Chapter 70

Second Section: The method of targeted kidnapping against citizens of enemy states and taking them hostage. In our contemporary era, the method of kidnapping individuals belonging to hostile parties has become common among warring factions. The organizers of such kidnappings employ several methods to achieve their objectives: - Sometimes a person is kidnapped from their home, office, on the street, or similar locations, and is then detained in an unknown or known location. (1) - Sometimes, there is a resort to hijacking airplanes that carry specific individuals among their passengers who are the target of the hijacking operation. (2) - Sometimes a ship carrying citizens of an enemy state is hijacked in order to achieve specific goals. (3) (1) Lebanon was a theater for operations of this type, which were not limited to diplomats, journalists, and foreign professors, but even included Lebanese citizens themselves from various sects. [Terrorism and Political Violence: Muhammad al-Sammak, pp. 22-23]. Among the famous kidnappings is the ability of 'Israeli Intelligence' to kidnap the German leader 'Eichmann' while he was in Argentina on (May 22, 1960) and transport him secretly to 'Palestine'. He had disappeared after Germany's defeat, like other Nazi leaders, until he was kidnapped. Israel executed him on (May 31, 1962) on charges of enmity toward the Jews and working for their extermination during the Nazi rule in Germany. His body was cremated and his ashes scattered at sea. (See: The Political Dictionary: p. 159). (2) In (1956), French authorities hijacked a civilian plane flying the Moroccan flag, carrying five leaders of the Algerian revolution, including (Ahmed Ben Bella). France kept the revolution leaders as prisoners until the independence of Algeria in (1962). [Terrorism and Political Violence, pp. 10-11]. (3) (In October 1985), a group from the Palestinian resistance hijacked the Italian cruise ship (Achille Lauro). ¶

It is not our intent here to exhaustively examine the methods employed in this regard, nor to state the immediate or distant objectives targeted by those who resort to this method of terrorism and pressure against their hostile parties. What concerns us here is whether it is permissible for the Islamic state to resort to this method of kidnapping and to consider it one of the legitimate methods against enemy states and their subjects. If so, what are the limits of this legitimacy? Along with mentioning some of the goals sought behind resorting to this style of warfare... This is the subject of the section we address through the discussion of the following two points: ¶

1. The first point: Is the method of kidnapping enemy subjects—individuals or groups, by any means—considered one of the legitimate methods in Islam? What is its status from a Shariah perspective? And what are the limits of its legitimacy? ¶

2. The second point: Some of the goals sought by resorting to this method, in light of the events recorded in the books of the Sunnah and the Prophetic Biography. ¶

The first point: Is the method of kidnapping enemy subjects, individuals or groups, by any means, considered one of the legitimate methods in Islam? And what is its status from a Shariah perspective? And what are the limits of its legitimacy? I say: Kidnapping enemy subjects, individuals or groups, is a legitimate method in Islam as it is considered an act of war. Its status from a Shariah perspective is that it is the seizing of combatant disbelievers by force or by surprise. ¶

(An example: Achille Lauro) from the port of Alexandria, and a person holding American citizenship was killed in the operation, and the American response to that was represented by the following: ¶

a. Hijacking an Egyptian civilian plane that was transporting the kidnappers of the Italian ship to (Tunis) so that the PLO could try them, and the plane was forced to land at an American military base in (Sicily). b. Providing logistical facilities to the Israeli military plane that bombed the PLO headquarters in (Tunis). c. America launched its airstrikes on (Tripoli) and (Benghazi) under the pretext that (Libya) encourages terrorism. And among this terrorism was the hijacking of the Italian ship: (Achille Lauro). [Al-Irhab wal-Unf al-Siyasi: p. 52].. ¶

And casting them into the captivity of the Muslims, and treating them as prisoners of war—as will be detailed in the coming chapter—this is until their status is decided. However, what are the limits of the legitimacy of this action? ¶

The answer is that for this action to be legitimate, it is stipulated that these individuals—whether taken as hostages or prisoners of war—must not be among the subjects of the enemy who enjoy the right of 'aman' (security) from the Muslims. These are: 1. Ambassadors of states, and those in their position, such as messengers and envoys sent by hostile parties for the purpose of conducting discussions, negotiations with the Muslims, and the like. It is not permissible to abduct them if they enter the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam), even without obtaining an entry visa—that is, without obtaining prior security—as long as they have proof that they have come for diplomatic purposes or to deliver messages between the hostile parties and the authorities of the Islamic State. ¶

- Regarding the non-detention or imprisonment of messengers, it is narrated in the text that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'I do not detain the messengers (al-burud).' Ibn al-Athir says: 'Al-burud is the plural of barid, referring to the messenger who comes to you from a certain party. It means: I do not restrain them from their companions, nor do I prevent them from returning to them.' If it is not correct to detain messengers, then it is even more imperative that they not be killed, even if they belong to countries that are in a state of war with the Muslims, or if they belong to states that had a treaty but violated it with the Muslims and have thus become belligerent states. ¶

- It is authenticated that a man named 'Ibn al-Nuwahah' came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the capacity of a messenger from... ¶

"Musaylimah al-Kadhdhab"; to which the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Had you not been an envoy, I would have struck off your neck." Ibn Mas'ud says: "It is an established Sunnah that envoys are not to be killed." From this, when Abu Sufyan, the leader of the polytheists of Makkah, came to Medina after Quraysh had violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not detain him, take him as a hostage, nor kill him, even though, after the violation of the treaty, he was considered among the 'ahl al-harb' (people of war) of the disbelievers, whose lives could be made lawful, both in their own lands and if they entered the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam) without prior safe conduct (aman). However, because he came in the capacity of an envoy from Quraysh to negotiate the matter of peace, the ruling of a 'musta'min' (one granted safety) was applied to him, as if he had entered the lands of Islam with prior safe conduct. In this regard, Ibn al-Qayyim, in the context of discussing the rulings derived from the accounts of the Conquest (of Makkah), states: "The envoy of the disbelievers is not to be killed; for Abu Sufyan was among those to whom the ruling of breaking the covenant applied, yet the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did not kill him, as he was the envoy of his people to him." It is stated in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary, regarding those who enter the Abode of Islam from the subjects of non-treaty states without prior safe conduct: "If one says: 'I am an envoy from the King to the Caliph,' he is not to be believed and is considered 'fay' (spoils of war); because this is a claim of safe conduct (aman) on his part, and an envoy is secure from both sides. This has been the custom in the Jahiliyyah and in Islam, for matters of peace or war cannot be conducted except through an envoy. It is necessary for the envoy to be safe so that he can convey the message. Thus, when the envoy of a people spoke before the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in a way he should not have spoken, he said: '(Had you not been an envoy, I would have killed you).' This proves that an envoy is secure. However, he is not to be believed based merely on his claim that he is an envoy..." ¶

He brings a book resembling their king's book and claims it is from their king; he is safe until he delivers the message. (1) ¶

Al-Shawkani says: 'Envoys from the disbelievers used to reach the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and none of his companions would interfere with them. This was an established practice and a manifest Sunnah. The same applied to non-Muslim kings; the Prophet ﷺ would correspond with them without prior guarantees of safety (aman) for his envoys, and no one would interfere with them.' (2) ¶

This pertains to envoys and those who hold the same status; it is not permissible to kidnap them, hold them hostage, or bargain with their lives against hostile parties. ¶

2. Similar in ruling are those from the citizens of belligerent states who enter the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) legally—that is, through a prior guarantee of safety (aman) or what is known in these days as an 'entry visa'. Such musta'minun (those granted safety) may not be kidnapped or held as hostages, even if war breaks out between the Muslims and their home countries. However, it is permissible to deport them or allow them to remain in the country based on public interest (maslahah), as long as the aman—that is, the visit visa or temporary residency granted to them—has not yet expired. Whoever among them wishes to travel back to his country during this period shall not be prevented, nor shall those who wish to stay be prevented, unless there is a fear of harm resulting from their presence. In that case, they are ordered to leave and given a final deadline for departure. If one fails to depart by the end of this period, it is permissible to count them among the subjects of the Islamic State as dhimmis, provided no harm to the Muslims results from this. In cases where there is a fear of harm from these musta'minun, it is necessary to exercise caution by placing them under surveillance whenever required, until their deportation procedures from the country are finalized. ¶

Regarding this, Imam Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Shaybani states in al-Siyar al-Kabir: 'If there occurs...' ¶

The musta'minun (those granted security) within the Muslim army are not prohibited persons. If the commander decides to terminate their status, he is obligated to facilitate their return to their safe territory. If they refuse to leave, the commander should provide them with due notice and warning, granting them a duration within which it is feasible for them to reach their safe territory. He should not impose unreasonable constraints on this timeframe to avoid causing them harm. He should state: 'If you reach your safe territory by such-and-such a date, well and good; otherwise, you become dhimmis upon whom we impose kharaj (tribute/jizya), and we will not permit you to return to your safe territory thereafter.' If they do not leave by the expiration of the term, this is evidence of their consent to become dhimmis, essentially equivalent to the explicit acceptance of the dhimma contract, similar to musta'minun in our territory who extend their stay. If the army commander fears that upon encountering their enemy, these musta'minun might attack the Muslim army, or fears they might kill Muslims by night, he shall order them to return to their safe territory and shall set a time for them to do so—as we have explained—out of consideration for the Muslims. He shall then command that for every night, until that time expires, they be gathered in one place and guarded.' This is what Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani stated. Consequently, kidnapping musta'minun, detaining them, holding them as hostages against their will, or preventing them from traveling to their countries is an infringement upon the sanctity of the security granted to them. This is not permissible! 3- Furthermore, it is not permissible to kidnap individuals or groups from the subjects of states that have peace treaties with the Muslims, for these subjects hold the status of musta'minun, even if they are residing in their own lands and have not entered the Dar al-Islam. 4- Likewise, subjects of belligerent states are protected if they reside in countries that have peace treaties with the Muslims; it is not permissible to subject them to killing or kidnapping as long as they reside in these treaty-bound states, for in this case, they fall under the status of mu'ahidin (those under covenant), as the word of Allah applies to them. ¶

Allah the Almighty says: {If they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them any ally or helper * Except those who join a people between whom and you there is a treaty...} (1). ¶

This means: It is permissible to seize the belligerent (muharib) disbelievers absolutely, whether openly by force or by kidnapping them by surprise. It is likewise permissible to kill them wherever we can overcome them, except if they have reached the lands of a people with whom the Muslims have a treaty or a pact of peace—in such a case, it is not permissible to subject them to killing or kidnapping. ¶

E. Furthermore, it is not permissible to kidnap individuals or groups of disbelievers if they belong to lands that have not yet been reached by the Islamic call (Da'wah). Similar are the lands that have received the call, but are still within the grace period agreed upon to study the presented call, and have not yet taken an official decision regarding it—whether they reject the call, or accept it with or without conditions, as previously discussed in earlier research. ¶

Thus, it is not permissible to conduct kidnapping operations against the citizens of these countries; because they are not considered among the lands that are in a state of war with us, even if there are no formal peace treaties concluded with them. ¶

In this regard, it is reported from Ubayy ibn Ka'b that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent a detachment to al-Lat and al-'Uzza. They raided a tribe of the Arabs and captured their combatants and children. They said, 'O Messenger of Allah! They raided us without [the prior] invitation [to Islam]!' He asked the members of the detachment, and they confirmed the claim. He then said: 'Return them to their place of safety, then invite them' (2). ¶

Aside from the aforementioned cases—namely envoys, those granted security (musta'minun), citizens of treaty states, citizens of belligerent states residing in treaty states, and citizens of countries that have not been reached by the Islamic call and are not in a state of actual war with Muslims—individuals and groups outside this scope, whether citizens of states currently at war with Muslims or citizens of states technically in a state of war with Muslims (even if active hostilities are not currently ongoing), may be subject to abduction and detention. This is the general principle, regardless of whether they are in their own countries, other belligerent nations, on the high seas, in international airspace, or on ships and aircraft. These operations are, in reality, acts of war that fall under the scope of taking belligerent disbelievers captive, in accordance with the Almighty's saying: '...seize them, and besiege them, and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush...' (Surah At-Tawbah: 5). Thereafter, their fate shall be decided according to the Shariah rulings related to captives, as will be explained in the next chapter. ¶

It should be noted here that although this act—the abduction of enemy subjects as described—is a legitimate war operation during a state of war, it is like war itself, subject to the authority of the ruler of the Islamic state, as waging war is one of the prerogatives of the head of state, the Caliph of the Muslims. Therefore, he has the authority to determine the methods and war operations to be used against the enemy and to prohibit others based on what the public interest (maslahah) dictates, as previously established. Thus, when the Caliph deems it contrary to the interest to employ kidnapping against a specific hostile entity, or believes that abducting individuals of special status might cause harm to the Muslims, it is the duty of the Caliph in such a case to formulate a sound war policy. ¶

