(When two Muslims meet with their swords, the killer and the killed are in the Fire) Does it, in its generality, include what happened between the Companions?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner :Sahih Muslim 2888b, does it, in its generality, include what happened between the Companions?
The Shaykh : From which aspect? What do you mean by saying "in its generality"?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : But the Companions fought on the basis of interpretation, interpreting that they were in the right; not every one of them wanted to kill his companion. As for this one, he says:Sahih al-Bukhari 6875. And as for what happened between the Companions, there is no doubt that it was interpretation based on ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), but some of them were right and some were wrong, and their error is forgiven.
The questioner : But Shaykh, the hadith: and , so the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) distinguished, saying: .
The Shaykh : Yes, this is because he is the aggressor. The first one came to him to take his wealth or his life or something similar, so he is the aggressor. But these two, each one of them wants to aggress against the other, so the killing of the second one by the first is in self-defense. Yes.
When two Muslims confront each other with their swords, both the slayer and the slain are doomed to Hell-Fire.
إذا التقى المسلمان بسيفيهما فالقاتل والمقتول في النارThe Shaykh : From which aspect? What do you mean by saying "in its generality"?
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : But the Companions fought on the basis of interpretation, interpreting that they were in the right; not every one of them wanted to kill his companion. As for this one, he says:
The killed one was eager to kill his opponent.
إنه كان حريصا على قتل صاحبهThe questioner : But Shaykh, the hadith:
What do you think if I killed him
أرأيت إن قتلتهWhat do you think if he killed me
أرأيت إن قتلنيHe is in the Fire
هو في النارThe Shaykh : Yes, this is because he is the aggressor. The first one came to him to take his wealth or his life or something similar, so he is the aggressor. But these two, each one of them wants to aggress against the other, so the killing of the second one by the first is in self-defense. Yes.