War ethics in Islam

Friend

In the Name of God
Messages
603
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Jordan
war is decreed in Islam in self defense. This indicates that aim behind war is to ward off aggression not to impose Islam as a religion. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily God is most powerful for their aid.” (Al-Hajj:39)

War ethics in Islam

1-Personal Behavior of the Troops:

In war, as it is in peace, the instructions of Islam are to be observed. Worship does not cease in war. Islamic jurisprudence maintains that whatever is prohibited during peace is also prohibited during war. War is no excuse to be lenient with misbehaving troops. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said: “Beware of the prayer of the oppressed; for there is no barrier between it and Allah.” Here, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, differentiates between the oppressed believers and non-believers.

2-Whom to Fight:

Fighting should be directed only against fighting troops, and not to non- fighting personnel, and this is in compliance with the Qur’anic verse that reads: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors.” (Al-Baqarah: 190)

In one of the battles, a woman was found killed, and this was denounced by the Prophet saying "She did not fight" This will be further detailed under the instructions given to the armies and their commanding chiefs by the Prophet and his Caliphs.

3-The Prophet's instructions to Commanding Chiefs:

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, used to instruct his commanding chiefs saying: Fight in the cause of Allah. Do not be embittered. Do not be treacherous. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children or those (people) in convents.”

4-Abu-Bakr's instructions to Usama's Campaign on Syria:

“Do not betray or be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut or bum palm trees or fruitful trees. Don’t slay a sheep, a cow or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in hermitages, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for.”

5-Abu-Bakr's Instructions to Yazid ibn-Abi Sufian:

“I give you ten commandments: don’t kill a woman or a child or an old person, and don’t cut trees or ruin dwellings or slay a sheep but for food. Dont burn palm trees or drown them. And don’t be spiteful or unjust.”

6-Maintaining Justice and Avoidance of Blind Retaliation:

None can be more illustrative in this respect than the words of the Qurt’an. Allah Almighty says: “ O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do.” (Al-Maidah: 8)

7-Medical and Nursing Services:

From the early days of Islam the sanctity of the medical profession was recognized. Christian and Jewish doctors were employed by the Islamic state since the days of the Umayyads, and some of them were even court and personal physicians to caliphs. Under the tolerant attitude of Islam, some of them got the chance to unfold their full scientific potential and thus contributed to the progress of medical knowledge.

Medical help was a right to all men in spite of religion or creed. That this was also extended to those amongst enemy. An example well known in the West is that of Saladin securing medical help to his opponent, Richard Lion Heart of England who was seriously ill during the Crusades. Saladin sent him his own doctor and personally supervised Richard's treatment until he became well.

In quoting this particular example, one dare say that such an attitude was quite different to the behavior characterizing the invading crusaders. When the crusaders entered Jerusalem on July 15th 1099, they slaughtered seventy thousand Muslims including women, children and old men. They broke children's skulls by knocking against the wall, threw babies from roof tops, roasted men over fire and cut up women's bellies to see if they had swallowed gold.

This description was given by Gibbon, a Christian writer, and commented on by Ludbig Wbo wondered how come after those horrible atrocities they prayed at the burial place of Christ for blessing and forgiveness (Draper/History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. 2, p. 77).

We do not mention this in bitterness or prejudice for every honest Muslim or Christian well knows that Christianity is something and many deeds of the crusaders are something else.

8-Prisoners of War:

For the first time in religious or sectarian history, Islam adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury.

Previously, it was the custom for the captive to work for his food or get it through private means. The Qur’an made it a charity to feed the prisoners saying:

“Lo! the righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of water of Kafur. A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allah drink, making it gush forth abundantly. Because they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide spreading. And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him. (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you.” (Al-Insan: 5-9)

The Prophet instructed his Companions to be good to the captives. In one of his traditions, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, ordered his Companions saying: “ You should be good to the captives.”

Abu Aziz-ibn Umair, one of the captives of Badr battle, recalls:

“Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me the bread and themselves the dates, in view of the Prophet's recommendation in our favor (in that desert situation bread was the more luxurious item of food than dates)

As soon as any of them held a piece of bread, he would offer it to me. "Feeling shy, I would give it back to one of them but he would immediately return it to me."

Another, Thumama ibn-Athal, was taken prisoner and brought to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, who said: “Be good to him in his captivity.” When the Prophet went home he instructed to collect whatever food there, and ordered it sent to the prisoner.

When the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayzah were captured, loads of dates were regularly carried to them, with the Prophet's instructions to shelter them from the summer sun and to provide them with water to drink.

From the legal point of view, Muslim opinion is unanimous on the prohibition of subjecting the captives to ill treatment by withholding food, drink or clothing.


9-The Fate of War Prisoners:

This was based upon the teaching of the Qur’an:

“Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.” (Muhammad: 4)

According to Islamic law, the captive belongs to the state and not to his captor. The ruler has the ultimate option, as he sees fit, of granting freedom or doing that after taking a ransom.

Among those whom the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, granted freedom was a poet called Abu-Azza who said to the Prophet: “I have five daughters who have no one to support them, so give me away to them as a charity and I promise never to fight you or help your enemies.

Abul-As Ibn Al Rabiae was freed for a ransom, which the Prophet later returned back to him. Later, the man embraced Islam.

Umarna Ibn-Athal was set free upon his promise not to provide the enemy with food. This gentle treatment touched the man’s heart and was then converted to Islam saying to the Prophet: "There was a time when your face was the most hated face to me, and there comes a day when it is the most loved.”

Sometimes captives were exchanged for Muslim captives in enemy hands. An acceptable ransom that was quite often carried out was to teach ten Muslim children to read and write. It is noteworthy that modern international law allows for setting free a prisoner of war on equivalent lines.

Personnel were set free upon their word of honor not to fight again, and they should not be ordered by their governments to go to battle again. If they break their promise, they might be punishable by death if they are captured again.


10-Nonbelligerents

Islam never fought nations but fought only despotic authorities. Islamic war was one of liberation and not of compulsion. The freedom of the liberated people to decide their religion has already been mentioned, and it was to ensure this freedom that Muslims fought. It is interesting to mention that when Muslims fought the Romans in Egypt, the Egyptian Copts sided with and helped Muslims against the Romans who were Christians like them. This was because Christian Egypt was suffering religious oppression by the Christian Romans to compel them to adopt their religious beliefs.

One of the earliest actions of the Muslims in Egypt was the assurance of religious freedom and the reinstatement of Bejamin as Bishop of Alexandria after years of hiding from the Romans in the western desert.

But religious freedom was but one aspect that Islam gave. Whether Arab or Egyptian, Muslim or Christian, Islam built up that FELLOWSHIP that humanity aspires to, in equality and fraternity .The story is well known of the running contest held in Egypt and won by an Egyptian to the dismay of an Arab competitor who was the son of `Amru Ibn Al-`Aas, governor of Egypt. The Arab hit the boy saying 'how dare you outrun me and I am the son of the nobility." Upon which Umar, the caliph, ordered the three all the way to Madinah, and ordered the Egyptian to avenge by hitting the offending Arab, saying: "Hit him back. Hit the son of nobility." Addressing `Amru, he uttered his famous saying: “O `Amru, since when have you enslaved people while their mothers have born them free.”

10-International Law:

The process of active intervention to stop or remove aggression is a development that modem international law has recognized.

The second world war for example was sparked by Germany's invasion of Poland, and drew into the fighting countries that were not direct parties to the conflict. One of the fruits of war was the creation of the United Nations in order to settle disputes between nations by peaceful means or indeed if necessary by a collective military force. No one should argue therefore that Egypt and the Roman Empire for example should have been left alone to solve their mutual problems. In modem times the rest of the family of nations consider it a duty to do something about it. Fourteen centuries prior to the establishment of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, Islam decreed such responsibility.

The legal principle of intervention to solve dispute was offered by the Qur’anic saying:

“If two parties of believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: But if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of God; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for God loves those who are fair.” (Al-Hujurat: 9)

11-Respect of Treaties and Agreements:

One of the major shortcomings of modern international politics is its meager regard to moral obligation. Time and again, treaties and agreements proved unworthy of the price of paper they had been written on. The most splendid produce of the human intellect in the field of international law might instantly vanish upon the call of greed or creed at this age that we wish to think has brought us to the epic of civilization.

