How do we deal with an apostate in war if he is taken captive, and are their women taken as captives?

The questioner : Well, a question arises naturally in this topic, which is the ruling on taking captives, because the scholars say, of course, that the women of an apostate are not taken as captives and he is not enslaved, but rather he is killed immediately. These are apostates, so what is your opinion on this, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : I find difficulty with what you mentioned. The women of an apostate are not taken as captives—are his women disbelievers or Muslims?

The questioner : Disbelievers.

The Shaykh : And why are they not taken as captives?

The questioner : But they are female apostates.

The Shaykh : Why are they not taken as captives?

The questioner : This is a very well-known statement among some of the youth there, so I...

The Shaykh : Well, his women, and let us be realistic. The man was taken captive; were his women taken captive?

The questioner : Yes, exactly.

The Shaykh : If they were taken captive, like the men?

The questioner: Correct.

The Shaykh : Okay, that is the picture. Well, we said earlier that captives are dealt with according to one of four rulings, okay?

The questioner : Okay.

The Shaykh : Well, the man may be dealt with by killing because he had power and strength, so to terrorize the remaining enemies, this captive is killed. But what about the female captives? Why are they not taken as captives? I have not heard of this. I fear there is a misconception. If there is someone who says this, it is not known in the Sirah at all. The man may be killed because this is one of the four rulings.

The questioner : This is not found in the old books. I searched a lot and did not find anything. Some Shaykhs issued a fatwa with this statement and mentioned...?

The Shaykh : I do not believe this statement is correct at all. As for the Sirah, I do not know that anyone says this because it contradicts itself. There is a statement by some of them that has no relation to reality but has a relation to captives, which is that the Arabs do not enslave, do not enslave. This is an abandoned opinion and incorrect. There is no difference between the Arab and the non-Arab regarding the four rulings. However, the ruler has absolute authority when he is ruling by the Book and the Sunnah. If he has a hundred captives in his hands, he may see fit to uproot them completely and kill them all. This is from the Shari'ah policy, as we said, to terrorize the enemies. He may see fit to grant them amnesty, as came in the famous hadith, which is a weak hadith that you find in the Sirah . He may say to them, in his heart or in words, to the hundred, "Go, you are free." He observes the atmosphere of the disbelievers and their stance. If the stance of the disbeliever is that he fears the power of the Muslims if the captives are not killed, he kills them. If he sees that the stance of the disbeliever is that he praises the stance of the Muslims and draws near to them if he grants them amnesty, he grants them amnesty, and so on. There is no difference in this between women and men. The amnesty may include both genders, but usually, the killing of women does not occur if they are captives. However, in war, it is permissible to kill women, but on the condition that they are combatants. Therefore, when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) passed by a dead woman in some of the battles, he disapproved of that: . On the other hand, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted attacking the disbelievers in their own homes, and there, women are killed just as men are. So if there are women fighting in the ranks of the fighters, they fight, without doubt. But if a woman is taken captive, there is absolutely no political benefit in killing them. As for ransoming, it is possible. As for granting amnesty, it is possible. As for enslaving and taking them as slaves and Muslim men enjoying them, this is in the interest of the Muslims. So what you mentioned, in reality, I do not know it. But on this occasion, where did you hear this? From the non-Arabs or from the Arabs?

The questioner : From the Arabs present there.
Al-Halabi : Our Shaykh, in *al-Sayl al-Jarrar*, the transmitter states, according to the opinion of al-Siddiq Hasan Khan, that they take as booty from the disbelievers their persons, except the accountable apostate, even if female, and the Arab male non-Book of the People of the Book, so it is Islam or the sword. Al-Shawkani explains and speaks about the matter you mentioned, O Shaykh, the issue of amnesty and ransom, and so on, and the issue of "except the accountable apostate, even if female."

The Shaykh : If the apostate is female, does that mean she is an apostate from her religion?
Al-Halabi : This is what our brother is saying.

The Shaykh: No.

The questioner : He is talking about an apostate. A Muslim man who apostatized from his religion and entered into communism and their methodology, and began calling to this, or in the calling to communism, or...
Al-Halabi : Now, regarding the man, we agree on what he reported.The Shaykh : Your statement is about the communist wife?

The questioner : A communist apostate.
Al-Halabi : This is the speech.

The Shaykh : I may not have paid attention to your statement that she is an apostate, or something occurred to me that might be closer: how did we know that he is an apostate? Is it merely his fighting against the Muslims and her fighting against the Muslims, or is it from something else?

The questioner : This is the correct point of difficulty.

The Shaykh : If so, I am excused.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : If we resume the topic, if the question is: is the apostate killed or not? Whether male or female, we say, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the hadith of al-Bukhari: . And we do not see a difference between the male and the female in this matter, contrary to the Hanafis. But who is the apostate from his religion? Without doubt, we believe that there is no disagreement on the fact that merely fighting the Muslim army, by some of those who were Muslim before, does not mean that this fighter is an apostate from his religion. If we want now to clarify who is the apostate from his religion and by what he apostatizes, this is a known discussion in the books of fiqh. Either he moves from the religion of Islam to another religion, and I do not believe that merely becoming a communist means he has apostatized from his religion. Because communism is not a religion, but rather a political ideology, without doubt contrary to Islam, especially when its details are adopted. But the communists in all Islamic countries, in Syria, in Iraq, in... and so on, we do not imagine that merely becoming communists means they abandon their Islam. The evidence is that many of them maintain some of the rituals; at least they pray and fast and tell you that everything is separate. Why? For one or two reasons together. Because he originally does not understand that the religion encompasses all aspects of life. And the second thing is that he himself does not understand that communism is hostile to religion, but rather it is an economic ideology that wants to organize economic life and achieve, as they claim, social justice, and so on. So it should not occur to our minds that merely because a person fights in an army whose leaders adopt communism, that this fighter has definitely apostatized from his religion. In that case, other means must be employed, fearing that he falls into what is forbidden . If he is truly an apostate from his religion, then let us resume the topic to be on clear ground, question and answer. Who is the apostate you are asking about?

The questioner : It is the one I mentioned first, and the general point of the discussion was that this man, as long as he adopted this ideology...

The Shaykh : This system.

The questioner : The communist system. This communist system, and he fought to protect it, and fought these Muslim mujahideen who want to exalt the word of Allah, so he fought them. So naturally, but the general point of the question before the details you mentioned, O Shaykh, is that this apostate is the one intended. But after, of course, this clarification, his matter became clear. It is important that...

The Shaykh : Without doubt, this, my brother, is not sufficient, especially since there was previous speech about individuals you mentioned. That merely when some of them are taken captive, some of them testify that there is no god but Allah. Did you not say this?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Well, and some of them do not know how to say "There is no god but Allah," and I do not know what you said about them?

The questioner : Meaning, they cry.

The Shaykh : If they cry, perhaps, and so on. We said regarding this and that that it is not permissible to rush to kill them, but rather their circumstances should be investigated. If it is established that he was truly an apostate from his religion, he is invited to repent. If he repents, otherwise he is killed.

The questioner : And glory to Allah, this is in the methodology of many.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : And this last category also has a large number in this form: if he is slaughtered to utter the two testimonies, to say "There is no god but Allah," he will never utter them.

The Shaykh : This is the one who is killed. This is the one who deserves killing.
Al-Halabi : This is the detail, O Shaykh. May Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : We have five minutes left with us.

The questioner : Just five, add a little for us.

The Shaykh : That is enough, if Allah wills.