The Shari'ah's Position on Prisoners of War in the Hands of Muslims
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... or not?
The Shaykh : And by Allah, I do not know. In any case, it must be noted here that ... the Muslim ruler is not bound by this, but he has the choice. He should consider the interest of the Muslims in this matter. As we mentioned in some of our gatherings, Islam has legislated for the Muslim ruler four positions regarding prisoners of war. Two of these positions are mentioned in the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Muhammad 47:4] The other two positions are established in the authentic Sunnah: one is killing, and the other is enslavement. So the ruler places the interest of the Muslims [at the forefront]. What is it? These prisoners should be uprooted to terrorize the enemy. Or the ruler sees in a certain circumstance that he should show them mercy: "Go, you are free," and so on.
So now, regarding enslavement, for example, in my view—and I am far from them, of course—I see that the commander should not, if there is one commander and I have learned, unfortunately, that there are many, if they had one commander whom they all follow by his order, I see that he should not adhere to the system of concubinage, fearing that the Muslims might be treated in kind. The disbelievers have no problem with them regarding what is forbidden and what is lawful, and so on, unlike the Muslims. But they still adhere to some extent to international treaties, as they claim. The system of concubinage, for example, and enslavement, was until recently in every country in Europe. But the council there, which they call the Security Council, claimed to have adopted a decision to abolish slavery. And as some say, they abolished the enslavement of individuals and decided on the enslavement of all peoples.
The point is: But even so, we have not heard until now that a state has invaded another state and enslaved its men and women, considering them ... but they do not enjoy them, whether men or women, under the system of slavery.
In that case, it may not be in the interest of the Muslim army to adopt enslavement, so that they are not treated in kind by the disbelievers. When, for example, is this prescribed? When the dominance of the Muslims over the disbelievers is the prevailing state. And in that case, the matter returns to how it was in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), after safety from enslavement is achieved, which includes realizing not only the interests of the Muslims but also the interests of the enslaved, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) also indicated in his saying: This is what can be mentioned on this occasion.
The Shaykh : And by Allah, I do not know. In any case, it must be noted here that ... the Muslim ruler is not bound by this, but he has the choice. He should consider the interest of the Muslims in this matter. As we mentioned in some of our gatherings, Islam has legislated for the Muslim ruler four positions regarding prisoners of war. Two of these positions are mentioned in the saying of Allah the Exalted:
either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them]
فإما مناً بعد وإما فداءًSo now, regarding enslavement, for example, in my view—and I am far from them, of course—I see that the commander should not, if there is one commander and I have learned, unfortunately, that there are many, if they had one commander whom they all follow by his order, I see that he should not adhere to the system of concubinage, fearing that the Muslims might be treated in kind. The disbelievers have no problem with them regarding what is forbidden and what is lawful, and so on, unlike the Muslims. But they still adhere to some extent to international treaties, as they claim. The system of concubinage, for example, and enslavement, was until recently in every country in Europe. But the council there, which they call the Security Council, claimed to have adopted a decision to abolish slavery. And as some say, they abolished the enslavement of individuals and decided on the enslavement of all peoples.
The point is: But even so, we have not heard until now that a state has invaded another state and enslaved its men and women, considering them ... but they do not enjoy them, whether men or women, under the system of slavery.
In that case, it may not be in the interest of the Muslim army to adopt enslavement, so that they are not treated in kind by the disbelievers. When, for example, is this prescribed? When the dominance of the Muslims over the disbelievers is the prevailing state. And in that case, the matter returns to how it was in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), after safety from enslavement is achieved, which includes realizing not only the interests of the Muslims but also the interests of the enslaved, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) also indicated in his saying: