Islam Question about hadith regarding fighting in Mecca

[TG123]

Salaam alaikum to the Muslim posters.

I was wondering if someone could explain the following to me.
Why did Muhammad ban anyone from fighting in Mecca,

Narrated Abu Huraira:

In the year of the Conquest of Mecca, the tribe of Khuza`a killed a man from the tribe of Bam Laith in revenge for a killed person belonging to them in the Pre-lslamic Period of Ignorance. So Allah's Apostle got up saying, "Allah held back the (army having) elephants from Mecca, but He let His Apostle and the believers overpower the infidels (of Mecca). Beware! (Mecca is a sanctuary)! Verily! Fighting in Mecca was not permitted for anybody before me, nor will it be permitted for anybody after me; It was permitted for me only for a while (an hour or so) of that day. No doubt! It is at this moment a sanctuary; its thorny shrubs should not be uprooted; its trees should not be cut down; and its Luqata (fallen things) should not be picked up except by the one who would look for its owner. And if somebody is killed, his closest relative has the right to choose one of two things, i.e., either the Blood money or retaliation by having the killer killed." Then a man from Yemen, called Abu Shah, stood up and said, "Write that) for me, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)!" Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said (to his companions), "Write that for Abu Shah." Then another man from Quraish got up, saying, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Except Al- Idhkhir (a special kind of grass) as we use it in our houses and for graves." Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Except Al-idhkkir."


حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو نُعَيْمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شَيْبَانُ، عَنْ يَحْيَى، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ خُزَاعَةَ، قَتَلُوا رَجُلاً‏.‏ وَقَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ رَجَاءٍ حَدَّثَنَا حَرْبٌ عَنْ يَحْيَى حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو سَلَمَةَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ أَنَّهُ عَامَ فَتْحِ مَكَّةَ قَتَلَتْ خُزَاعَةُ رَجُلاً مِنْ بَنِي لَيْثٍ بِقَتِيلٍ لَهُمْ فِي الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ، فَقَامَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ ‏"‏ إِنَّ اللَّهَ حَبَسَ عَنْ مَكَّةَ الْفِيلَ وَسَلَّطَ عَلَيْهِمْ رَسُولَهُ وَالْمُؤْمِنِينَ، أَلاَ وَإِنَّهَا لَمْ تَحِلَّ لأَحَدٍ قَبْلِي، وَلاَ تَحِلُّ لأَحَدٍ بَعْدِي، أَلاَ وَإِنَّمَا أُحِلَّتْ لِي سَاعَةً مِنْ نَهَارٍ، أَلاَ وَإِنَّهَا سَاعَتِي هَذِهِ حَرَامٌ لاَ يُخْتَلَى شَوْكُهَا، وَلاَ يُعْضَدُ شَجَرُهَا، وَلاَ يَلْتَقِطُ سَاقِطَتَهَا إِلاَّ مُنْشِدٌ، وَمَنْ قُتِلَ لَهُ قَتِيلٌ فَهْوَ بِخَيْرِ النَّظَرَيْنِ إِمَّا يُودَى وَإِمَّا يُقَادُ ‏"‏‏.‏ فَقَامَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْيَمَنِ يُقَالُ لَهُ أَبُو شَاهٍ فَقَالَ اكْتُبْ لِي يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏.‏ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ اكْتُبُوا لأَبِي شَاهٍ ‏"‏‏.‏ ثُمَّ قَامَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ فَقَالَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِلاَّ الإِذْخِرَ، فَإِنَّمَا نَجْعَلُهُ فِي بُيُوتِنَا وَقُبُورِنَا‏.‏ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ إِلاَّ الإِذْخِرَ ‏"‏‏.‏ وَتَابَعَهُ عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ عَنْ شَيْبَانَ فِي الْفِيلِ، قَالَ بَعْضُهُمْ عَنْ أَبِي نُعَيْمٍ الْقَتْلَ‏.‏ وَقَالَ عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ إِمَّا أَنْ يُقَادَ أَهْلُ الْقَتِيلِ‏.‏
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 6880
In-book reference : Book 87, Hadith 19
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 9, Book 83, Hadith 19
(deprecated numbering scheme)

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/87/19


Is fighting in Mecca really not allowed for any reason whatsoever? What if evil people came into the city to do harm to others?