And what is worse is that the most sophisticated achievements of scientific progress are often used as tools in the hands of Godless or God-disregarding policies: instead of being exploited 'in the cause of God.’

From the outset, Islam has emphatically prohibited treachery by taking the enemy by surprise attack. Recent examples of signing a pact or treaty with a nation as camouflage to hidden intent to attack it are quite contrary to Islam, as several quotations from the Qur’an reads:

“ O ye who believe! Fulfil your undertakings…”(Al-Maidah:1)

“Fulfill the convenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not your oaths after you have confirmed them; indeed you have made God your surety, for God knoweth an that you do.” (An-Nahl: 91)

If Muslims sense the treachery of any enemy with whom they had a treaty, they should declare to him the annulment of that treaty before embarking on war again.

“Thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for God loveth not the treacherous.” (Al-Anfal:85)

Although Muslims are bound to go to the help of their Muslim brethren who are religiously persecuted in the land of an enemy; they are not allowed to fulfill this duty if there is a treaty between the Muslim community and this enemy. Priority goes to honouring the treaty.

“But if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance. And (remember) God seeth an that you do." (Al-Anfal:72)
 
Salaam--
this is a really good post. I hope that people will talk about this more in the media and elsewhere where there are Muslims and non-Muslims.
 
Salaam--
this is a really good post. I hope that people will talk about this more in the media and elsewhere where there are Muslims and non-Muslims.
thank you my sister ... I wanted to emphasize that Islam did not call for fighting only in self-defence .

slaam :)
 
After 9-11 there has been various debates about Islam. Some have said that the terrorist are Islam's true spoken. The so called moderates practice taqiya. Taqiya is the deliberate lying for the faith. They say Islam is a violent religion that commands Muslims to kill non Muslim. Non Muslims have 3 choices, either they convert, pay the jizya(tax) or die. They say Muhammad was peaceful for PR reasons and once strong showed his true colors and preached violent jihad. They say all the peaceful verses were abrogated after his final victory with this verse:

9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

And also this verse:

9.29. Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

This verses are chosen for a reason. When read alone it implies a command to attack until they convert. Of course there are other verses in the Koran that talks about fighting. But why do they tend to focus on this one? Its simple, the other verses tend to show the defensive nature of the jihad and also the malicious intent and behavior of the pagans. Thus never cited. Lets look at some of them:

2.190. Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors

2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith

2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God, but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression

Also:

2.217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

All these verses talks about fighting, however within these verses the defensive nature of the verses and the malicious behavior of the pagans is cited. Thus those who wish to attack Islam never cite those verses. Its a deliberate attempt to hide what the Koran as saying and using selective verses to imply what they know the verses does not mean.

Lets however look at the verse that is often cited. This time we will take the verses before and after it to see what is the context this verse is talking.

9.4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous.

9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

However in the same chapter in explains the intention behind this verse:

9.13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

Its important for us to understand what the Koran is saying. When the koran says if they repent and establish regular prayers and so on, its not a command to attack them till they do that. Its a command to say if they choose to one day becoming Muslims, do not despise them because of past blood. Let bygones be bygones because now there are your brethren. If he chooses to remain pagan then let him be and do not fight him unless he chooses to fight you. The verse are read wrong, since many pagans converted to Islam and some of the earlier believers had problems with individuals who they fought before or were persecuted and oppressed by them before.

The verses clearly indicate that no forced conversion was there.There are standards that the Koran established for fighting.

As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth[/i]. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9

Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ 22:39-40

However both Sunni Islam or Shia islam do not follow the Koranic guidance. They follow whats know as the hadiths. The hadiths are the supposed "oral" prophetic traditions they say was passed along orally across time and was collected and written down 2 to 3 centuries after the prophet. The prophet and his companions never left behind them any text except the Koran. The hadiths emerged during the reign of the Abbasid empire and was a way to establish an orthodoxy and give legitimacy to a corrupt dynasty by using the prophet's name. Everything from executing apostates, to stoning adulterers and labelling other monotheist as infidels have their support not in the koran, but in these so called hadiths. So hadiths have the same place in sectarian Islam as do the Talmud in Judaism. The Koran condemned the Talmud and Jesus in the Gospel of Mark 7 also condemned the Talmud. The Koran only recognizes the Torah and the Gospel. However like Islam, both these religions have abandoned these scriptues for either a supposed "oral" tradition that emerged centuries later or a supposed "holy ghost" who was to interpret the Gospel in ways not supported by the Gospel.