In this regard, it is essential that fighters or lower-level commanders are not left to act upon their own whims in this matter. ¶

Furthermore, it should be noted here that for Muslims who are citizens of other states outside the Islamic state, it is permissible from a Shariah perspective—when they revolt against the authorities governing their countries, even if those countries are bound by a peace treaty with the Islamic state—for these rebels to use the tactic of kidnapping against those they have declared revolt against, in order to pressure the ruling power to submit to their legitimate demands. ¶

In such a case, the Islamic state is not responsible for their actions because they are not its subjects and are not under its jurisdiction. This is similar to what the group of Abu Basir (may Allah be pleased with him) did against the disbelievers of Makkah during the period of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah between the polytheists of Quraysh and their allies, and the Muslims in Madinah and their allies. This eventually compelled the Quraysh to respond to the demands of this armed rebel group from the people of Makkah, as is detailed in the books of Sirah (biography of the Prophet) and as previously mentioned in earlier discussions (1). ¶

In summary, this is the most important point regarding the legitimacy of kidnapping enemy subjects, the limits of that legitimacy, and its reality as a form of legitimate warfare. ¶

Second Point: Some of the objectives sought by resorting to this method, based on the incidents reported in the books of the Sunnah and the Prophetic Sirah. ¶

In this section, we will present examples from the books of Sunnah and Sirah regarding operations of kidnapping, capturing, or detaining enemy individuals, explaining the objectives behind them. We do this to indicate that any objective which is permissible for Muslims to pursue, it is consequently permissible for legitimate kidnapping operations to be a means of achieving it. ¶

Here are some examples of those operations that embody what we have mentioned. ¶

1. Regarding the year of Hudaybiyyah, when the Quraish prevented the Prophet (PBUH) and the Muslims from entering Makkah to perform the rituals of Umrah, the hearts of the Muslims were filled with rage toward the disbelievers of Makkah, proportional to the pain they felt due to the collapse of their hopes of visiting the Sacred House. It happened that some Muslims vented their burning rage by kidnapping a number of disbelievers from the people of the Haram before the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was concluded with the polytheists. However, the Prophet (PBUH)—who was aspiring to reach a peace treaty with the Quraish—ordered the release of these captives to pave the way for realizing what he aimed for. It is stated in Tafsir al-Tabari, with its chain of narration from Mujahid, who said: 'The Prophet of Allah (PBUH) arrived intending to perform Umrah, and his companions captured some people from the people of the Haram who were unaware, so the Prophet (PBUH) set them free.' From this report, it is evident that the companions' objective behind kidnapping some of the disbelievers from the subjects of Makkah was to retaliate against the disbelievers of the Haram in general, as they had stood in the way of the Muslims entering Makkah to perform Umrah. It is also possible that the intention was to use these captives as a means of pressure on the Quraish to open the way for the Muslims to visit the House in exchange for their release. ¶

2. In Sahih Muslim, also concerning the story of Hudaybiyyah, Salamah ibn al-Akwa' says: '...When we and the people of Makkah made peace and mingled with one another, I went to a tree, cleared the thorns beneath it, and lay down at its base. Four polytheists from the people of Makkah came and began to speak ill of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH); I despised them, so I moved to another tree. They hung their weapons and lay down. While they were in that state, a caller shouted from the bottom of the valley: "O Emigrants! Ibn Ruyaym has been killed!" I drew my sword and pounced on those four while they were asleep! I took their weapons and bundled them in my hand. I said: "By the One who honored the countenance of Muhammad, if any one of you raises his head, I will strike..."' ¶

his eyes. He said: Then I brought them, driving them toward the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He said: And my uncle 'Amir' brought a man from the 'Abalat', called Mikraz, leading him to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ on a horse wearing armor (tajfaf), along with seventy of the polytheists! The Messenger of Allah ﷺ looked at them and said: Let them go. Let the beginning of the aggression be theirs, as well as its recurrence. So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ pardoned them. And Allah revealed: {And it is He who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them within [the area of] Makkah after He caused you to overcome them}. ¶

I say: It appears that the action of (Salamah ibn al-Akwa') and his uncle (Amir) in seizing or capturing these polytheists was based on their own assessment that the 'treaty' (sulh) had become void because the polytheists had violated it by killing the Companion (Ibn Runaym). Thus, the disbelievers of Makkah reverted to being 'ahl harb' (people of war), whom it was permissible to seize and capture, just as was their status before the treaty. However, the Prophet ﷺ did not wish to consider the killing of (Ibn Runaym) as a breach of the covenant—either because his killing was not orchestrated by the leadership of Quraysh or with their consent, or because the Prophet ﷺ intended to overlook it, as the interest in upholding the treaty, despite the violation of its sanctity, outweighed the decision to declare it void. ¶

From this report, it is evident that the objective behind capturing several polytheists in the aftermath of the killing of (Ibn Runaym) was to seek retribution for the slain Companion from the disbelievers in general, even if it was not determined who among them had committed this crime. This is especially true since there were certainly some among them—the captives—who had absolutely no hand in the killing of the Companion. At the very least, there were those four who were asleep when that crime occurred. Nevertheless, according to the assessment of (Salamah) and his uncle (Amir), the 'treaty' had become void due to the polytheists' violation of its sanctity; therefore, it was permissible to seize those of them they could, by way of retaliation. ¶

Regarding the martyred companion... however, it was not appropriate for Salamah and his uncle (may Allah be pleased with them both) to hasten to kill the captives before referring to the supreme leadership to see its opinion regarding the matter of the 'peace treaty' and the fate of these prisoners. This is because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had—as previously mentioned—preferred to forgive and uphold the peace, in view of the overriding interest (maslahah) in doing so. ¶

3. Sometimes the goal behind the kidnapping operation of certain individuals from the enemy is to hold them under the authority of the Islamic state in order to demonstrate power over them and surround them with psychological influences that might uproot the ideas of hatred and hostility toward Islam from their souls... with the hope of converting them to the side of the Muslims and, consequently, directing their hostility toward the other camp. This was the case with the kidnapping of 'Thumamah ibn Uthal,' the leader of the people of Yamamah. It is reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent 'al-Ala' ibn al-Hadrami' to the King of Bahrain, 'al-Mundhir ibn Sawa,' to invite him to Islam. After the King of Bahrain accepted Islam: 'Al-Ala returned to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and informed him of what he had seen of al-Mundhir and the speed of his conversion. He then said: O Messenger of Allah! I passed by Thumamah ibn Uthal al-Hanafi, and he asked: Are you Muhammad's messenger? I said: Yes. He said: By Allah, you will never reach Muhammad! And he wanted to kill me! But his uncle 'Amir ibn Salamah' stopped him. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: O Allah, guide Amir and grant me power over Thumamah. Amir then became a Muslim, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would order everyone going out on a mission: If you capture Thumamah, take him! Thus, 'Muhammad ibn Maslamah' went out on one of the expeditions, having been instructed by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). When he reached 'Batn Nakhl,' he found people preparing food, among them Thumamah ibn Uthal. Muhammad ibn Maslamah captured him, bound him in chains, and sent him with Abu Na'ilah and four other men. When he was brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), he ordered that he be tied to one of the pillars of the mosque.' ¶

(1) 'Batn Nakhl': A place in Najd, in the land of Ghatafan. Al-Asma' wa al-Lughat by al-Nawawi: 3/38. (2) That is, a shackle (qayd). In al-Qamus 3/14: The jami'ah is a shackle. In 4/26: 'Ghalla fulanan' means: he put a shackle on his neck or hand. (3) Nasb al-Rayah: 3/392-393. From the narration of al-Waqidi in Kitab al-Riddah, then he added: The hadith of Thumamah is also in the Sahihayn. ¶

It is narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, as part of the complete account: 'The Messenger of Allah ﷺ came out to him and said: "What do you have, O Thumamah?" He replied: "I have good, O Muhammad! If you kill, you kill one who possesses blood (i.e., a man of standing whose killing demands retribution), and if you show favor, you show favor to one who is grateful. If you desire wealth, ask for as much as you wish." He was left until the next day, when the Prophet ﷺ asked him again: "What do you have, O Thumamah?" He replied: "What I told you: if you show favor, you show favor to one who is grateful!" He left him until the following day, then asked him again, and he gave the same reply. The Prophet ﷺ said: "Release Thumamah!" He went to some palm trees near the mosque, performed ghusl (purification bath), entered the mosque, and declared: "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah! O Muhammad, by Allah, there was no face on earth more hateful to me than yours, yet now your face has become the most beloved of faces to me. By Allah, there was no religion more hateful to me than yours, yet now your religion has become the most beloved of religions to me. By Allah, there was no land more hateful to me than yours, yet now your land has become the most beloved of lands to me. Your cavalry captured me while I intended to perform Umrah, so what do you advise?" The Messenger of Allah ﷺ gave him glad tidings and ordered him to perform Umrah. When he reached Makkah, someone asked him: "Have you apostatized?" He said: "No, but I have embraced Islam with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. By Allah, not a single grain of wheat will come to you from Al-Yamamah until the Prophet ﷺ permits it." ¶

- It is mentioned in Sirat Ibn Hisham, as a continuation of Thumamah's story: "Then he went to Al-Yamamah and forbade them from sending anything to Makkah. The people of Makkah wrote to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: 'You command the maintaining of family ties, yet you have severed our ties; you have killed our fathers with the sword and our sons with hunger!' So, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ wrote to him, instructing him to allow the trade and supplies to reach them." ¶

- In Fath al-Bari, while discussing the benefits of the account of Thumamah, it is stated: "Kindness removes hatred and establishes love... and it contains (the principle of) treating captives with gentleness if there is hope of their conversion to Islam." ¶

It is in the interest of Islam, especially when a large number of his people follow him in his Islam. This includes sending military expeditions (sariyyah) to the lands of the disbelievers, taking captives from among those found there, and then exercising a choice regarding them: either to execute them or to spare their lives (1). ¶

- It is mentioned in 'al-Rawd al-Unuf' that which indicates that the kidnapping of Thumamah specifically, and placing him in confinement or captivity, was not for the sake of vengeance, despite the animosity he harbored against the Islamic call, its bearer, and the foundation upon which it is based. Rather, it was a sincere, insightful realization that a man of such stature would be a gain for Islam should he convert to it. Perhaps the only way to effect such a transformation in his life was through this harsh method, which shakes the soul to its very depths. Once he was granted the noble pardon, the experience he underwent drove him to re-evaluate his thoughts and his own self regarding this call. After this reflection, he recognized where the truth stood in this ongoing struggle within the Arabian Peninsula. ¶

And so it was; Thumamah decided to stand with the truth that had become clear to him—in the manner previously described, and as stated in 'al-Rawd al-Unuf'—that after Thumamah said to the Prophet (ﷺ), "If you kill, you kill a person of blood (who deserves retribution)," the Prophet (ﷺ) said, "O Allah! A meal of camel meat is dearer to me than the blood of Thumamah." Thus, he released him, and Thumamah performed ghusl, embraced Islam, and his Islam became excellent. Allah benefited Islam greatly through him. After the death of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), he stood in a commendable position when the people of al-Yamamah apostatized with Musaylimah. He stood before them as a preacher and said: "O Banu Hanifah! Where have your intellects gone? {In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Ha-Mim. The revelation of the Book is from Allah, the Exalted in Might, the Knowing. The Forgiver of sin, the Acceptor of repentance, the Severe in punishment...} (3) — how does this compare to: 'O frog, croak as you croak: you neither muddy the drink, nor do you prevent the water'?—which is what Musaylimah used to babble. Consequently, three thousand followed him, joined the Muslims, and that broke the strength of [the tribe of] Hanifah (4)." ¶

I say: Thus, the story of Thumamah (may Allah be pleased with him) serves as an example that among the kidnapping operations carried out by Muslims, there may be results that lead to a transformation toward the correct direction in the life of the kidnapped person himself, and a blessed transformation in the history of the people to whom this kidnapped person belongs. ¶

4 - Furthermore, the Prophetic Sunnah contains evidence indicating that one of the objectives of abducting individuals from among the enemy's subjects and holding them captive is to secure the release of Muslim captives held by the enemy, specifically through ransom and the exchange of prisoners. Sometimes, the abducted person may not belong to the specific enemy holding the Muslim prisoners, but rather to a group that is allied with that enemy. Nevertheless, such an abduction can eventually lead to the rescue of Muslim captives, depending on the alliance relations existing between the enemies of the Muslims. ¶

- It is narrated in Sahih Muslim: "From Imran ibn Husayn, who said: 'The Thaqif were allies of the Banu Uqayl. The Thaqif captured two companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). The companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) captured a man from the Banu Uqayl and also seized al-Adba' (the she-camel) with him. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed by him while he was bound. He called out: O Muhammad! He (ﷺ) came to him and asked: What is the matter? The man said: On what grounds did you capture me, and on what grounds did you take the one that outruns the Hajj pilgrims? He (ﷺ) replied: I captured you because of the crimes of your allies, the Thaqif. He (ﷺ) then turned away, but the man called out: O Muhammad! O Muhammad! The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was merciful and kind, so he returned to him and asked: What is the matter? The man said: I am a Muslim. He (ﷺ) replied: Had you said that while you had control over your affairs, you would have achieved complete success. He then turned away, but the man called out: O Muhammad! O Muhammad! He (ﷺ) came to him and asked: What is the matter? The man said: I am hungry, so feed me, and I am thirsty, so give me something to drink. He (ﷺ) said: This is your need. And so, he was ransomed for the two men.'" ¶

Imam al-Shafi'i said: "The statement of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), 'I have captured you because of the crimes of your allies, the Thaqif,' simply means..." ¶

That the individual captured is a polytheist (mushrik), whose blood and property are permissible (mubah) due to his shirk in all its facets! To pardon him is also permissible. Since this is the case, the Prophet (PBUH) did not find any issue in saying: 'I have captured him,' meaning he was imprisoned for the crime of your allies: Thaqif. He keeps him imprisoned for this purpose, so that they may be led to release whom he wants, and they may turn towards what he desires! Then he said: And since imprisoning this person is lawful even without a crime committed by him, and releasing him is permissible, it is permissible to imprison him for the crime of another because he is deserving of it himself, and he may be released as an act of grace when the one who imprisoned him achieves some of what he desires! Then Imam Al-Shafi'i explained the returning of Al-Uqayli to the land of disbelief (dar al-kufr) after his conversion to Islam, once the objective of his imprisonment had been achieved, saying: 'The Prophet's (PBUH) ransom of this (person) with Al-Uqayli, and his return to his land, which is a land of disbelief, was because he knew they would not harm him and would not hold him in contempt, due to his status among them and his honor in their sight.' ¶

E - As it appears in the Prophetic Biography (Sirah), one of the objectives of kidnapping individuals from the enemy is to obtain specific information that is vital to the Muslims in war, as was the case when the Companions kidnapped some of the young servants belonging to Quraysh before the Battle of Badr, in order to obtain whatever necessary information could be gathered about the enemy. The Prophet (PBUH) learned from these captives who the nobles of Quraysh were who had come out to fight at Badr, and he also deduced from their speech that the number of the polytheists' army was between nine hundred and one thousand. ¶

In conclusion, these are some of the objectives sought behind the operations of kidnapping, or capturing, individuals from the enemy's subjects in a state of war, as reported in the books of Sunnah and the Prophetic Sirah. The intention here is not to survey every event that occurred in this regard, nor to detail all the associated aspects; rather, the intention is to demonstrate the legitimacy of this act of war and to clarify some of the purposes that can be targeted through it. For this reason, this presentation of the aforementioned models of kidnapping, capture, and detention was provided. ¶

Finally, perhaps in the previous words of Imam al-Shafi’i, in his commentary on the prisoners of Uqayl: 'It was permissible for him to be detained for the crime of another, as he deserved it himself, and he could be released voluntarily if the detainer attained through him some of what he desired!'—perhaps in these words there is an indication that the capturing of individuals from the enemy, or their kidnapping, may be a useful tool in the hands of the Muslims to exert pressure on the enemy, or to bargain with them, so as to achieve through that what they desire to achieve... Consequently, there is no harm after this in releasing the detainees and setting the kidnapped free, once the objectives that necessitated their capture and detention have been realized. ¶

In this summary indicated by Imam al-Shafi’i, there is enough to suffice for any detail in clarifying the legality of detaining prisoners for various purposes, whether they be military, peaceful, security-related, moral, scientific, material... or any other such legitimate purpose. ¶

With this, we conclude the section: (The Method of Kidnapping Directed Against Citizens of Hostile States) to move on to a new section—with the help and guidance of Allah. ¶

Introduction: All praise is due to Allah the Almighty for creating us as the noblest of creatures and for blessing us by placing us within the Ummah of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Countless blessings and peace be upon the noble person of the Prophet (PBUH), whose brought-forth religion of truth taught the universe the lesson of Tawhid (monotheism) and showed humanity the true path of rectitude. Dear readers, this booklet is a collection of Fiqhi (jurisprudential) issues that an ordinary Muslim encounters in daily life. The fundamental purpose of Islam is for a human to live their life according to the will of Allah and His Messenger (PBUH), and knowing the will of Allah is what is called Fiqh. In this booklet, issues have been selected according to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, in which important chapters such as Taharah (purity), Salah (prayer), Zakat, Sawm (fasting), and Nikah (marriage) and Talaq (divorce) have been explained in an extremely accessible manner so that the general public may derive full benefit from them. I pray to Allah the Almighty to accept this humble effort in His presence and to make it a Sadaqah Jariyah (ongoing charity) for me, my parents, and the entire Muslim Ummah. Ameen. The humble one, Servant of the Deen. ¶

Third Section: What is the Shari'ah ruling regarding suicide or martyrdom operations? ¶

These operations can be divided in terms of their causes and the circumstances surrounding the death or martyrdom of those who carry them out into four types, as follows: ¶

1. The First Type: That which has no ambiguity regarding it being considered accepted martyrdom (al-istishhad al-mabrur). 2. The Second Type: That which requires detailed judgment, depending on the circumstances in which these operations take place, such as the existence or non-existence of necessity for carrying them out. 3. The Third Type: That which falls under the category of forbidden suicide. 4. The Fourth Type: That in which opinions differ. ¶

The First Type: That which has no ambiguity regarding it being considered accepted martyrdom. This type of martyrdom operation consists of actions where the perpetrators resolve to attain martyrdom without any thought or plan to emerge alive. This is done by engaging the enemy in combat with the intent to inflict damage upon them. This could be by inflicting casualties, such as killing or wounding, or by spreading terror and anxiety among their fighters and subjects, and by emboldening the Muslims against them... regardless of how great the strength of this enemy may be. Even if it were assessed in the balance of power to be tens of times greater than the Islamic force confronting it, or even if a single Muslim were to face a thousand disbelievers! This type of combat is among the 'righteous combat' (al-qital al-mabrur), and the one killed in it is a martyr in this world and the Hereafter. Regarding this type of combat, it is mentioned in the Tafsir of Al-Qurtubi: 'Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said: If a man attacks...' ¶

Standing alone against a thousand polytheists, while being on one's own, is permissible if one hopes for survival or to inflict damage upon the enemy. Al-Qurtubi then says regarding this type of combat—that is, a single person facing a thousand and the like: 'If there is a benefit for the Muslims, and he sacrifices his life to honor the religion of Allah and to weaken disbelief, then this is the noble station for which Allah praised the believers in His saying: {Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise} [At-Tawbah: 111], along with other verses of praise that Allah revealed concerning those who sacrifice their own lives' (3). ¶

Included in this type of combat is also what is narrated in Sahih Muslim: 'From Anas bin Malik that on the day of Uhud, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was left with seven of the Ansar and two men from the Quraysh. When they (the enemy) drew near to them (4), he said: "Who will drive them back from us, and for him is Paradise, or he will be my companion in Paradise?" An Ansari man stepped forward and fought until he was killed. Then they drew near again, and he said: "Who will drive them back from us, and for him is Paradise, or he will be my companion in Paradise?" Another Ansari man stepped forward and fought until he was killed. This continued until all seven were killed. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ then said to his two companions: "Our companions have not been fair to us!"' (5). ¶

We have already elaborated on this type of combat, so we shall not repeat it here, as it is covered in the research topic 'Raiding Combat for the Sake of Acquiring Enemy Assets.' ¶

What is noted about this type of combat is that the demise of the Muslims killed in it occurs at the hands of the disbelievers and by their weapons. Hence, there is no ambiguity that combat operations of this nature fall under the category of legitimate martyrdom operations (amaliyat istishhadiya). ¶