The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

When the Muslims take their enemy as prisoners of war, the matter of these captives is delegated to the Khalifah’s direct command and their is no opinion for those who captured them, the battlefield commander or army leader. This is because once the fighter becomes a prisoner of war, the command regarding him is the Khalifah’s opinion and the Khalifah follows the Shari’ah rule concerning captives. The rule of the prisoners of war is established by a definite Qur’anic text which is that the Khalifah is given a choice between release and ransom due to Allah’s statement:

This is explicit in the rule of the prisoners of war and it is a specified rule in numerous ways: Of these (ways) is that this explicit text came in Surah Muhammad which is the first Surah revealed regarding the matter of fighting. Its revelation was after the Messenger (saw) arrived in Madinah from Makkah, and it is called the Surah of fighting. It was revealed after Surah Al-Hadeed and before the battle of Badr. It clarified the rule of prisoners of war before any battle had occurred or any prisoners of war had been captured. If added to this is that this is the ayah which clarifies explicitly what is done to prisoners of war, it becomes clear that it is the text of the rule of prisoners of war and the basis to which return all other texts regarding the subject. And from these ways which specify this rule on prisoners of war is that the ayah came with the language of “imma” which indicates the choice between two things without any third to them. It said: “Then bind strongly the fetters. Then afterwards either the release or the ransom.” When “imma” comes between two things, it restricts the choice between them and prevents there being other than them or that it is not one of them two. So there is specification due to specifying the choice in “imma” the impermissibility of there being other than what the Qur’an gave as a choice in the rule of captives. This is strengthened in when the Messenger (saw) released Thamama bin Wail, the chief of the people of Yamamah, Abu ‘Uzzah the poet, Abu Al-‘As bin Ar-Rabi’ and he said about the prisoners of war from the Battle of Badr:

He ransomed the prisoners of war from Badr and they were seventy three men, and he ransomed the day of Badr two men for one man. It is narrated from Aisha (ra) who said:

It has been narrated from Imran bin Hussein

It has been narrated from ibn Abbas (ra) who said:

These ahadith together with the ayah indicate explicitly that the rule of prisoners of war is release or ransom. It is ascribed to Al-Hasan, ‘Ata and Said bin Jubayr that they disliked the killing of prisoners of war and said: If only he released or ransomed him as was done with the prisonsers of war of Badr, and because Allah (swt) said:

So He (swt) gave a choice between these two after the captivity and nothing else. All this is explicit that the Khalifah chooses in the prisoners of war between two matters nothing else, which is release or ransom. As for what is narrated that the Prophet (saw) killed the men of Banu Quraydha, all this is because of the ruling of the arbitrator in arbitration not that they were prisoners of war. As for what is narrated that he (saw) killed An-Nadhr bin Al-Harith and ‘Uqbah bin Abu Mu’ayt in custody on the day of Badr, and Abu ‘Uzzah on the day of Uhud, this does not indicate that this is the rule of prisoners of war as he did not do this for all captives or in every battle. Rather he did this in some battles with some persons, contrary to release and ransom which he did for all prisoners of war in all battles. What caused the killing of these persons specifically is that the Messenger (saw) saw in their personalities definite danger for Muslims; so it is the killing of specific persons for reasons specified to them, nor was it the killing of prisoners of war. Ahmad and Al-Bukhari narrated from Abu Hurairah (ra) who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) sent us on an expedition and said:

Accordingly it is clarified that killing is not from the Shar’a rules on prisoners of war; rather killing is a Shar’a rule on specific people from whom the Khalifah views there is danger so he commands their killing even if they are Prisoners of war. As for what is narrated about the Messenger of Allah (saw) enslaving after the revelation of this ayah, this was the enslaving of captives (sabaya) and not the prisoners of war i.e. he would enslave the women and children who were together with the army in the battlefield not fighting men. If enslaving of male fighters was established, this would happen from him (saw) but there is no evidence to prove that this occurred despite the numerous cases of captives being captured from the Arabs during his (saw) time. As for what some books of history narrated about the Messenger (saw) enslaving Banu Najiya of the Quraysh, their males and females, this is not narrated in the books of hadith nor even some books of Sirah like the Sirah of ibn Hisham so it is not used as a proof. Even if they were to be authentic, the narration states the words: “He enslaved Banu Najiyya, their males and females” so it mentioned males and females. The narration does not say their men and women so it is taken to mean the sabaya i.e. children, male and female, and this are allowed. Accordingly the Messenger (saw) did not enslave any man; rather he enslaved the sabaya, male and female. The established realities in the ahadith that are considered proofs strengthen this. The one who follows the actions of the Messenger (saw) finds that he did not enslave any man taken as a prisoner of war, nor from the Arabs or other than them. Rather what is narrated from him is that he enslaved the captives (sabaya). In the battle of Badr, there were no women with the enemy so that is why no captives were taken in it. Rather prisoners of war were taken so the Messenger (saw) ruled upon them with ransom. In the battle of Hunain, Hawazin came out to fight the Messenger (saw) and their women came out with them. When the Muslims won, the Hawazin fled and they left the women behind them so they were taken as captives (sabaya) and they were placed with the booty. In Banu Mustaliq, the enemy left behind their women so they were taken as captives (sabaya). In Khayber they were fought and their forts conquered. The women who were together with the fighters were taken as captives (sabaya) while the remaining people were left just like the men were left. These incidents all indicate that the Messenger (saw) used to capture men fighters and the women who were with the fighters were taken as captives (sabaya), as well as the children. As for other men and women who were not in the battle, they were not taken as prisoners of war or as captives (sabaya). This indicates that the Messenger (saw) did not enslave prisoners of war. This clarifies that the Messenger (saw)’s action in relation to prisoners of war occurred according to the stated text of the ayah. Verily he released them at certain times and he took ransom at other times. He did not enslave the prisonsers of war nor kill them; rather he only took captive the women and children, and killed specific persons due to their particularity in the danger they posed to Muslims. As for the question of imprisonment of captives which became similar to the prisoners of war, people at that time considered the women who went out with fighters, and children, like the consideration of properties in the technical definition of war without (any) difference in that between the Arabs and others. The war technical definition would consider booties as properties and imprisoned ones. The Messenger (saw) came and consented to that definition, so he considered women who went out together with the fighters and children like the properties of booty among booties. So they were enslaved and the ruling of booty applied over them not the rule of prisoners of war. The rule of prisoners of war remains, giving the Khalifah the choice between release or ransom and nothing else. This rule will remain until the Day of Judgement. If the Islamic State fights its enemies, the captives are considered between release and ransom; and if women go out with them to the battles, after victory in the battle the women are taken as captives (sabaya) and they are like the properties of the booties.

This rule on prisoners of war and captives is general for people without distinction between Arabs and others; it is not specific to Arabs. This is because the ayah and ahadith are general, and there is no evidence what would specify it to non-Arabs or exempt Arabs from it. So it remains in its generality conveying Arabs and others. As for the hadith of Mu’adh which which was extracted by Ash-Shafi’ and Al-Baihaqi that the Messenger (saw) said on Uhud:

This is a weak hadith. In its chain is Al-Waqidi who is very weak (dhaif). At-Tabarani narrated it via another way and within it is Yazid bin ‘Iyadh who is weaker than Al-Waqidi. This type of hadith does not stand as proof so it is not allowed to be Shari’ah evidence. As for what is narrated of the Messenger (saw) enslaving Arab women and their children, and not enslaving their men, this is correct but it does not indicate the non-permissibility of enslaving Arab men and the permissibility of enslaving others. Rather it is general, encompassing Arabs and others. As for the incident occurring with Arabs, this is a reality of a situation with no understanding for it i.e. the situation which occurred was with Arabs so it does not mean it is specific to them and is not for others. Moreover, the Shari’ah principle is that the value is in the generality of the words and not the specificity of the cause. The incident, even if it occurs with a person or a group, it is not specified with this person or group. Rather its rule is a general rule.

Similarly the absence of enslaving men occurred with Arabs since the reality was that the Messenger (saw) was fighting the Arabs so the rule is not specific to them; rather it is general for all people. Just like if he would fight a specific tribe like Quraysh for example, the rule would not be specific to them. However all this i.e. the rule of captivity and imprisoned ones is general over all people except Arab polytheists. The polytheist Arabs are excluded from it starting from the fourth month and the ninth day of Dhul-Hijja, in the ninth year of Hijra until the Day of Judgement. It is not accepted from them except Islam or fighting, and captives and imprisoned ones are not taken from them. As for Arab polytheists before this date, the rule included them. Similarly the Arab non-polytheists of the Jews and Christians; this rule includes them in the revelation of the ayah till the Day of Judgement since the exclusion is specific to Arab polytheists from the day of conveying these ayat to the polytheists among the Arabs and it is the ninth of Dhul-Hijja and four months after it. It does not include within it others among the Arabs nor did it include the polytheists before this date. As for excluding these polytheists from among the Arabs originally from this mentioned date, this is established by an explicit text of the Qur’an. Allah (swt) said:

And He said:

And He said:

This is explicit in excluding Arab polytheists from the generality of ayat. So the Arab polytheists are not accepted, after the revelation of these ayat and finishing the new moon of four months, except Islam or war. As for what is narrated about the Messenger (saw)'s enslaving of Arabs, this is enslaving Jews and Christians and enslaving Arab polytheists before the revelation of these ayat. As for afterwards, it is not accepted from Arab polytheists except Islam or war.