20.9 Mateka - Utu wa Kiislamu | Quran Course

20.9 Mateka - Utu wa Kiislamu | Quran Course

Hili ni katika kanuni ya mateka wa vita, na limebainishwa kwa njia nyingi. Miongoni mwa njia hizo ni kwamba aya hii ya wazi imekuja katika Surah Muhammad, ambayo ni Surah ya kwanza kuteremshwa kuhusu jambo la kupigana. Kuteremshwa kwake kulikuwa baada ya Mtume ﷺ kufika Madinah kutoka Makka, na inaitwa Surah ya Kupigana. Ilishuka baada ya Surah Al-Hadeed na kabla ya vita vya Badr. Ilibainisha kanuni ya mateka wa vita kabla ya vita vyovyote kutokea au mateka wowote wa vita kukamatwa. Ukiongeza kwa hili kwamba hii ni aya inayobainisha waziwazi kinachofanywa kwa mateka wa vita, inakuwa wazi kwamba ni maandishi ya kanuni ya mateka wa vita na msingi ambao maandiko mengine yote kuhusu somo hili yanarejea. Miongoni mwa njia zinazobainisha kanuni hii ya mateka wa vita ni kwamba aya imekuja kwa neno "imma", linaloonyesha uchaguzi kati ya mambo mawili bila la tatu kati yao. Imesema: "Basi funga pingu kwa nguvu. Kisha baadaye, ama kuwaachia huru au kuwakomboa kwa fidia." Pale "imma" inapokuja kati ya mambo mawili, inaweka mipaka ya uchaguzi kati yao na kuzuia kuwepo kwa kitu kingine zaidi yao, au kwamba si mojawapo ya hayo mawili. Kwa hiyo kuna ubainishaji kutokana na kubainisha uchaguzi katika "imma", na kwamba ni haramu kuwepo kwa jambo jingine zaidi ya lile ambalo Qur'an imetoa kama uchaguzi katika kanuni ya mateka. Hili linaimarishwa na ukweli kwamba Mtume ﷺ alimwachia huru Thumama bin Uthal, kiongozi wa watu wa Yamama, Abu 'Uzzah mshairi, Abu Al-'As bin Ar-Rabi', na akasema kuhusu mateka wa vita kutoka vita vya Badr:

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:

Kwa hiyo Yeye (SWT) alitoa uchaguzi kati ya hivi viwili baada ya kutekwa, na hakuna jingine. Yote haya yanadhihirisha wazi kwamba Khalifah huchagua kwa mateka wa vita kati ya mambo mawili tu, ambayo ni kuachiliwa au kukombolewa kwa fidia. Kuhusu yale yaliyosimuliwa kwamba Mtume ﷺ aliwaua wanaume wa Banu Quraydha, hilo lilitokana na hukumu ya mhukumu katika usuluhishi, si kwa sababu walikuwa mateka wa vita. Kuhusu yale yaliyosimuliwa kwamba alimuua An-Nadhr bin Al-Harith na ‘Uqbah bin Abu Mu’ayt wakiwa kifungoni siku ya Badr, na Abu ‘Uzzah siku ya Uhud, hilo halionyeshi kuwa hii ndiyo hukumu ya mateka wa vita, kwani hakufanya hivyo kwa mateka wote wala katika kila vita. Bali alifanya hivyo katika baadhi ya vita kwa baadhi ya watu, tofauti na kuachilia na kukomboa ambako aliyafanya kwa mateka wote wa vita katika vita vyote. Kilichosababisha kuuawa kwa watu hawa hasa ni kwamba Mtume ﷺ aliona katika haiba zao hatari dhahiri kwa Waislamu; basi ni kuuawa kwa watu maalum kwa sababu maalum zilizowahusu, wala haikuwa kuuawa kwa mateka wa vita. Imam Ahmad na Al-Bukhari wamesimulia kutoka kwa Abu Hurairah (ra) aliyesema: Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alitutuma katika msafara na kusema:

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:

