Chapter 72

Firstly: What are the consequences of the ruling on enslaving captives (al-sabi)? By 'al-sabi' here, we specifically mean female captives from the ranks of the people of war (ahl al-harb). A consequence of the ruling that they be enslaved is the annulment of the marriage between them and their husbands among the disbelievers, provided they were married, according to the detailed rulings established by the jurists. Another consequence of their enslavement is the permissibility of sexual relations with them—just as one cohabits with wives—by those to whom they were assigned after being distributed among the combatants. In Sahih Muslim, under the chapter: 'Chapter: The permissibility of intercourse with a female captive after istibra (ensuring she is not pregnant), even if she has a husband, for the marriage is annulled by capture'—the following text is recorded: 'From Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: That the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent an army to Awtas on the day of Hunayn. They met the enemy, fought them, and were victorious over them, taking female captives. Some of the companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) felt hesitant about having relations with them because they had husbands among the polytheists. So, Allah the Almighty revealed regarding this: ﴿And also forbidden are married women, except those whom your right hands possess﴾, meaning: they are lawful for you once their waiting period (istibra) is completed.' Furthermore, it is permissible for the combatants—to whom the female captives of the people of war have been distributed—to cohabit with them. ¶

After the status of enslavement (riqq) was applied to them... whether for the purpose of enjoyment and procreation, or for the sole purpose of enjoyment while avoiding pregnancy and childbirth from intercourse. In the era of the Prophethood, the Companions would sometimes limit themselves to mere enjoyment with enslaved female captives, hoping that the families of these captives would bring ransom that their masters would accept in order to set them free... ¶

It is stated in Sahih al-Bukhari: 'From Abu Sa’id al-Khudri - during the expedition of Banu al-Mustaliq - that they captured some female captives, and they wanted to enjoy them without them becoming pregnant, so they asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) about 'azl (coitus interruptus)...' [End of Hadith]. In another version of the Hadith, 'Abu Sa’id' says: 'We captured some female captives from the Arabs, and we desired women, and celibacy became difficult for us, and we loved the ransom, so we wanted to practice 'azl... so we asked him about that...' [End of Hadith]. ¶

It is evident that the permissibility of enjoying enslaved female prisoners of war, once they have been enslaved, is a form of protection for them, as it is a legitimate path to satisfy their innate instincts. If this enjoyment results in procreation, the enslaved woman ascends to become an 'umm walad' (mother of a child), which makes her like a free wife, as detailed in the books of Fiqh. Furthermore, the permissibility of enjoying female captives after their enslavement also serves to protect society, ensuring that vice does not spread through the presence of slave women who ended up as they did due to the aggression of their own people and their turning away from the truth—considering the pressure of instinct and necessity on one hand, and the greed of the sick-hearted on the other, had there been no Shariah ruling to provide them shelter, care, and to permit the specified relationship between them and those who possess them. ¶

Perhaps the context of the following text further clarifies what we have indicated. ¶

Sa'id ibn Jubayr reported: We entered upon Ibn Abbas in the early part of the day and found him fasting. Then we returned to him in the evening and found him having broken his fast! We asked him, 'Were you not fasting?' He replied, 'Yes, but a slave-girl of mine came to me and I found her pleasing, so I had intercourse with her. It was only a voluntary fast, and I will fast another day in its place. And I will add further: she was a prostitute, so I have made her chaste (by taking her as a concubine), and she has repented.' Sa'id said: 'Thus, we learned four things in a single narration.' ¶

This pertains to the implications of enslaving female captives from the people of war (ahl al-harb) within the context of our discussion. Now, we come to the second part of the final point of this section. ¶

Second: Is it permissible to enslave captives in Islam in our current era? The answer to this question depends on knowing whether Islam approved the enslavement of captives when it established its state and fought its enemies based on the principle of reciprocity (al-mu'amala bil-mithl), at a time when the system of slavery was, in general, one of the established ancient systems in the world until the advent of Islam. Or, is the ruling on enslaving captives one of the fixed rulings related to Jihad, considered one of its consequences, and as long as Jihad continues—and it is not permissible to suspend it whenever its legitimate causes are present—are its consequences therefore also ongoing and not subject to suspension? ¶