Would it not then be obligatory for Muslims to fight them (as a pacifist I don't believe in ever using violence but I know Islam allows fighting in self-defence), even if they had to fight them in the city?

How can it be that God makes fighting in Mecca illegal to everyone after Muhammad? Isn't fighting in self-defence prescribed? Or am I understanding something here incorrectly?

 

[Limo]

W Alkom Al Salam w Rahmat Allah ( peace and mercy up on you)
This teaching is directed to Moslims, It means no one is allowed to concur Mecca and kill it's people. i.e. nobody is allowed to initiate a fight there.

Self Defense is a holy act in Islam, it's a worshiping. When enemy concur any country fight becoms obligatory for everyone who can fight including women and children. This includes Mecca as well.

 

[TG123]

Thank you Limo for replying, and my apologies for the delay in my response.

If "fighting" is a reference to initiating warfare and conquering a city and killing its people, are you saying that is what Muhammad did? Muhammad said that fighting in Mecca was allowed for him, but not for others before or after him. Did he wage an offensive war? Doesn't the Quran warn against this in 2:190 when it states:

ﯯﯰﯱﯲﯳﯴﯵﯶﯷﯸﯹﯺﯻﯼﯽ
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

http://quran.com/2/190-200

Many thanks.

 

[Chesterton]

The verse seems like "I got Mecca - done deal!" Like calling "shotgun" or "dibs".

 

[Limo]

ُExactly, This verse is in the context of Mecca concurrent. Why did prophet Mohamed concurre Mecca at that time ? Who are the transgressors ?
2 years before concure of Mecca, the Meccan tribe of Quraysh and the Muslim community in Median signed a 10-year truce called the Treaty of Hudaybia. According to the agreement other tribes were included in the agreement.
Them People of Mecca fought one of tribes Banu-Bakr tribe joined Quraysh, and Banu-Khuza'ah tribe joined Muhammad.
Suddenly, Banu Bakr tribe , without concern for the provisions of the treaty, attacked Banu-Khuza'ah tribe. Mecca people helped Banu-Bakr with men and arms.
So, they've broken the agreement and killed prophet Mohamed allies.
So, simply Mecca people transgressed on prophet Mohamed's allies tribe Banu-Khuza'ah who were partially Moslems.
Then Allah ordered prophet Muhammad. So, the verse you brought here is exactly for this situation.

"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."

The verse is an order to prophet Muhammad to go and fight Mecca people.
And if you read the verses after this one you'll find the rest of the situation
Quran 2:190
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
Quran 2:191: here is an order to kill in Mecca but under a condition that Mecca people starts the fight
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

What happened that time is that Mecca people didn't fight. There were no fight at that day even.

 

[TG123]

ُExactly, This verse is in the context of Mecca concurrent. Why did prophet Mohamed concurre Mecca at that time ? Who are the transgressors ?
2 years before concure of Mecca, the Meccan tribe of Quraysh and the Muslim community in Median signed a 10-year truce called the Treaty of Hudaybia. According to the agreement other tribes were included in the agreement.
Them People of Mecca fought one of tribes Banu-Bakr tribe joined Quraysh, and Banu-Khuza'ah tribe joined Muhammad.
Suddenly, Banu Bakr tribe , without concern for the provisions of the treaty, attacked Banu-Khuza'ah tribe. Mecca people helped Banu-Bakr with men and arms.
So, they've broken the agreement and killed prophet Mohamed allies.
So, simply Mecca people transgressed on prophet Mohamed's allies tribe Banu-Khuza'ah who were partially Moslems.
Then Allah ordered prophet Muhammad. So, the verse you brought here is exactly for this situation.

"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."

The verse is an order to prophet Muhammad to go and fight Mecca people.
And if you read the verses after this one you'll find the rest of the situation
Quran 2:190
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.
Quran 2:191: here is an order to kill in Mecca but under a condition that Mecca people starts the fight
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

What happened that time is that Mecca people didn't fight. There were no fight at that day even.

Thank you, Limo. I also thought that the people that Muhammad attacked had to have been at war with Muslims and were therefore the enemy.
This brings us to the problem however, at least I think.

Muhammad said that fighting in Mecca is forbidden for anyone except him- and he fought a defensive battle against an enemy who was holed up in the city and attacking Muslims.

