Chapter 66

First Discussion: Mutilation of Enemy Corpses ¶

We shall conduct the discussion in this section regarding the following matters: 1. First Matter: What is meant by the mutilation of corpses? 2. Second Matter: What are the Shariah-based texts regarding this matter? 3. Third Matter: What are the opinions of the scholars regarding the mutilation of enemy corpses? 4. Fourth Matter: What is the opinion we prefer in this issue? ¶

A. First Matter: The meaning of mutilation (al-Muthla) of corpses: - It is stated in 'Al-Misbah al-Munir': "I performed 'Muthla' on the slain person, from the verb 'mathala' (on the pattern of 'qatala' and 'daraba')—meaning: you cut off his parts, and the traces of your action appear on him as a form of exemplary punishment (tankil). The emphatic form is hyperbole (i.e., 'mathhaltu tamthilan'). The noun is 'al-Muthla', on the pattern of 'ghurfa'"(1). It is also stated therein: "'Jada'tu': the nose, 'jad'an' (on the pattern of 'nafa'a'): I cut it off; the same applies to the ear, hand, and lip..."(2). ¶

Accordingly, 'al-Muthla' or mutilation of a corpse means in the linguistic sense: separating any organ from it and disfiguring it. This is how 'al-Muthla' or mutilation has been defined by the jurists and the hadith scholars. Among these are their statements: "'Al-Muthla' is... that the slain person has his nose cut, or his eyes gouged out(3), or an organ of his cut off"(4). It is said: 'Mathala bi al-qatil' (he mutilated the slain person): when he... ¶

To cut off one's nose, ears, genitals, or any of their limbs. 'Mutla bil-qateel' (mutilation of the slain) means: when one cuts off their nose and ears, and disfigures their appearance. ¶

Naturally, this category also includes what occasionally occurred, such as cutting off the heads of some of the slain and sending them here and there for certain purposes. It is stated in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary: 'Severing the head is considered muthla (mutilation).' ¶

This is regarding the first point: the definition of the mutilation of corpses. ¶

B - The second point: The Shariah texts reported in this regard. Several reports have been narrated concerning the mutilation of corpses—how it is carried out and what its ruling is. The following are some of those reports: - Among the narrations of the Battle of Uhud, in which the Muslims suffered casualties and their martyrs were mutilated... It is stated in Sahih al-Bukhari: 'Abu Sufyan said: A day for a day [in retaliation for] Badr, and war alternates [between sides]. You will find mutilation that I did not command, yet it did not displease me.' ¶

Regarding the details of the mutilation committed by the polytheists upon the bodies of the Muslims at Uhud, 'Fath al-Bari' states: 'Ibn Ishaq said: Salih bin Kaysan narrated to me, saying: Hind [bint Utbah] and the women with her went out and mutilated the slain; they cut off ears and noses, until Hind fashioned pieces from them into necklaces and ornaments, and gave them to Wahshi as a reward for killing Hamzah! She tore open Hamzah’s liver and chewed it, but she could not swallow it, so she spat it out!' ¶

- And in Sunan al-Tirmidhi—with a sound chain of narration—there is also a report regarding this issue from Ubayy ibn Ka'b. ¶

Radiyallahu 'anhu, reported: 'On the day of Uhud, sixty-four men from the Ansar and six from the Muhajirun were martyred, among them Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib. Their bodies were mutilated (muthla). The Ansar said: If we ever gain victory over them, we will surely exceed them in mutilation. When the day of the Conquest of Makkah arrived, Allah revealed: {And if you punish, punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient - it is better for the patient} (Surah An-Nahl: 126). A man said: There is no Quraysh after today. The Prophet ﷺ said: Spare the people, except for four.' ¶

- In Sirat Ibn Hisham: 'When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ saw the mutilation of his uncle Hamza (Radiyallahu 'anhu), he said: Were it not for the grief of Safiyyah and that it might become a Sunnah (precedent) after me, I would have left him until he was in the bellies of wild beasts and the crops of birds. If Allah grants me victory over Quraysh in any place, I will mutilate thirty of their men. When the Muslims saw the grief of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his anger at what had been done to his uncle, they said: By Allah, if Allah grants us victory over them one day, we will perform such mutilation as no Arab has ever performed before. Ibn Ishaq said: ... A trustworthy narrator reported from Ibn Abbas that Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, revealed concerning this statement of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and his companions: {And if you punish, punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient - it is better for the patient. And be patient, [O Muhammad], and your patience is not but through Allah. And do not grieve over them and do not be in distress over what they conspire} (Surah An-Nahl: 126-127). The Messenger of Allah ﷺ then forgave and forbade the practice of mutilation.' ¶

