On the Permissibility of Killing the Prisoners

[Joe]

Guiding the Perplexed on the
Permissibility of Killing the Prisoners

From Shaykh Yoosuf bin Saalih al-'Uyayri

[After the recent incident concerning the slaughter of the Jew, Nick Berg, and
the subsequent escalation in the questioning of the permissibility of killing
<span class="searchlite">prisoners</span>, I sought to summarise and translate
parts of Hidaayat al-Hayaaraa fi Jawaaz Qatl il-Asaaraa for the
Mujaahid Scholar Yoosuf bin Saalih al-‘Uyayri, may Allah enclose him in his
wide mercy.

The research paper was produced after the Mujaahideen in Chechnya slaughtered
seven captured Russian soldiers. Thereafter Khattab (Saamir as-Swaylim)
contacted Shaykh Yoosuf requesting a paper to conclude disputes and clarify
the matter. Shaykh Yoosuf fulfilled the request. May Allah gather them
together under the shade of His Throne. Ameen].

To proceed:

Islaam came with a set of revealed legislations, delivered from above
seven-heavens. In this legislation, the Legislator - subhaanah -
decreed sufficiently all the matters that will come to affect the ummah.
Thus Allah says, “And we revealed the book, clarifying (tibyaanan)
everything”.

From amongst those matters is this issue of <span class="searchlite">prisoners</span>.
This issue is not new, for it was faced by the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi
wa aalihi wa salam, and his companions and the <u>kh</u>ulafaa`
thereafter, and in their actions and treatment is the greatest of guidance and
wisdom for the one who seeks it.

The question is: What is the ruling on killing &lt;span class="searchlite"&gt;
prisoners&lt;/span&gt;, and how do we reply to those who say that
&lt;span class="searchlite"&gt;prisoners&lt;/span&gt; in Islaam are not killed but rather
are either freed or ransomed, due to His saying, “Thereafter (is the time)
either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to
what benefits Islaam”[47:4]?

Answer: On this issue are five ma<u>th</u>aahib (opinions):

<u>The first</u> is that a mushrik prisoner must be killed. No amnesty
may be granted to him, nor can he be ransomed. And the ayah above is
abrogated by His saying, “It is not for a Prophet that he should have
&lt;span class="searchlite"&gt;prisoners&lt;/span&gt; of war (and free them with ransom)
until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land.”[8:67]
and; “Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of
the Islaamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon wherever you find
them”[9:5] and; “Punish them severely in order to disperse those who
are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson” [8:57].This is the view
held by Qataadah, ad-Dahaak, as-Suddi, Ibn Jurayj and Ibn ‘Abbaas and many of
the scholars of Koofa.

But this view is contradictory to what is most correct as will become clear,
bi ithn illah.

<u>The second</u> is that all kufaar mushrikeen and the People of the
Book (i.e., Jews and Christians) are to be killed. They may not be granted
amnesty, nor can they be ransomed.

This view is more wide-ranging than the one before, and is narrated as the
view of Qataadah and Mujaahid who said: “If a mushrik is captured, it
is not permissible to grant him amnesty or to ransom him so that he may return
to the mushrikeen, and it is not permissible except for the woman as
she is not killed, and the (aayah) is abrogated by His saying, “Then
when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islaamic
calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon wherever you find them”
[9:5]. This soorah was the last to be revealed, thus it is obligatory to kill
every mushrik, except the one for whom there is evidence to absolve
them of this, such as the women and children, and the ones from whom jizyah
is taken. This is the popular view of the mathhab of Abu <u>H</u>aneefah,
and the logic behind it is, that by not killing such individuals, it is
possible that they return to fight Islaam.

‘Abdurazzaaq (in his Musannaf) mentioned: Ma’mar informed us, from
Qataadah, “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them
without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islaam” [47:4].He
said: It was abrogated by: “Punish them severely in order to disperse those
who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson” [8:57].And Mujaahid
said: It was abrogated by: “Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th,
11th, and 12th months of the Islaamic calendar) have passed, then kill the
Mushrikoon wherever you find them” [9:5], and this is the saying of al-<u>H</u>akam.