Let's say that a group of "muslim" extremists or even non-Muslims, got into Mecca and seized control of it.

According to what Muhammad said in the hadith, attacking them wouldn't be allowed- since only he was allowed to fight in that city. Yet according to Islam, as you pointed out, it is obligatory to fight those who are attacking you, in other words waging a war of self-defence. You even described it as worship.

By banning fighting in Mecca, didn't Muhammad foresee the possibility that one day it would be seized by non-Muslim or even Muslim extremists, and fighting in it would be necessary?

This is a bit of an aside but related, as you probably know, 3:97 states that God declared that whoever enters the Kabaa shall be safe. We know that in pre-Islamic Arabia, Mecca was indeed a safe place and no one ever fought there.
However, since then there have been some very violent clashes there, between Muslims and Muslims and also between Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Yet God allegedly told Muhammad to say that whoever enters it shall be safe.

What do you think of this?

3:97

In it are clear signs [such as] the standing place of Abraham. And whoever enters it shall be safe. And [due] to Allah from the people is a pilgrimage to the House - for whoever is able to find thereto a way. But whoever disbelieves - then indeed, Allah is free from need of the worlds.
http://quran.com/3/97-107

 

[TG123]

The verse seems like "I got Mecca - done deal!" Like calling "shotgun" or "dibs".

I'm going to pre-emptively ignore from now on whatever you say in this thread.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm going to pre-emptively ignore from now on whatever you say in this thread.

Really, in a debate forum? I may be a smart aleck but you know my interpretation is accurate. I didn't even contradict anything Limo said. And I'm certainly in agreement with Aisha: “I feel that your Lord always hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”

 

[TG123]

Really, in a debate forum? I may be a smart aleck but you know my interpretation is accurate. I didn't even contradict anything Limo said. And I'm certainly in agreement with Aisha: “I feel that your Lord always hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”

Well... I am debating with Muslims here and am kind of hoping to be speaking with them on the topic at hand, instead of watching blonde girls in cowboy hats. And I don't really see the need for sarcasm, Limo didn't go off against either you or me on this thread, he is just answering and discussing a question.

If you want to share YouTube videos of Kelsea, I think there's an entertainment part of the forum for that.

 

[Chesterton]

OK, sorry.

 

[TG123]

Thank you my friend.

 

[Limo]

Thank you, Limo. I also thought that the people that Muhammad attacked had to have been at war with Muslims and were therefore the enemy.
This brings us to the problem however, at least I think.

Muhammad said that fighting in Mecca is forbidden for anyone except him- and he fought a defensive battle against an enemy who was holed up in the city and attacking Muslims.

Let's say that a group of "muslim" extremists or even non-Muslims, got into Mecca and seized control of it.

According to what Muhammad said in the hadith, attacking them wouldn't be allowed- since only he was allowed to fight in that city. Yet according to Islam, as you pointed out, it is obligatory to fight those who are attacking you, in other words waging a war of self-defence. You even described it as worship.

By banning fighting in Mecca, didn't Muhammad foresee the possibility that one day it would be seized by non-Muslim or even Muslim extremists, and fighting in it would be necessary?

This is a bit of an aside but related, as you probably know, 3:97 states that God declared that whoever enters the Kabaa shall be safe. We know that in pre-Islamic Arabia, Mecca was indeed a safe place and no one ever fought there.
However, since then there have been some very violent clashes there, between Muslims and Muslims and also between Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Yet God allegedly told Muhammad to say that whoever enters it shall be safe.

What do you think of this?

3:97

In it are clear signs [such as] the standing place of Abraham. And whoever enters it shall be safe. And [due] to Allah from the people is a pilgrimage to the House - for whoever is able to find thereto a way. But whoever disbelieves - then indeed, Allah is free from need of the worlds.
http://quran.com/3/97-107

your question is very smart. I took some time to search.
I'll add add to what you've raised :
Quran 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."
next verse? "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
So, Allah tells us at a certain circumstance we might fight but under certain conditions(they fight you there) :

• They (the aggressors in the case you're asking for "a group of "muslim" extremists or even non-Muslims") start the fight by killing people or/and may impact prayer and Pilgrimage "they fight you"
  
• They aggressors are committing these killing and expel in Mecca " there"