The Koran makes clear the job of the prophet:

16:82 But [b]if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message[/b] .

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

11:28 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?°

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

But most of all the Koran asks the prophet himself this question:

10.99-100. If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand

The prophet's answer must have been no!

109.1-6 Say : O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine

Koran is peace!
 
certainly :)
islam is religion of tolerance
well done my brother

and terrorism
an existing in the world
but :cool:
the real meaning of Islam
is to refuses terrorism
 
Thank you very much dear brothers/sisters for explaining your noble religion.

May Allah reward you a good reward.

Peace.
 
Thank you very much dear brothers/sisters for explaining your noble religion.

May Allah reward you a good reward.

Peace.

Quran 47:4-5

When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take a ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens


Quran 76:,8-10

8 But the righteous give sustenance to the destitute, the orphan, and the captive, [9] saying: ‘We feed you for God’s sake only; we seek of you neither recompense nor thanks: [10] for we fear from our Lord a day of anguish and of woe.

Quran 8:71

Prophet, say to those you have taken captive: ‘If God finds goodness in your hearts, He will give you that which is better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you. God is forgiving and merciful.’

This is what the Quran teaches. Now what Sunni/Shia sectarianism teaches is something very different. This is because they follow the teachings of the oral traditions(hadiths) that were compiled 2 to 3 centuries after Muhammad. They believe these hadiths not only explains and compliments the Koran but can also abrogate it. Lets see what Sunnism teaches and compare them with the Koran:

Women and children
Muslim scholars hold that women and children prisoners of war cannot be killed under any circumstances, regardless of their faith,[19] but that they may be enslaved, freed or ransomed. Women who are neither freed nor ransomed by their people were to be kept in bondage and referred to as ma malakat aymanukum (slaves).

[edit] Men

There has been disagreement whether adult male prisoners of war may be executed. One traditional opinion holds that executing prisoners of war is strictly forbidden; this is the most-widely accepted view, and one upheld by the Hanafi madhab.[20]
However, the opinion of the Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Jafari madhabs is that adult male prisoners of war may be executed.[21] Conventionally, execution was conditional on the reasonable belief that male prisoners would pose a genuine and immediate threat to the Muslim community if allowed to live. The decision for an execution is to be made by the Muslim leader. This opinion was also upheld by the Muslim judge, Sa'id bin Jubair (665-714 AD) and 'Abu Yusuf Ya'qub a classical jurist from the Hanafi school of jurispudence.[22] El Fadl argues the reason Muslim jurists adopted this position was largely because it was consistent with the war practices of the Middle Ages.[23]
Most contemporary Muslim scholars prohibit altogether the killing of prisoners and hold that this was the policy practiced by Prophet Muhammad.[24] The 20th century Muslim scholar, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi states that no prisoner should be "put to the sword" in accordance with a saying of Muhammad.[25]
Yusuf Ali, another 20th century Muslim scholar, while commenting on verse [Qur'an 9:6], writes,
Even those the enemies of Islam, actively fighting against Islam, there may be individuals who may be in a position to require protection. Full asylum is to be given to them, and opportunities provided for hearing the Word of Allah...If they do not see their way to accept Islam, they will require double protection: (1) from the Islamic forces openly fighting against their people, and (2) from their own people, as they detached themselves from them. Both kinds of protection should be ensured for them, and they should be safely escorted to a place where they can be safe.[26]
Maududi further states that Islam forbids torturing, especially by fire, and quotes Muhamad as saying, "Punishment by fire does not behoove anyone except the Master of the Fire [God]."[25]

Prisoners of war in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lets also look at contemporary figures like Munajjid, a prominent Wahhabi cleric in Saudi Arabia:

Detaining prisoners

Prisoners should be detained until it is decided what is the best move. The ruler of the Muslims should detain prisoners until he decides what is in the Muslims’ best interests. He may ransom them for money, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners, or release them for nothing in return, or distribute them among the Muslims as slaves, or kill the men, but not the women and children, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade killing the latter. The purpose behind detaining prisoners is so that the Muslims may be protected from their evil. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to enjoin the Muslims to treat prisoners well, whereas the Romans and those who came before them the Assyrians and Pharaohs, all used to put out their prisoners’ eyes with hot irons, and flay them alive, feeding their skins to dogs, such that the prisoners preferred death to life.