This is what must be known before answering the previous question. In any case, a comprehensive treatment of this subject might lead us to discuss many matters that would prolong the path to an answer, which is not desirable. Therefore, we will limit our discussion to what we are addressing, in brief, regarding the following matters: A- Is Islam's approval of enslaving captives justified by the principle of reciprocity? ¶

B - Do modern warfare conditions necessitate, whether legally (Shari'ah) or practically, the prohibition of enslaving captives? C - Are there situations in the modern era where enslaving captives could be considered permissible under Shari'ah? D - How can one reach a point of prohibiting the enslavement of captives in the modern era in accordance with Shari'ah? We will now briefly address these questions. A - Is Islam's sanction of enslaving captives conditioned by the principle of reciprocity? Many modern Islamic writings explicitly state that Islam’s approval of enslaving captives was based solely on the principle of reciprocity. This means that if enemies refrain from enslaving Muslims captured in war, then, based on reciprocity, it is not permissible under Shari'ah for Muslims to enslave those they capture from the enemy ranks. There is no doubt that good intentions—defending Islam, repelling enemy campaigns, and countering the unjust attacks and the malicious distortion of its image—are what underlie the assertion of this legislative link between Islam's approval of slavery and the reality of that time. However, generally speaking, we find that many Islamic writers have accepted the idea of placing Islam in the dock because of certain rulings it contains or approved, which may not please its enemies or which they find as a tool to distort the image of Islam in the public mind, after they have shaped that taste to their liking. I argue that this is exactly what has led many Islamic writers to defend Islam in a manner acceptable to those very enemies who leveled the accusations and incited the distortion. (1) See, for example: 'Al-Shari'ah al-Islamiyya wal-Qanun al-Dawli al-'Aam' by Ali Ali Mansour, p. 333; 'Huquq al-Insan bayna Ta'alim al-Islam wa I'lan al-Umam al-Muttahida' by al-Ghazali, p. 113; 'Fiqh al-Sunnah' by Sayyid Sabiq, 2/688; 'Al-'Alaqat al-Dawliyya fi al-Islam' by Sheikh Abu Zahra, p. 116; and 'Mafahim Islamiyya' by Sheikh Muhammad Hassan Al-Yasin, p. 64. The words of Abu Zahra are: 'If the enemies enslave [captives], then it is permissible for the Muslims to enslave [them] on the basis of reciprocity. If they do not enslave, it is not permissible for the Muslims to do so, because that would be an act of aggression, and they have been forbidden from that' [Al-'Alaqat al-Dawliyya, p. 116]. ¶

By this discussion, I do not intend to promote the system of slavery in order to return to it, even in the modified form introduced by Islam—a form under which the lives of the enslaved, who were destined to live under its shade, became more honorable than the lives of many free men and women under other non-Islamic systems, both ancient and modern. ¶

Rather, my intention behind what I have presented is to say: there is no evidence for this 'causal relationship' or 'ratio legis' (ta'lil) between the legitimacy of enslaving war captives in Islam and the prevalence of this system at that time, such that this legitimacy would become void if this system were to disappear from the market of dealings between states and nations. ¶

Accordingly, the ruling on enslaving war captives in Islam, even if the enemy has abolished it on their side, remains a legitimate weapon of pressure and intimidation against that enemy. It is permissible to brandish it in their face if the public interest (maslahah) calls for it and no harm results from its use. ¶

B - Do the circumstances of modern wars require, legally or realistically, the prohibition of enslaving war captives? ¶

Some contemporary writings regarding the issue of enslaving war captives lean towards the argument that the nature of ancient wars justified the occurrence of the capture and enslavement of women and children, whereas modern wars do not contain the conditions that would allow for such occurrences. ¶

To clarify this idea and explain the legal evidence it relies upon, we provide these excerpts from the book 'Al-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah' (The Islamic Personality) by Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani, who states: ¶