Now we've 3 main subjects:

1. The Law : Fight was/is banned in Mecca Quran 3:79 "...And whoever enters it shall be safe..."
2. Special Exception : invasion was permitted to prophet Muhammad for a while "It was permitted for me only for a while (an hour or so) of that day"
3. Self Defence Case : In case some aggressors start killing in Mecca, We can fight back as it's in Quran 2:190-191. It happened in history

 

[TG123]

your question is very smart. I took some time to search.
I'll add add to what you've raised :
Quran 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."
next verse? "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
So, Allah tells us at a certain circumstance we might fight but under certain conditions(they fight you there) :

• They (the aggressors in the case you're asking for "a group of "muslim" extremists or even non-Muslims") start the fight by killing people or/and may impact prayer and Pilgrimage "they fight you"
  
• They aggressors are committing these killing and expel in Mecca " there"

Now we've 3 main subjects:

1. The Law : Fight was/is banned in Mecca Quran 3:79 "...And whoever enters it shall be safe..."
2. Special Exception : invasion was permitted to prophet Muhammad for a while "It was permitted for me only for a while (an hour or so) of that day"
3. Self Defence Case : In case some aggressors start killing in Mecca, We can fight back as it's in Quran 2:190-191. It happened in history

Salaam alaikum, and thanks for the response. If God gave Muhammad permission to attack Mecca and kill his enemies there who were not at that moment or at that place killing him, wouldn't He be contradicting Himself? Did God in the Quran say that He changed 2:190-191 for Muhammad?

Also, if a group of non-Muslims or "muslim" extremists managed to seize Mecca non-violently (during the 1979 Mecca siege that almost worked, the attackers killed two policemen only before shutting themselves in the mosque. At the time of the actual siege, they were not killing anyone), was it wrong to have attacked them?

 

[Limo]

Salaam alaikum, and thanks for the response. If God gave Muhammad permission to attack Mecca and kill his enemies there who were not at that moment or at that place killing him, wouldn't He be contradicting Himself? Did God in the Quran say that He changed 2:190-191 for Muhammad?

Also, if a group of non-Muslims or "muslim" extremists managed to seize Mecca non-violently (during the 1979 Mecca siege that almost worked, the attackers killed two policemen only before shutting themselves in the mosque. At the time of the actual siege, they were not killing anyone), was it wrong to have attacked them?

Walikom Alsalam Wa-Rahmatu Allah.
Actully 191 is an order to invade Mecca and defines the code of conducts "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
- "And kill them wherever you overtake them" in Mecca
- "expel them from wherever they have expelled you" Mecca people expelled Muslims from Mecca before

Even opening of Mecca was a promise from Allah to prophet Muhammad. Invading Mecca was an order from Allah. And Allah called it clear conquest in Quran 48:1 "Indeed, We have given you, [O Muhammad], a clear conquest"

To understand How Allah permits invasion of Mecca to prophet Muhammad ?
You need to know the story of Elephant.

60 years before, The Ethiopian Christian general Abraha al-Ashram tried to invade Mecca using elephants. At that time, People of Mecca found out that they can't fight Abraha's army. They decided to go out of Mecca completely.
As Allah didn't permit anyone to invade Mecca, Allah sent with small rock from hell. The birds killed Abraha's army completely.
So, This explains prophet Muhammad's permission.

What happened after prophet Muhammad is that some people does commits violence or not in Mecca.
It's political conflict and government of Saudi is always react very extreme manner, they didn't even give a chance to talks.
This is very bad from both sides.

 

[TG123]

Walikom Alsalam Wa-Rahmatu Allah.

The same to you, my friend.

Actully 191 is an order to invade Mecca and defines the code of conducts "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."

- "And kill them wherever you overtake them" in Mecca

- "expel them from wherever they have expelled you" Mecca people expelled Muslims from Mecca before


Even opening of Mecca was a promise from Allah to prophet Muhammad. Invading Mecca was an order from Allah. And Allah called it clear conquest in Quran 48:1 "Indeed, We have given you, [O Muhammad], a clear conquest"

You seem to be saying that 2:190,191 is for Muhammad, since it was about fighting in Mecca. Yet Muhammad told his followers they cannot fight in Mecca. I don’t see why you brought it up then to explain how Muslims today are allowed to fight non-Muslim or “muslim” extremists who attack the Holy City.

