. (Sahih Muslim, > Book 019, Number 4457)" > > What is the meaning of this narration? The capitalized portion is what > some people seem to have an issue with. A: Ibn `Abbas is scoffing and using irony. He is saying in effect: "Unless you're a Prophet - and you're not - and unless you have God-sent knowledge of someone's ontological guilt - and you don't - then you may have at them without discrimination of age or combatant status; otherwise you will be considered an indiscriminate murderer." Q: > And a minor supplementary question: > > I recently read that the Hanafis hold that one cannot attack another > nation solely on the basis of religion. I find this point very > interesting, because it seems at odds with the Shafi'i position. Are you > aware of any of the proofs of the position? I heard Hanafis treat hadith > very differently from the shafi'is and have their own authenticated > collections, which shows why they come to vastly different > jurisprudential conclusions on some of the issues. A: Both Hanafis and Shafi`is consider it impermissible to wage war without just cause, however, they have a different criterion for what constitutes just cause; the first deem only war a just cause for war, while the latter consider kufr a just cause for war. Both have their proofs and both view the same books are authoritative though with different emphases and legal methods. And Allah knows best. GF Haddad 2009-12-22