The second is great strength in physical fighting, to kill a lot of people.

The second is great strength in physical fighting, to kill a lot of people. Only the first is bravery . As for the second, it (only) proves physical strength. And, not everyone who is physically strong has a strong heart, and not vice versa.[^5] So, “bravery” is only to have a fearless heart. Whether this translates into action on the battlefield or not is irrelevant. Rather, the warrior who firmly faces multiple enemy fighters in battle, and kills them is not brave at all.

He is only “physically strong”. Our Shaykh justifies his new definition in this manner: والنبي صلى الله عليه و سلم كان أكمل الناس في هذه الشجاعة التي هي المقصودة في أئمة الحرب ولم يقتل بيده إلا أبي بن خلف قتله يوم أحد ولم يقتل بيده أحدا لا قبلها ولا بعدها وكان أشجع من جميع الصحابة The Prophet, peace be upon him, was the most perfect of mankind in this type of bravery (i.e. of the heart) which was what was expected in the war commanders. He never killed anyone with his hand except Ubayy b. Khalaf.

He killed him on the Day of Uhud, and never killed anyone else before or after them. Yet, he was braver than all the Sahabah.[^6] This analogy does not work in the cases of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman though. The Messenger of Allah was the ruler of Arabia at that time. Heads of state are not expected anywhere to participate in battle like foot soldiers. Rather, they are to be shielded from the enemy as much as possible. As for Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, they were ordinary soldiers.

Therefore, they had every obligation and chance to participate in multiple combats with enemy fighters. But what happened? Obviously, since Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s new definition is hinged upon the roles of the Prophet in battle, it is inapplicable in the cases of anyone who was not the head of state at the times of the battles. Moreover, one honestly wonders about the logicality of the Shaykh’s separation of fearlessness of the heart from battle valour.

Can a person with a timid heart willfully confront fully armed, firmly determined, well-trained and highly experienced enemy fighters, in mortal combats, in battle? But then, what exactly does Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah want us to pick from his incongruous definition?