'In the Battle of Hunayn, the polytheist combatants brought women and children with them to the battlefield to increase their numbers and bolster their resolve. When they were defeated in battle, the women and children became captives (saby), and the Messenger (ﷺ) distributed them among the Muslim combatants. When he was approached regarding this captivity, he requested the Muslims to willingly relinquish their rights to the captives, and he returned the captives to their families.' (1) ¶

(1) See for this: Sahih al-Bukhari, no. (2539, 2540), Fath al-Bari: 5/169. Sahih Muslim, no. (1656), 3/1277, and Sirat Ibn Hisham (Al-Rawd al-Unuf: 4/152-153). ¶

This serves as evidence for the permissibility of enslaving captives (al-saby), who are the women and children that accompany men on the battlefield to increase the numbers and to provide morale/incitement. This applies if women and children accompany the army in war. However, if they remain in their homes, there is nothing against them—neither captivity nor enslavement (1). ¶

I say: As long as the legitimacy of capturing and enslaving in Islam is restricted, according to this argument, to the sphere of women and children who go out with the fighting army—as was the case in ancient wars—then this implies that such enslavement becomes impermissible in Islam if the nature of warfare changes and necessitates preventing women and children from accompanying armies going to battle. From this, it is correct to say that Islam prohibits enslavement in the modern era, in light of what has been mentioned. This was confirmed by Sheikh Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, who stated: 'Thus, Islam has eliminated enslavement, especially when people cease the practice of taking women and children with the army to increase numbers and boost morale, as is the case in modern wars from centuries ago until today. There remains no state in which enslavement occurs at all, and thus Islam has prohibited enslavement' (2). ¶

This is what is stated in the book *Al-Shakhsiyya al-Islamiyya*. ¶

However, it appears—as is observed—that the female element has not disappeared from modern warfare. Rather, they continue to have a presence in the armies of states in the modern era, whether for the purpose of bearing arms and participating in wars, or for performing the various other services that such armies require. ¶

Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali, addressing the war that took place between the Arabs and the Jews at the time of the establishment of the State of Israel, says the following: 'We saw in the recent Palestine war how Jewish girls were fighting with intense ferocity, surpassing men in enduring hardships and braving dangers' (3). ¶

Furthermore, in our present times, reports have been frequently received regarding the presence of women in the colonial armies that invaded the Gulf region recently. Thus, the custom of women accompanying combatant armies has not ceased. This is regarding the reality of modern warfare. As for whether the legitimacy of captivity (sabiy) and enslavement is restricted to only those women and children who accompany the army, it appears from observing the events of the Prophetic biography (Seerah) and the legal texts (Shariah sources) that this legitimacy is not confined solely to those who accompany the combatant army, to the exclusion of those women and children who remain in their homes. ¶

Examples of this include the surprise raids that were conducted during the Prophetic era against hostile territories, whether under the leadership of the Prophet (ﷺ), as in the Battle of Banu al-Mustaliq, or under the leadership of his Companions in other expeditions (sariya). Captives were brought from these raids and subjected to slavery, even though the nature of war in the case of such raids makes it impossible for women and children to be participating with the enemy’s combatant army by inciting fervor or increasing their numbers. Rather, what happens in such surprise attacks is that those among the men who can flee do so, and those who stand to fight remain. As for the women and children, they are either fleeing to save their lives or remaining in their homes, awaiting their fate—whether they will be captured or remain safe if the raiders return to their lands without harming them. ¶

This is the nature of such raids. Captivity occurred in them, and enslavement was applied to these captives to fulfill its function in shattering the enemy’s obstinacy and breaking their pride. Once the enemy, as a result of this, returned to reason, Shariah measures were taken to return the captives to their families in one way or another, after having been subjected to slavery. This implies that it is wise to maintain the legitimacy of enslavement as a viable weapon. ¶

For use when necessary, it performs its function of exerting pressure on the enemy and terrorizing them, even if the women and children do not participate with their people in the combatant army in any hostile activities. ¶

It is also part of wisdom to work quickly to make serious efforts to release the captives if the enemy returns to reason and righteousness, as was the case with the captives of Banu al-Mustaliq and the captives of Hawazin. ¶

Perhaps the following text clarifies the legitimacy of taking captives (al-saby), even from within their homes, and explains it as a means of pressuring the enemy to desist from their aggression and respond to the legitimate demands of the Muslims. ¶

It is mentioned in the books of Sunnah and Prophetic biography regarding the 'Umrah of al-Hudaybiyah' or the 'Battle of al-Hudaybiyah' that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) sent an 'ayn, meaning a spy, from his side from the polytheistic tribe of Khuza'a, to spy on the position of the Quraysh regarding the Messenger’s (PBUH) intention to enter Makkah with his companions to perform the 'Umrah, acting in accordance with the local custom in relations between the entities and Arab tribes at that time, which was not to prevent visitors to the House [the Kaaba], even if they were in a state of conflict with the Quraysh. ¶

The Khuza'i spy returned to inform the Prophet (PBUH) that the Quraysh had resolved to prevent the Muslims from performing the 'Umrah, and that they had gathered their allies residing around Makkah to fight him and his companions if he insisted on entering Makkah to visit the House. Here, the Prophet (PBUH) said to his companions, as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq, the text of which is: ¶

'Advise me! Do you think we should turn towards the offspring (dharrari) of those who helped them, and seize them! If they stay behind, they will sit grieving and deprived. And if they do not come, it would be a neck that Allah cuts off? Or do you think we should head towards the House?' ¶

"So whoever prevents us from it, we shall fight him." They said: "The Messenger of Allah knows best! O Prophet of Allah! We have come to perform Umrah, and we have not come to fight anyone; but whoever stands between us and the House, we shall fight him." The Prophet ﷺ said: "Then proceed." (1). ¶

This authentic hadith constitutes an explicit text (nass) regarding the permissibility of capturing the descendants (dharari) of those at war (ahl al-harb). The meaning here refers to the women and children who remained in their homes around Makkah and did not accompany their fighting men from the allies of the Quraysh to confront the Muslims (2). It is well-established that the Prophet’s ﷺ statement "we shall capture them" (fanusibuhum) does not mean killing them, because he forbade the killing of women and children, as established in previous discussions. Rather, the intent is taking them as captives (saby). This measure—that is, the inclination toward taking captives from their homes—is a means of exerting pressure on the allies to turn them away from supporting the Quraysh. If they do not desist from supporting them, depriving them of their women and children through capture and enslavement serves to break their strength, weaken them, and consequently weaken those from the Quraysh whom they support. ¶

Therefore, it is permissible to take the women and children of those at war as captives, even by seizing them from their homes, when the disbelievers commit aggression against the Muslims and refuse to respond to what they are invited to, considering... ¶

This is one of the methods of pressure and intimidation to deter the enemy from their aggression and to break their arrogance. Let us now turn to another matter that we mentioned must be addressed in this point we are examining. ¶

C - Are there cases in the modern era where it is permissible to take war captives—specifically women—as slaves, and consequently, to have marital relations with them in a manner that is legally valid under Shariah? ¶

Jurists in later eras, at a time when slavery was still prevalent, stated that it is not permissible, in general, to have relations with women of the people of war (ahl al-harb) who fall into the hands of the invaders. This is due to the presence of doubt regarding the legitimacy of the combatants' ownership of them, after it became common to deviate from Shariah rulings in the distribution of spoils (ghana'im) and dividing them in the prescribed manner between the combatants and those entitled to them from the 'ahl al-khums' (those entitled to the one-fifth share). ¶

However, they mentioned that there are cases where it is valid for a combatant to own a woman from the people of war who falls into his hands, even if only within the framework of a specific school of thought (madhhab). This is because those cases are unrelated to spoils, their division, or the ahl al-khums, which makes the combatant's possession of the person under his control free from any shared ownership. Consequently, within the limits of those cases, it is permissible to have relations with those women as one would with wives. ¶

We will now present some of those scenarios mentioned by the jurists, not intending to be exhaustive, nor to discuss the various opinions held regarding them. ¶

