Six Reasons Why the Fort Hood Killings by Nidal Hasan Are Clearly Impermissible

[jinnzaman]

Six Reasons Why the Fort Hood Killings by Nidal Hasan Are Clearly Impermissible (Haram) in Islamic Law

Six Reasons Why the Fort Hood Killings by Nidal Hasan Are Clearly Impermissible (Haram) in Islamic Law

By Shaykh Faraz Rabbani

1. Betrayal of covenant (`and).
2. Impermissible deceit (ghadr).
3. Killing those not actively engaged in combat.
4. Doing something without clear religious sanction.
5. Doing something of manifest greater harm for Muslims.
6. The basis of taking human life is that it is decisively haram, unless there is clear and manifest sanction to the contrary.

It is also a misreading of political realities. The US isn’t in a “war with Islam”–though there are those both in the US and in the Umma who want to view things this way–and “fighting back” in these angry, reactive ways is just explosions of ego rather than principled action on Prophetic guidance.

[ChotooMotoo]

jinnzaman said

3. Killing those not actively engaged in combat.

Should people go "Oh, but these were soldiers blah blah blah" the people he killed had no way to defend themselves.

[IbnMardhiyah]

ChotooMotoo said

Should people go "Oh, but these were soldiers blah blah blah" the people he killed had no way to defend themselves.

Its not even just that.

The fact is they weren't in any combat theater, and weren't engaged in active hostilities. They were non-combatants.

[ChotooMotoo]

IbnMardhiyah said

Its not even just that.

The fact is they weren't in any combat theater, and weren't engaged in active hostilities. They were non-combatants.

*you and I* know that, but you know full well other people will just be all "Oh, well they are soldiers so they are always fair game, even if they are in bed sleeping or giving their kids bubble baths"

[IbnMardhiyah]

ChotooMotoo said

*you and I* know that, but you know full well other people will just be all "Oh, well they are soldiers so they are always fair game, even if they are in bed sleeping or giving their kids bubble baths"

Kindly challenge them on the spot to substantiate their reasons and opinions.

qatra qatra se dariya bundta hai.

[Abu_Hind]

The rules of engagement in Islam are pretty clear, the scholars specifically mentioned "dar ul-harb" in their discussions...which says a lot! It just pisses me off how those idiots who think they're defending Islam, seem to ignore what Shari'ah really says...following their own hawwa. But what's also deplorable is to ignore the plight of Ummah (in the name of 'territorial' Islam..kind of reminds me of Abul Hassan Nadwi's words).

Anyway, I think the article by Zaid Shakir on MM was pretty decent too, I just skimmed through it.

[Rambo]

would the radicals muslim agree with this article, probably never. Because of these few radical muslims all muslims around the world are getting in deep deep _ _ _ _

[Jaysh]

1 and 2 are clear cut

[IbnAbdullah]

jinnzaman said

Six Reasons Why the Fort Hood Killings by Nidal Hasan Are Clearly Impermissible (Haram) in Islamic Law

Six Reasons Why the Fort Hood Killings by Nidal Hasan Are Clearly Impermissible (Haram) in Islamic Law

By Shaykh Faraz Rabbani

1. Betrayal of covenant (`and).
2. Impermissible deceit (ghadr).
3. Killing those not actively engaged in combat.
4. Doing something without clear religious sanction.
5. Doing something of manifest greater harm for Muslims.
6. The basis of taking human life is that it is decisively haram, unless there is clear and manifest sanction to the contrary.

It is also a misreading of political realities. The US isn’t in a “war with Islam”–though there are those both in the US and in the Umma who want to view things this way–and “fighting back” in these angry, reactive ways is just explosions of ego rather than principled action on Prophetic guidance.

Fake Mullas getting benefits from Christians while living in the West? They will issue such fatwas, won't they?

[IbnMardhiyah]

IbnAbdullah said

Fake Mullas getting benefits from Christians while living in the West? They will issue such fatwas, won't they?

1.) If you have reason to believe he is mistaken, then please substantiate. Blowing hot air contributes to global warming, but not to productive discussion.

2.) Implicity questioning his knowledge and sincerity isn't going to help you on Judgement Day. If you have any evidence that he is fake, and that he's getting "benefits" then again, please substantiate.

3.) It's his opinion, which under both Islamic and Western laws, he is free to state. Just as you are free to state yours. No on is holding a gun to anyone's head telling them to follow Shk. Rabbani.

4.) I was born in the West, and I live there also. My benefits come from being a citizen of Canada, and working here earning a halal paycheck, supporting my family and generally being a responsible member of society. I also share the view that the actions of Maj. Nidal Hassan were unlawful according to Islam. Please, I'm begging you, please tell me what you think of me - since I am here to actually respond to your opinions about me.

[Badshah]

This may not have to do with the original topic, but guy brings up a few fatwas that state Muslims should not serve in a non-Muslim army.

Is It Permissible To Join A Kaafir Army? � Umar Lee

Any opinions on this from you guys? Thanks in advance

[Wolfn]

While I don't think what the shooter did was good in any way, I must say that it wasn't terrorism.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Badshah said

This may not have to do with the original topic, but guy brings up a few fatwas that state Muslims should not serve in a non-Muslim army.

Is It Permissible To Join A Kaafir Army? � Umar Lee

Any opinions on this from you guys? Thanks in advance

The general ideas behind those fataawa are standard and as old as Islam itself, and they've already been discussed here.

And in this post I said:

IbnMardhiyah said

Its really unfortunate to see that he snapped and went all postal like that; to me it really seems logical and glaringly obvious to actively offer Muslim members of the US Armed forces the choice to opt out of such wars, instead of putting up roadblocks.

The Fort Hood massacre is a symptom of administrative incompetence.

[Badshah]

Wolfn said

While I don't think what the shooter did was good in any way, I must say that it wasn't terrorism.

It's really murky to be honest with you. Normally, it wouldn't be terrorism because the victims were combatants. But then, when they aren't at war and unarmed, can it still be considered terrorism? In that case, I am leaning on that. Normally, say if a military outpost is in a foreign land, and guerillas attack it, that isn't terrorism. But in this case, I am more inclined to say it may be.

I'm not sure 100%, because the definition isn't so clear cut anymore.

[IbnMardhiyah]

IbnAbdullah said

By the way this so called shaykh is a resident of US/West or not?

He lives in Canada. If you didn't know this, then I suggest you take active steps to identify what you're talking about before you speak. It helps build some credibility so people actually listen to what you're saying and give respectful consideration to your words. Otherwise they'll dismiss you as an ignoramus.

*snip*

That's a lot of probablys and maybes.

Is this how you usually make up your informed and educated opinions on topics of interest?

If you were called a shaykh like him, then same to you.

I got called "shaykh" when I did my hair all gray and white. Does that count?