Chapter 77

It undoubtedly occurred in Dhu al-Qa'dah. Yet, there is no evidence in this story [i.e., for the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Months]; because the siege of Ta'if was a completion of the Battle of Hawazin. They were the ones who initiated hostilities against the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). When they were defeated, their leader, Malik bin Awf al-Nasri, entered the fortress of Ta'if with the Thaqif tribe to fight the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ); thus, attacking them was a continuation of the military campaign that had already begun. And Allah knows best. Then he [Ibn al-Qayyim] said: 'Whoever argues that the Prophet (ﷺ) sent Abu 'Amir in a military detachment (sariyya) to Awtas in Dhu al-Qa'dah has argued without evidence; because that was part of the battle which the polytheists had initiated, and it was not an initiation of combat by him in the Sacred Month.' ¶

B - As for the majority's inference—that the prohibition of initiating combat in the Sacred Months was abrogated by the Pledge of Ridwan (Bay'at al-Ridwan), i.e., the Prophet's (ﷺ) intention to fight the polytheists in Dhu al-Qa'dah had it been confirmed that they killed 'Uthman bin 'Affan (may Allah be pleased with him)—those who reject abrogation have responded to this argument by stating: This pledge and the resolve to fight were for defense and repelling aggression, not for initiating combat. Such action is permissible in the Sacred Months, as previously mentioned. ¶

In 'Ahkam al-Qur'an' by Ibn al-'Arabi, regarding the majority's reliance on the Pledge of Ridwan, it states: 'There is no proof in this; because the Prophet (ﷺ) received news that 'Uthman had been killed in Makkah and that they were determined to fight him, so he took the pledge to repel them, not to initiate [the fight].' ¶

Al-Qurtubi spoke in a similar vein, describing the use of the Pledge of Ridwan as evidence for the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Months as a weak argument. ¶

Regarding the argument from the Pledge of Ridwan, Ibn al-Qayyim also says: 'There is no evidence in that; because he only took the pledge from them when news reached him that they had killed 'Uthman and that they intended to fight him. There is no disagreement regarding the permissibility of fighting in the Sacred Month if the enemy initiates it. The disagreement is only over...' ¶

In which one initiates combat. The majority of scholars (jumhur) have permitted this, stating that the prohibition of combat during these months has been abrogated (mansukh). This is the position of the four Imams, may Allah have mercy on them. Ata and others held that the prohibition remains established and is not abrogated. Ata used to swear by Allah: 'Combat is not permissible in the Sacred Months, and nothing has abrogated its prohibition' (1). ¶

Furthermore, this is what those who argue for the continued prohibition of combat in the Sacred Months have replied with—responding to the evidence of the majority who claim that this prohibition is abrogated. ¶

The Fourth Issue: Determining the preferred opinion (tarjih) on this matter. ¶

Before providing the opinion we prefer in this matter, it is appropriate for us to mention the most important points that serve as our guiding light in this determination: ¶

(a) We have learned from the foregoing that there is no disagreement that the prohibition of combat in the Sacred Months was established in Islam. ¶

(b) We have also learned that there is no disagreement regarding the permissibility of combat in the Sacred Months by way of repelling aggression, if this aggression occurs within the Sacred Months, or if it occurred before the Sacred Months but the Muslim response necessitates continuing the combat to deter the aggressors and pursue them, even if those months begin while they are in that state. ¶

(c) We have also learned that using the events that took place following the Battle of Hunayn—such as the Battle of Awtas or the Siege of Ta'if, and the fact that at least some of this occurred during the Sacred Month of Dhu al-Qa'dah—as evidence for the abrogation of the prohibition of combat in the Sacred Months is a weak argument. This was clarified by Ibn al-Arabi, al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir, who are among the majority. As Ibn al-Qayyim also clarified, even though he does not agree with the majority in this matter regarding their claim that the prohibition of combat in the Sacred Months is abrogated. ¶

