Posted by Article on 2/10/2004, 20:09:18 In times of war, Islamic law permits the taking of hostages from the enemy camp and they can be: released, ransomed or punished appropriately. Ideally, the choice exercised should be taken in the interest of Islam and the concerns of the immediate community. However, the Muslims will be constrained and influenced by two external factors. First of all, the behaviour of the enemies with regards to how they are treating the Muslim prisoners and conducting the war in general; secondly, the military capability of the Muslims in comparison to their enemies. The first two options of releasing the prisoners or ransoming them for a price are not disputed. But the latter category of punishing the prisoners has caused some level of controversy due to the recent abduction of foreigners by the Iraqi resistance. Many of the Muslims, in particular the moderate brigades and unfortunately even some of the so-called radical groups, have capitulated to the media-generated pressure around them and started to issue erroneous verdicts on the matter that not only contradicts Islam but common sense. They have adopted the language of the belligerent aggressors, exclusively condemning the abduction of a small number of foreigners by the Iraqi resistance while remaining mute on the thousands of innocent civilians taken as hostage from their homes and subsequently tortured, abused, and in some cases murdered. The abductions of the foreign and Iraqi hostages are certainly related like married couples, even though the media pretends, that, they are divorced! Just to digress a little, it is worthwhile noting the use of the word foreign with respect to the Iraqi resistance. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi from Jordan, across the artificial colonial installed border, sharing the same blood, culture, language and religion, is a foreigner according to the occupying forces! So, who are the Australians and the Americans that have come from thousands of miles way across the ocean? Do they hold the Iraqi Green-Card issued by the former CIA operative Iyad Allawi? We certainly do not hear the Iraqis referring to the small number of Arabs/Muslims who have come across the border to aid the Iraqi resistance as foreigners: to the contrary how could they operate without the approval of the indigenous Iraqis? Let us first examine the evidences pertaining to the permissibility to punish and execute prisoners of war. One should bear in mind that in Islamic law, there are mandatory obligations and prohibitions. And what lies in between these two rigid points is a matter of choice, to be selected as the best option on what should be done. Islamic Evidences Muslims are generally encouraged to treat the prisoners well; there are sayings (Hadiths) of the Prophet (SAW) on this matter. And he said, treat the prisoners well. The companions (Sahabas) of the Prophet (SAW) used to feed the prisoners with better food before feeding themselves. There are numerous incidences of where Muslims have released captives unharmed or for a very small price. No torture or humiliation was exercised over them. Indeed, the Taliban treated the prisoners far better than the US forces reciprocated. They mass murdered the prisoners with their hands tied behind their backs, as was reported by Robert Fisk of the Independent along with pictures. Similarly, prior to the gruesome revelations of Abu-Ghraib, the Muslims did not behead the hostages; they treated their prisoners far better, given that the Iraqis are the real victims in defending their lands. Recently even the two Italian women released from captivity also confirmed the good treatment by their open support for the Iraqi resistance in media interviews. However, the issue of treating the prisoners well is not an absolute decisive command but an advice. Furthermore there are other evidences that show the permissibility to execute prisoners of war they are elaborated below. a) Battle Of Badr After the battle of Badr, the Muslims acquired prisoners of war. Some of the companions of the Prophet (Sahabas) were inclined to ransom them for money whilst others took the more stern view, that, they should be executed. The Prophet (SAW) opted for the lenient option. However, it was the latter point of view that was upheld by the revelation, meaning that, execution was not only permitted but in this instance the preferred thing to do. It is not fitting for an Apostle (Muhammad) that he should have prisoners of war, until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You look on the temporal goods of this world but Allah (SWT) looks to the hereafter Holy Quran 8:67 Another incidence after Badr was the capture of the notorious Umayah ibn Khalaf and his son who were the owners and torturers of Bilal (RA). When Bilal (RA) spotted them as prisoners of Abdul Rahman bin Auf (RA), he with the help of the residents of Medina (Ansars) cut the two prisoners to pieces for their earlier belligerent hostility. Similar punishment was given to the tortures of Abu-Ghraib in Fallujah for their heinous crime! The Prophet (SAW) did not rebuke the action of Bilal and therefore consented to the execution of these prisoners of war. The Prophet also have ordered the execution of three prisoners of Badr by the name of Ruqba bin Abi Muwayed, Nadr bin Harith, Tuima bin Adiee, another clear evidence of the permissibility to execute the Prisoners of war. b) The Incident With The Jewish Tribe Of Banu-Quraiza The tribe of Banu-Quraiza committed treachery against the Muslims; they were taken as captives and all the adult men were put to death, around 600 men. Note, all of the adult male captives were slain not just those committed the breach. Why? Because, they were engaged with the Muslims as a nation hence punished as a nation. c) The Quran Apart from the abovementioned verse (8:67), the chapter of Muhammad (47:4) also alludes to the permissibility or in this case recommendation to execute prisoners of war. It states: Therefore, when you meet (battlefields) the unbelievers smite their necks; At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them bind (the captives) firmly: therefore either Generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burden. Holy Quran 47:4 Here, the verse clearly recommending the execution of prisoners until the Muslims have the upper hand. When they are encouraged to either set them free or ransom them. The use of the word smite their necks (Darab ar-Riqab) refers to execution as oppose to the general killing in the battlefields mentioned in the other verse where it uses the word Qatil There are other evidences but the abovementioned evidences should suffice to prove the point that the Muslims have the three options in dealing with the prisoners of war. In general advice is that they should treat the prisoners well but at certain times, harsh measures may be more suitable and necessary. These situations arise primarily due to the circumstances imposed upon the Muslims, as stated earlier the treatment of prisoners will be influenced by the behaviour of the enemy and the huge disparity in the military capability between the Muslims and non-Muslims. Hence let us briefly examine these external factors.
ZAKARIA: The Islamic Verdict On Hostages
Oct 02, 2004
By Yamin Zakaria
Message Thread:
« Back to thread