To understand How Allah permits invasion of Mecca to prophet Muhammad ?

You need to know the story of Elephant.


60 years before, The Ethiopian Christian general Abraha al-Ashram tried to invade Mecca using elephants. At that time, People of Mecca found out that they can't fight Abraha's army. They decided to go out of Mecca completely.

As Allah didn't permit anyone to invade Mecca, Allah sent with small rock from hell. The birds killed Abraha's army completely.

So, This explains prophet Muhammad's permission.

I am not sure if I following your explanation. How does the defeat of Abraha explain the permission of Muhammad to conquer Mecca?


Also, why would a general from Ethiopia try sending an army of elephants into Mecca? How would an army of elephants get through the dry and arid terrain of the Hejaz mountains? How would they have been transported to Saudi Arabia anyways? Via the Red Sea? Or would they walk across several countries to get there?

What happened after prophet Muhammad is that some people does commits violence or not in Mecca.

It's political conflict and government of Saudi is always react very extreme manner, they didn't even give a chance to talks.

This is very bad from both sides.

I agree that the siege was a horrific thing, and I don’t support either the extremists who took over the mosque or the Saudi government.


However, how could this have happened given that God said in the Quran that whoever enters Mecca is safe?

 

[Limo]

The same to you, my friend.
You seem to be saying that 2:190,191 is for Muhammad, since it was about fighting in Mecca. Yet Muhammad told his followers they cannot fight in Mecca. I don’t see why you brought it up then to explain how Muslims today are allowed to fight non-Muslim or “muslim” extremists who attack the Holy City.

In Islam we've a rule that says "The verse is for reuse in all similar situations regardless of the original incident or reason of it". These 2 verses has 2 parts :

• The first part is an order to prophet Muhammad to invade Mecca "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. "
• The second part defines the Law of fighting in Mecca. It's for (1) the army that invaded Mecca lead by prophet himself and in the same time a fighting Law in Mecca for (2)all Muslims all over the history "And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them"

I am not sure if I following your explanation. How does the defeat of Abraha explain the permission of Muhammad to conquer Mecca?

If Allah didn't permit prophet Muhammad invasion, Allah would defeat prophet Muhammad army exactly like defeating Abraha's army.

This is an evidence especilly for Arabs at that time who witnessed Abrah's army defeat and prophet Muhammad's Army victory.

Also, why would a general from Ethiopia try sending an army of elephants into Mecca? How would an army of elephants get through the dry and arid terrain of the Hejaz mountains? How would they have been transported to Saudi Arabia anyways? Via the Red Sea? Or would they walk across several countries to get there

It's an interesting story.
Looks like Ethiopia was an empire at that time.
Ethiopia crossed the Red sea from south and controlled Yeman.
The Ruler of Yemen who is general Abraha built a Church to attract the Arabs to do Pilgrimage to it instead of Mecca (Arabs used to do Pilgrimage to Mecca before Islam since prophet Ibrahim).
His plan has failed, and Arabs didn't show respect to the Church.
then he decided to revenge by invade Mecca and collapse El-Kaaba.

He moved from Yemen via Hijaz to Mecca with a big army with big elephants.
He planned correctly for the long journey across the desert with good supplies to Mecca.
When he reached Mecca, people decided to go out from Mecca and believed that Allah will protect his house.
It happened that Allah defeated Abraha's army and vanishes completely.

I agree that the siege was a horrific thing, and I don’t support either the extremists who took over the mosque or the Saudi government.

However, how could this have happened given that God said in the Quran that whoever enters Mecca is safe?

Unfortunately, It's like any Allah Laws, ordered us to do or not to do but some people does.
Allah told, whoever enters Mecca is safe but people doesn't abide to Allah's Law. Whoever violated this Law, shall be punished in the last day.

Nevertheless, Prophet Muhammad said whoever intended to do a bad deed and declined it before he does, it'll be accounted as a good deed point (Hasana)
Except for in Mecca, who intends to do a bad deed, it'll counted a bad deed even if he didn't do it. If one did a bad deed in Mecca, it'll be counted as 2 bad deeds not one like any other place.

 

[TG123]

Salaam alaikum Limo.

