Must see video of Hamza Yusuf lecture

[Muslimwoman]

Just came across this lecture by Hamza Yusuf and am in awe ... they really are a must see. The lecture is about violence and killing. Please take 10 minutes out of your day to watch them it's really worth it.

part 1

YouTube - an american muslim speaker haveing a go at muslims part 1/2

part 2

YouTube - an american muslim speaker haveing a go at muslims part 2/2

In part 2 he is talking about the situation in Palestine and I wanted to just quote something he says in case you don't have the time or patience to watch the video's. Of course he is rejecting the violence toward the people of Palestine and is calling for the world to recognise the damage the Palestinian situation is doing to the world. He then says he also rejects the violence by Muslims towards innocent Jews.

then he says:

"take a fatwa from your own heart. Even if people give you a fatwa you ask your own heart what our Prophet (pbuh) would do, would he kill children? We only have 500 hadiths that are absolutely at the status of the Quran and one of them says "the Prophet of God forbade the killing of women and children, the Prophet of God forbade the killing of women and children, the Prophet of God forbade the killing of women and children. We cannot see his name villified, we cannot allow his religion to be villified for crimes that have nothing to do with his religion".


.. just because it's funny ... he then says he took an online test by Daniel Pipes for how to tell if you're a good Muslim or not and he failed the test hahahahahahahahaha

 

[Waleed]

About this statement from Hamza Yusuf:

the Prophet of God forbade the killing of women and children

I'd like to cite these two hadiths and comment on them:

Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

As we can see if a 13 year old boy had started to grow pubic hair, Muhammad included him in the list of people to be killed. As far as I'm concerned, a 13 year old boy is still a child. What do you think about that?

Book 019, Number 4322:
It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them.

Here, Muhammad was told that children are killed in certain situations and he basically said "its ok, they're kids of polytheists".

Is Hamza Yusuf aware of these hadiths and how would he respond to them?

 

[Waleed]

I cant edit and add to my post. About Palestine and Israel, I personally think its OK to have a Palestine. If these people want a small piece of land so bad and its the reason of so much bloodshed, suicide attacks, rocket attacks and what not, fine, have that land if thats what it takes to get peace. I dont agree with the "give land to anyone who asks and fights for it", but in this case I'll make the exception. Its been going on for a long time. Nothing is lost if they're given some land. Muslim seperatist violence goes on elsewhere too but no one has (and should) given in to it in recent hsitory as far as I know. In this case, let them have that land so we can have some peace which we've needed badly for so long.

If any of the parties were wiser, they would move out of that area and say "fine, you can have it, its not like diamonds are growing out of trees planted in that region".

 

[Amica]

Salaam--

To kill anyone innocent, adult or minor, is NOT justified in Islam. When it comes to Islam, the Holy Qur'an is THE authority on all religious matters that we have. And the Qur'an says that Muslims have a right to fight BACK those who fight them because they believe in God, who drive them out of their own homes and who torture them/kill them because they are Muslims. Allah SWT states in the Qur'an that if a people (Muslim or non-Muslim) who are not harming Muslims, who are not attacking Muslims because of their belief in God, that those people MUST BE left to live in peace with the Muslims!!! No hadith can go against such command.

Unfortunately, both the Jewish and Muslim religions (see Old Testament and Qur'an) have something called "eye for eye." Specifically, one has right by both religions to take revenge (i.e. "eye for eye, woman for woman"). However, Islam goes a step further as it teaches that ALTHOUGH you have right to take revenge if someone in your family is killed, IT IS STILL MUCH BETTER for you to not take revenge--that is, that you stay away from taking revenge.

 

[Jibrael]

Salaam--

وعليكم السلام

Unfortunately, both the Jewish and Muslim religions (see Old Testament and Qur'an) have something called "eye for eye."

How is that "unfortunate"?

 

[Waleed]

Salaam--

To kill anyone innocent, adult or minor, is NOT justified in Islam. When it comes to Islam, the Holy Qur'an is THE authority on all religious matters that we have. And the Qur'an says that Muslims have a right to fight BACK those who fight them because they believe in God, who drive them out of their own homes and who torture them/kill them because they are Muslims. Allah SWT states in the Qur'an that if a people (Muslim or non-Muslim) who are not harming Muslims, who are not attacking Muslims because of their belief in God, that those people MUST BE left to live in peace with the Muslims!!! No hadith can go against such command.

Unfortunately, both the Jewish and Muslim religions (see Old Testament and Qur'an) have something called "eye for eye." Specifically, one has right by both religions to take revenge (i.e. "eye for eye, woman for woman"). However, Islam goes a step further as it teaches that ALTHOUGH you have right to take revenge if someone in your family is killed, IT IS STILL MUCH BETTER for you to not take revenge--that is, that you stay away from taking revenge.

Hi Amica,
But according to this hadith, Muhammad said the killing of children is justified:

Book 019, Number 4322:
It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them.

The hadith is Sahih. Before saying that a hadith is invalid or has no authority, you would need to have religious authority yourself and in addition, you would have to get all Islamic scholars to classify this hadith and other Sahih hadiths as invalid.

 

[Jibrael]

Hi Amica,
But according to this hadith, Muhammad said the killing of children is justified:

The Prophet Muhammad صلى اللّه عليه وسلم was asked about the unintentional casualties of women and children which is a natural consequence of fighting during the night, when it is hard to avoid killing non-combatants. He said "they are from them", meaning, they are the people of the enemy, therefore, it is not blameworthy on the Muslims if they are killed unintentionally.

However, Islaam prohibits the intentional, targeted killing of non-combatants, women and children, etc.

Islaam is a just and fair religion.

 

[Waleed]

However, Islaam prohibits the intentional, targeted killing of non-combatants, women and children, etc.

Let me quote the hadith again for you:

Book 019, Number 4322:
It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them.

They intentionally killed children ("we kill the children"). Thats as intentional as it gets. Muhammad approved of it.

Here as well, a boy as young as 13 or anyone who had started growing pubic hair, was targetted and killed (because he satisfied the requirements given below):

Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Would you say that the targetting killing of a 13 year old boy who has started growing pubic hair, is an unintentional killing?

 

[wil]

Waleed, Hadiths are not the Koran, but I suppose you knew that.

Eye for an eye is not the recommended punishment, it is the maximum punishment for any crime, it is defining a limit.

The palestenian v. israelite death counts speak for themsleves.

MW...great talks...a little hyperbole...but all in all great talks. Folks will obviously take the 10 seconds they disagree with out of the twenty minutes and focus on that....but that is their nature.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Waleed]

Yes, hadiths are not the Quran, but they're very important. At times they're the only thing you have when trying to learn about Islam. I'm sure you know what "Sahih" means. Hadiths cannot be rejected or discarded if what they're showing about Islam is unpleasant.

The Sahih hadith I posted shows that killing a 13 year old boy is allowed in Islam in that situation. The incident of Banu Qurayza is well documented and well known.

 

[wil]

And G!d tells folks in the bible to go back and slaughter all the women and children and save the virgins for yourselves....

Should we have a party?

 

[Muslimwoman]

As we can see if a 13 year old boy had started to grow pubic hair, Muhammad included him in the list of people to be killed. As far as I'm concerned, a 13 year old boy is still a child. What do you think about that?

and girls were married at puberty. That was life 1400 years ago when puberty was considered the biological sign of reaching adulthood. We cannot judge every historical incident by what we in the West believe is morally right or wrong today.

My own British grandmother was sent out to work at the age of 9 to help contribute to the family. Children in poor countries today could have been working for 5 or 6 years by the time they reach the grand old age of 13. And 13 year old boys brought up in such circumstances are perfectly capable of waging war.

Here, Muhammad was told that children are killed in certain situations and he basically said "its ok, they're kids of polytheists".

Is Hamza Yusuf aware of these hadiths and how would he respond to them?

What does Mr P Smith of 14 Cedar Drive know about brain surgery and what would he say about keyhole surgery?

How on earth do I know what he is aware of or what he would say about it???!!!

I just posted this on another thread but will do so again. As Jibrael has already explained this talks of collateral damage, as explained:

Question:

Asalamu alaykum Shaykh, I have read the fatwa section on Jihad but I am looking for clarification of a specific Hadith found in Sahih Bukhari which is propagating as some as a refutation to what you have mentioned: Narrated as-Saíb bin Jaththama: The Prophet passed by me at a place called al-Abwa or Waddan, and 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 are from them." Could you please clarify the context of this Hadith and whether it contradicts the general ruling of prohibition of targeting civilians which you mentioned elsewhere? JazakAllah khair.

Answered by Sheikh `Abd Allah al-Manî`î

Al-Salâm `Alaykum wa Rahmah Allah wa Barakâtuh.

Those who are not generally engaged in fighting – like women, children, the elderly, the handicapped, and others who do not participate in the fighting – are not to be killed. The Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited this. His prohibition of the killing of women and children is clearly related by Ibn `Umar in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3015) and Sahîh Muslim (1744).