<u>The third</u> it is not permissible in the case of a prisoner except to
grant him amnesty or to ransom him, due to His saying, sub<u>h</u>aanahu wa
ta’ala, “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them
without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islaam” [47:4]; and
they said it was the last of what was revealed unto the Messenger,
sallallahu ‘alayhi wa aalihi wa salam regarding the
&lt;span class="searchlite"&gt;prisoners&lt;/span&gt;, and it provides two choices:
amnesty or ransom, and it is not permissible to go beyond that. They also
stated that this aayah abrogates those before it. (This saying) is narrated by
ad-Dahaak and others.

ath-Thawri narrates from Juwaybir, from ad-Dahaak, “Then when the Sacred
Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islaamic calendar) have
passed, then kill the Mushrikoon wherever you find them” [9:5] , he said:
It was abrogated by “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e.
free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islaam”
[47:4]. Ibn al-Mubaarak narrated from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Ataa` who said: “Thereafter
(is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom
(according to what benefits Islaam),”so the mushrik is not killed,
but rather is either granted amnesty or ransomed, as Allah says.

al-Ash’at said: al-Hasan (al-Basri) used to hate* for the prisoner to be
killed, and would recite, “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity
(i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islaam)”.
He claimed that it is not for the Imaam to kill the prisoner if he
captures him, but has three choices: either to grant amnesty, ransom or
enslave.

This view is refuted on two folds: Firstly, due to the what the Messenger
sallallahu ‘alayhi wa aalihi wa salam did, even after the revelation of
this ayah and secondly, if we were to accept that this saying is
strong, then it is not an evidence against us, as the war has not laid down
its burden, and the aayah mentions that as a condition, “until the
war lays down its burden.” [47:4]**. So there is no evidence possessed by
these people.

<u>The fourth</u> is that amnesty and ransom are possible only after the
killing of a large number, due to His saying: “It is not for a Prophet that
he should have &lt;span class="searchlite"&gt;prisoners&lt;/span&gt; of war (and free them
with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the
land.”[8:67] So if he was imprisoned after that, then the Imaam has
a choice to kill him or (do) otherwise. This is the view of Sa’eed bin Jubayr.

<u>The fifth</u> is that the Imaam or someone acting on his behalf, can
choose between killing, amnesty, ransom or enslaving the prisoner. This is the
view of Maalik, ash-Shafi’ee, Ahmad, and the majority of scholars. It is the
saying supported by the evidences, and does not cause them to (appear)
contradictory, and we do not need to resort to accepting the statement
regarding abrogation in this case.

al-Imaam al-Qurtubi says in explanation of this aayah that there are five
views [as mentioned above], and added: “The ayaat are decisive (muhkama)
and the Imaam has a choice in every case. This is narrated by ‘Ali bin
Abi Tal<u>h</u>ah from Ibn ‘Abbaas, and it was said by many scholars from them
Ibn ‘Umar, al-<u>H</u>asan, ‘Ataa` and it is the mathhab of Maalik,
ash-Shafi’ee, ath-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i and Abi ‘Ubayd and other than them, and
it is the choice (of mine). For the Messenger, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam,
the righteous khulafaa` did all that. The Messenger, sallallahu
‘alayhi wa salam killed ‘Uqbah bin Abi Mu’eet and an-Nidr bin al-Haarith
on the day of Badr, and ransomed the rest of the captives. He granted amnesty
to Thumaama bin Athaal al-Hanafi, whilst he was a prisoner, and took from
Salamah bin al-Awka’ a female-slave, and freed by her some of the Muslims. A
group of the people of Makkah entered on his (territory), so he took them,
sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam and granted them amnesty. He also granted
amnesty to the slaves of (the tribe of) Hawaazin and all this is established
from the Sa<u>h</u>eeh. This view is narrated by the people of
Madeenah, ash-Shafi’ee, Abi ‘Ubayd, and at-Ta<u>h</u>aawi stated that it is a
mathhab of Abi <u>H</u>aneefah, but what was mentioned earlier is what
is more known (about his view) on this matter, and with Allah ‘azza wa jall
lies Allah success”.

al-Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah says in al-Fataawa [34/116]: “The Imaam
has a choice with the &lt;span class="searchlite"&gt;prisoners&lt;/span&gt; to kill,
enslave, ransom or grant amnesty. So it is up to him to decide what is better
for the benefit of the Muslims.”

al-Imaam Ibn al-Qayyim says in Zaad al-Ma’aad [3/109]: “He -
sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam - used to grant amnesty to some, and kill
some, and ransom some for money and others for other &lt;span class="searchlite"&gt;
prisoners&lt;/span&gt; of the Muslims, and he did all that in accordance with the
benefit of the Muslims,” and then he mentioned the evidences for each.

al’Atheem Abaadi said in ‘Awn al-Ma’bood [7/247-248]: “Chapter: Killing
the prisoner and he is not offered Islaam. The Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi
wa salam granted security (when he entered Makkah) to all except four and
two women and he said regarding them, ‘Kill them, even if they were holding
unto the curtains of the Ka’bah’, (they were) ‘Ikrimah bin Abi Jahl, ‘Abdullah
bin Khatal, Muqees bin Subaabah and ‘Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh”.

al-Imaam as-Sarkhasi said in al-Mabsoot [10/137-138]: “And I asked him
- Abu <u>H</u>aneefah - regarding a man who captures a man from the enemies,
is it (permissible) for him to kill him, or must he bring him to the Imaam?
He said: Whichever of those is good. And when Ummayah bin Khalf was killed
after he was captured at Badr, the Messenger sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam
did not admonish those who killed him, but if he brings him to the Imaam
it would be better, as it is a preservation of the significance (hurmah)
of the Imaam, but the first (option) is better in showing harshness on
the mushrikeen and weakening of them. So it is incumbent on him to
choose what is better and more benefitial for the Muslims.&amp;quot;

See also: al-Jasaas in Ahkaam al-Quraan [5/268-270]; Ibn Katheer in his
Tafseer [4/174]; Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughni [9/179-180]; Ibn Hajr
in Fath al-Baari [6/151-152], as-Suyooti in al-Ashbaah wan-Nathaa`ir
[1/121], al-Kaasaani in Badaa`i as-Sanaa`i [7/11]; ash-Shawkaani in
Nayl al-Awtaar [8/145-147], and al-Mubaarakpoori in Tuhfat al-Ahwathi
[5/158].

And Allah Knows Best and may Allah send His peace and blessings upon Muhammed,
and upon whoever follows Him until the Day of Judgement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<u>Footnotes:</u>

(*)As mentioned by al-Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, and
Abu Ishaaq ash-Shaatibi in al-I’tisaam when al-ikraah is
mentioned in the terminology of the scholars of the Salaf, it implies
prohibition (tahreem).

(**)Check the ayah fully, to understand.

[Ibn Yusuf]

Assalaamu 'Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh brothers and sisters

I found this at www.islamqa.com

Thought it might be helpful/relevant. And Allah Knows Best

Jazakallah Khair

Wassalaamu 'Alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh
__________________________________________________ _______


Islam Questions & Answers
www.islam-qa.com
Question Reference Number:: 13241
Title: Treatment of prisoners-of-war in Islam

Home > Islamic politics > Rulings on Jihaad >

Question:

How are prisoners of war treated in Islam?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Islam is the religion of mercy and justice; it commands us to call others to the religion of Allaah in a kind and good manner, and to encourage people to enter this great religion. If some people persist in rejecting the religion of Allaah and stand in the way of ruling by that which Allaah has revealed on earth, or they fight against the call to Allaah, then we give them the choice of three things:

Either they become Muslim; or if they refuse they pay the jizyah (whereby they pay a specified amount to the Muslims in return for being allowed to remain their land, and the Muslims undertake to protect them); or, if they refuse that, there is nothing left but the way which they themselves have chosen, which is fighting and dealing violently with those who have persecuted the Muslims and put obstacles in the path of the Islamic da’wah. In this way the Muslims will gain the upper hand and the enemies will be humiliated; then when we have killed and wounded many of them and gained the upper hand over them, we may take prisoners and bind a bond firmly on them [cf. Muhammad 47:4], because in that case it is more in tune with the idea of mercy by choice (not because we are afraid of them); at that point war should not continue any longer than is necessary. War in Islam should not be waged for the sole purpose of shedding blood or seeking vengeance. If the Muslims capture them and take them to a place that has been prepared for them, they should not harm them or torture them with beatings, depriving them of food and water, leaving them out in the sun or the cold, burning them with fire, or putting covers over their mouths, ears and eyes and putting them in cages like animals. Rather they should treat them with kindness and mercy, feed them well and encourage them to enter Islam.

Thumaamah ibn Athaal – the leader of Bani Haneefah – was brought (to Madeenah) as a prisoner and tied to one of the pillars of the mosque. The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to him and said, “What do you think, O Thumaamah?” He said, “What I think, O Muhammad, is good. If you kill me, you will kill one with blood on his hands – i.e., I will deserve to be killed because I have killed Muslims – and if you release me you will release one who will be grateful. If you want money, then ask, and I will give you whatever you want.” The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) left him for three days, and each day he would come and ask him similar questions, and Thumaamah would give similar answers. After the third day, he commanded that he should be released. Thumaamah went to a stand of date-palms near the mosque where he bathed (did ghusl), then he came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, “I bear witness that there is no god except Allaah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the slave of Allaah and His Messenger.” Then he said: “O Messenger of Allaah, by Allaah there was no one on earth whose face was more hateful to me than yours, but now your face is the most beloved of all faces to me. By Allaah, there was no religion that was more hateful to me than your religion, but now your religion has become the most beloved of all religions to me. By Allaah, there was no land more hateful to me than your land, but now your land has become the most beloved to me. Your cavalry captured me when I was on my way to perform ‘Umrah, so what do you think I should do?”

The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) congratulated him, and told him to go for ‘Umrah. When he came to Makkah, someone asked him, “Have you changed your religion?” He said, “No, but I have submitted with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and by Allaah you will not get a grain of wheat from al-Yamaamah unless the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gives permission.”

Think about this story, may Allaah bless you, and how the kind treatment of Thumaamah led to his embracing Islam, which could not have happened were it not primarily by the grace of Allaah, and also the kind treatment which Thumaamah received.

In the Qur’aan, Allaah says of the righteous (interpretation of the meaning):

“And they give food, in spite of their love for it (or for the love of Him), to the Miskeen (the poor), the orphan, and the captive,

(Saying): ‘We feed you seeking Allaah’s Countenance only. We wish for no reward, nor thanks from you’”

[al-Insaan 76:8-9]

Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “Ibn ‘Abbaas said: in those days their prisoners were mushrikeen; on the day of Badr the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded them to be kind to their prisoners, so they used to put them before themselves when it came to food… Mujaahid said, this refers to the one who is detained, i.e., they would give food to these prisoners even though they themselves desired it and loved it.”

The ruling on tying up prisoners:

It is well known that if prisoners are able to escape they will not hesitate to do so, because they may be afraid of dying and they do not know what awaits them. Hence the Muslims were commanded to tie up their prisoners and to tie their hands to their necks, lest they run away. This is something that still happens and is well known to all people.

The wisdom behind permitting the taking of prisoners is so as to weaken the enemy and ward off his evil by keeping him away from the battlefield so that he cannot be effective or play any role; it also creates a means of freeing Muslim prisoners by trading the prisoners whom we are holding.

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.



Ahkaam al-Sijn wa’l-Sujana’ wa Mu’aamalat al-Sujana’ fi’l-Islam by Hasan Abi’l-Ghuddah, 256 (www.islam-qa.com)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


©Copyright Islam Q&A 1997-2000
You are granted the right to use and display all the information on this site without any consent from the site maintainer(s). You may copy, distribute, print, link to any document, or translate to any language, as long as the information is quoted in its entirety, the source is mentioned, and without changing the contents.

[DerVishYuNus]

Assalamun Alaikum Wahrahmatullahi Wabarakatuhu

I too would also like to share a fatwah regarding this topic, May Allah SWT make it beneficial to all those who read it, Ameen

http://www.islamonline.net/fatwaapplication/english/display.asp?hFatwaID=114486

Name Muhammad - Qatar
Title Islam’s Stance on Killing Captives

Question Is it lawful for Muslims to kill their enemies who have been captured during war? Or should the Muslims bargain with the leaders of the enemy to exchange captives?

Date 17/May/2004

Mufti
Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi


In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you place in us, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake.

When Muslims engage in battle with enemy troops, they should not give all their attention to capturing the enemy soldiers, their primary concern is to vanquish the enemy, after which comes the issue of capturing them. When the Muslims capture their enemies, they are required to treat them well. When deciding what to do with them afterwards, they are either to be released for free [if they are not expected to pose any threat to the Muslims' safety in the future], or to set them free in return for a ransom.

Muslim jurists have differed over the option of killing them; some are for and others are against it. Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is of the opinion that it is only the war criminals among the captives who are to be killed.

In this regard, the eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:

"It is one of the results of war that there are captives on both sides. Our point of concentration here is on the Muslims' stance when they hold their enemies in captivity as was the case following the battles of Badr, Banu Quraydhah, Banu Al-Mustaleq, etc.

The first point that sheds light in this regard is that Islam stipulates that captives should be treated well and that their human rights should be observed. Moreover, the Qur'an treats the captives on an equal footing with the weak categories of society that deserve sympathy and charity such as the orphans and the needy. Allah the Almighty describes the righteous who are worthy of His pleasure and entering Paradise: “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).

Allah the Almighty addressed His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding the captives that the Muslims had captured during the Great Battle of Badr, saying: “O Prophet! Say unto those captives who are in your hands: If Allah knows any good in your hearts He will give you better than that which has been taken from you, and will forgive you. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Al-Anfal: 70).

Contemplating this verse, we find that Almighty Allah orders His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to deal with the captives kindly so that they might be attracted to Islam.

No Enemy Captives are to Be Held before their Army is Vanquished

One of the strategic rules introduced by Islam is that no attention should be paid to capturing the enemy on the battlefield before vanquishing them altogether in a way that they will be subdued. Should the Muslims focus on holding the enemy soldiers in captivity, before achieving a concise victory over them, the enemy might think of launching another war against the Muslims in the future.

Allah the Almighty blamed His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) following the Battle of Badr for being concerned during the battle, with capturing enemies before subduing the whole army of the enemy. Allah the Almighty says in this regard:

“It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looks to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in Might, Wise.” (Al-Anfal: 67).

In this verse, "temporal goods of this world" refers to the ransom the Muslims expected to take in return for setting the enemy captives free. Here, Allah the Almighty objects that the Muslims seek to have captives before vanquishing the enemy and subduing it altogether.

It is important to note that blame in this verse, is for taking captives before subduing the enemy altogether, not for taking the ransom instead of killing them as is usually mentioned in the biographies written about the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

This is supported by Almighty Allah's words: "Now when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when you have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens." (Muhammad: 4)

This verse indicates that the primary concern of the Muslims on the battlefield is "smiting of the necks" of the enemy until they have been routed altogether, and then comes "making fast of bonds," which refers to holding the remaining defeated enemies in captivity.

War in Islam is not fought for the sake of bloodshed, nor is there in Islam any instruction to the effect that after vanquishing the enemy, all its male members who are held in captivity are to be beheaded as is the case in the Torah. After completely subduing the enemy, the Muslims can capture its soldiers.

What is to Be Done after Capturing Enemies?

As mentioned in Surat Muhammad, verse 4 (quoted above), there are two choices regarding what is to be done regarding captives. These are, "either grace or ransom." These are the only choices mentioned in this verse regarding captives.

"Grace" here refers to releasing the captives out of showing mercy for the sake of Almighty Allah. This will affect them positively and may attract them to Islam.

"Ransom," in addition to its main meaning, i.e., setting the captives free in return for money, also refers to exchanging captives between the warring sides. Muslims can exchange the captives they hold for Muslim captives in the hands of the enemy. In such a process a captive from either side may be exchanged for one or more from the other side, depending on the importance and rank of the exchanged captive and the bargain made between both sides.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) released the captives the Muslims had captured in the Battle of Badr for ransom, for the Muslims were, at that time, in need of money [to help them in the establishment of the emerging Islamic state]. He (peace and blessings be upon him) did so also because he knew the families of the captives in Makkah were financially able to pay the ransom.

It was reported that some men of the Ansar asked for permission to meet the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). When they met him (peace and blessings be upon him), they said: "Oh Allah's Messenger! Allow us to give up the ransom demanded for our nephew `Abass ibn Abdul-Mutalib." The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Do not leave even a dirham for it.”

Concerning the captives whose families could not afford the ransom, he (peace and blessings be upon him) released them on condition that each of them would do a service, within his capability, for the Muslim community, such as teaching ten Muslim children how to read and write. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not fear that those polytheists might fill the minds of the young Muslims with bad ideas about Islam, for the operation was done under the supervision of the Muslim community.

Zayd ibn Thabit Al-Ansari, one of the Muslims entrusted with the task of recording the Revelation in writing, had been one of those taught reading and writing at the hands of the captives of Badr.

Releasing captives in return for their teaching some Muslims is an indication that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was the first person to have combated illiteracy in a practical way, which was an unprecedented step at that time.

Can Captives Be Enslaved or Killed?

Jurists have two other additional options with regard to captives. These are either enslaving or killing them.

These two options are not mentioned in the Qur'an; they are, rather, derived from the Sunnah and the actions of the companions and the rightly-guided Caliphs.

Al-Hasan Al-Basri, an eminent righteous scholar, was reported to have said: "It is not lawful to keep captives in shackles; they are either be set free out of grace or released for ransom."

On the other hand, there are some jurists who say that there is no alternative in the case of polytheist captives other than killing them. Those jurists are of the opinion that the verse that mentions "grace" and "ransom" is abrogated by Allah's words:

"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them" (At-Tawbah: 5).

A third point of view, mainly from At-Tabarani, an eminent scholar, is that both verses which mention "ransom" and "grace" and that which mentions slaying them are applicable in the case of captives. No verse abrogates the other. According to this view, verse 5, Surat At-Tawba means that killing them is an option too, for the rest of this verse includes "and take them captives…" in which case the Imam (ruler of the Muslims), reflecting on what is in the best interests of the Muslims, is to decide whether to kill them or release them either for free or for ransom. This is derived from the way the Prophet handled the cases of captives. For example, he (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered that `Uqbah ibn Abu Mu`ait and An-Nadhar ibn Al-Harith, who were captives at the Battle of Badr, be killed. And at the conquest of Makkah, it was said to him that Ibn Kattal, an evil enemy of Islam, had sought refuge at the Sacred House of Al-Ka`bah to prevent the Muslims from killing him. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Kill him (any way)". He (peace and blessings be upon him) also released some captives for free and some others for ransom.

At-Tabarani denied that the verse of Surat Muhammad concerning captives is abrogated by the verse in Surat At-Tawbah, for both verses can be reconciled with one another (as clarified above). Abrogation is not to be regarded unless there is no way to reconcile the verse (or the hadith) said to have been abrogated.

Contemplating the Qur'anic texts and hadiths concerning the issue at hand, I agree with Imam Al-Hassan Al-Basri that the basic ruling to be applied to captives is either to set them free out of grace or for ransom [which also implies exchange of captives] according to Allah's words: 'and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens' (Muhammad: 4)

But there is an exception to be followed with criminals of war who are held in captivity. They are to be killed as a punishment for the atrocities they have committed against the Muslims- as was the case with `Uqbah ibn Abu Mu`ait, Ibn Khattal, the Jews of Banu Quraydhah, and the like. Such criminals are to be killed according to (the first option mentioned) in verse 5, Surat At-Tawbah."

[Salafi Laptop Seller]

[Moderated]

[taqwa]

Unless I'm mistaken, Nick Berg was not a soldier, and was a non-participating civilian.

[SuBMiSSioN]

Assalamu 3alaykum

I came across a rumour today that Berg was actually a Jewish spy. Has anyone heard anything along those lines? *note: I did say a rumour*

wa assalamu 3alaykum

[Shadower]

His death was an atrocity that no one should be proud of or try to legitimise.

[Joe]

The slaughtering of Mr. Berg is Islamically valid and permissable :)

[Stranger]

Seriously, these days nothing comes out right.
one minute you hear he was part of an American soldier and another minute you hear he was captured by the Americans. how da hell did he get into Iraqis hands if he was captured by Americans?

secondly, they say he was in iraq for no reason...wat was he doing der? did he think he can have a holiday while ders a war? hmm...

anyways, wateva is da case May Allah forgive and guide them if they done wrong, and reward them if they did right.
Ameen.

seriously, non of us knws wat they are going through. we can sit here all day and type up how wrong it was for them to kill him, but at da end of the day.....they are the ones suffering. and if it means killing others for killing there people, den so be it!
wallahu a3lam!!!!!

[Shadower]

I find his whole death suspicious. I am not convinced.

[Joe]

Before we start dwelling into unrelated topics of who killed what.

I don't care who killed Mr. Berg, wheather it was the Mexicans or the Marsians. I don't care if you are not convinced it was Muslims who did it, or wheather it was the Americans at the prison of Abu Gharib, this is not the topic of discussion.

Mr. Berg was slaughtered, is it Islamically valid and permissable for Muslims to do such act?

For the sake of argument, let's assume he is not a legitimate prisoner of war, what is his status if he got captured by Muslims? -Remember this is a battle zone

He may be a priest? a child? maybe even a woman? Don't call him a civillian, because it will be upon you to provide the Islamic definition of a civillian -that if it exists- He is a man, capable of carrying arms and has the ability to fight.

I'm sure you are not expecting Muslims to do an identity check on the men they capture :) More over, let's say you come across a woman of the enemy, and she is wailing and you need to shut her up :) You shut her up. She's a woman, unarmed, and can't really fight you. Yet her wailing can get you in trouble, and hence you shut her.

[Joe]

No offense Akhi, But...this is not how Islam works. Nothing is reserved to anyone. More over, we are not discussing any deep issues. The slaughtering was raised in the media, and you ought to know how to answer if confronted by a non-Muslim.

Hopefully, you won't tell the non-Muslim, "leave the discussion to the real Men"

:D

[Joe]

Fine, sugar-coat Islam for them. Put a nice cherry on the top as well.

[Shadower]

So simply because he was a man that is able to carry arms he may be killed?

As for the wailing woman gagging her or maybe even rendering her uncouncious would do the job.

If the kuffar commit atrocities it does not give Muslims the right to do so, we must be examples of Islaam a Religion of Mercy, we do not take lessons from the Kuffar, for our Religion has provided us with the necessary information.

To kill a man unjustly it is as if you have killed all of mankind. I am not convinced the killers were Muslim, I read an article that stated the guns they were carrying were not AK-47's but Israeli made versions called the 'Halil' if anyone knows more about the Halil they can check it out, but the article is on http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/article.php?id=2785

And yes it is important about who committed this act, that is a major part of the discussion. As for the Fatwas you posted they all had to do with the killing of the Russian soldiers because they would not hand over Budanov (who whilst drunk raped, murdered and mutilated an 18 year old Chechan girl), May Allah destroy him.

The article Brother Dervish posted did shed some light on the issue, and Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is himself a supporter of the Chechan Jihaad calling it the best Jihaad of our times in his fatwa on the conflict.

But that is a different issue to what is been discussed, the Muslims are a nation of mercy and need to show that they are morally better than anyone else. http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/article.php?id=2696

[Stranger]

Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts
By Ritt Goldstein

American businessman Nicholas Berg's body was found on May 8 near a Baghdad overpass; a video of his supposed decapitation death by knife appeared on an alleged al-Qaeda-linked website (www.al-ansar.biz) on May 11. But according to what both a leading surgical authority and a noted forensic death expert separately told Asia Times Online, the video depicting the decapitation appears to have been staged.

"I certainly would need to be convinced it [the decapitation video] was authentic," Dr John Simpson, executive director for surgical affairs at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, said from New Zealand. Echoing Dr Simpson's criticism, when this journalist asked forensic death expert Jon Nordby, PhD and fellow of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators, whether he believed the Berg decapitation video had been "staged", Nordby replied: "Yes, I think that's the best explanation of it."

Questions of when the video's footage was taken, and the time elapsed between the shooting of the video's segments, were raised by both experts, reflecting a portion of the broader and ongoing video controversy. Nordby, speaking to Asia Times Online from Washington state, noted: "We don't know how much time wasn't filmed," adding that "there's no way of knowing whether ... footage is contemporaneous with the footage that follows".

While the circumstances surrounding both the video and Nick Berg's last days have been the source of substantive speculation, both Simpson and Nordby perceived it as highly probable that Berg had died some time prior to his decapitation. A factor in this was an apparent lack of the "massive" arterial bleeding such an act initiates.

"I would have thought that all the people in the vicinity would have been covered in blood, in a matter of seconds ... if it was genuine," said Simpson. Notably, the act's perpetrators appeared far from so. And separately Nordby observed: "I think that by the time they're ... on his head, he's already dead."

Providing another basis for their findings, in the course of such an assault, an individual's autonomic nervous system would react, typically doing so strongly, with the body shaking and jerking accordingly. And while Nordby noted that "they rotated and moved the head", shifting vertebrae that should have initiated such actions, Simpson said he "certainly didn't perceive any movements at all" in response to such efforts.

During the period when Berg's captors filmed the decapitation sequence, circumstances indicate that he had already been dead "a quite uncertain length of time, but more than ... however long the beheading took", Simpson stated. Both Simpson and Nordby also noted the difficulty in providing analysis based on the video, the inherent limitations presented by this. But both also felt that Berg had seemed drugged.

A particularly significant point in the video sequence occurred as Berg's captors attacked him, bringing the supposedly fatal knife to bear. "The way that they pulled him over, they could have used a dummy at that point," reflected Simpson regarding what the video portrayed. Separately, Nordby said Berg does not "appear to register any sort of surprise or any change in his facial expression when he's grabbed and twisted over, and they start to bring this weapon into use".

Subsequently, Nordby said it was likely that the filming sequence was manipulated at the point immediately preceding this, allowing Berg's corpse to be used for the decapitation sequence. Nordby also emphasized that the video "raises more questions than it answers", with the most fundamental questions of "who are you, and how did you die", being impossible to answer from it. But broad speculation exists regarding a number of factors surrounding both Berg's death and the video, and its timing in regard to revelations of US prison atrocities.

In a May 13 article, the Arabic newsgroup Aljazeera reported that a Dubai-based Reuters journalist first broke the story, "but while Fox News, CNN and the BBC" were able to secure the video from the "Arabic-only website" that hosted it, Aljazeera was unable to locate it. And also on May 13, the Associated Press (AP) reported that the US Central Intelligence Agency had determined that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the individual who beheaded Berg.

Since Secretary of State Colin Powell's United Nations presentation of February 5, 2003, al-Zarqawi has been portrayed as the single most dangerous element facing the Bush administration's "war on terror". Powell's UN presentation has since been widely accepted as empty; nevertheless, al-Zarqawi appears to have surpassed even Osama bin Laden as the administration's No 1 terror target. And on May 15, Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt, the Coalition Provisional Authority's chief Iraq military spokesman, declared that al-Zarqawi will be eventually caught, though that may prove particularly difficult.

On March 4, Brigadier-General David Rodriguez of the Joint Chiefs of staff revealed that the Pentagon didn't have "direct evidence of whether he's [al-Zarqawi] alive or dead", providing commentary on the nature of prior "evidence" linking al-Zarqawi to attacks and bombings. But that same day, AP reported that an Iraqi resistance group claimed al-Zarqawi had been killed the April prior in the US bombing of northern Iraq.

Speaking off the record, intelligence community sources have previously said they believe it "very likely" that al-Zarqawi is indeed long dead. Such a fact makes al-Zarqawi's alleged killing of Berg difficult to reconcile, and there has been broad speculation that blaming al-Zarqawi is an administration ploy. Further anomalies surrounding Berg's death have fueled added speculation.

According to e-mails sent from a US consular officer in Baghdad, Beth Payne, to the Berg family, Nick Berg was being held in Iraq "by the US military in Mosul". A May 13 AP report notes that a US State Department spokesperson subsequently said this was untrue, an error, and that Berg was being held by Iraqi authorities. But another May 13 AP report quoted "police chief Major-General Mohammed Khair al-Barhawi" as claiming that reports of Iraqi police having held Berg were "baseless".

And Berg is seen on the beheading videotape in what appears to be US military prison-issue clothing, sitting in what appears to be a US military-type white chair, virtually identical to those photographed as used at Abu Ghraib prison. However, the taking of hostages has occurred in the region, and beheadings are not unheard of.

According to a February 2003 report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), on September 23, 2001, radical Islamists captured a group of 25 Kurdish fighters in the Iraqi village of Kheli Hama. "Some prisoners' throats had been slit, while others had been beheaded," HRW reported, noting that the television station KurdSat had broadcast pictures of the dead that September 26. The report also noted that a videotape "apparently filmed" by those committing the atrocities had been found.

The strict Islamist community in Iraq denied that the acts were committed by their people, stating that the incident was fabricated.

Additional reports of beheadings also exist, with the victims usually noted as killed with a bullet before the beheading occurs. But HRW's report also raised an issue that the Berg video's makers, and Berg's father, both raised: prisoner exchange.

HRW noted that Iraq's radical Islamists did pursue exchanges of captives, and the Berg video specifically noted that his captors claimed they were killing him as their attempts to exchange Berg had been rebuffed by US authorities. Berg's father, Michael, has pressed the administration of US President George W Bush as regards what the facts of this allegation are, with the administration denying any knowledge that such a trade was offered. And added questions still exist.

Because Iraq's radical Islamists speak in a particular manner, and live by a closely proscribed code, apparent contradictions between these ways and the way Berg's captors appeared has generated speculation. Some observers have speculated on the possibility that the individuals weren't native Arabic speakers. Conversely, it is reported that in Saudi Arabia, where Sharia law allows for beheadings in cases of severe crimes, the condemned is heavily drugged with tranquilizers prior to the execution, reportedly leaving them in a state similar to that which Berg appeared in during parts of the video.

Again, Nordby emphasized that the video "raises more questions than it answers".

Ritt Goldstein is an American investigative political journalist based in Stockholm. His work has appeared in broadsheets such as Australia's Sydney Morning Herald, Spain's El Mundo and Denmark's Politiken, as well as with the Inter Press Service (IPS), a global news agency.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
"

[Shadower]

Yeah Stranger I also read that one, you would be suprised at how many experts have come out, so far I have read 5 articleson the issue. It all smells foul.

[Stranger]

yeah i agree....nothing seems right!

hmm...

[Joe]

Where did, Salafi Laptop Seller's post go?

[Shadower]

Who is Salafi Laptop Seller?

[Joe]

Come On, its post #4

[Shadower]

Oh there is to, it got moderated.

[aussiemu]

assalamu 'alaikum,

I had a check with all the moderators and no-one seems to know who moderated it which is quite strange. The original post was moderated too.. which again is strange. I sort of restored the first post but the 2nd one I don't know the link to where its from.

Very strange stuff.

wassalamu 'alaikum