(d) Based on the above, the matter is restricted to the verses or texts that indicate the prohibition of combat in the Sacred Months—can the verses revealed subsequently, whose apparent meaning indicates [general] combat, serve as an abrogation for this prohibition? ¶

against the disbelievers at all times. That is, including the Sacred Months... Do these later verses, which indicate the legitimacy of fighting the disbelievers at all times, suffice to abrogate the previous ruling—the prohibition of fighting during the Sacred Months—as indicated by the preceding texts in this regard? This, in my view, is what the issue revolves around, and the preference depends upon the answer to this question. I say: Sheikh al-Zarqani mentioned, as previously stated, that the generality regarding the individuals of the disbelievers, whose fighting was legitimized in the Almighty's saying: 'And fight the polytheists collectively,' and the generality regarding the places where fighting the disbelievers was legitimized, according to the Almighty's saying: 'And kill the polytheists wherever you find them'—this generality regarding individuals and places, in our current case, does not necessitate the generality of times. That is, these two texts do not indicate the legitimacy of fighting at all times; therefore, there is no contradiction between them and the previous text that prohibits fighting in the Sacred Months, which is: 'They ask you about the Sacred Month, about fighting therein? Say, fighting therein is a great [sin].' Consequently, fighting during the Sacred Months remains prohibited according to this text, while fighting all disbelievers, from among those at war, in all places—remains legitimate according to the subsequent texts that indicate generality in persons and places. This is what is indicated by the statement of al-Zarqani: 'The generality of persons in the first verse and the generality of places in the second verse—neither of them necessitates the generality of times. Thus, there is neither contradiction nor abrogation... and both are not contrary to the sanctity of fighting in the Sacred Month.' However, what I see here is that the generality of times, or the absolute nature of the validity of all times—including the Sacred Months—for the legitimacy of fighting therein, within the texts following the text prohibiting fighting in the Sacred Months—such as 'And fight the polytheists collectively' and 'And kill the polytheists wherever you find them'—this generality or absolute nature referred to is not derived, as I see it, from the generality of persons, nor from the generality of places, such that we would say: the generality of persons and places does not necessitate the generality of times. Rather, it is derived from the command for killing and fighting in His saying: 'And kill them' and His saying 'And fight them' without specifying a particular time in which the killing and fighting should occur... And the manifest meaning of this absolute command is that every time is suitable for the implementation of this command, including... ¶

Following these sacred months, the situation remains until one of the following occurs: either the disbelievers embrace Islam, or they submit to Islamic governance, or a peace treaty is concluded with them, if the authority deems it appropriate in light of Islamic interest. ¶

Thus, there is a limited conflict between the absolute texts and the texts that restrict the legality of combat to periods other than the sacred months. ¶

Accordingly, in response to this conflict, it may be said: Since there is no evidence explicitly stating the abrogation of the prohibition of combat during the sacred months—rather, it is derived (by those who maintain it) from the apparent conflict between the proofs—as long as this is the case, then resolving this conflict through any of the acceptable methods of reconciling between proofs is preferable to claiming that the later text abrogates the earlier one. This is in accordance with the established jurisprudential principle: 'Applying both proofs is better than applying one while neglecting the other,' as is the position of the majority regarding reconciling and harmonizing conflicting proofs, a matter established repeatedly. ¶

Based on this, the absolute proofs regarding the legitimacy of fighting the disbelievers cover, in their temporal significance, all times except for the sacred months, in accordance with the evidence that specifies these months by prohibiting combat within them. ¶

Thus, one resorts to applying both proofs together without being forced to designate one as abrogating and the other as abrogated. ¶

Furthermore, from another perspective, the indication of generality regarding all times in the absolute proofs concerning the legitimacy of combat is merely apparent, whereas the indication of specifying the sacred months with the prohibition of combat is by explicit text. It is known that when a text conflicts... ¶

In the case of a conflict between the explicit text (al-nass al-sarih) and the apparent meaning (al-zahir), the explicit text takes precedence within the scope of that conflict, as is well-established in the principles of jurisprudence (usul). Consequently, we favor the opinion that initiating combat during the sacred months (al-ashhur al-hurum) is prohibited, as previously detailed. With this, we conclude this issue, and upon its completion, we reach the end of this chapter, proceeding to a new chapter with the help and guidance of Allah. ¶

(1) In 'Usul al-Fiqh' by al-Bardisi (p. 387): 'If the apparent (al-zahir) and the explicit text (al-nass) conflict, the text is preferred provided they are equal in rank,' meaning, for example, both being Quranic verses or both being hadiths of the same level of strength. In 'Tafsir al-Nusus' by Dr. Muhammad Adib Salih (1/153): 'The text (nass) is superior to the apparent (zahir) when they stand in opposition.' See also: 'Al-Manahij al-Usuliyya' by Dr. Fathi al-Durayni (pp. 53-54). (2) Some contemporary scholars have also adopted this view, including Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq in 'Fiqh al-Sunnah' (Vol. 2, pp. 660-661), and Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahra in 'Al-Alaqat al-Dawliyya fi al-Islam' (pp. 108-109). Also see 'Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Karim' by Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut (p. 310). ¶