- It is stated in Al-Siyar al-Kabir: "If the Imam grants a 'nafl' (bonus/extra share) to a group in Dar al-Harb, saying: 'Whoever captures a slave girl, she is his.' If one of them captures a girl and establishes her istibra' (clearance of the womb) with one menstrual cycle while still in Dar al-Harb, then according to Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him): It is not permissible for him to have intercourse with her until he brings her to Dar al-Islam. This is also the view of Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him). According to Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him): It is permissible for him to have intercourse with her, because he has acquired exclusive ownership of her with no one else having a share in her... And Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf (may Allah be pleased with them)..." ¶

(Footnotes: 1. See: Al-Ashbah wa al-Naza'ir by al-Suyuti: pp. 61-63; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin: 3/373-375. 2. Tanfil: Giving a combatant, by the commander, something extra in war or from the spoils, beyond his entitled share, with the intention of encouraging combat or rewarding good service.) ¶

They both said: Ownership of movable property is only established for the recipient upon seizure (al-akhdh); therefore, this ownership is not complete before securing it (ihraz) within Dar al-Islam, similar to the ownership established for a lurker (mutalassis) in Dar al-Harb. ¶

I say: The clarification of the final point in this text is that the 'mutalassis' refers to one who enters Dar al-Harb without prior safe conduct (aman). That is, one who infiltrates without obtaining an entry visa from the authorities, or without anyone allowing him entry by way of protection. This infiltrator—even if not for the sake of jihad, but with the intent to seize what he can from the people of Dar al-Harb, such as wealth, women, or other things—acts upon the consideration that Dar al-Harb is a domain of permissibility, plunder, capture, and enslavement. ¶

I say: If this lurker conquers a woman from the people of Dar al-Harb, she becomes his property, and conjugal relations with her become permissible for him, but on the condition that he brings her to Dar al-Islam. This is because his subjugation of her in Dar al-Harb is subject to the risk of loss, as he lacks defensive power (mana'ah) in that domain; thus, his ownership is not absolute, and consequently, she is not permissible for him in this state, unlike when he brings her to Dar al-Islam and comes under the protection of the Muslims. ¶

It is stated in Imam al-Suyuti’s *al-Ashbah wa al-Naza'ir* (from the Shafi'i school) that if one or two individuals enter Dar al-Harb as infiltrators and one of them captures a woman from the people of Dar al-Harb, there are two opinions on this issue: one opinion states that this woman is shared between the one who captured her and the beneficiaries of the Khums (one-fifth). He is entitled to four-fifths, and the remaining fifth belongs to the recipients of the Khums, as is the ruling on war spoils. On this basis, this woman is not the absolute property of the one who captured her, and therefore, she is not permissible for him. ¶

The other opinion states: This woman is not to be included in the one-fifth tax (khums), nor is she subject to the rulings of spoils and their distribution. Rather, she belongs entirely to the one who captured her as his exclusive property, because he acquired her through his own risk and personal strength, not through the collective power and support of the Muslims; therefore, no one else has a share in her. Thus, according to this opinion, she is permissible for him. ¶

Regarding this situation, al-Suyuti writes: "There is a difference of opinion regarding the slave woman taken in this manner. Abstaining from her is the path of piety (wara')"(1). ¶

Now, we move to the final issue of this point. ¶

d - How is it possible to legally prevent the enslavement of captives in the modern era? ¶

Sheikh Muhammad Rashid Rida says in 'Tafsir al-Manar': "If the Muslims see that the welfare and interest in certain circumstances lie in returning the captives to their people, it is permissible for them to do so, or even obligatory, by acting upon the principle of 'securing benefits and averting harms'"(2). ¶

It is stated in 'Tafsir al-Maraghi': "Islam did not make the taking of captives (al-saby) obligatory, nor did it forbid it, because in some situations it may be for the benefit of the captives themselves, such as when war has exterminated all the men of a small tribe. If the Muslims see that it is better to return the captives to their people, they are permitted to do so, in accordance with the principle: 'Averting harms takes precedence over securing benefits'"(3). ¶

I say: Based on this, the enslavement of captives in the modern era is left to what the public interest (maslaha) dictates in this matter. Therefore, enslavement is not absolutely prohibited by Shariah as long as the criterion for its use or cancellation is the public interest. This is a discretionary matter that varies according to circumstances, conditions, and the perspectives of those in authority. Consequently, it is possible for the capture and enslavement of people to exist legitimately in the modern era. ¶