This is an extract of his fatwa. This is standard Sunni teachings. The rest of his fatwa is here:

Islam Question and Answer - Treatment of prisoners-of-war in Islam

So I think we can see that the Koran says one thing and Sunnis say another because the Koran says one thing and the hadiths another. Sunnis always follow the authority of the hadiths, thats why they are called Sunnis, they follow the Sunnah(prophetic tradition). Shiasm has the same sources with few minor differences. The Koran is not their ultimate source. And their veiw about freedom of religion and faith is even more contradictory than the Koran. There are over 20 verses in the Koran that guarantees freedom of faith yet these sects believe apostates can be executed. Of course the "ruler" decides.

We must seperate the Koran from anything else these sects teach. The Koran is real Islam.
 
Quran 47:4-5

When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take a ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens


Quran 76:,8-10

8 But the righteous give sustenance to the destitute, the orphan, and the captive, [9] saying: ‘We feed you for God’s sake only; we seek of you neither recompense nor thanks: [10] for we fear from our Lord a day of anguish and of woe.

Quran 8:71

Prophet, say to those you have taken captive: ‘If God finds goodness in your hearts, He will give you that which is better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you. God is forgiving and merciful.’

This is what the Quran teaches. Now what Sunni/Shia sectarianism teaches is something very different. This is because they follow the teachings of the oral traditions(hadiths) that were compiled 2 to 3 centuries after Muhammad. They believe these hadiths not only explains and compliments the Koran but can also abrogate it. Lets see what Sunnism teaches and compare them with the Koran:

Women and children
Muslim scholars hold that women and children prisoners of war cannot be killed under any circumstances, regardless of their faith,[19] but that they may be enslaved, freed or ransomed. Women who are neither freed nor ransomed by their people were to be kept in bondage and referred to as ma malakat aymanukum (slaves).

[edit] Men

There has been disagreement whether adult male prisoners of war may be executed. One traditional opinion holds that executing prisoners of war is strictly forbidden; this is the most-widely accepted view, and one upheld by the Hanafi madhab.[20]
However, the opinion of the Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Jafari madhabs is that adult male prisoners of war may be executed.[21] Conventionally, execution was conditional on the reasonable belief that male prisoners would pose a genuine and immediate threat to the Muslim community if allowed to live. The decision for an execution is to be made by the Muslim leader. This opinion was also upheld by the Muslim judge, Sa'id bin Jubair (665-714 AD) and 'Abu Yusuf Ya'qub a classical jurist from the Hanafi school of jurispudence.[22] El Fadl argues the reason Muslim jurists adopted this position was largely because it was consistent with the war practices of the Middle Ages.[23]
Most contemporary Muslim scholars prohibit altogether the killing of prisoners and hold that this was the policy practiced by Prophet Muhammad.[24] The 20th century Muslim scholar, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi states that no prisoner should be "put to the sword" in accordance with a saying of Muhammad.[25]
Yusuf Ali, another 20th century Muslim scholar, while commenting on verse [Qur'an 9:6], writes,
Even those the enemies of Islam, actively fighting against Islam, there may be individuals who may be in a position to require protection. Full asylum is to be given to them, and opportunities provided for hearing the Word of Allah...If they do not see their way to accept Islam, they will require double protection: (1) from the Islamic forces openly fighting against their people, and (2) from their own people, as they detached themselves from them. Both kinds of protection should be ensured for them, and they should be safely escorted to a place where they can be safe.[26]
Maududi further states that Islam forbids torturing, especially by fire, and quotes Muhamad as saying, "Punishment by fire does not behoove anyone except the Master of the Fire [God]."[25]

Prisoners of war in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lets also look at contemporary figures like Munajjid, a prominent Wahhabi cleric in Saudi Arabia:

Detaining prisoners

Prisoners should be detained until it is decided what is the best move. The ruler of the Muslims should detain prisoners until he decides what is in the Muslims’ best interests. He may ransom them for money, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners, or release them for nothing in return, or distribute them among the Muslims as slaves, or kill the men, but not the women and children, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade killing the latter. The purpose behind detaining prisoners is so that the Muslims may be protected from their evil. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to enjoin the Muslims to treat prisoners well, whereas the Romans and those who came before them the Assyrians and Pharaohs, all used to put out their prisoners’ eyes with hot irons, and flay them alive, feeding their skins to dogs, such that the prisoners preferred death to life.