Quaid-e-Azam and the Establishment of Pakistan, Speeches and Statements, Volume II, Compiled by: Khurshid Ahmed Khan Yusufi, Bazm-e-Iqbal, Club Road, Lahore. ¶

Chapter Five: Defeat, Surrender, and Captivity. ¶

This is the fifth reason for the cessation of hostilities, whether by the decree of Shariah or due to the realities on the ground. It involves the occurrence of defeat for one of the two warring parties, or their declaration of surrender, which usually entails the vanquished party falling into captivity. Herein, we shall discuss this chapter—briefly—as follows: ¶

Section One: The Enemy's Defeat and Surrender. Topic One: Defeat and the cessation of fighting, taking prisoners and their various conditions. Treatment of prisoners, and the ruling regarding prisoners. Topic Two: The ruling on the enemy's surrender: - Is the enemy to be killed if they surrender during battle and submit themselves for captivity? - What is the ruling regarding the enemy's army or those at war (ahl al-harb) who were resisting with their might, if they surrender to the Muslims unconditionally? ¶

Section Two: The Muslims' defeat before the enemy, and their surrender. Introduction: A brief glimpse into the causes of victory and defeat. Topic One: What is required of the Muslims if they are defeated by the enemy? ¶

Section Two: Is it permissible for Muslims, whether as individuals or groups, to surrender and hand over their lands to the enemy? Section Three: What is the duty of Muslims toward their captives, whether they are Muslims or Dhimmis, if they fall into the hands of the enemy? Topic Three: Hostages: Do they differ from prisoners of war? 1528 ¶

Section One: The Defeat of the Enemy and Their Surrender. Topic One: Defeat and the cessation of combat, taking prisoners and their varying conditions, the treatment of prisoners, and the rulings regarding prisoners. First: Defeat and the Cessation of Combat. When the grind of war turns between the Muslims and their enemy, and the harbingers of victory appear on the horizon for the Muslims, while the signs of defeat begin to show within the ranks of that enemy—in this situation, is it permissible for the Muslims to initiate a cessation of combat operations, contenting themselves with surrounding the remnants of the enemy forces to compel them to lay down their arms and then taking them as captives? Or should they work to exhaust the enemy's men as much as possible by persisting in mowing them down and eliminating a large number of them, until the Muslims reach the point of 'ithkhan' (decisive overpowering/mass slaughter) of the enemy—at which point they may cease fighting and begin taking men as captives? Which of these two approaches should the Muslims adopt in their wars when confronting their enemies? To answer this, we cite what is mentioned in Tafsir Ibn Kathir regarding the Almighty's saying: 'So when you meet...' ¶

"When you meet those who disbelieve, strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either confer favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens." (Surah Muhammad: 4). ¶

In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it states: "The Almighty guides the believers regarding the conduct to adopt in their wars against the polytheists: (So when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks), meaning: when you encounter them, reap them with swords. (Until when you have inflicted slaughter upon them), meaning: when you have incapacitated them through killing, (then secure their bonds): those captives you take. Then, after the war has ended and the battle has concluded, you are given the choice regarding them: if you wish, you may show favor to them and release them gratuitously; and if you wish, you may ransom them for wealth you take from them and stipulate as a condition." ¶

Thus, this is what Muslims must adopt in their wars against the enemy. The fighting should not cease, even if the Muslims are the triumphant party, unless the weapons have taken their full toll upon the enemy through killing and wounding, the might of the combatants (ahl al-harb) is broken, and the awe of the Muslims is firmly established in their hearts, whenever the public interest (maslaha) demands it. ¶

Second: Taking prisoners and their various conditions. ¶

After the Muslims have, according to public interest, inflicted sufficient slaughter and wounding upon their enemy, the process of encircling the enemy and taking them captive begins. ¶

Here, we must understand that those from the enemy ranks—or the combatants in general—who are targeted for capture, and those who are actually taken prisoner, are not all subject to the same ruling. ¶

Rather, the ruling regarding their capture and the judgment passed upon them after being taken prisoner differs according to their specific conditions. These conditions are numerous, of which we limit ourselves to the following: ¶