- In Sahih al-Bukhari: 'It is narrated from Abdullah bin Yazid that the Prophet ﷺ forbade looting (nahba) and mutilation (muthla).' ¶

The explanation of this text states the following: "Al-Nuhba (Plundering): ...derived from al-nahb (to plunder), which is a person taking openly what does not belong to them"(1). "Al-Muthla (Mutilation): disfiguring the corpse of the killed, such as cutting off limbs, severing genitalia, and the like"(2). ¶

- In Sahih Muslim, from the hadith of Buraydah - which has been mentioned repeatedly - the Prophet (PBUH) used to say to the commanders of his armies and detachments: "Fight in the name of Allah, in the path of Allah, fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not betray (the spoils of war)(3), do not break treaties(4), do not mutilate(5), and do not kill a child..."(6). ¶

These previous texts indicate what is meant by the mutilation of corpses and how it occurs. They also point to the Shariah ruling regarding this mutilation, which is what we will discuss in the third point of this section. ¶

C - Third Point: The opinions of scholars regarding the mutilation of enemy corpses. ¶

- The First Opinion: It is that the mutilation of enemy corpses was permissible in Islam, on the condition of reciprocity (al-mu'amala bi-l-mithl) and equality in that action. Then, this permissibility was abrogated, and mutilation became haram (forbidden), even if the enemy mutilates the corpses of Muslims. ¶

Al-Tabari says regarding the Almighty's saying: {And if you punish [an enemy], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed}: "Some scholars said: This was revealed because the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and his companions swore, after the polytheists did what they did to the Muslim martyrs on the day of Uhud by mutilating them, that they would exceed their action in mutilation if they were granted victory over them one day. So Allah forbade them with this verse and commanded them to limit themselves—if they were victorious—to a level equal to what was done to them. Then, He commanded them afterwards to abandon mutilation and prefer patience, with His saying: {And be patient, and your patience is not but through Allah}. Thus, according to these scholars, the permission granted for mutilation was abrogated"(7). ¶

In this line of thought, which advocates for the prohibition of mutilating enemy corpses, it is stated in the Maliki text 'Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar'iyya': 'It is not permissible to carry the heads of the disbelievers from one city to another, nor to send them to the disbelievers' (1). This appears to be because it involves the mutilation (muthla) of enemy corpses; for severing the head from a body after killing for the purpose of sending it here or there constitutes mutilation. Mutilation, according to the Malikis, is forbidden. Ibn Rushd al-Maliki states: 'The prohibition of mutilation is authentically established' (2). ¶

Similarly, in this same school of thought—meaning those who hold that mutilating enemy corpses is forbidden—al-San'ani states, regarding what an 'Imam' should advise a commander of an army or a detachment when dispatching them against the enemy: 'Then he should inform him of the prohibition of ghulul (stealing from the spoils of war), the prohibition of treachery, the prohibition of mutilation, and the prohibition of killing the children of the polytheists; these are prohibited by consensus' (3). Before al-San'ani, al-Zamakhshari mentioned that there is a consensus on the prohibition of mutilation, stating in his exegesis: 'There is no disagreement regarding the prohibition of mutilation' (4). ¶

Al-Shawkani also states regarding this: 'His saying: "Do not mutilate," is evidence for the prohibition of mutilation' (5). ¶

Second Opinion: The view that the ruling on mutilating enemy corpses is merely makruh tanzihan (disliked/discouraged), meaning it is permissible and not forbidden, although it is better to refrain from it. ¶

I (the author) say: This view, in its general sense, implies the permissibility of mutilation despite the dislike, regardless of whether the enemy had mutilated Muslim corpses or refrained from doing so. ¶

Imam al-Nawawi says: 'Some have said: The prohibition of mutilation is a prohibition of dislike (tanzih), not a prohibition of unlawfulness (haram)' (6). It appears that al-Nawawi—who is among the authoritative scholars of the Shafi'i school—inclines towards this view, and therefore he stated in his commentary on the aforementioned Hadith of Buraydah: 'In these words of the Hadith are benefits upon which there is consensus...' ¶

They are: the prohibition of treachery, the prohibition of ghulul (stealing from the spoils of war), the prohibition of killing children if they are not fighting, and the detestability (karahah) of mutilation (muthla). ¶

