Issue of Prisoners of War

Now we take up the question of prisoners of war. In actuality, if there is any case in which slavery can be understood as being permissible, it is only in the case just mentioned. However, as shall soon become evident, in actuality, this type of slavery cannot be categorised as real slavery, rather, it has been given this name merely due to a partial resemblance. Then, Islām has imposed such conditions on even this pseudo slavery that it ceases to remain a universal phenomenon. Quite the contrary, it becomes limited to various specific circumstances. The first thing that should be known in this discussion is that, just as a study of world history reveals, it was with prisoners of war that slavery began in the world. Gradually thereafter, other cruel practices were invented as well. Due to this, slavery, which was actually a natural outcome of the circumstances of the ancient era, took on a very horrific form. Instead of becoming a means to end oppression, which was its original purpose, it became a dangerous tool for persecution and tyranny. Initially, the custom was that when one nation would attack another, and seek to eliminate it from the face of the earth, or desire to subjugate it by snatching away its freedom without purpose, the latter nation would take the men of the combatant nation as captives and detain them upon gaining victory over them. Although afterwards, many other cruel practices were also introduced (which were not only eliminated by Islām, rather, even the initial practice mentioned above was further refined and improved, and given a remarkably purer state). If unjust people had not been detained in this manner, international wars would never have come to an end. Furthermore, the unjust would never have refrained from their cruelties and disturbing designs, and the arena of tyranny and oppression would have continued to expand. As such, history reveals that in the ancient era, slavery of this nature existed in more or less all the nations of the world. This practice was even greatly prevalent among the Banī Isrā’il, who were the children of Prophets and had been trained by a multitude of Prophets. As a matter of fact, this had been ordered by the Israelite Law itself.1 Moreover, if one contemplates, this practice was required to a much greater degree by religious communities as compared to other nations during this ancient era. The reason being that, as is the norm, religious dispensations are faced with fierce opposition and other nations stand up to expunge them by force of the sword. Hence, they too are required to employ a practice of slavery, etc., for the purpose of self-defense and protection. Similarly, a practice of slavery continued among the Christian people as well, which is in actuality a branch of the Banū Isrā’il.2 As a matter of fact, even now, a custom of slavery is prevalent among the Christian country of Abyssinia, which strictly follows ancient Christian traditions to this day. Rather, perhaps the slavery of this country is harsher than the slavery present in other countries. Similarly, in the ancient Arya nation of India, a custom of slavery existed. Hence, the Shudra caste, etc., which are found in India even today, are an unpleasant remnant of this very succession of slavery. Therefore, in ancient eras, the custom of slavery was prevalent in more or less all countries and in all nations. This was a natural outcome of the circumstances of those eras and the purpose of this was to suppress persecution and tyranny. Then, it was religious communities who needed this practice most, rather, they were the only ones who truly required it, because they were made prey to the most cruelties. People would stand up to destroy their religion. Slavery of this nature, which was further refined and improved by Islām to the extent that in actuality, it took on a form of mere captivity, was no injustice. The reason being, that a nation who desires to eliminate the religion of others by force of the sword, and is unjust and cruel, and creates unrest by planting the seed of disorder, corruption, murder and plunder in the land, does not then possess the right to freedom; just as a thief, swindler or robber, is not considered as possessing the right to remain outside of prison. It was the Holy Prophet(sa) and his Companions upon whom these cruelties were inflicted most. Our readers have probably not forgotten that the disbelievers subjected the Muslims to extremely torturous punishments.3 They took out their swords against the Muslims to forcefully expunge their religion and creed4 and desired to taint their filthy hands with the sacred blood of their Beloved Master.5 They imprisoned weak, innocent and free Muslims, as if they were slaves.6 They imprisoned innocent Muslims with the most disgraceful deception and made them slaves; then, some were very brutally murdered.7 They conspired and fought battles in order to enslave their women.8 Their honourable martyrs were mutilated, and their noses and ears were cut off and worn as garlands around their necks.9 Their venerable women were brutally attacked and made to suffer miscarriages.10 Their chaste women were speared in their private areas and killed.11 In these circumstances, even if these wrongdoers were to have been deprived of their freedom and taken as slaves permanently, this would not have been an injustice in the least. However, it was entirely due to the benevolence of the Holy Prophet(sa), that even such people were mostly forgiven by him. Among them, as for those people who were taken captive in war and made prisoners, except for temporary restrictions, no other hindrances were imposed upon their freedom. Then, even during this temporary period of restriction, the Holy Prophet(sa) issued such emphatic commandments with respect to their ease and comfort that under this influence, the Companions took off their shirts and gave them to such prisoners who were thirsty for their blood.12 They would survive on dried dates themselves and give their prisoners cooked food.13 They walked on foot themselves, while their enemies were allowed to ride.14 Can such an example be found in any nation of the world or in any era? A summary of the Islāmic teaching relevant to prisoners of war may be encapsulated in three Qur’ānic verses, two of which directly relate to prisoners of war, while one is a fundamental principle. Allāh the Exalted states:

Meaning, “It does not accord with the greatness of the Prophet at all that prisoners of war be taken captive for him until proper fighting does not take place on the field of battle against the enemy. O ye Muslims! Your eyes are set upon an immediate gain (in that prisoners should be taken swiftly so that you may prepare to fight the enemy after collecting payment of ransom). However, Allāh the Exalted desires for you the hereafter (and since this practice is not favourable with respect to the hereafter, and has a negative effect as far as morals are concerned, therefore, he orders you to refrain from this practice). If however, you fear the number and strength of the enemy, then remember that Allāh the Exalted is Mighty above all powers and Wise, i.e., He is the one who fulfills your true needs.”15

In this verse of the Holy Qur’ān, it has been taught that with the thought of their own weakness and strength of the enemy, or for the purpose of strengthening their financial state through ransom, Muslims should not act hastily and imprudently in the issue of taking enemy captives. Thus, it is incorrect to begin taking captives wherever the enemy is found to be weak, or prior to the formal commencement of war in the battlefield. Rather, Muslims are only permitted to take captives if war practically ensues with the enemy in the battlefield first, and prisoners are taken as a result. Through this Islāmic teaching, which is based on a most superior international conduct of war, the number and breadth of prisoners of war have been confined to the narrowest possible sphere. This demonstrates that the actual desire of Islām was that, except for such instances as were inevitable and unavoidable, in so much as possible, prisoners of war should not be taken in the first place.

Then, He states:

Meaning, “O ye Muslims! When you meet the disbelievers in battle, stand firm in battle and fight the wrongdoers. When battle has properly taken place, take captives from the enemy men. Then, if there is a hope of reformation and circumstances are deemed to be fit, release these prisoners as an act of benevolence, or by taking an appropriate ransom. If it is necessary to do so, keep them in captivity until war comes to an end, and its burdens are taken off your shoulders.”16

This verse serves as a foundation stone in the Islāmic Sharī‘at on prisoners of war. Various methods have been mentioned herein, which may be employed with respect to prisoners in varying circumstances and they are three:

1. FIRSTLY: To release a person as an act of benevolence.

   SECONDLY: To release a person on ransom. The practice of the Holy Prophet(sa) reveals that there were differing methods of taking ransom:

   1. A monetary ransom, irrespective of whether it was paid in full and immediately; or on the principle of Mukātabat, a detailed discussion of which has already passed.

   2. An exchange with Muslim prisoners.

   3. The employment of an appropriate service. For example, if the prisoners were experienced in a trade, it was permissible to agree that they would be released, if they taught their skill to a few Muslims

   THIRDLY: To keep the prisoners in captivity until the end of war and this ‘end’ implies a complete cessation. This was not only until the chain of hostile activities practically came to a halt, but also until the losses incurred by the country and nation as a result, and for which the enemy nation was considered responsible, had been repaid, as indicated in the Qur’ānic words ‘the laying down of burdens.’ This last method had been proposed so that if the circumstances were such that it was unwise to release the prisoners of the disbelievers by way of benevolence; if they themselves, or for some reason, if their relatives did not agree to pay the ransom due to their obstinacy or enmity, then prisoners could be held in captivity until the true cessation of war. In this way, until their release, the Muslims would be saved from any further hardships or threats. It is this very method which has been named slavery by Islām and which has been permitted by Islām. However, if one contemplates, in actuality, this is not slavery; rather, it is merely imprisonment. Then, even this imprisonment or pseudo slavery has been limited and regulated by a fundamental principle.

As such, Allāh the Exalted states:

Meaning, “O ye Muslims! If you deem stern action appropriate by following a course of retribution and punishment, it is incumbent upon you that your stern action does not exceed that inflicted upon you by the disbelievers. It is also necessary that you do not engage in such conduct if the disbelievers have not taken the lead and initiated conflict. However, if it is possible for you to show patience, then show patience, for patience is best.”17

In light of this fundamental verse, that option relevant to prisoners of war, whereby a period of imprisonment may be lengthened, can take on different forms. For example, if the disbelievers subject Muslim prisoners to service, the Muslims are also at a right to subject the disbelieving prisoners to reasonable service. However, in any case, this service shall be governed by those conditions, which have been stipulated in Islām with regards to the service of slaves, etc. For example, they are not to be given work as is beyond their ability, nor should such work be assigned to them, which the master is not prepared to do himself. Similarly, if the disbelievers distribute the Muslim prisoners among their own individuals instead of keeping them in national or state prisons, Muslims are also permitted to give disbelieving prisoners into the guardianship of Muslim individuals. So on and so forth. However, in any case, it is necessary that in such circumstances whichever method is employed, it should not contradict an explicit Islāmic injunction. For example, it is necessary that the practice of imprisonment definitely be brought to an end upon the cessation of war,18 or that a prisoner must not be killed merely due to his being a warrior of the enemy army,19 or that prisoners be put to service according to their strength and ability,20 or that special care be taken of the ease and comfort of prisoners,21 and so on and so forth.

This is the teaching which Islām gives with regards to prisoners of war. Now, readers should contemplate with justice that even if this is referred to as slavery by name, does this teaching possess any aspect of real slavery? Do the governments of today not take prisoners captive? Do the governments of today not subject prisoners to service? Then, do the governments of today not lengthen the period of imprisonment in the case that war continues longer than expected? When all of these things occur in all nations, and continue to occur even today, and international law has considered it lawful in all eras, then justice dictates that an allegation cannot be levelled against Islām and the Founder of Islām on this basis. As a matter of fact, I claim that it is a favour of Islām that by keeping an element of compassion and kindness more prominent in its convention of warfare, it has paved the way to world peace and international unity. Now remains the question of individual possession. As such, it is true that initially prisoners from among the disbelievers were generally divided amongst Muslim warriors. In actuality, this is the sole aspect which can be considered as giving this law a character of slavery. However, if one contemplates, this practice was not objectionable at all considering the circumstances in which this practice was implemented, nor could it be classified as real slavery, i.e., by that definition of slavery, as is understood in the non-Islāmic world. The reason being that firstly, Islām did not originally institute this practice, nor has it been mentioned in the specific teaching, which has been given by Islām with respect to prisoners of war.22 Rather, in actuality, this was a counter-strategy which was employed in response to the cruel behaviour of the disbelievers. In other words, since the disbelievers would use the Muslim prisoners as slaves and distribute them amongst their own men; in order to bring them to their senses, the practice of giving disbelieving prisoners into the individual custody of the Muslims was also employed in Islām. However, despite this, Islām did not allow for these prisoners to be made into slaves as was done by the disbelievers. Furthermore, it was stipulated that upon the conclusion of war they would definitely be set free. The second reason for employing a practice of individual custody was because at that time, there was no custom of state prisons; rather, enemy prisoners were distributed amongst the individuals of the nation that stood victorious, who would keep them under their own supervision. In the beginning, it was this very practice that was prevalent in Islām. Hence, in actuality, this was not slavery; rather, it was a system of keeping prisoners, which was gradually replaced by the use of state prisons.

It should also be remembered that as far as the Islāmic State was concerned, this method was not at all painful for prisoners. As a matter of fact, this method definitely afforded them more comfort than even the state prisons of this day and age. Due to the emphatic teaching of the Holy Prophet(sa) and vigilant supervision of the State, disbelieving prisoners did not stay with Muslim families as their servants and slaves; rather, they were considered to be members of the family. They were welcomed and received as guests. As such, we have seen that the Muslims kept the prisoners of Badr, the better part of whom were the most bitter enemies of Islām, in such ease and comfort that they sung in praise of them. Many of them were influenced merely by this good treatment and became Muslim.23 Therefore, even in this so-called slavery, Islām established such a lofty example of benevolence and generosity, as puts to shame even the blessings of today’s freedom. However, in any case, since this practice merely served as a counter-measure, for this reason it shall be considered as being specific to the particular circumstances in response to which it was employed. Therefore, the edict for this day and age is that now, since a custom of state prisons has become prevalent and disbelievers do not take Muslim prisoners as slaves; therefore, according to the fundamental commandment of the Islāmic Sharī‘at, it is no longer permissible for Muslims either to distribute disbelieving prisoners amongst Muslim individuals and create a form of slavery. The Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Community, who claimed that he was sent as a man divinely commissioned by God, and as a reformer for this day and age, writes:

“It is a matter of great joy that in our era, those people who are referred to as disbelievers in opposition to Islām, have abandoned this practice of injustice and oppression. For this reason, it is now impermissible for Muslims as well to take their prisoners as bond-women and slaves, because God states in the Holy Qur’ān that you may retaliate against a combatant group to a degree, only when they have first taken the lead. Hence, when now such a time no longer exists and the disbelieving people do not act so violently and unjustly towards the Muslims in a state of war, whereby they themselves as well as their men and women are taken as bond-women and slaves; rather, they are considered to be state prisoners, for this reason, in this era, it is now impermissible and unlawful for Muslims as well to do so.”24

In summary, there are two fundamental principles in the Islāmic teaching relevant to prisoners of war. Firstly, inasmuch as possible, a course of haste should not be followed in taking captives, and only in extreme circumstances after the practical commencement of war, should captives be taken. Secondly, after captives had been taken, according to the circumstances, they should either be released without a ransom by way of benevolence, and this was the most preferable practice, or they could be released in lieu of a reasonable ransom; or if it is necessary, to lengthen their period of captivity until the end of war. There is no explicit teaching found in the Islāmic Sharī‘at relevant to prisoners of war, in addition to what has already been mentioned. Albeit, as a general rule of thumb, Islām teaches that if it is necessary to undertake strong counter-measures with regards to the disbelievers under political objectives, they may be employed under the condition that firstly, no stern action must be undertaken where the disbelievers have not first taken the lead themselves; and secondly, no such measures must be undertaken as contradict any other stipulated teaching. The distribution of disbelieving prisoners among Muslim individuals was in accordance to this very general rule. However, in this day and age, since the disbelievers do not use Muslim prisoners as slaves and keep them as state prisoners, by the same token, it is impermissible for Muslims to distribute disbelieving prisoners amongst Muslim individuals and practice a form of enslavement.