In Islam we've a rule that says "The verse is for reuse in all similar situations regardless of the original incident or reason of it". These 2 verses has 2 parts :

• The first part is an order to prophet Muhammad to invade Mecca "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. "
• The second part defines the Law of fighting in Mecca. It's for (1) the army that invaded Mecca lead by prophet himself and in the same time a fighting Law in Mecca for (2)all Muslims all over the history "And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them"

Can you please show me where the rule says this?
Also, if an extremist or non-Muslim army manages to take over Masjid Al Haraam by surprise and without killing anyone (like almost happened in 1987, and if the two policemen were killed outside the mosque which I don't know then this is what would have taken place), would Muslims then be powerless to stop them?

If Allah didn't permit prophet Muhammad invasion, Allah would defeat prophet Muhammad army exactly like defeating Abraha's army.

This is an evidence especilly for Arabs at that time who witnessed Abrah's army defeat and prophet Muhammad's Army victory.

Thank you for clarifying, that makes sense to me.

It's an interesting story.
Looks like Ethiopia was an empire at that time.
Ethiopia crossed the Red sea from south and controlled Yeman.
The Ruler of Yemen who is general Abraha built a Church to attract the Arabs to do Pilgrimage to it instead of Mecca (Arabs used to do Pilgrimage to Mecca before Islam since prophet Ibrahim).
His plan has failed, and Arabs didn't show respect to the Church.
then he decided to revenge by invade Mecca and collapse El-Kaaba.

He moved from Yemen via Hijaz to Mecca with a big army with big elephants.
He planned correctly for the long journey across the desert with good supplies to Mecca.
When he reached Mecca, people decided to go out from Mecca and believed that Allah will protect his house.
It happened that Allah defeated Abraha's army and vanishes completely.

This makes complete sense to me, but the question I have is with the elephants. How would they be able to survive a journey from Yemen to Mecca? I know examples of elephants being used for warfare, but in the desert?

Unfortunately, It's like any Allah Laws, ordered us to do or not to do but some people does.
Allah told, whoever enters Mecca is safe but people doesn't abide to Allah's Law. Whoever violated this Law, shall be punished in the last day.

If Allah said Mecca is safe, shouldn't He be able to keep it that way? Does His guarantee depend on the goodwill of people?
Why not say what Muhammad did, that fighting is not allowed in Mecca? Why say it is safe when this is not always the case?

Nevertheless, Prophet Muhammad said whoever intended to do a bad deed and declined it before he does, it'll be accounted as a good deed point (Hasana)
Except for in Mecca, who intends to do a bad deed, it'll counted a bad deed even if he didn't do it. If one did a bad deed in Mecca, it'll be counted as 2 bad deeds not one like any other place.

Thanks for sharing that.

Nice talking to you as always, hope my questions aren't coming across as rude or provocative. I appreciate your kindness and respect your knowledge.

 

[Limo]

Salaam alaikum Limo.

Can you please show me where the rule says this?

Quran was inspired by Gabriel to prophet Muhammad in pieces according to the incidents. When prophet Muhamed is facing a situation, Allah sends Gabriel with a Surah or a few verses as a resolution to the situation.
For example the when the first theft incident in Median happened by a woman, Allah sent Gabriel with some Quran includes the Law of Steeling Quran 5:38 "
[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah . And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise."
Then we say, regardless of the reason the verse 5:38 was inspired, it's applied for all theft incident happen.
Same with 190-191, It was inspired to tell prophet Muhammad to invade Mecca and defines the rules of engagement. Following the Rule, then we say "These are the rules of engagement in Mecca that should be applied for all similar situations.

Also, if an extremist or non-Muslim army manages to take over Masjid Al Haraam by surprise and without killing anyone (like almost happened in 1987, and if the two policemen were killed outside the mosque which I don't know then this is what would have taken place), would Muslims then be powerless to stop them?

It's a hypothetical question,I'll try to answer properly.
By the way, Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca but anyway.
As long as they're peaceful and harm noone, they should managed in peaceful way.
If they're extremest, there should be talks with scholars tell they get convinced that what they're doing is wrong.
The problem with this government is that they're managing the thing as if it's grandfather house and they're defending their pride.

This makes complete sense to me, but the question I have is with the elephants. How would they be able to survive a journey from Yemen to Mecca? I know examples of elephants being used for warfare, but in the desert?