Furthermore, it is apparent from the foregoing that there is no consensus on this issue—neither regarding the prohibition of mutilation nor regarding it being merely a tahrimi (disliked) act without being haram. ¶

What appears to me is that Al-Nawawi, by the consensus on 'karahah,' intends that common denominator shared between tanzihi (lesser) detestability and tahrimi (prohibitive) detestability. That common factor is the request for abandonment in an absolute sense, regardless of whether the request is categorical or non-categorical. This request for abandonment is correctly labeled as 'makruh,' and there is indeed a consensus on it, as Imam Al-Nawawi stated, but according to the meaning we have clarified. ¶

- The Third Opinion: It is the permissibility of mutilating enemy corpses if the interest (maslaha) demands it. Permissibility here refers to allowance (ibaha), based on the argument that the fundamental ruling on mutilation, according to this view, is only detestability, not prohibition. ¶

It is stated in Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah—from the Hanbali school—as follows: 'It is detestable to transport the heads of polytheists from one city to another, to mutilate their dead, and to torture them... Al-Zuhri said: No head was ever brought to the Prophet (PBUH), and when a head was brought to Abu Bakr, he disapproved of it. It is also detestable to throw them using a catapult; Imam Ahmad explicitly stated this. However, if they do so for a tactical interest (maslaha), it is permissible, due to the report that when Amr ibn al-Aas besieged Alexandria, they captured a Muslim man and cut off his head. His people came to Amr in anger, and he said to them: 'Take one of their men, cut off his head, and fling it back at them with a catapult.' They did so, and the people of Alexandria threw the Muslim's head back to his people.' ¶

In Al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary—among the Hanafi texts—it is mentioned that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq said: 'Do not bring heads to me; a letter and a report are sufficient.' ... Thus, some scholars adopted the apparent meaning of the hadith (i.e., the statement of Abu Bakr) and said: It is not lawful to carry heads to the rulers because it is a carcass (jifa), and the proper course is to bury it. ¶

In order to remove harm, and because decapitation constitutes muthla (mutilation), and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) forbade mutilation, even of a biting dog. Most of our scholars (i.e., the Hanafis), may Allah have mercy on them, hold the view that if it serves to subdue and infuriate the polytheists, or brings peace to the hearts of the Muslims—such as when the slain person was a leader of the polytheists or a prominent warrior—then there is no harm in it. This is a summary of what the jurists have stated regarding the issue of the mutilation of enemy corpses. In summary, the jurisprudential opinions on this issue are divided into: prohibition, as stated by some; dislike (karaha), as stated by others; and permissibility for a legitimate interest, as stated by yet others. With this, we conclude the third point in this section and move to the fourth. ¶

Fourth point: The opinion we prefer regarding this issue. We prefer the opinion that Al-Tabari transmitted in his Tafsir from some scholars, who claimed that it is an abrogated opinion! Its summary is: that the mutilation of enemy corpses is permissible on the condition of reciprocity (qisas/retaliation). We believe that this ruling remains in effect and is not abrogated, as those others have claimed. ¶

To clarify this, we say: (a) It has already been stated that the hadith of Al-Tirmidhi regarding the mutilation of the Muslim martyrs at the Battle of Uhud is authentic, and that it is in this regard that the verse was revealed: 'And if you punish, then punish with the same with which you were afflicted; but if you have patience, it is better for the patient.' (Surah An-Nahl: 126). Therefore, it is permissible for Muslims to mutilate the bodies of the enemy dead, but on the condition of reciprocity with equality in that treatment—as the verse explicitly indicates. This means that if the enemy refrains from mutilating the bodies of the Muslims, it is forbidden for the Muslims to mutilate theirs. However, if the enemy dares to mutilate the bodies of the Muslims, it is permissible for the Muslims in return to mutilate the bodies of the enemy, and it is forbidden for them to mutilate more than the number that the enemy mutilated. However, despite this, it is... ¶

It is superior for Muslims not to treat the enemy in kind. That is, it is recommended (mandub) to refrain from mutilating the corpses of the enemy, even if the enemy has mutilated the corpses of the Muslims. The evidence for this recommendation is the saying of Allah Almighty: 'And if you endure patiently, it is indeed better for the patient' (Quran 16:126). Such a style indicates a recommendation for patience in this matter, meaning: that Muslims should restrain themselves from treating the enemy in kind, even if such reciprocity is permissible (ja'iz) and not forbidden (haram). ¶