However, on the other hand, it is possible to commit to not resorting to capturing and enslaving women from the people of war (ahl al-harb) from a Shariah perspective through another way, which is by concluding agreements with other states. ¶

to the non-recourse of this system entirely. Following this, if war breaks out between the Muslims and those states, it is permissible to treat them and their subjects with everything that war permits, except for what was stipulated in that agreement, unless it has been violated, in which case the general permissibility (of warfare) returns as it was before. ¶

Furthermore, agreements with the people of war (ahl al-harb) regarding specific matters are legitimate and have the status of treaties. They must be adhered to within the limits of the issues they encompass, even if war erupts between the parties to that agreement, provided that the agreement explicitly states so. ¶

In this regard, it is stated in Al-Siyar al-Kabir: "If they (the people of war with whom specific matters were agreed upon) stipulate that we should not kill their prisoners if we capture them, there is no harm in capturing them, and they become fay' (spoils), but we shall not kill them... And if they stipulate that we do not take any of them as prisoners, then we have no right to capture or kill them... unless treachery becomes apparent from them, such as if they had committed not to kill or capture any of us, and then they did so. In that case, this constitutes a breach of the covenant, and there is no harm in killing their prisoners or capturing them, just as we had the right to do so before the covenant." ¶

Based on this, if agreements are concluded with other states not to take women as captives or enslave them, even in the event of war, it is religiously mandatory (shar'an) to adhere to what those agreements entail as long as they are respected by the other side. In this case, the women of the people of war are treated as those who have been granted safe conduct (aman). Once women are granted safe conduct, they are secure, and no one has authority over them, even if their countries are in a state of war with the Muslims. ¶

Thus, it is possible to reach a prohibition of the enslavement of captives legally (shar'an) in the modern era. ¶

With this, we conclude the discussion on this topic. With its completion, we reach the end of the final section of the last chapter of the fifth part, which dealt with the rulings of Shariah in warfare policy... And we proceed after this - with His help and success - towards the sixth chapter of this treatise. ¶

11. Hadith: 'The best prayer after the obligatory prayer is the night prayer (Salat al-Layl).' [1] 12. Hadith: 'There is an hour in the night during which no Muslim servant asks Allah for any good in this world or the Hereafter without Him granting it to him, and this occurs every night.' [2] 13. Hadith: 'Adhere to the night prayer, for it is the habit of the righteous before you, a means of drawing closer to your Lord, an expiation for sins, a deterrent from wrongdoing, and a驱expeller of disease from the body.' [3] 14. Hadith: 'Whoever performs the night prayer with ten verses will not be recorded among the heedless; whoever performs it with one hundred verses will be recorded among the obedient (Qanitin); and whoever performs it with one thousand verses will be recorded among those who have accumulated great rewards (Muqantarin).' [4] 15. Hadith: 'The closest a Lord is to His servant is in the last part of the night. If you are able to be among those who remember Allah at that hour, then do so.' [5] 16. Hadith: 'Verily, there are chambers in Paradise whose exterior can be seen from their interior, and their interior can be seen from their exterior. Allah has prepared them for those who provide food, speak gently, fast continuously, and pray at night while people are sleeping.' [6] ¶

In the preceding discussions, we have identified the reasons that call upon Muslims to declare jihad and wage war against states, entities, and peoples who do not profess Islam. Now, we wish to examine, within the subject of jihad, the corresponding face of what has been presented—namely, the reasons that call for closing the chapter of war against those states, entities, and peoples, and opening a chapter of peace with them. This applies whether it is in a permanent or temporary manner, depending on the cause that necessitates diffusing the fuse of war before it ignites, or extinguishing its flames after it has started. Furthermore, we will dedicate a separate chapter to each cause for the cessation of hostilities in Islam, in which we will address the most important issues related to it that are closely linked to clarifying the image of jihad in Islam. We will also examine the effects of those causes—which terminate the state of war with the enemy—in safeguarding blood and preserving lives, as well as other implications that we will present in summary, without straying into issues that are not intimately connected to the subject of killing and combat. Accordingly, this section is divided into the following chapters: 1. Chapter One: The entry of enemies into Islam, and the subsequent termination of the state of war and the preservation of blood. 2. Chapter Two: The payment of jizya, and the acceptance by the people of war (ahl al-harb) to submit to the rulings of Islam. ¶

3 - Chapter Three: Treaties and Aman (Grant of Security). 4 - Chapter Four: The Sacred Months. 5 - Chapter Five: Defeat, Surrender, and Captivity. ¶

1436 ¶

Chapter One: The Entry of Enemies into Islam, and the Consequent Termination of the State of War and the Preservation of Life. ¶

In this chapter, we shall address the most important issues related to this topic, as follows: Issue One: The Shariah proofs regarding the obligation to halt combat if the enemy announces their conversion to Islam. Issue Two: Encouraging the people of war (ahl al-harb) to enter into Islam and refrain from fighting. Issue Three: The impact of the conversion of the people of war on the preservation of their blood and other general consequences. ¶

Issue One: The Shariah proofs regarding the obligation to halt combat if the enemy announces their conversion to Islam. There are numerous concurrent Shariah texts which mandate the cessation of hostilities as soon as the enemy announces their acceptance of and entry into Islam. Among these texts is the saying of Allah Almighty: 'Say to the bedouins who were left behind, “You will be called against a people of great military might; you will fight them or they will become Muslims.” So if you obey...' ¶

(Footnotes Summary): (1) In Tafsir al-Qurtubi: It is mentioned that Mujahid and Ibn Abbas stated that this refers to the bedouins of Ghifar, Muzaynah, Juhaynah, Aslam, Ashja', and Dil. These were the bedouins around Medina who lagged behind the Prophet (PBUH) when he intended to travel to Mecca in the year of the 'Conquest' (referring to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which paved the way for the conquest of Mecca) after he had mobilized them to go with him, fearing Quraish. (2) It has been said that this refers to the tribes of Hawazin and Thaqif, who were summoned to battle during the time of the Prophet (PBUH) in the Battle of Hunayn. It is also said they were the Banu Hanifa apostates, followers of Musaylimah the Liar, who were summoned to battle in the time of Abu Bakr. Others said it refers to the Persians and the Romans. ¶

“Allah will give you a good reward; but if you turn away, as you turned away before, He will punish you with a painful punishment.” (1) In the context we are discussing, this verse indicates that the enemies' entry into Islam terminates the state of war with them. It is stated in Tafsir al-Tabari regarding this verse: “You shall fight those whom you are invited to fight, or they accept Islam without war or combat.” (3) ¶

Another piece of evidence for this is what is narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim: “From Ibn Umar, that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: ‘I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish prayer, and pay Zakat. Once they do that, they have protected their blood and wealth from me, except by the right of Islam (5), and their reckoning is with Allah (6).’" ¶

...to fight them during the era of Abu Bakr and Umar. Now, Al-Qurtubi denied that the intended subjects were the polytheists of Hawazin during the Battle of Hunayn in the time of the Prophet ﷺ. He said: “It is impossible that the one inviting them was the Messenger ﷺ, because he said: ‘You shall never go out with me, and you shall never fight an enemy with me’ [Surah At-Tawbah, 83]. This indicates that the one inviting was someone other than the Prophet ﷺ...” I (the author) say: It appears that the verse of At-Tawbah to which Al-Qurtubi referred concerns the hypocrites who failed to join the expedition to Tabuk, and their punishment was to be deprived of the honor of accompanying the Messenger ﷺ in battle. Whereas the verse under discussion concerns the Bedouins living around Medina who failed to answer the Messenger’s call to set out for Mecca in the year of Hudaybiyyah. These people were only forbidden from accompanying the Messenger ﷺ to Khaybar after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was concluded, as per the previous verse: “The laggards will say when you set out to the spoils (i.e., in Khaybar) to take them, ‘Let us follow you.’... Say: ‘You shall never follow us.’” [Surah Al-Fath, 15]. Thus, the spoils of Khaybar fell only to the people of Hudaybiyyah. Consequently, the call for the laggard Bedouins to engage in combat remained open beyond the Battle of Khaybar during the Prophet’s era and thereafter. Furthermore, the 'people of great might' whom these Bedouins were invited to fight could be: Hawazin and Thaqif in the Prophet’s time, or Banu Hanifa, Persia, or Rome during the time of Abu Bakr and Umar. See Al-Qurtubi: 16/272-273. ¶