Kwa hiyo imebainishwa kwamba kuua si miongoni mwa hukumu za Shari'a kuhusu wafungwa wa vita; bali kuua ni hukumu ya Shari'a kwa watu maalum ambao Khalifah anaona kuwa wana hatari, hivyo anaamuru wauawe hata kama ni wafungwa wa vita. Kuhusu yale yaliyosimuliwa kwamba Mtume ﷺ aliwafanya watumwa baada ya kuteremshwa aya hii, huo ulikuwa ni utumwaji wa mateka (sabaya), wala si wafungwa wa vita; yaani, aliwafanya watumwa wanawake na watoto waliokuwa pamoja na jeshi uwanjani vitani, si wanaume wapiganaji. Lau kama kuwafanya watumwa wanaume wapiganaji kungelikuwa kumethibitishwa, basi hilo lingetokea kutoka kwake ﷺ, lakini hakuna dalili inayothibitisha kwamba jambo hilo lilitokea, licha ya kuwepo visa vingi vya mateka waliokamatwa miongoni mwa Waarabu wakati wa Mtume ﷺ. Kuhusu yale ambayo baadhi ya vitabu vya historia vilivyosimulia kwamba Mtume ﷺ aliwafanya watumwa Banu Najiya wa Quraysh, wanaume wao na wanawake wao, hili halisimuliwi katika vitabu vya hadithi, wala hata baadhi ya vitabu vya Sira kama Sira ya Ibn Hisham, hivyo halitumiwi kama dalili. Hata kama lingekuwa sahihi, simulizi inasema maneno: "Aliwafanya watumwa Banu Najiyya, wanaume wao na wanawake wao," hivyo imetaja wanaume na wanawake. Simulizi haisemi "wanaume wao na wanawake wao" kwa maana ya watu wazima, hivyo inaeleweka kuwa ni sabaya yaani watoto, wa kiume na wa kike, na hili linaruhusiwa. Kwa hiyo Mtume ﷺ hakumfanya mtumwa mwanaume yeyote; bali aliwafanya watumwa sabaya, wa kiume na wa kike. Uhalisia uliothibitika katika hadithi zinazochukuliwa kuwa ni dalili unaimarisha hili. Yeyote anayefuata matendo ya Mtume ﷺ atakuta kwamba hakumfanya mtumwa mwanaume yeyote aliyechukuliwa kama mfungwa wa vita, wala kutoka miongoni mwa Waarabu wala wengineo. Bali kilichosimuliwa kutoka kwake ni kwamba aliwafanya watumwa mateka (sabaya). Katika vita vya Badr, hakukuwa na wanawake pamoja na adui, ndiyo maana hakuna mateka waliochukuliwa humo. Badala yake, wafungwa wa vita walichukuliwa, hivyo Mtume ﷺ alitoa hukumu juu yao kwa fidia. Katika vita vya Hunain, Hawazin walitoka kupigana na Mtume ﷺ, na wanawake wao walitoka pamoja nao. Waislamu waliposhinda, Hawazin walikimbia na kuwaacha wanawake nyuma yao, kwa hiyo walichukuliwa kuwa mateka (sabaya) na kuwekwa pamoja na ngawira. Katika Banu Mustaliq, adui aliwaacha nyuma wanawake wao, kwa hiyo walichukuliwa kuwa mateka (sabaya). Huko Khayber walipigwa vita na ngome zao zikatekwa. Wanawake waliokuwa pamoja na wapiganaji walichukuliwa kuwa mateka (sabaya), huku watu waliosalia wakiachwa kama vile wanaume walivyoachwa. Matukio haya yote yanaonyesha kwamba Mtume ﷺ alikuwa akiwakamata wapiganaji wanaume, na wanawake waliokuwa pamoja na wapiganaji walichukuliwa kuwa mateka (sabaya), pamoja na watoto. Kwa upande wa wanaume na wanawake wengine ambao hawakushiriki vitani, hawakuchukuliwa kuwa wafungwa wa vita wala mateka (sabaya). Hii inaonyesha kwamba Mtume ﷺ hakuwafanya wafungwa wa vita kuwa watumwa. Hili linafafanua kwamba kitendo cha Mtume ﷺ kuhusiana na wafungwa wa vita kilifanyika kulingana na maandishi yaliyotajwa katika aya. Hakika aliwaachia huru wakati fulani, na wakati mwingine alichukua fidia. Hakuwafanya wafungwa wa vita kuwa watumwa wala hakuwaua; alichukua tu mateka wanawake na watoto, na aliwaua watu maalum kutokana na hatari yao ya pekee kwa Waislamu. Kuhusu suala la kufungwa kwa mateka lililofanana na wafungwa wa vita, watu wa wakati huo waliwachukulia wanawake waliotoka pamoja na wapiganaji, na watoto, kama mali, kulingana na ufafanuzi wa kiufundi wa vita, bila tofauti yoyote kati ya Waarabu na wengine. Ufafanuzi wa kiufundi wa vita ulizichukulia ngawira kuwa mali, pamoja na wale waliofungwa. Mtume ﷺ alikuja akakubali ufafanuzi huo, kwa hiyo akawachukulia wanawake waliotoka pamoja na wapiganaji na watoto kama mali miongoni mwa ngawira. Kwa hiyo walifanywa watumwa, na hukumu ya ghanima ikawatumikia wao, si hukumu ya wafungwa wa vita. Hukumu ya wafungwa wa vita inabaki, ikimpa Khalifah uchaguzi kati ya kuachiliwa au kukombolewa kwa fidia, na si jambo jingine. Hukumu hii itabaki hadi Siku ya Kiyama. Iwapo Dola ya Kiislamu itapigana na maadui zake, mateka watazingatiwa kati ya kuachiliwa na kukombolewa kwa fidia; na iwapo wanawake watatoka pamoja nao kwenda vitani, baada ya ushindi katika vita wanawake hao watachukuliwa kuwa mateka (sabaya), nao watakuwa kama mali za ghanima.