Furthermore, it appears to me that this ruling—namely, the permissibility of reciprocity coupled with a recommendation for pardoning—is specific to the Muslims only, and does not apply to the Prophet (peace be upon him). This is because the address in the verse is directed solely at them: 'And if you endure patiently.' As for the Prophet (peace be upon him), his reciprocation against the disbelievers in retaliation for what they did to his uncle Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him) was not merely a matter recommended to be abandoned, but rather a binding obligation for him (peace be upon him). That is, it was obligatory for him to be patient and not to contemplate revenge. This is evidenced by the verse immediately following the previous one, which is the saying of Allah Almighty: 'Endure patiently, and your patience is only by the help of Allah. And do not grieve over them, and do not be in distress over what they conspire' (Quran 16:127). In the previous verse, the address was directed at the Muslims ('And if you endure patiently'), which indicates recommendation. However, in the following verse, the address is directed specifically at the Prophet in the form of a command ('Endure patiently'), which indicates that he was held to a higher standard than the Muslims, who were merely recommended to be patient and refrain from mutilation. Perhaps this is supported by what has been reported: after the revelation of this verse, 'The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Rather, we will be patient; and he refrained from what he intended and offered kaffarah (expiation) for his oath.' ¶

Accordingly, the assertion of abrogation (naskh) which Al-Tabari transmitted from some scholars regarding this ruling only applies to the ruling on mutilation if the Prophet (peace be upon him) had intended to carry it out as revenge for his uncle Hamza—as understood from the verse 'Endure patiently...'—provided it is proven that this verse was revealed after the one preceding it. In that case, the Messenger (peace be upon him) would have been included, first, in the recommendation to be patient and refrain from mutilation, and then a different ruling was revealed specifically for him, commanding him to be patient and refrain from retaliation. However, as long as this—that the revelation of 'Endure patiently...' was subsequent to 'And if you endure patiently...'—is not proven, the initial ruling is that it is permissible for Muslims to engage in it by way of reciprocity, but it is not permissible for the Prophet (peace be upon him). ¶

B - Based on this, the hadiths prohibiting 'tamthil' (mutilation of corpses) refer to the prohibition of mutilation in cases other than the aforementioned one—that is, in cases other than reciprocal treatment (retaliation in kind). Thus, one can reconcile the verse that indicates the permissibility of reciprocity in this matter with the hadiths that indicate the prohibition of mutilation. Reconciling two pieces of evidence—as is well-established—is preferable to claiming that one abrogates the other, regardless of whether it is the ruling issued by Allah in the Quran regarding the permissibility of reciprocity, as previously mentioned, or the ruling issued by the Prophet (PBUH) prohibiting mutilation, provided there is no report from the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) or any evidence that one abrogates the other. Regarding such matters, Imam al-Shafi'i stated: 'It is not permissible to say that one of them is abrogating the other unless there is a report from the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). Both must be applied to their respective contexts as long as there is a way to implement them... implementing the ruling of Allah the Almighty and the ruling of His Messenger together!' (1). Furthermore, this is what we prefer as the ruling on this issue. There remains one final observation regarding the above: the ruling we have stated is what we consider valid after the revelation of the verse, 'And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], then punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed...' (16:126). If this verse was revealed immediately after the Muslims declared their intention to retaliate by mutilating the corpses of the polytheists in a future battle should they defeat them, then the ruling is as mentioned; this is what the report in the Sirah of Ibn Hisham indicates. Similarly, if the mentioned verse was revealed in Mecca before the Hijra, as is the case with the entire Surah, as some commentators have mentioned (2), then the reports stating it was revealed in the context of mutilation serve merely as a reminder to indicate that the ruling on mutilation is subject to the concept of the mentioned verse. - As for the possibility that the verse 'And if you punish...' was revealed initially during the Conquest of Mecca, as indicated by the report of al-Tirmidhi, this would mean that during the period between the Battle of Uhud and the Conquest of Mecca, the mutilation of enemy corpses was permissible as a response to what the polytheists had done at Uhud, without being restricted by the requirement of exact parity in reciprocity. This implies that it was permissible for the Muslims to exceed the number of enemy corpses mutilated beyond the number of Muslim corpses that had been mutilated by the polytheists. ¶

And the evidence for this increase (exceeding the limit) is that the Prophet (PBUH) announced such an increase, and his statement is itself legislation. Even if he (PBUH) had not personally announced that increase, but rather the Muslims had announced it and the Messenger (PBUH) remained silent and did not deny it—as in the authentic hadith of Tirmidhi—his silence constitutes approval, which is also a form of legislation. ¶

This legal ruling (hukm) is not invalidated by the fact that it was not recorded that the Muslims acted upon it during the lifetime of the Prophet (PBUH). They did not mutilate (muthla) the corpses of any disbelievers, neither by exceeding what the polytheists did at Uhud, nor even within the bounds of equality in reciprocal treatment. I state: The fact that Muslims did not act upon it does not invalidate the ruling on the permissibility of mutilating the corpses of disbelievers within the aforementioned framework, because this ruling grants them the right to mutilate, but it does not mean that performing this act is mandatory (wajib). ¶

In any case, the final established legislation—as is preferred in our view—is the permissibility of reciprocity, provided it remains within the framework of equality without any excess, as detailed previously. ¶

In light of the above, the summary of our view on this issue is as follows: 1. The original principle is that mutilating the corpses of enemies is prohibited, due to the preceding hadiths that forbid mutilation. 2. If the enemies mutilate the corpses of Muslims, it is permissible for the Muslims to treat them with reciprocity, due to the verse that granted permission for this. However, exceeding the limit in reciprocity is forbidden, just as mutilation is forbidden from the outset if the enemy refrains from it. 3. It was obligatory for the Messenger (PBUH) to show patience and refrain from mutilation for the sake of vengeance for his uncle, Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him). 4. It is recommended (mustahabb) for Muslims to show patience and refrain from mutilation for the sake of vengeance for those Muslims who were mutilated. ¶

This is the summary of our view on this matter. Thus, we conclude this first topic—mutilation of enemies' corpses—and proceed to the second topic. ¶

(1) It should be noted that our teacher, Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli, preferred the view that mutilation is absolutely prohibited, even if the enemy mutilates the corpses of Muslims. See: Al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuhu, 6/720; and Athar al-Harb, p. 460. ¶

Second Section: Dissection of Enemy Corpses for Medical Research Purposes ¶

The issue of dissecting corpses has been studied by both classical and contemporary jurists (Fuqaha). ¶

- As for the classical scholars, they studied this issue within the chapters of 'Funerals' (Jana'iz) from two aspects: Firstly: Is it permissible to perform a caesarean section on a woman who has died while pregnant in order to extract the fetus? Secondly: Is it permissible to cut open the abdomen of a deceased person to retrieve valuable items that they may have swallowed, such as a pearl or a dinar? (1). ¶

- As for contemporary scholars, they have studied this issue from a new perspective imposed by the reality currently practiced by medical research centers and forensic research centers globally. This reality is that medical research centers, along with medical colleges, perform autopsies on corpses to understand the internal structure of the human body, with the aim of utilizing this knowledge to treat the living. As for forensic research centers, they perform autopsies on victims of assault to determine the cause of death, thereby identifying the perpetrators and bringing them to justice. I state: This new reality in the world of medical and forensic research is what has imposed upon... ¶

Contemporary jurists have studied this issue—the dissection of corpses—to provide an Islamic ruling thereon, each according to the outcome of their own ijtihad (legal reasoning). ¶

Now, as for the matter we are currently addressing—the dissection of enemy corpses for the purposes of medical research—we are not examining the subject from the perspective adopted by the classical scholars, nor from the perspective of the modern scholars; for that would lead us away from our topic, which relates to Jihad. We have indicated in the footnote the classical sources and some recent studies that have addressed this subject. ¶

What concerns the topic at hand is: - Is the public interest (maslahah) derived from the dissection of corpses—as it appears—considered a valid cause for the permissibility of 'muthla' (mutilation/desecration) of enemy corpses, just as the enemy's act of mutilating the corpses of Muslims is considered a cause for the permissibility of Muslims doing the same to their enemies? ¶

This is the subject that pertains to our discussion regarding the treatment of enemies by Muslims when they are dead, after war has left them as killed, lifeless bodies. ¶

Accordingly, we shall not delve into what the classical or modern scholars have debated, but rather we will focus our research on the matter we are addressing, as we have indicated. Therefore, the issues that must be addressed here are the following: 1. First Issue: Is the dissection of a corpse a form of 'muthla' (mutilation/desecration), or not? 2. Second Issue: If 'muthla' of enemy corpses is committed by way of 'mu'amala bil-mithl' (retaliation in kind), is it permissible to benefit from this for medical research? 3. Third Issue: Is it permissible to perform 'muthla' on enemy corpses based on 'maslahah' (public interest), just as it is permissible based on 'mu'amala bil-mithl' (retaliation in kind)? ¶