This is an extract of his fatwa. This is standard Sunni teachings. The rest of his fatwa is here:

Islam Question and Answer - Treatment of prisoners-of-war in Islam

So I think we can see that the Koran says one thing and Sunnis say another because the Koran says one thing and the hadiths another. Sunnis always follow the authority of the hadiths, thats why they are called Sunnis, they follow the Sunnah(prophetic tradition). Shiasm has the same sources with few minor differences. The Koran is not their ultimate source. And their veiw about freedom of religion and faith is even more contradictory than the Koran. There are over 20 verses in the Koran that guarantees freedom of faith yet these sects believe apostates can be executed. Of course the "ruler" decides.

We must seperate the Koran from anything else these sects teach. The Koran is real Islam.

Slaam:)

We Sunnism .. Follow the Koran teaching... We believe that the Prophet was the best application of the teachings of God and we must be followed .. and the designation of Sunni and Shi'ite
Because Shia follows the teachings and explanations of their various elders of ....
While the sunnis following the Koran and apply the method of our Prophet Muhammad in the worship.



Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) has forbidden Muslims in unequivocal terms: "Do not mutilate even a wild dog (the dog that bites people without being provoked).".

While the Geneva Conventions spelled out explicit guidelines for treatment of war prisoners in the 20th century, Muslims say the Prophet Mohammed established specific rules regarding prisoners 1,400 years ago. For example, he once removed his own shirt so a war prisoner could be clothed. The Koran stipulates humane treatment and release of war prisoners. And Islam teaches that jihad, or striving to be a good Muslim, is used on the battlefield as a way of restraining anger and emotion to protect the well-being of those captured. Islam also forbids destruction of homes, places of worship and trees.


with my respect to all friends whom add their opinions here :)
 
Friend,

War, ordinarily, takes place in a highly localised setting between clearly defined protagonists. One, the other or both are as likely as not to use Islam, Christianity or any other faith to justify themselves to themselves and rally internal popular support. But those who declare the wars are politicians, even when they are religious leaders. To forget or ignore that, even for a second, is to begin to misunderstand how the world really works.

In the case of Islam as any other religion many leaders have sought to wrestle it to their control, and it can be fairly argued that it lends itself well to doing just that. The Saudi funded Wahhabi propaganda that infects Islam at this time is a classic example. The Saudi's work closely with the Americans to create a perceived threat. To milk tax trillions for the arms, logistics, and oil companies that Arabian royalty and Fascist Capitalist Americans jointly own.

But the answers are not in Islam. All these things you would like to believe are the truth of Islam are only ideals. They have never been and never can be the truth. As ideals they are noble, and that is their appeal. You link such appeal to your perceived vision of a just and noble god. But the values behind these ideals are not the property of Islam. As an atheist I aspire to the same ideals. They are not gods, they are human.

So long as people see believing in a god as more important than believing in ourselves then god will continue to be drafted into unjust armies.
 
As an atheist I aspire to the same ideals. They are not gods, they are human.

Your position is clearly contradictory. Either you accept (as an atheist) that there are no objective criteria/ideals for morality... or you accept that there are (and are by definition independent of humanity).

You can't have both.
 
war is decreed in Islam in self defense. This indicates that aim behind war is to ward off aggression not to impose Islam as a religion. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily God is most powerful for their aid.” (Al-Hajj:39)

Hi Friend, this is a very interesting issue that you bring up. So if I understand what you are saying, in Islam, war is only done in self-defense, is that your opinion ?

So what are some of the situations you consider self defense ? Would it be if two people have been at war for many years and they both just keep fighting ? In this case how does the war ever end ? How can the viscious cycle be broken ?

Thanks.
 
Your position is clearly contradictory. Either you accept (as an atheist) that there are no objective criteria/ideals for morality... or you accept that there are (and are by definition independent of humanity).

You can't have both.
But there are. Human ones. Its very simple.
 