1. The state of those who declare their Islam before being captured or surrendering. ¶

These individuals may be on the battlefield, or they may be among those whose lands the Muslims have entered as conquerors. In such cases, the following is considered: ¶

If those who declared their Islam are 'mumtani' (capable of defense) in themselves—meaning they possess strength with which they could have fought, but they preferred Islam and submission over disbelief and combat—then the ruling regarding them is that they are free Muslims. Their Islam protects their persons from killing and captivity, and protects their children from being taken as captives (al-saby), for they are dependents of theirs. It also protects their wealth and property from being seized as spoils of war (ghanima), even if it is highly probable that the Muslims would have been able to overpower them had they remained in their disbelief and fought. This is in accordance with the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): '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. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me, except by the right of Islam, and their reckoning is with Allah.' This has been explained previously. It should be noted here that what we have mentioned regarding the ruling on these individuals does not prevent them from being disarmed and detained, not under the ruling of captivity (asyr), but under the ruling of public interest (maslaha) that may necessitate such a measure under those circumstances, until matters are settled and the situation stabilizes. This applies if those who declared Islam before their surrender were capable of defense and could only be overcome through combat. ¶

However, if those who declared Islam have no power to defend themselves and are instead subjugated under the control of the Muslims—whether they are on the battlefield or in their homes and shelters at the time when Muslims are conquering their lands—then in this case, their men are considered prisoners of war, whether they were actual combatants or possessed the physical capacity for combat, even if they did not engage in actual fighting. This is according to the details provided in a previous discussion (Rulings on Non-Combatant Enemies, in the Fifth Chapter). They are subject to the rulings of prisoners of war as will be explained at the end of this section, except that through their Islam, they safeguard their blood alone, and it is not permissible to kill them because they are Muslims. As for their women and children, they are considered as 'saby' (captives). The ruling regarding them has already been discussed in a previous section. It is stated in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary, regarding a situation like this: 'If the commander of the army...' ¶

If the Muslims capture a fortress belonging to the belligerent polytheists (ahl al-harb), and within that fortress there is an underground vault (matmura) containing combatants who then embrace Islam: if the Muslims have already overpowered them, they are considered fay' (spoils of war) because, having ceased to be able to defend themselves and having been subjugated, they had fallen into the hands of the Muslims prior to their conversion. Their conversion does not invalidate the rights of the Muslims; therefore, they shall not be killed, as they are now Muslims and Islam protects them from execution, though it does not liberate them from servitude. ¶

- If they are still able to defend themselves within the vault, and they cannot be reached except by fighting, and it is strongly presumed that the Muslims will eventually defeat them, then if they embrace Islam, they are free and there is no authority over them; this is because they were able to defend themselves and had not yet fallen under the control of the Muslims. Thus, they embraced Islam before the Muslims established authority over them, rendering them free, for a Muslim cannot be enslaved. This is analogous to the inhabitants of a fortress who are besieged and embrace Islam while still under siege; they are free and have no authority over them, and the same applies here. ¶

I say: The situation we have described is subject to the same ruling mentioned in al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary, for the operative principle (manat) in all these cases is the same, as is evident. We now proceed to another case. ¶

2 - The case of those who declare their acceptance of dhimma (protected status) before being captured or surrendered. ¶

Here too, the ruling depends on their status of being able to defend themselves (imtina') versus their inability to do so, according to the aforementioned detailed explanation. ¶

- If they are able to defend themselves through their own strength, dhimma is accepted from them if their lands have already been conquered and incorporated into the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam). They and their children are free, and their wealth and properties belong to them, with no authority over them. However, if their lands have not been conquered, dhimma is accepted from them on the condition that they relocate to the Dar al-Islam so that it may be verified that they are subject to Islamic governance, as is the standard requirement for the ahl al-dhimma. This applies provided they are able to defend themselves with their own strength. ¶

However, if they were not resisting with their power when they offered to accept Dhimma (protection), and then they surrendered, or were captured, then in this situation, the person in authority has the choice either to consider them under Dhimma or to judge them according to the rules of prisoners of war, as will be explained at the end of this section. ¶

It is stated in 'Al-Siyar al-Kabir' and its commentary regarding this situation—as a continuation of the discussion we just cited regarding the state of the besieged if they declare their Islam—it says: ¶

"And similarly, the people of the Matmurah (underground fortress), if they request to be under Dhimma for them [i.e., for the Muslims besieging them] to go out with them to the lands of the Muslims: if they are not resisting, it is permissible for the Muslims not to grant them Dhimma, because they have already fallen into the hands of the Muslims and the ruling of captivity (Saby) has been applied to them. And whoever requests Dhimma after captivity has been applied to him, his request is not granted(1). However, if the Muslims wish, they may treat them as Fay' (spoils of war), or if they wish, they may execute the combatants and take the dependents as captives. But if they are resisting, and the Muslims perceive that they will overcome them, the leader of the Muslims should not deny them that, but rather make them free under Dhimma; for if they had asked for Dhimma before being captured, they would not have been refused, because Dhimma acts as a substitute for Islam in the rulings of this world"(2). ¶

Third: Treatment of Prisoners. When prisoners are taken and held in custody until the person in authority issues a judgment regarding them, what is the treatment they should receive? This is the subject of this paragraph. ¶

Allah the Almighty says, in praise of those who are kind to the destitute and weak segments of society: ﴿And they give food, despite their love for it, to the needy, the orphan, and the captive﴾(4). ¶

It is stated in Tafsir al-Qurtubi: "From Ibn Abbas who said: The captive is one from the people of Shirk (polytheism), who is in..." ¶

their hands... and from 'Ata' it is narrated: The captive is [considered in the same ruling whether he is] from the People of the Qibla or others. I (Al-Qurtubi) say: Feeding a polytheist captive is an act of drawing closer to Allah Almighty, yet it falls under voluntary charity (Sadaqat al-tatawwu'), not obligatory charity (al-mafruda). And Allah knows best (1). Then Al-Qurtubi mentioned what has been said regarding the revelation of the verse we are discussing, and what relates to it, saying: 'It is said that it was revealed concerning those who took responsibility for the captives of Badr. They were seven of the Muhajirun: Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Ali, Al-Zubayr, 'Abd al-Rahman bin 'Awf, Sa'd, and Abu 'Ubaydah, may Allah be pleased with them (2).' ¶

In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, regarding the same subject, it is stated: 'Ibn 'Abbas said: Their captives on that day were polytheists, and this is supported by the fact that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) ordered his companions on the day of Badr to treat the captives well, so they used to prioritize them over themselves during meals (3).' ¶

In Tafsir al-Kashshaf, it is stated: 'From Al-Hasan: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) would be brought a captive and would hand him over to some of the righteous people, saying: Treat him well. So the captive would stay with him for two or three days, and he (the companion) would prefer the captive over his own self. According to the majority of scholars: It is permissible to show kindness to non-believers within the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam), but obligatory expenditures (zakat) are not to be spent on them (4).' ¶

In Sirat Ibn Hisham it is recorded: 'Ibn Ishaq said: Nabih bin Wahb, of Banu 'Abd al-Dar, narrated to me: When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) arrived with the captives [i.e., the captives of Badr], he distributed them among his companions and said: I advise you to treat the captives well. He said: Abu 'Aziz bin 'Umayr bin Hashim—the full brother of Mus'ab bin 'Umayr—was among the captives. Abu 'Aziz said: My brother Mus'ab bin 'Umayr passed by me while an Ansari man was holding me captive. He said to the captor: Tie him firmly! For his mother is a woman of great wealth; perhaps she will ransom him from you (5)!' He said: I was among a group of the Ansar when they brought me from Badr, and whenever they presented their food... ¶

And they would distinguish me with bread at their dinner while they ate dates (1), due to the Messenger of Allah’s (ﷺ) commandment to them regarding us. Whenever a piece of bread fell into the hand of one of them, he would give it to me. He said: 'I would feel ashamed and return it to one of them, but he would refuse it and not even touch it!' (2). ¶

Furthermore, we have previously discussed under the 'Methodology of Capturing Enemies' what was narrated in Sahih Muslim regarding the captured Uqayli, when he called out to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): 'O Muhammad, O Muhammad!' So he (ﷺ) came to him and said, 'What is your matter?' He said, 'I am hungry, so feed me; and I am thirsty, so give me to drink!' He (ﷺ) said, 'This is your need' (3). Al-Shawkani states: 'The meaning of his words, "This is your need," is: it is present and will be brought to you immediately!' (4). I (the author) say: Hence, the author of the book *Islamic Shariah and Public International Law*, while describing his sentiments regarding the treatment of prisoners in Islam, says: ¶