Point 1: Does the dissection of a corpse constitute 'muthla' (mutilation/desecration), or not? We established in the first section of this research that 'muthla' of a corpse consists of disfiguring it or severing any of its limbs. Accordingly, allowing the scalpel to work on the corpse here and there to identify what is inside this composition created by the Creator, Glory be to Him, constitutes mutilation; because its reality is disfigurement, even if the person holding the scalpel does not intend to disfigure the body stretched out before him on the dissecting table. The matter here concerns the reality of the act, not the intention of the one performing it. This is what relates to the first point. ¶

Point 2: If the desecration of enemy corpses is permissible as a reciprocal action, is it permissible to utilize this for medical research? The answer: It appears that this is permissible. Since the prohibition on the desecration of enemy corpses for the purpose of disfigurement and satisfying vengeance has been lifted, and it has become permissible, then such desecration for the purpose of benefiting medical research is even more deserving of permissibility. The mentioned intention, i.e., obtaining what is beneficial in medical research, is a generally legitimate matter. The act being performed, i.e., the desecration (dissection) of enemy corpses, is also a permissible act, subject to its conditions... Thus, there is no harm in achieving a legitimate goal through a legitimate means. With this, we conclude the second point and move to the third. ¶

Point 3: Is it permissible to desecrate enemy corpses based on 'maslaha' (public interest), just as it is permissible based on reciprocity? The answer: We have seen in the previous section that this is permissible, as stated in the books of the Hanafis and Hanbalis. Likewise, desecration is permissible with 'karaha' (abomination/dislike), without being restricted to public interest, as mentioned by Imam al-Nawawi from the Shafi'is... All this is without regard to reciprocity. Based on this, it is permissible for Muslims to dissect enemy corpses to benefit from them in medical research, even if the enemy has not desecrated the corpses of Muslims. However, since we have favored in the first section that the desecration of enemy corpses is permissible on the condition of... ¶

Regarding the principle of reciprocity, including parity in that treatment, we favor the view here—based on what has preceded—that it is permissible for Muslims to provide medical research centers with a number of enemy corpses for the purpose of dissection and benefit, strictly within the limits of reciprocity, as previously explained. Likewise, if the enemy refrains from mutilating or dissecting the bodies of Muslims, then in such a case, it is not permissible for Muslims to proceed with the dissection of any enemy corpse, as has been stated. Finally, we reiterate at the conclusion of this section that we are not addressing the issue of 'autopsy' in a general sense—whether it is lawful or unlawful to utilize it for medical and forensic research—as that is outside our scope. We have only addressed this matter from the perspective concerning enemy corpses in war and the possibility of utilizing them for medical research. With this, we conclude the second section and proceed to the third section. ¶

Third Section: Burying the Corpses of the Enemy ¶

In this section, we will discuss the following matters: 1. First Matter: Some of what the jurists (fuqaha) have said regarding the burial of the corpses of the enemy (ahl al-harb). 2. Second Matter: The Shariah texts related to this issue, and some commentaries issued regarding them. 3. Third Matter: The opinion we prefer regarding the ruling on burying the corpses of the enemy. ¶

First Matter: Some of what the jurists have said regarding the burial of the corpses of the enemy (ahl al-harb): - It is stated in Al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary, in reference to the prohibition by Abu Bakr al-Siddiq against bringing the heads of the infidels to him: 'Some scholars have taken the literal meaning of the hadith and said: It is not permissible to bring heads to the rulers because they are carcasses; therefore, the way is to bury them in order to remove the harm.'(1) - It is stated in Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 'ala al-Sharh al-Kabir the following: 'If a dead disbeliever is found and no one from his religion or his Muslim relatives is with him, and there is a fear of him being lost (or desecrated), his burial becomes obligatory, as is stated in al-Mudawwanah; its outward meaning applies even if he is a combatant (harbi). Another opinion suggests: The combatant is left for the dogs to eat.'(2) ¶

(1) Al-Siyar al-Kabir, wa Sharhuhu: 1/110. (2) Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 'ala al-Sharh al-Kabir: 1/430. See also: Manh al-Jalil: 1/534-535; Ahkam al-Qur'an by Ibn al-Arabi: 2/587; Ahkam al-Qur'an by al-Qurtubi: 6/143. ¶