And it amazes me how you managed to make yourself believe that you could actually make a point. ;)

I did make a point. One you studiously ignored. So much easier to fall back on irrelevant semantics than actually acknowledge the substance though isnt it.
 
No, you tried to make a point. At which point I revealed its inherent contradiction... and then you threw a fit.

If you don't want to see the contradiction through me, please go and talk to your hero Richard Dawkins. To your surprise, he will tell you the exact same thing I told you. And you will have to accept that as an atheist you have no choice but to let go of the concept of objective (independent) morality. That is what being an atheist entails.
 
No, you tried to make a point. At which point I revealed its inherent contradiction... and then you threw a fit.

If you don't want to see the contradiction through me, please go and talk to your hero Richard Dawkins. To your surprise, he will tell you the exact same thing I told you. And you will have to accept that as an atheist you have no choice but to let go of the concept of objective (independent) morality. That is what being an atheist entails.


My hero? He is far from that. Of the dozen or so times I have mentioned him here most have been scathing. He is entitled to declare what his atheism means to him. Atheism is not a church or institution and certainly not one headed by him. Something you have obvious difficulties in understanding. And, as a human being, if you think I have no objective morality because I do not believe in some schizophrenic benevolent sicko then you are too busy trying to squeeze me into your definitions of how things are. You are a bright laddy c0de, and I respect your skill in developing and sustaining an argument, but please understand that I will always represent myself here, not your notion of me as a member of some fictional church of non-belief.

I am dissapointed that the platform this thread is for proseltysing a corrupt if well meaning view of Islam actually encourages nothing other than head nodders. Absolutely no progress... well what else can you expect from medieval nonsense?
 
how does this fit in with the ongoing muslim on muslim suicide bombing in Pakistan for example ?

I was speaking with a good muslim friend about this a little while ago and he said that it was all a conspiracy and that there were thousands on Indian Hindus masquerading as Pakistani Muslims and that it was these who were doing the killing and starting mosques where they preach hatred and brainwash people.

What do you think ?
 
But those who declare the wars are politicians, even when they are religious leaders. To forget or ignore that, even for a second, is to begin to misunderstand how the world really works.

Sometimes religious leaders themselves forget they are just being politicians. This is where the problem begins. Because of their status as religious and spiritual leaders, they have power and influence over their communities. With power comes responsibility, and the ability to do harm on a large scale. They need to be careful what message they project.

He is entitled to declare what his atheism means to him.

Well, the same could be said about Jesus with regards to his version of Judaism.:eek:
 
how does this fit in with the ongoing muslim on muslim suicide bombing in Pakistan for example ?

I was speaking with a good muslim friend about this a little while ago and he said that it was all a conspiracy and that there were thousands on Indian Hindus masquerading as Pakistani Muslims and that it was these who were doing the killing and starting mosques where they preach hatred and brainwash people.

What do you think ?

Hi Glory to God

Is it possible that non-Muslims are masquerading .. yes and even probable, even Western armies use these tactics.

However there is an awful lot of denial in the Muslim world at the moment I'm afraid. Pick virtually any topic where a Muslim has done wrong and you will hear a chorus of "it's all propaganda and none of it's true".

I really believe that as Muslims we must face our current demons, admit their existence and deal with them or they will be allowed to fester while we hide under the blanket saying the elephent in the room isn't real.
 
also, when one surrenders during the battle "of an enemy" not only u can't harm him, but you'll have to escort them to safety
 
No, you tried to make a point. At which point I revealed its inherent contradiction... and then you threw a fit.

If you don't want to see the contradiction through me, please go and talk to your hero Richard Dawkins. To your surprise, he will tell you the exact same thing I told you. And you will have to accept that as an atheist you have no choice but to let go of the concept of objective (independent) morality. That is what being an atheist entails.


alhmadulillah.you've made a good article for reference a lot of people and a very thank you for that. however i would suggest you to try to not provoke a fight(such as u said...'go and talk to your hero'...sounds immature to hear from someone as knowledgeable as u). what i mean is, of course you must stand up the point and I'm sure you can do it without makes someone angry. if one angry for no reason then it's not our problem.

I'm very sure Prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h would love if we have nice conversation to anyone. nice doesn't mean it would prevent you from standing up the truth.:)
 
Back
Top