'This is a type of glory that no man-made international law, which remains merely ink on paper, can ever aspire to! Nor will any effective future international regulations attain such heights' (5). ¶

Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra explains these fervent Islamic injunctions regarding honoring prisoners, saying: 'They were captured while the fires of war were raging, and perhaps some of them had killed, which might have led to harsh treatment as a form of satisfying wrath and a desire for vengeance, just as the Europeans and Americans did with those they labeled "war criminals." And if Allah the Almighty had replaced their victory with defeat—then, according to the requirements of this [human behavior]...' ¶

A strange logic in reasoning, which only the law of vengeance enforces—they are war criminals! Islam has urged the honoring of prisoners to prevent that harsh spirit of vengeance. The Prophet (PBUH) used to give instructions regarding the prisoners of Badr, as if they were guests and not captives (1). ¶

It is observed that some Islamic writers, when presenting Islam's position on issues like the treatment of prisoners, limit themselves to portraying only the side we have mentioned—showing kindness to captives, benevolence toward them, and exaggeration in honoring them—without uncovering the other side of the treatment that should be applied to prisoners when necessary. They do this under the impression that revealing this other aspect might tarnish the bright image they have painted of Islam in this regard. ¶

However, I believe that this way of talking about Islam and its position on life's issues in general distances Islam from the reality of life and from the true resolution of the issues and problems that people face. This leads to the impression that Islam is an impractical system in its remedies. Consequently, we harm Islam while thinking we are doing good. Furthermore, this method is effectively concealing a portion of the Shariah rulings and Islamic truths, which is a prohibited matter that every Muslim should avoid, let alone those who undertake the task of speaking on behalf of Islam—especially when the situation requires presenting Islam’s position on all aspects of the matter at hand. ¶

Therefore, it is correct to say regarding the treatment of prisoners in Islam: if the need arises to treat them with severity and force, it is a mistake to avoid doing so. ¶

It was reported in the news of the Battle of Badr, before the two armies met, that some Muslims who were on a reconnaissance mission to learn the news of the Quraysh captured two young boys belonging to the polytheists who were drawing water for the army. They brought them to the Prophet (PBUH) while he was praying. ¶

The prisoners were asked about the news of the polytheists, and they told them what they knew. When the Sahaba did not like what they reported... ¶

Following this, they suspected the two were lying in order to mislead the Muslims and conceal the polytheists, so they proceeded to strike them to force them to confess the truth. Under the blows, the prisoners provided information that satisfied the questioners, while the Prophet (peace be upon him) was still in prayer. It is recorded in the Sirah of Ibn Hisham: ¶

'The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) performed his ruku, then his two prostrations, and gave the salutation. He then said: When they speak the truth to you, you beat them, and when they lie to you, you leave them! By Allah, they have spoken the truth! They belong to Quraysh! Tell me about Quraysh. They said: They are, by Allah, behind this sand dune.' ¶

The substance of this report is also found in Sahih Muslim, and Abu Dawud titled a chapter accordingly: 'Chapter: Regarding the prisoner, being harsh with him, beating him, and interrogating him.' Al-Khattabi stated regarding this hadith: 'In it is the permissibility of beating a disbelieving prisoner if there is a benefit (ta'il) in beating him.' Likewise, Imam al-Nawawi says regarding the fiqh of this hadith: 'In it is the permissibility of beating a disbeliever with whom there is no treaty, even if he is a prisoner.' ¶

I (the author) say: It is possible that Imam al-Nawawi does not mean that beating a prisoner is permissible in an absolute sense, as his statement might appear, because the beating of the two prisoners in the hadith under discussion was due to a specific circumstance, as is clear. Furthermore, based on the principle of reconciling between apparently conflicting proofs, one must harmonize the evidence that encourages kindness toward prisoners with the evidence that permits striking them. This is achieved by stating: Kindness toward a prisoner is a required matter, but it is permissible to treat them with severity [under specific conditions]. ¶

And violence when necessary, such as compelling them to provide information important to the Muslims, when it is suspected that they possess information from which the Muslims may benefit in this regard. ¶

Fourth: The Ruling on Prisoners of War: There are numerous opinions among jurists and schools of thought regarding male prisoners of war: what is the ruling concerning them? Some have further detailed the status of prisoners based on their gender and the religion they profess. We do not see a need to delve into the details of all of this, as it is not among the primary objectives of this treatise. ¶