In 'Fath al-Aziz' by al-Rafi'i, which is a commentary on al-Ghazali's 'al-Wajiz'—in Shafi'i jurisprudence—regarding the issue of burying a kafir harbi (a hostile disbeliever), the following text is stated: 'There are two opinions regarding the obligation of burying him: The first is that it is obligatory, because the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered it for the slain at Badr. The second is that it is not obligatory; rather, it is permissible to leave him for the dogs, and if one does so, it is permissible, so that people are not disturbed by the odor.' (1) In al-Nawawi's 'al-Majmu'', a commentary on al-Shirazi's 'al-Muhadhdhab'—also in Shafi'i jurisprudence—it is stated: 'Section: Regarding washing a kafir: We have mentioned that our school of thought allows a Muslim to wash him, bury him, and follow his funeral procession. Ibn al-Mundhir attributed this view to the Ashab al-Ra'y (the rationalist school) and Abu Thawr. Malik and Ahmad said: It is not for the Muslim to wash or bury him. However, Malik said: It is permissible to conceal him (muwarat).' (2) I (the author) say: This text, in its general application, covers both the kafir harbi and the non-harbi. In 'al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya' by al-Farra' of the Hanbali school: 'Whoever is killed among them should be hidden from sight, and it is not required—(meaning for the army commander)—to shroud him.' (3) In 'al-Muhalla' by Ibn Hazm, it is stated: 'Issue: The burial of the kafir harbi and others is an obligation... Then he says in support of his view: It is authentically established that the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade mutilation (muthla), and leaving a human being unburied is a form of mutilation.' (4) Professor Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli holds the view that it is obligatory to bury the corpses of enemies in war. He states in this regard: 'If we assume that the enemy has not buried their dead, what is the stance of Islam on this? Leaving the deceased...' ¶

Leaving it in the open renders it susceptible to decomposition and causes harm to passersby, causing people to flee from it due to the offense caused by its stench. Therefore, it is necessary to conceal the corpse, as this serves the public interest.(1) He then presents several proofs for this opinion, including the disposal of the slain polytheists at Badr into the 'Qalib', i.e., the well. He says in this regard: ¶

'Throwing them into the pit of the Qalib was not for the purpose of humiliation; rather, the Messenger, peace be upon him, disliked imposing the burden of burying them upon his companions due to the large number of carcasses of the infidels, so placing them in that pit was easier for them.'(2) ¶

Thus, this is what relates to the first matter concerning some of what the jurists have said regarding the concealment of the enemies' corpses. ¶

2 - The Second Matter: The Shariah texts reported on this issue, and some commentaries issued regarding them: ¶

In Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim, it is reported from Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: 'The Prophet (ﷺ) was praying near the House (Ka'bah), while Abu Jahl and his companions were sitting there. One of them said: "Which of you will bring the fetal membrane/offal(3) of the she-camel of such-and-such tribe and place it on the back of Muhammad when he prostrates?" The most wretched of the people(4) rose and brought it. He watched until the Prophet (ﷺ) prostrated, then he placed it on his back between his shoulder blades. I was watching and could not do anything! If only I had strength/protection!(5) They started laughing and leaning against one another,(6) while the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was prostrating, not lifting his head.' ¶

He removed [the contents] from his head, until Fatimah came and pulled it off his back. He raised his head and said: 'O Allah, deal with Quraish,' three times. It was difficult for them when he invoked [against them], as they believed that supplication in that city was answered. He then named them: 'O Allah, deal with Abu Jahl, 'Utbah bin Rabi'ah, Shaibah bin Rabi'ah, Al-Walid bin 'Utbah, Umayyah bin Khalaf, and 'Uqbah bin Abi Mu'ayt.' He counted a seventh whose name we did not memorize. He said: 'By the One in Whose hand is my soul, I saw those whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ named lying dead in the Qulib (well), the well of Badr.' In another narration: 'I saw them killed on the day of Badr, then they were thrown into a well, except for Umayyah... for he was a heavy man. When they dragged him, his limbs disintegrated before he could be thrown into the well.' In another narration by Al-Bukhari: 'His limbs disintegrated, and he was not thrown into the well.' ¶

- It is stated in Fath al-Bari, in commentary on this Hadith: 'The scholars said: He only ordered them to be thrown into it so that people would not be harmed by their stench; otherwise, it is not obligatory to bury a harbi (a belligerent disbeliever).' ¶

