►Ramadan: Scholars who say woman, children can be killed in Jihaad cause the prophet killed them?
According to the hadith the prophet Muhammad (saw) allowed the killing of woman and children during nocturnal attacks (night raids).
It has also been established that in the Seige of taif the prophet Muhammad (saw) used Ballistics (catapults) against the enemy.
Sheikh Al Shuaybi says that the prophet muhammad therfore aknowledged that non combatants may be killed. When he was asked about non combatant woman and children being killed, the prophet said the following:
"It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them." - Sahih Muslim 19:4321
Their also also hadith were the prophet forbade it. However the Sheikh believes according to "Rudolph Peters" that muslims do not sin if they kill the woman and children in night attacks as long as it was not intended.
Other scholars who support the killing of non combatant's is Al Ghazali, a 10th Century scholar who said in "Kitab al-wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-Imam al-Safi'i":
"irfi:[O]ne must go on jihad [i.e., warlike razzias or raids] at least once a year...One may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children.. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the ahl al-kitab [People of the Book] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked...One may cut down their trees "
The prophet reportedly cut down the trees of the Banu Nadir and Burn them to. Cutting down tree's is permissable in Islam in Jihaad, and it seems many muslims are confused about this matter, its the Lotus Tree which gives shade that is forbidden to cut.
Regarding Human shields (non combatants in an area)
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his Household) was asked about the pagans being hit by night, and some women and children being killed in the process, and he replied, "They are from among them." [Bukhari and Muslim] In the case of Muslims, however, firing is permissible only if abstaining will lead to a wholesale harm, such as a greater number of Muslims being killed than those being used as a shield, or the Muslims being defeated and their land overrun. In such a case, any Muslims killed as a result will be raised up according to their intentions.
The majority consider it obligatory to attack the enemy in cases of necessity, even if it leads to the members of a human shield being killed. [See: Shawkani's Fath al-Qadeer (5/447), Mughni al-Muhtaj (4/244), Hashiyat al-Dusuqi (2/178), and Ibn Qudamah's al-Mughni (10/505)] The author of Mughni al-Muhtaj gives two conditions which should be satisfied:
1. That the Mujahideen try their best to avoid hitting the shield deliberately.
2. That they do not intend to kill the people in the shield.
Ibn Taymiyyah said, "If the unbelievers use Muslims as a human shield, and the unbelievers cannot be repelled without killing [the Muslims], then [the Muslim army may fire], for inflictions and afflictions may smite one in this world who does not deserve it in the Hereafter, and it counts as a misfortune for him [for which he may be rewarded]. Some expressed this by saying, "The killer is a Mujahid and the killed one is a martyr.""
The majority of Hanafis and Malikis, as well as Imam Sufyan al-Thawri, have permitted attacking when the enemy have used a shield of Muslims, whether or not abstaining would be detrimental or lead to defeat, reasoning that otherwise Jihad would never take place. [See: Fath al-Qadeer (5/448), Jassas' Ahkam al-Qur'an (5/273) and Minah al-Jaleel (3/151)] The weakness of this position is clear, in that the sanctity of a Muslim life is greater than to allow its taking without a clear proof, and moreover such shields are not universally used, and so Jihad would not necessarily come to a halt.
In the case of women children and old men from among the unbelievers being used as shield, the majority of Hanafis, Shafi`is and Hanbalis have allowed attacking even if it is not a dire necessity. [See: Al-Siyar al-Kabeer (4/1554) Mughni al-Muhtaj (4/224) and Al-Mughni (10/504)] The Malikis differed, but for brevity we will not mention their reasoning. [See: Dardeer's Al-Sharh al-Kabeer (2/178) and Minah al-Jaleel (3/150).]