Actually, the distance from Yemen till Mecca on the shore of Red sea is not a deadly desert. There are many wells in the way and it was a highly utilized line of trading.
I think the Ethiopians were civilized like Romans and Persian who can manage a line of supplies for the army.

If Allah said Mecca is safe, shouldn't He be able to keep it that way? Does His guarantee depend on the goodwill of people?
Why not say what Muhammad did, that fighting is not allowed in Mecca? Why say it is safe when this is not always the case?

All religious orders depends on goodwill of people.
There are always a level of keeping the Law by good governments.
It's safe in a sense that no one personally hurt others or animals or birds or trees.

Also, Allah influences directly without the human intervention when it's needed. It happened with Abraha and will happen one more time near the end day.

Thanks for sharing that.

Nice talking to you as always, hope my questions aren't coming across as rude or provocative. I appreciate your kindness and respect your knowledge.

I understand that non-Muslims don't believe in Quran, prophet Muhammad, and may be Allah.
I never get angry from inquiries and debates we're respecting each others symbols by using suitable words. Answering is a must. This is the objective of being here.

go go, ask for more

 

[TG123]

Quran was inspired by Gabriel to prophet Muhammad in pieces according to the incidents. When prophet Muhamed is facing a situation, Allah sends Gabriel with a Surah or a few verses as a resolution to the situation.

For example the when the first theft incident in Median happened by a woman, Allah sent Gabriel with some Quran includes the Law of Steeling Quran 5:38 "

[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah . And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise."

Then we say, regardless of the reason the verse 5:38 was inspired, it's applied for all theft incident happen.

Thanks for explaining, that makes sense.

Same with 190-191, It was inspired to tell prophet Muhammad to invade Mecca and defines the rules of engagement. Following the Rule, then we say "These are the rules of engagement in Mecca that should be applied for all similar situations.

That makes sense to me, but the problem I see is that Muhammad said fighting in Mecca is not allowed anymore. The hadith does not say offensive fighting is not allowed anymore, it just says no fighting.

It's a hypothetical question,I'll try to answer properly.

By the way, Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca but anyway.

The Qarmatians managed to get into it, and did horrific things to the people there.

As long as they're peaceful and harm noone, they should managed in peaceful way.

Let’s say that they began to try to break the Kabaa or started preaching against Islam?

If they're extremest, there should be talks with scholars tell they get convinced that what they're doing is wrong.

And if they refuse? I’m not sure how successful discussions with scholars would have been during the 1987 siege.

The problem with this government is that they're managing the thing as if it's grandfather house and they're defending their pride.

We agree on the Saudi royal family, my friend. We probably share the same views on Israeli leaders also.

Actually, the distance from Yemen till Mecca on the shore of Red sea is not a deadly desert. There are many wells in the way and it was a highly utilized line of trading.

I think the Ethiopians were civilized like Romans and Persian who can manage a line of supplies for the army.

I didn’t know there were wells. I thought that the region was very dry, with little water but the Red Sea. Can you show me evidence of this? If so, I definitely take back my skepticism on this part of the story.

Do you know if the death of Abraha or his attempt to destroy Mecca was detailed by Procopius or other historians of his time? Such an event I would think would have been recorded.

All religious orders depends on goodwill of people.
There are always a level of keeping the Law by good governments.

Are you sure about this?

When the Quran says that all people- believers and disbelievers- prostrate, it doesn’t depend on the goodwill of people, does it?

Also, why should the lack of goodwill of some people nullify God’s promises to others? The pilgrims murdered in the siege of 1987 or Qarmatian attack centuries earlier were responsible neither for the attackers or the incompetence of the Meccan authorities.

Yet the promise of safety for them as crushed.

It's safe in a sense that no one personally hurt others or animals or birds or trees.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. The Qarmatians personally and purposefully slaughtered the pilgrims. So did the extremists and Saudi army. Such is also the case when deadly fights erupt between Shia pilgrims and the Saudi police.

Also, Allah influences directly without the human intervention when it's needed. It happened with Abraha and will happen one more time near the end day.

Why was it needed with Abraha and not with the Qarmatians?