- In Sirat Ibn Hisham — with an authentic chain — it is narrated: 'Ibn Ishaq said: Yazid bin Ruman narrated to me, from 'Urwah bin al-Zubayr, from 'Aishah, who said: When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ ordered the slain to be thrown into the Qulib, they were thrown in, except for Umayyah bin Khalaf, for he had bloated inside his armor and filled it. When they tried to move him, his flesh disintegrated, so they left him and covered him with the soil and stones that hid him.' Ibn Mas'ud explained the reason for this bloating in a narration by Al-Bukhari: 'The sun had altered them, and it was a hot day.' ¶

In 'Al-Rawd al-Unuf', commenting on what is stated in the Sirah of Ibn Hisham, it says: 'If it is asked: What is the meaning of throwing them into the pit (qaleeb), and what is the jurisprudence (fiqh) involved in it? We say: It was the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) during his military expeditions that whenever he passed by a human corpse, he would order it to be buried, without asking whether it was a believer or a disbeliever. This is how it occurred in the Sunan of al-Daraqutni. Thus, throwing them into the pit belongs to this category. However, he disliked burdening his companions because of the large number of disbeliever corpses by ordering them to bury them, so dragging them to the pit was easier for them.'(1) ¶

And it is stated in 'Sharh Sahih Muslim' by Imam al-Nawawi, in this regard: 'They were placed in the pit to humiliate them! And so that people would not be harmed by their odor; this does not constitute burial, because burial of a Harbi (enemy combatant) is not mandatory. Our companions (meaning those who hold jurisprudential positions within the Shafi'i school) said: Rather, they are to be left in the desert, unless they cause harm.'(2) ¶

This is what relates to the texts and commentaries concerning the slain of 'Badr'. There are other texts that mention the 'concealment' (muwarah) of the slain disbelievers from the people of war, but they do not reach the level of authenticity (sahih). Among them: 'From Ikrimah, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw a woman killed in Ta'if. He said: Did I not forbid the killing of women? Who is the owner of this killed woman? A man from the people said: I am, O Messenger of Allah. I let her ride behind me, she tried to knock me down, so I killed her. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) then ordered her to be concealed.'(3) ¶

(1) Al-Rawd al-Unuf by al-Suhayli: 3/63. The authentication (takhrij) of the hadith of al-Daraqutni will follow shortly. (2) Sharh Sahih Muslim: 7/435. (3) Sunan al-Bayhaqi: 9/82. The hadith is Mursal as is apparent. 'The Mursal hadith: is fundamentally weak and rejected, due to the lack of one of the conditions of acceptability, which is the continuity of the chain (sanad)...' (See: Tayseer Mustalah al-Hadith by Dr. Mahmoud al-Tahhan, pp. 70-71, and other cited works). The narrator here is 'Ikrimah', who is a Tabi'i and did not see the Prophet (peace be upon him); thus, it is probable that he narrated it from another unknown Tabi'i, which is the reason for its weakness. ¶

And from Ya'la ibn Murrah, he said: 'I traveled with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ more than once, and I never saw him pass by the corpse of a human being and go beyond it without ordering its burial; he would not ask whether he was a Muslim or a disbeliever.' This is a portion of the Shariah texts that address the issue of concealing (burying) the corpses of enemies in war. With this, we conclude the second point of this chapter and proceed to the third point: 3- The Third Point: The opinion we favor on this issue. After reviewing the summary of what the jurists have said regarding this matter, and after referring back to the relevant Shariah texts, we believe that it is obligatory to bury the corpses of enemies in war, as much as possible. This is in light of the following: a) The fundamental principle regarding the deceased, in general, is that they should be concealed and not left in the open. This has been the case since Qabil (Cain) killed his brother Habil (Abel), and 'Allah sent a crow scratching in the earth to show him how to hide the disgrace of his brother...' b) It has not been reported that the Prophet ﷺ ever left the corpse of any harbi (belligerent) disbeliever without ordering its burial. c) It is established that the Prophet ﷺ ordered the burial of the polytheists killed at Badr. d) The intent of humiliation which Imam al-Nawawi mentioned as being behind the casting of the Quraysh casualties into the well (qalib) of Badr—in the sense that he did not place each one, or every two or three, in a separate grave, but rather ordered them to be merely concealed from sight in the well—I say: this intention, even if we accept its validity, does not affect the obligatory ruling of burying the corpses of enemies from the people of war, as is evident from the order of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ regarding it, and as is evident from the Sahaba’s execution of that order. e) It is authentically established that regarding Umayyah ibn Khalaf, those in charge of burying these casualties were unable to drag him to... ¶