In Sahih Muslim, from the narration of Abu Hurayrah regarding this hadith: "...until they testify that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me and in what I have brought. If they do that, they have protected their blood and their wealth from me..." (1). ¶

In another hadith, also in Sahih Muslim, from Abu Malik, from his father, who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: "Whoever says 'La ilaha illa Allah' (there is no god but Allah) and rejects what is worshipped besides Allah, his wealth and blood become inviolable, and his reckoning is with Allah" (2). ¶

These hadiths and those similar to them explicitly state that people entering Islam—which means declaring their belief in everything that Islam has brought and disavowing all beliefs and ideas that contradict it—entails the protection of their blood and wealth. In other words, fighting is lifted from them, and the state of war with them is terminated (3). ¶

- In the hadith of Buraydah, in Sahih Muslim, which has been repeated often, the Prophet (ﷺ) says: "Invite them to Islam; if they respond, accept it from them and withhold from them (i.e., cease fighting)" (4). ¶

Also in Sahih Muslim: "From al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad... he said: O Messenger of Allah! What do you think if I encounter a man from the disbelievers and he fights me, and he strikes one of my hands with a sword and cuts it off, then he takes refuge from me behind a tree and says: 'I have submitted to Allah!' Should I kill him, O Messenger of Allah, after he has said it? The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Do not kill him!' He said: I asked, 'O Messenger of Allah, he has cut off my hand, and then he said that after cutting it off, should I kill him?' The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Do not kill him; for if you kill him, he will be in your position before you killed him, and you will be in his position before he uttered the words he said'" (5). ¶

Imam al-Nawawi states in his commentary on Sahih Muslim: 'Its meaning is that he (the victim) was sacrosanct, and it was forbidden to kill him after he said: "La ilaha illa Allah." You were [also sacrosanct] just as you were before you killed him. And you, after killing him, are no longer sacrosanct, nor is your killing forbidden, just as he was before saying: "La ilaha illa Allah."' ¶

In this regard, the jurists (fuqaha) discuss how people are to be judged as having entered Islam. Is it sufficient for one of them to say only, 'La ilaha illa Allah' for him to be judged as a Muslim based on that, as seen in some hadiths? Or is it necessary to acknowledge that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, in addition to what has been mentioned, for his Islam to be valid? And is it sufficient for a person to say, 'I am a Muslim,' or something similar, to be counted among the Muslims? ¶

I say: It is observed that the jurists, in this matter, used to look at the previous beliefs a person held before expressing their entry into Islam. They stipulated that the expression used by a person to represent their Islam—regardless of the wording—must indicate their rejection of the false beliefs they previously held, just as it indicates their entry into the new religion. ¶

It is not our purpose here to go into the details of this issue; however, we quote excerpts from 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir wa Sharhuhu' which provide a concise and clear picture of this matter. It states: ¶

'The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used to fight the idolaters, and they were a people who did not affirm the Oneness of Allah. So, whoever among them said: "La ilaha illa Allah," this was evidence of his Islam. The conclusion is that he is judged to be a Muslim if he affirms something contrary to what was known of his belief. As for the Jews and Christians, they say: "La ilaha illa Allah," so this phrase cannot be proof of their Islam, and in the time of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), they did not acknowledge his messengership. Therefore, the proof of Islam in their case was the affirmation that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Today in the lands of Iraq, they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, but they claim that he is a messenger to the Arabs, not to the Children of Israel. They hold onto the literal meaning of the Almighty's saying: "It is He who sent among the unlettered a Messenger from among themselves" (Quran 62:3). Therefore, whoever among them affirms that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah is not a Muslim until he disavows his previous religion.' ¶