The only exception to this is where such people participate directly in the fighting or are so intermixed with the fighters that it is impossible to separate them from those who are fighting. This exception is indicated by the hadîth of al-Sa`b b. Jathâmah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of the polytheists who were among them and who would be injured if the enemy was attacked. He said: “They are of them.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3021) and Sahîh Muslim (1475)]

In short, non-Muslims living in Muslim lands, those who are under covenant, and those with whom we have peace cannot be attacked. As for those who are at war with us, the combatants may be fought and killed. Those who are not combatants cannot be killed or targeted for killing. The only way that they can be killed is as an unintentional consequence of fighting against the enemy combatants.

Indeed, the hadîth in question actually shows us that the general rule is not to kill non-combatants, even when they are present on the battlefield. The only exception is when the non-combatants are so mixed in with the fighters that it is impossible to fight against the combatants without the possibility of some non-combatants inadvertently being killed. This is only out of dire necessity.

Ibn Hajar writes in his commentary on this hadîth in Fath al-Bârî (6/146):

His statement “They are of them” means that they are construed as such under those circumstances. It does not mean that it is permissible to deliberately target them.

 

[Waleed]

And G!d tells folks in the bible to go back and slaughter all the women and children and save the virgins for yourselves....

Should we have a party?

Two wrongs dont make a right, right? Curious as to why you're writing God as G!d? Looks like Gid.

That was life 1400 years ago when puberty was considered the biological sign of reaching adulthood. We cannot judge every historical incident by what we in the West believe is morally right or wrong today.

"That was 1400 years ago, so you cant say anything bad about it". Yes we can. If Muhammad killed and ate infants alive and people say that today he's perfect and to be our role model, that doesnt make sense.

If you're saying it all happened 1400 years ago, then stop believing that he's a role model for anyone because he was a really bad one. He did and said a lot of bad things that people today would be arrested for doing (marrying 9 year old Aisha, torture and assasinations [Kinana, Ka’b bin Ashraf and many others], promoted violence again women [Quran 4:34] and so on).

A 13 year old boy would have been killed simply because he'd started growing pubic hair. There's no clause in that hadith of "only if he was a combatant".

There are internal contradictions within Islam so you cant cite another hadith to invalidate another. Sahih hadiths stand on their own.

The only exception to this is where such people participate directly in the fighting or are so intermixed with the fighters that it is impossible to separate them from those who are fighting.

The Q/A guy needs to cite the actual hadith. Do you know the actual hadiths? Please cite them so we can see what its saying.

 

[c0de]

Apparently, waleed doesn't actually know why the Banu Qurayza were being executed, and who made the judgement to execute them, as is clear from this thread.

p.s. the only infallible source is the Quran. All ahadith have to be checked with the Quran and if they contradict it, then they should be discarded.

 

[Waleed]

As is clear from that thread, you're wrong in saying that the Jews decided who the arbitrator was in the Banu Qurayza incident. It was a Muslim appointed by Muhammad. Further, regardless of whoever the arbitrator was, the beheading of 900 men and enslavement of their women and children happened under the direct supervision of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him).

You cant reject hadith because they're saying something unpleasant about Islam, especially Sahih hadith. This hadith does not contradict the Quran and further, Quran has its own internal contradictions (google search them) so, contradictions are not a reason to reject hadith.

If you're not an Islamic scholar, you cant reject hadith and you dont have the authority to do even if you were, unless you get all Islamic scholars to get together and agree on discarding, rejecting and invalidating the hadith. But they understand the meaning of Sahih so they know Sahih hadiths cant be rejected easily.

 

[Muslimwoman]

A 13 year old boy would have been killed simply because he'd started growing pubic hair. There's no clause in that hadith of "only if he was a combatant".

Where did I say they had to be combatants? I said puberty was considered to be the biological sign of reaching adulthood ... boys with pubic hair were therefore considered men by everyone.

so you cant cite another hadith to invalidate another. Sahih hadiths stand on their own.

Nothing in Islam stands on it's own, everything must be looked at with a knowledge of the Quran, related hadith and an understanding of what was happening at the time an ayat was revealed or an action was taken by the Prophet.

Of course if you want to argue against Islam then it suits a purpose to simply take one sentence and use it as "evidence". The hadith I quoted expanded on the one you quoted, to give us a better understanding of what the hadith you quoted, as they were all talking of the same incident.

The Q/A guy needs to cite the actual hadith. Do you know the actual hadiths? Please cite them so we can see what its saying.

Whilst I accept you are spoiling for a fight may I suggest you take the time to read the post, the hadith books and numbers are clearly stated.

As is clear from that thread, you're wrong in saying that the Jews decided who the arbitrator was in the Banu Qurayza incident. It was a Muslim appointed by Muhammad.

You are both right and both wrong according to my books.

Sa'd ibn Mu'aad was a Muslim, he was a leader of the Ansar (formerly the Aws tribe) but it was the Jewish leaders who asked for him to negotiate their surrender, feeling that as a former ally and as the Ansar had pleaded for mercy for the Jewish tribe he would be lenient with them.

Perhaps what the Jewish leaders did not know is that Sa'd had been mortally wounded during the battle in which the Jewish tribe had betrayed the Muslims. To make his judgement he had to be brought from a tent to the mosque on a camel. He said "I say kill their warriors, capture their children, and distribute their money". Some accounds say he made his judgement based on Jewish law but I would have to ask on the Jewish board if their laws stated this was their punishment for treason. He died a few days later.

 

[c0de]

As is clear from that thread, you're wrong in saying that the Jews decided who the arbitrator was in the Banu Qurayza incident.

Muir holds that the Qurayza surrendered on the condition that "their fate was decided by their allies, the Bani Aws".(Sources: [48][54]) In all accounts, the appointed arbitrator was Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a leading man among the Aws.

The Banu Q chose them to arbitrate in the hope that they would show them leniency for their treachery... they thought wrong.

It was a Muslim appointed by Muhammad.

That, I was wrong about. The person had already converted. Doesn't really change much though.

Further, regardless of whoever the arbitrator was, the beheading of 900 men and enslavement of their women and children happened under the direct supervision of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him).

... so what?

After what the Qurayza did, it was completely justified. In the 7th century, that's how you dealt with such epic betrayals. The Prophet was not just some ascetic, he was the leader of a state. In fact many a king would not have even bothered with an arbitrator, nor the sparing of women and children.

If you're not an Islamic scholar, you cant reject hadith and you dont have the authority

wow dude

This is the third time you've screwed yourself with this in one day

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

It's like a club sandwich of defective induction

 

[Waleed]

Where did I say they had to be combatants? I said puberty was considered to be the biological sign of reaching adulthood ... boys with pubic hair were therefore considered men by everyone.

A 13 year old boy is still a child. Muhammad said it was OK to kill children, as I pointed out. The hadiths are clear:

Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Book 019, Number 4322:
It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them.

Muhammad said it was OK to kill children of polythiests during night raids.

Sa'd ibn Mu'aad was a Muslim, he was a leader of the Ansar (formerly the Aws tribe) but it was the Jewish leaders who asked for him to negotiate their surrender, feeling that as a former ally and as the Ansar had pleaded for mercy for the Jewish tribe he would be lenient with them.

Perhaps what the Jewish leaders did not know is that Sa'd had been mortally wounded during the battle in which the Jewish tribe had betrayed the Muslims. To make his judgement he had to be brought from a tent to the mosque on a camel. He said "I say kill their warriors, capture their children, and distribute their money". Some accounds say he made his judgement based on Jewish law but I would have to ask on the Jewish board if their laws stated this was their punishment for treason. He died a few days later.

All that doesnt matter. 900 men of the Banu Qurayza tribe were beheaded, and their women and children were enslaved, under the direct orders and supervision of Muhammad.

That was my main point.

That, I was wrong about. The person had already converted. Doesn't really change much though.

You're also wrong in believing that Muhammad was a prophet of God. See my reply above to MW.

After what the Qurayza did, it was completely justified. In the 7th century, that's how you dealt with such epic betrayals. The Prophet was not just some ascetic, he was the leader of a state. In fact many a king would not have even bothered with an arbitrator, nor the sparing of women and children.

What a great man Muhammad was! I say this because he said pus is better than poetry:

Book 028, Number 5609:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be opon him) as saying: It is better for a man's belly to be stuffld with pus which corrodes it than to stuff) one's mind with frivolous poetry. Abd Bakr has reported it with a slight variation Of wording.

Poetry be upon you, I mean, nevermind.

I have no idea why poetry is that bad. Do you?

 

[c0de]

You're also wrong in believing that Muhammad was a prophet of God. See my reply above to MW.

I guess you're conceding then, since you didn't actually respond to the argument.

 

[Waleed]

What argument? You didnt tell me why it was OK for Muhammad to order the beheadings of 900 men of the Banu Qurayza tribe and enslave their women and children.