I understand that non-Muslims don't believe in Quran, prophet Muhammad, and may be Allah.
I never get angry from inquiries and debates we're respecting each others symbols by using suitable words. Answering is a must. This is the objective of being here.
go go, ask for more

Many thanks my friend. God bless you.

 

[Limo]

All your questions are around one particular point, What does it mean Mecca is safe? Mecca being safe is a covenant from Allah or not ?

Mecca is safe, is Allah's Law. We believers have a duty to keep it safe. In personal level during visit to Mecca, I as a Muslim shouldn't hunt, kill, hurt a person, or an animal, or a human. This is guaranteed by my believe, Conscience, afraid from Allah.

Is there a covenant from Allah to force it's safety ?
The verse and Hadeeth don't till explicitly but we know from history that It happened against Abrah's army. But it didn't happen In some other cases (Qaramita case for example)
There is a known Islamic fact that Miracle days ended with prophet Muhammad's death.
Direct influence of Allah didn't happen since that date except for near the end day.
The miracle of Abraha happened in the same year of prophet Muhammad's birth.

That makes sense to me, but the problem I see is that Muhammad said fighting in Mecca is not allowed anymore. The hadith does not say offensive fighting is not allowed anymore, it just says no fighting.

It's all about the context. It's like you've instruction in the house to stop any one from making fire without saying a word about the kitchen. In another chapter of the House Keeping book you've defined the instruction to use gas burner.
This is a context of warning believers not to fight in Mecca. There is another context of defending yourself and your religion.

The Qarmatians managed to get into it, and did horrific things to the people there.

I mean Non-Muslim are not allowed by Islamic Law.
Saudi police stopping non-Muslims entering Mecca.
By the way, Qaramtians get into Mecca by cheating Muslims at that time. They turned over inside Mecca.

Let’s say that they began to try to break the Kabaa or started preaching against Islam?

This is a fight act. The verse is talking about fighting not killing.
In this case they've started the fight.

And if they refuse? I’m not sure how successful discussions with scholars would have been during the 1987 siege.

There are many ways to force people to move without killing or fight. It's like USA police forced protesters to get out from Wall Street safely with some small wounds.But in Cairo Protesters are being shut

I didn’t know there were wells. I thought that the region was very dry, with little water but the Red Sea. Can you show me evidence of this? If so, I definitely take back my skepticism on this part of the story.

I tries to find a map for wells but I couldn't especially it's different from 1500 years ago.
I found a map that includes cities in Hijaz, you'll note that the cities are near each others more than in the middle. People used to gather around the water sources.

Do you know if the death of Abraha or his attempt to destroy Mecca was detailed by Procopius or other historians of his time? Such an event I would think would have been recorded.

No Idea, Let me tell you something. Arabs before Islam didn't document anything, there is no single book about their history. The only source was poets.
Historian at that times were Romans, I think the Roman Empire as the Greek one never interested in Arabia. So, It'll be a surprise if there is something documented about this.
We've Surah El-Fail (Elephent) this was one of the early Quran in Mecca. Pagans didn't deny the story at that time as it was since about 40 years.

Are you sure about this?

When the Quran says that all people- believers and disbelievers- prostrate, it doesn’t depend on the goodwill of people, does it?

Also, why should the lack of goodwill of some people nullify God’s promises to others? The pilgrims murdered in the siege of 1987 or Qarmatian attack centuries earlier were responsible neither for the attackers or the incompetence of the Meccan authorities.
Yet the promise of safety for them as crushed.

We don't know why Allah didn't influence directly in Qaramtians case but some studies are saying the Miracles era ended with prophet Muhammad's death.
This is the best explanation.
Allah said in Quran 21:23 "He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned"
This is what we do with Allah's acts, we try to find a convenient explanation but sometimes

I don’t understand what you mean by this. The Qarmatians personally and purposefully slaughtered the pilgrims. So did the extremists and Saudi army. Such is also the case when deadly fights erupt between Shia pilgrims and the Saudi police.

Mecca safe is an order to Mulsims like fasting for example. Some Muslims don't do fasting, others pertain fasting but eat when alone.
Keep Mecca safe is an order to Muslims. Some Muslims violate it like extremists.

Why was it needed with Abraha and not with the Qarmatians?

As explained, there are a few explanations but the best explanation is that the Miracle era is finished by prophet's death.

Many thanks my friend. God bless you.

You's welcome