We will suffice in addressing this topic—in a general manner—by mentioning the rulings that the authority is permitted to adopt regarding prisoners, as indicated by the Shariah texts and evidence. We will also indicate the various opinions of the schools of thought and jurists under each of those rulings. ¶

It should be noted that the choice of the authority in implementing any of those rulings—which are permissible to adopt regarding prisoners—is not a matter of absolute, arbitrary discretion to choose any ruling as one pleases. Rather, one must investigate which ruling is most beneficial according to the varying circumstances and situations in order to adopt and implement it. If, for instance, public interest (maslaha) demands choosing a specific ruling over another, or demands choosing one ruling for some prisoners and a different ruling for others, or a third for another group, then what is religiously required is to follow what the interest dictates in that regard. In this context, Ibn Qudamah says regarding the restriction of the Imam or the authority by the interest (maslaha) in their judgment over prisoners: ¶

"This is a choice based on interest and ijtihad, not a choice based on desire. Therefore, when he sees the interest in one of these options, it becomes binding upon him, and it is not permissible to deviate from it." (1) ¶

We will now present the rulings related to prisoners, accompanied by their evidence from Shariah texts and historical precedents. ¶

(1) Al-Mughni, by Ibn Qudamah: 10/402. See also: Al-Minhaj by Al-Nawawi, and its commentary: Mughni al-Muhtaj: 4/228. ¶

1 - Showing Grace to Captives (Al-Mann ‘ala al-Usara): This means releasing them without ransom, i.e., without any compensation. The evidence for this ruling is the saying of the Almighty regarding captives after the war has laid down its burdens: "Then either grant them freedom (mann) afterwards or accept ransom" (Quran 47:4). Also, what is narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari from Jubayr ibn Mut'im: "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said regarding the captives of Badr: 'If al-Mut'im ibn 'Adi were alive and interceded with me for these foul ones (the mushrikin captives), I would have released them for his sake.'" In Sunan Abi Dawud, the wording is: "I would have set them free for his sake." ¶

In Fath al-Bari, it is stated: "Ibn Battal said: The point of deriving evidence from this is that it is not permissible for the Prophet (peace be upon him) to say that if something had happened, he would have done such-and-such if that action were not permissible in the Shariah. Thus, it proves that the Imam (leader) has the authority to show grace to captives by releasing them without ransom, contrary to those who forbid it." ¶

Al-Khattabi also comments on this hadith, saying: "It contains evidence for the permissibility of releasing a captive and showing grace to them without any ransom." ¶

This ruling is held by the majority, including the Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis, Hasan al-Basri, 'Ata ibn Abi Rabah, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, and others. ¶

The Hanafis state, as mentioned in *Fath al-Qadir*: 'It is not permissible to show *mann* (releasing captives as a favor) to prisoners, which means setting them free to the *Dar al-Harb* (abode of war) without any compensation.' Their evidence is the Almighty's saying: 'Kill the polytheists wherever you find them.' This text is in Surah Bara'ah (At-Tawbah), which is among the last parts of the Quran to be revealed. Its revelation occurred after the incidents of showing *mann* to prisoners, which indicates that the ruling of showing *mann* to prisoners has been abrogated. ¶

This is answered as follows: The verse of *Bara'ah* concerns the disbelievers before they are taken captive, as evidenced by the permissibility of enslaving prisoners and the fact that they are not necessarily killed, even according to the Hanafis themselves. ¶

Furthermore, there are several instances in the Sunnah and the Prophetic Biography (*Sirah*) where the Prophet ﷺ showed *mann* to prisoners of war. Among these are: ¶

- Showing *mann* to Abu al-Aas ibn al-Rabi, the husband of Zaynab, the Prophet's daughter, who was among the prisoners of the polytheists at the Battle of Badr, as recorded in *Sunan Abi Dawud*. ¶

- It is mentioned in *Sirah Ibn Hisham* that among those released from the Badr captives without ransom were 'al-Muttalib ibn Hantab' of Banu Makhzum and 'Sayfi ibn Abi Rifa'ah' of Banu Makhzum. The Prophet ﷺ also showed *mann* to the poet 'Abu 'Azzah' of Banu Jumah. This occurred because he appealed to the Prophet's heart by mentioning his daughters and his poverty. The Prophet ﷺ took a pledge from him not to support anyone against him and released him on that condition. ¶