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.

Kanuni hii kuhusu mateka wa vita na wafungwa ni ya jumla kwa watu bila ubaguzi kati ya Waarabu na wengine; si mahsusi kwa Waarabu. Hii ni kwa sababu aya na hadithi ni za jumla, na hakuna dalili yoyote inayoweza kuifanya mahsusi kwa wasio Waarabu au kuwatoa Waarabu katika hukumu hiyo. Hivyo inabaki katika ujumla wake ikiwahusu Waarabu na wengine. Kuhusu hadithi ya Mu'adh, ambayo ilitolewa na Ash-Shafi'i na Al-Bayhaqi, kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema siku ya Uhud:

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:

Hadithi hii ni dhaifu. Katika mnyororo wa wapokezi wake yumo Al-Waqidi ambaye ni dhaifu sana (dhaif). At-Tabarani ameipokea kupitia njia nyingine, na ndani yake yumo Yazid bin ‘Iyadh ambaye ni dhaifu zaidi kuliko Al-Waqidi. Aina hii ya hadithi haisimami kuwa ushahidi, kwa hiyo haiwezi kuwa dalili ya Shari’ah. Kuhusu yale yanayopokewa kwamba Mtume ﷺ aliwafanya watumwa wanawake wa Waarabu na watoto wao, lakini hakuwafanya watumwa wanaume wao, hilo ni sahihi. Lakini halionyeshi kwamba kuwafanya watumwa wanaume wa Waarabu hakuruhusiwi na kwamba kuwafanya watumwa wengine kunaruhusiwa. Bali ni kanuni ya jumla, inayowajumuisha Waarabu na wasio Waarabu. Kuhusu tukio lililotokea kwa Waarabu, hii ni hali halisi ya tukio fulani ambayo haina maana ya kueleweka zaidi ya yenyewe, yaani tukio lililotokea lilikuwa kwa Waarabu, kwa hiyo haimaanishi kwamba limekusudiwa kwao peke yao na si kwa wengine. Zaidi ya hayo, kanuni ya Shari’ah ni kwamba thamani iko katika ujumla wa maneno, si katika ukomo wa sababu. Tukio, hata likitokea kwa mtu fulani au kundi fulani, halifungamani na mtu huyo au kundi hilo. Hukumu yake ni hukumu ya jumla.

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.

Vivyo hivyo, kutokuwepo kwa utumwa wa wanaume kulitokea kwa Waarabu kwa sababu ukweli ni kwamba Mtume (saw) alikuwa akipigana na Waarabu, kwa hiyo kanuni hiyo si mahsusi kwao; badala yake ni ya jumla kwa watu wote. Kama angepigana na kabila maalum kama Quraysh, kwa mfano, kanuni hiyo isingekuwa mahsusi kwao. Hata hivyo, yote haya, yaani kanuni ya utekaji na ya wafungwa, ni ya jumla juu ya watu wote isipokuwa washirikina Waarabu. Washirikina Waarabu wametengwa nayo kuanzia mwezi wa nne na siku ya tisa ya Dhul-Hijja, mwaka wa tisa wa Hijra, hadi Siku ya Kiyama. Haikubaliwi kutoka kwao isipokuwa Uislamu au kupigana, na mateka na wafungwa hawachukuliwi kutoka kwao. Kwa washirikina Waarabu kabla ya tarehe hii, kanuni ilikuwa inawajumuisha. Vilevile Waarabu wasio washirikina, yaani Mayahudi na Wakristo; kanuni hii inawajumuisha katika ufunuo wa aya hadi Siku ya Kiyama, kwa kuwa kutengwa ni mahsusi kwa washirikina Waarabu tangu siku ya kufikisha aya hizi kwa washirikina miongoni mwa Waarabu, nayo ni tarehe tisa ya Dhul-Hijja na miezi minne baada yake. Haijumuishi wengine miongoni mwa Waarabu, wala haikuwajumuisha washirikina kabla ya tarehe hii. Kuhusu kuwatenga washirikina hawa miongoni mwa Waarabu tangu tarehe hiyo iliyotajwa mwanzoni, hili limethibitishwa kwa maandishi wazi ya Qur'an. Allah (swt) amesema:

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: