FOREWORD
Dear Readers, I am greatly pleased that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Faculty of Islamic Studies of the University of Sarajevo are able to offer you these proceedings dedicated to Islamic law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law (IHL). The proceedings are a result of the scientific conference jointly organized by the Faculty of Islamic Studies and the ICRC in cooperation with the Military Muftiship of the Islamic community in Bosnia-Herzegovina on 26 and 27 September 2018, in Sarajevo. The conference was an opportunity to discuss numerous issues related to armed conflict from two perspectives, that of secular humanitarian law and of the Islamic law of armed conflict.
I see the participation of teachers, associates and doctoral students at the Faculty of Islamic Studies (University of Sarajevo) as an expression of awareness of our obligation as those who are aware of God, one of whose beautiful names is Selam (peace), to constantly seek and persistently try to establish peace, primarily in us, in our souls, and then in our communities and society around us.
To achieve this goal, the University of Sarajevo, as an institution of higher education of the Islamic community, launched a joint study programme in 201718 with the other two theological faculties, the Faculty of Catholic Theology in Sarajevo and the Faculty of Orthodox Theology of St Vasilije Ostroski in Foča. The programme was entitled Inter-Religious Studies and Peacebuilding.
Due to their unprecedented powers, religious feelings and beliefs are often abused in our region. Some of the cruellest crimes have been committed in the name of religion and under religious symbols. We considered it a social responsibility that the study programme point out a legitimate, authentic and meritorious understanding of the issues of peace and armed conflict in basic religious sources and emphasize that one cannot truly love God while hating His creation.
True religion goes beyond all the misunderstandings and cultural or social prejudices of a limited human mind. We want to build lasting peace in this region through authentic spirituality, a correct understanding of faith and its consistent living, changing both man and the world for the better.
Although there are animal instincts in man that cause him to subjugate others, seize someone else’s property, shed blood and indulge in many other evils, what makes him human are his spirit, morality and intellect. These develop in him a consciousness of God, human dignity and the necessity of equal rights for every human being across the globe.
A healthy spirit, strong morals and an indomitable intellect open a person to other people, to other living beings, to the world around him. They create in him the need to establish connections and bridges, which imply the desire of people to be together and connected, because then they can do anything.
If they are separated and move away from each other, the obstacles will overcome them and they will be defeated. So, bridges, wherever they are, whether material, cultural, scientific or ideological, remain to express a human desire for community and union and to fight conflict and separation. It is extremely important to talk about armed conflicts from an Islamic perspective, especially today, because of the overbearing, offensive and completely unfounded linking of militancy and violent extremism with Islam.
It is necessary to emphasize constantly and persistently that Islam advocates love and obedience to God above all, followed by love, understanding and appreciation of His creatures, especially His most well-chosen creation, man. Through the Quran, Allah condemns not only the unlawful taking of life by another human being, but also the excessive use of force in response to violence. “If you [believers] have to respond to an attack, make your response proportionate, but it is best to stand fast.” (Al-Nahl 126).
How much wisdom this verse holds! Much later, this principle of reciprocal force was applied in humanitarian law as the principle of proportional use of force in defence. For even when one defends himself against an attack his defence can only be commensurate with the attack, never so much as to develop into a new attack.
I am glad that the papers of meritorious authors such as Dr Ahmed al-Dawoody, Prof. (Dr) Mustafa Hasani, Associate Professor (Dr) Nedim Begović, Associate Professor (Dr) Zehra Alispahić, Dr Senad Ćeman and Amir Mahić (MSc) are included in this volume. It is a privilege that you, dear readers, will be able to read about armed conflicts from the perspective of secular humanitarian law and Islamic law of armed conflict, seeing the similarities between the two approaches, but also the clear differences between them.
Finally, I once again thank the representatives of the ICRC in Bosnia-Herzegovina and all the participants of the two-day scientific conference in Sarajevo. My special thanks also to the authors, who have conveyed to us the very strong message that a Muslim is conscious of God during war and armed conflict and strictly adheres to the norms of warfare, respecting human dignity. And if he has this consciousness during war, how can he not have so during peace?
Dr Zuhdija Hasanović,
Dean, Faculty of Islamic Studies, University of Sarajevo
INTRODUCTION
Even wars have limits. They are defined by International Humanitarian Law which obliges protection of all people not taking part in the conflict, as well as limiting the means and methods of warfare. These boundaries must be known and respected to ensure human dignity and alleviate human suffering in armed conflict.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a neutral and independent organization operating for over 150 years, and our main humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict around the world. The ICRC is also the initiator of the idea of the Geneva Conventions, which are the basis of today’s International Humanitarian Law. For this reason, the ICRC is often called its guardian. By advocating the respect of IHL and strengthening universal humanitarian principles, we seek to prevent human suffering.
The rules and laws of war undoubtedly have deeper historical roots. They are derived from elementary human values that are an integral part of all the world’s philosophies and religions. Islamic law guarantees victims of armed conflict (for example, the wounded, the sick, prisoners of war, and civilians) the right to protection, respect, and dignified humane treatment. It also calls for the protection of civilian facilities and property. Islamic law limits the methods and means of warfare to the limits of military necessity. All this is in full compliance with the provisions of International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the similarities between IHL and Islamic law are not coincidental, but evidence that there are values that are universal and an important part of most religious and other worldviews.
The ICRC maintains a regular dialogue with Islamic intellectuals and academics around the world, as we carry out most of our humanitarian activities in Muslimmajority countries. This ongoing dialogue is not only of a theoretical and abstract nature, but it also has concrete results. Its main goal is to emphasize the common principles and values that apply to all humankind. We must emphasize these values in all communities to ensure that they are respected by new generations.
The dialogue also aims to overcome particular prejudices that, unfortunately, we all face at times. It is crucial for the ICRC to be accepted as a neutral and independent humanitarian organization by all parties to armed conflicts, no matter where they are taking place. Only in this way can we ensure secure access to all victims and vulnerable populations and provide them with assistance. In other words, the success of our humanitarian action, but also the security of our workers in the field, is entirely based on the question of whether we are accepted by all parties in our true form: as neutral, impartial and independent humanitarian organization.
The ICRC proved this role and our sincere commitment to these values during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, when the center of our global activities was in this region. Given the values represented by the Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Faculty of Islamic Studies in Sarajevo, their historical significance and reputation enjoyed throughout the Islamic world and beyond, we are convinced that we have found a strong and lasting partner in this global dialogue.
For this reason, in the past two years we have organized several joint events, workshops and seminars on the common values of Islamic, and International Humanitarian Law, but also some specific humanitarian issues related to this topic, such as the issue of missing persons. Representatives of the Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Faculty of Islamic Studies of the University of Sarajevo regularly attend similar events in Tunisia and Geneva.
This collection contains papers that arose from jointly organized meetings, primarily form the scientific conference held in September 2018 in Sarajevo. We are convinced that the collection will serve as a basis for raising awareness and further exchange on the importance of respecting the universal humanitarian principles that have guided us all so far.
We would like to thank the Faculty of Islamic Studies in Sarajevo for the excellent cooperation, not only in publishing this collection of papers, but also for the sincere will and interest to continue this dialogue.
We are convinced that, by emphasizing the common values of Islamic, and International Humanitarian Law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we can contribute to our mutual understanding and to improving humanitarian action throughout the world.
Delegation of the International Committee
of Red Cross in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Dr Ahmed Al-Dawoody al-Azhar University Legal Adviser for Islamic Law and Jurisprudence at the International Committee of the Red Cross
Islamic law and international humanitarian law: An introduction to the main principles (1)
Abstract: This article gives an overview of the principles regulating the use of force under the Islamic law of war in the four Sunni schools of Islamic law. By way of introducing the topic, it briefly discusses the origins, sources and characteristics of the Islamic law of war. The discussion reveals the degree of compatibility between these Islamic principles and the modern principles of international humanitarian law, and offers insights into how these Islamic principles can help in limiting the devastation and suffering caused by contemporary armed conflicts in Muslim contexts, particularly those conflicts in which Islamic law is invoked as the source of reference.
Keywords: Islam, Islamic law, Islamic law and IHL, jihad, Islamic law of armed conflict, protection of civilians, PoWs in Islam, human shield, war in Islamic law.
Introduction
The effects of armed conflicts such as those currently raging in Syria and Yemen have been shown to spread beyond the Middle East region and reach over to the West. Moreover, their impact can in fact be greater on countries outside the region where the conflict is taking place than on those within it. What this shows, first of all, is that the impact of armed conflicts, including noninternational armed conflicts (NIACs), is no longer local or regional, but global. Moreover, NIACs, especially those in the Middle East, can signal the outbreak of war on a regional or global scale, or at the very least cause severe damage to the world economy. In that regard, a reported 80% of the humanitarian crises currently afflicting mankind are attributable to armed conflicts.(2) On that basis, greater efforts are needed not only to enforce the provisions of international humanitarian law (IHL) but also to do everything possible to prevent the occurrence of armed conflicts in the first place,
--------------
(1) The views expressed in this article are those of the author and should not be interpreted as official positions of the ICRC. The author would like to thank Ellen Policinski for her meticulous reading, comments and suggestions for this article, as well as the anonymous peer reviewers.
(2) United Nations, “Secretary-General’s Opening Remarks at World Humanitarian Summit”, 23 May 2016, available at: www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2016-05-23/secretary-general%E2%80%99sopeningremarks-world-humanitarian-summit, all internet references were accessed in May 2018.
and then, once conflicts have ended, to take the necessary measures to ensure that post-conflict justice is carried out in order to prevent conflicts from re-igniting.
Respect for IHL in Muslim countries is one of the most pressing issues faced by our world today. This is because the majority of conflicts take place in Muslim countries, for reasons including historical and colonial factors and a deficit of good governance, which lead, among other consequences, to a lack of democracy and respect for human rights. It is widely acknowledged that respect for IHL is important because of its capacity to reduce the scale of destruction or to introduce a degree of humanity into situations of armed conflict, where acts of brutality, barbarity and destruction occur.
In addition, the vast majority of ongoing conflicts fall into the category of NIACs. Furthermore, in many of the conflicts that we are currently witnessing, parties to the conflict, usually non-State armed groups, justify their acts of hostility by referring to certain rules of the Islamic law of war developed by the Muslim jurists of the second and third centuries of the Islamic calendar (roughly equivalent to the eighth and ninth centuries AD) and certain opinions of Qur’anic exegetes and Hadith scholars. This is why it is especially important – as this article attempts – to study the primary sources on the Islamic law of war, because of the significant and tangible role it plays in influencing the behaviour of the warring parties who use its provisions to justify their acts of hostility. From an academic perspective, it can also be an interesting topic in its own right toresearch how the Islamic legal system can help to limit the devastation caused by armed conflicts and reduce the plight of victims, by comparing its provisions with those of contemporary IHL. On this topic, Loukas Petridis, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) delegation in Niger, said on 25 November 2015:
Given the increase in armed conflicts and violence, dialogue on these issues is more necessary than ever. We need to make more people aware of international humanitarian law and how it ties in with other standards, such as Islamic law and jurisprudence. This is about making sure that people have the widest possible protection.(3)
Moreover, in a meeting between Dr Ahmed al-Tayyeb (the Grand Imam of AlAzhar, the highest religious authority in the Sunni world), Ronald Ofteringer (head of the ICRC delegation in Cairo) and the present author, Dr al-Tayyeb affirmed the role that Islamic institutions can play in enhancing protection for victims of armed conflict.(4) To that end, this article sets out a brief overview of
-----------------
(3) ICRC, “Niger: Seminar on Islamic Law and Humanitarianism”, news release, 25 November 2015, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/niger-seminar-islamic-law-humanitarianism.
(4) ICRC, “Egypt: Continuous Humanitarian Dialogue between the ICRC and Al-Azhar”, news release, 24 October 2017, available at: www.icrc.org/en/document/egypt-grand-imam-dr-ahmed-al-tayyeb-alazharwilling-support-humanitarians.
the principles regulating the use of force in armed conflict under Islamic law and discusses both the challenges in applying them and the extent to which they align with the modern principles of IHL, with a view to identifying how effective these Islamic principles can be in limiting the devastation and suffering caused by armed conflict.
Origins of the Islamic law of war
Over the course of history, most legal systems have devised rules to govern the use of armed force, stipulating both the legitimate reasons for war and the rules governing the conduct of hostilities. IHL does not specifically address the former of these two areas, regarding the justifications for resorting to armed force. This matter is covered by public international law under the Charter of the United Nations (UN), which prohibits the use of armed force except in self-defence or with authorization from the UN Security Council, as set out in Article 42 of the Charter. The function of IHL is to set rules and restrictions on the behaviour of combatants in both international and non-international armed conflicts, with a view to preventing or limiting the effects of armed conflict, minimizing the suffering of victims and protecting individuals who are either not taking part or have ceased their participation in the hostilities, as well as protecting movable and immovable property not being used in military operations. This branch of law is also known as the law of war or the law become more commonly known as international humanitarian law, emphasizing the humanitarian motives that underpin this newly developed branch of law.
The question is, has the Islamic legal system incorporated this comparatively recent branch of law? What is certain is that the classical Muslim jurists did not use this term to refer to armed conflict situations, nor did they use other modernday terminology associated with IHL. Nonetheless, the provisions of Islamic law – as developed and documented by Muslim jurists since at least the second Islamic century (eighth century AD) – show unequivocally that many of the issues covered by IHL were addressed by the Muslim jurists in order to achieve some of the same objectives as those of IHL, namely alleviating the suffering of the victims of armed conflict and protecting certain persons and objects. Before moving on to illustrate this point, at this stage it is worth referring to the sources and characteristics of the Islamic law of war before discussing the core principles regulating the use of force under Islamic law.
Sources of Islamic law
The sources of Islamic law are divided into two main groups: primary sources and secondary sources. Primary sources (also known as “agreed-upon” sources) include the Qur’an, the Sunnah (tradition) of the Prophet, ijmā‘ (legal literature representing consensus of opinion) and qiyās (rules of analogy developed via deductive reasoning). Secondary sources (also known as “disputed” sources) are a number of jurisprudential methods for developing Islamic laws which come in varying order of authority, including istiḥsān (juristic/public preference), maslaḥ ah mursalah (public interest), ‘urf (custom), shar‘ man qablanā (sharı̄ ‘ ahs of religions before Islam), madhhab al-ṣaḥabı̄ (the opinions of the Companions of the Prophet), sadd al-dharā’i‘ (“blocking the means” – i.e., preventing the occurrence of something evil, though it also extends to include facilitating the occurrence of something good) and istiṣḥāb (the continuation of the applicability of a rule that was accepted in the past, unless new evidence supports a change in its applicability).
The defining factor that differentiates Islamic law from most other legal systems is the fact that it includes rules on worship, beliefs and morality, as well as rules governing numerous other areas of life such as family law, financial transactions, criminal law, governance, and international relations in peacetime and wartime. Based on the religious aspects of Islamic law, some people mistakenly conclude that all provisions of Islamic law are unchangeable. In reality, however, while it is true that the rules on worship, creed and morality or unanimously agreedupon rules are fixed and unchangeable, there are other provisions which may be changed, as long as this is done to achieve the objective of the legislator. As described by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d. 1350), serving the public interest is the objective of every single rule in Islam, because sharı̄ ‘ah is founded on the divine command and the public good of the people in this world and the next. It is all justice, all compassion, all public good, and all wisdom. If any ruling changes justice into injustice, or mercy into its opposite, or the public good into corruption, or wisdom into folly, then it cannot be part of the sharı̄ ‘ah, even if an interpretation of the sharı̄ ‘ah is invoked, for sharı̄ ‘ah is God’s justice among His worshippers, and His mercy amongst His creation, and His shadow on his earth.(5)
This definitive statement by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah shows that the fundamental objective of Islamic law is to achieve justice and serve the public interest, always and everywhere.
Most Islamic law regulations on the use of force are derived from the Holy Qur’an
-----------------
(5) See Ṣubḥı̄al-Ṣāliḥ, Ma‘ālim al-Sharı̄ ‘ ah al-Islāmiyyah (Beirut: Dār al-’Ilm lil-Malāyīn, 1975), p. 62. Dār al‘Ilm lil-Malāyı̄n, Beirut, 1975, p. 62.
and Sunnah, as well as the early historical precedents of the Islamic state(6) since the seventh and eighth centuries, or what are known in the Ḥanafı̄ school of law as the siyar (approach) – i.e., the ways and methods followed by the Islamic state in its dealings with non-Muslims in times of peace and war, specifically in the era of the Prophet Muhammad and the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The term siyar is also used by some Ḥanafı̄ jurists to refer to the rules governing certain types of NIAC that occurred in the first half of the first Islamic century, such as what are known in Islamic jurisprudence as qitāl al-bughāh (fighting against rebels or secessionists) and ḥurūb al-riddah (wars of apostasy).(7) Muslim jurists established legal limits on the use of force using those sources and their own ijtihād (reasoning or judgment in making laws), based on both the sources themselves and the abovementioned tools such as qiyās, maslaḥ ̣ ah mursalah and madhhab al-ṣaḥabı̄ .We can therefore conclude that these regulations were developed under a different model of international relations and in a specific context during the lifetime of the Prophet between 624 and 634 AD, in which military engagements were less brutal and deadly than those seen today.(8)
Characteristics of the Islamic law of war
Therefore, because of the uniqueness of its sources and contexts, the Islamic law of war is defined by the following characteristics: its religious dimension, the instinct of Muslims to comply with it out of a desire to obey God, its lack of consistent codification, and the specificity of its context and sources.
There is a religious dimension to the Islamic law of war in the sense that compliance with the Islamic regulations on the use of force is an act of worship which brings a Muslim soldier closer to God. This classical juristic endeavour for humanizing armed conflicts led to contradictory rulings because in deliberating these rulings individual jurists sometimes prioritized humanitarian concerns and at other times prioritized the military necessity of winning the war, even if this was in contravention of humanitarian principles.(9)
Respect for the Islamic regulations on the use of force was something that a Muslim instinctively complied with and imposed on himself through his desire to obey God, regardless of whether or not his enemy adhered to the same rules, rather than stemming from the obligation to comply with international conventions,
-----------
(6) Editor’s note: For the purposes of this article, the term “the Islamic state” refers to the State founded by the Muslims during the seventh century.
(7) See Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Sarakhsı̄ , Kitāb al-Mabsūt Vol. 10 (Beirut: Dār al-Ma’rifah), p. 2. Vol. 10, Dār al-Ma‘rifah, Beirut, p. 2.
(8) See Ahmed Al-Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations, Palgrave Macmillan(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), pp. 11–41.
(9) As discussed below, the jurists gave conflicting rulings regarding the permissibility of, for example, targeting women, children or the aged if they engage in hostilities, and the use of certain means and methods of warfare.
as is the case in the modern age. This characteristic forms a strong basis for the argument that Islamic law has a great power to influence the conduct of the Muslim parties to conflicts that are currently under way, especially in the case of non-governmental combatants who claim to follow Islamic rules of armed conflict as their source of reference. Most of the attention of the Muslim jurists was directed towards drawing a distinction between those acts that were permissible and those that were non-permissible for a Muslim during a war, and as any scholar of Islamic law will find, the jurists painstakingly drew up jurisprudence governing the mandatory conduct of a Muslim soldier, taking into account both the need to comply with the above-mentioned sources and the necessity of winning the war. Many Western academics and experts in the Islamic just war theory have therefore noted that the classical Muslim jurists focused in great detail on the Islamic jus in bello, while neglecting the Islamic jus ad bellum.(10)
Given that the task of establishing these rules was carried out by independent, individual classical Muslim jurists, and the fact that the rules were neither codified by the Islamic state nor enshrined in signed agreements between the warring parties, it is only natural that many contradictory rules should arise, firstly as a result of varying interpretations of the texts from which the rules are derived, and secondly because of the variation in the priorities of the jurists, some of whom emphasized humanitarian concerns and compliance with the rules contained in the sources of Islamic law, and others for whom the need to win the war outweighed those concerns. This feature of Islamic law forms one of the main obstacles when it comes to humanizing armed conflicts in the modern era, as will be explained in greater depth later.
The philosophy and principles of IHL were not only developed in recent times; on the contrary, these concepts are as old as human civilization itself, having been recognized long ago by ancient cultures and religions. In his book The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict, L. C. Green shows that Judaism and ancient Chinese, Indian and Greek civilizations developed some restraints that should be observed during armed conflict. The Old Testament states that it is prohibited to destroy trees (Deuteronomy 20:19–20) or kill captives, and that food and water should be provided to captives until they are set free. In ancient Chinese civilization, the general and military strategist Sun Tzu (d. 496 BC) stressed that only enemy armies are to be attacked and that cities are to be attacked only where
---------------
(10) Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, Markus Wiener, Princeton, NJ, 1996, p. 119; Khaled Abou El Fadl, “The Rules of Killing at War: An Inquiry into Classical Sources”, The Muslim World, Vol. 89, No. 2, 1999, p. 150; Khaled Abou El Fadl, “Islam and the Theology of Power”, Middle East Report, No. 221, Winter 2001, p. 30; Ann Elizabeth Mayer, “War and Peace in the Islamic Tradition and International Law”, in John Kelsay and James Turner Johnson (eds), Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1991, p. 197; Sohail H. Hashmi, “Saving and Taking Life in War: Three Modern Muslim Views”, The Muslim World, Vol. 89, No. 2, 1999, p. 158.
there is no alternative. In ancient India, the list of prohibitions during armed conflict includes attacking a sleeping enemy, desecration of corpses, killing those who are physically or mentally incapacitated and, similar to the Greek civilization, the use of poisoned weapons.(11)
Obviously, the sources of the Islamic law of war relate to a war context in which the weapons and tactics, and consequently the destructive capacity of wars, were very different from those of modern armed conflicts. The application of the Islamic law of war in the modern era therefore presents another challenge, given that some armed groups employ military tactics and weapons that are prohibited under IHL and justify their actions by measuring them against the opinions of some classical Muslim jurists who endorsed the use of similar weapons and military tactics in the context of their own primitive wars, as will be illustrated later in this article. With this in mind, rules such as these inevitably need to be reviewed and reconsidered in order to take account of ongoing developments in military weapons and tactics over time.
Principles of the Islamic rules of war
Classical Muslim jurists discussed a set of issues that, in essence, reflect the philosophy and principles of IHL, but are set in a different context to that of the wars we are currently witnessing. It is worth noting that specific rules were established on each of these issues in relation to the wars waged between Muslims and their non-Muslim enemies during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, and consequently the teachings of the Prophet form the basis of much of the regulations developed by the jurists. Islamic law also drew a distinction between international and non-international conflicts, despite not using the same terms. According to Islam, international armed conflicts are generally called jihad, a term which refers to wars between the Islamic state and non-Muslim belligerents. NIACs are divided into four categories according to the Muslim jurists: ḥurūb alriddah (wars of apostasy), qitāl al-bughāh (fighting against rebels or secessionists), ḥirābah (fighting against bandits, highway robbers, terrorists or pirates) and qitāl alkhawārij (fighting against violent religious fanatics). In Islamic law, the distinction between these types of war is important because the rules of war differ from one category to another.(12)
When developing the Islamic law of war in international armed conflicts, the Muslim jurists paid the greater part of their attention to the following eight issues.
--------------
(11) See L. C. Green, The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993), p. 18.
(12) For further information see, A. Al-Dawoody, above note 7, pp. 149–183; Ahmed Al-Dawoody, “AlSarakhsı̄ ’s Contribution to the Islamic Law of War”, UCLA: Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, Vol. 14, nb. 1 (2015): p. 37–43
1. Protection of civilians and non-combatants
The sources of Islamic law guarantee protection of civilians and non-combatants, stating that fighting on the battlefield must be directed solely against enemy combatants. Civilians and non-combatants must not be deliberately harmed during the course of hostilities. This principle is clearly set out in the verse that states: “And fight in the way of God those who fight against you and do not transgress, indeed God does not like transgressors.”(13) According to Qur’anic interpreters, this verse commands that non-combatant enemies should not be fought, and that an attack on non-combatants such as women and children is an act of aggression which angers God. Al-Rāzı̄ (d. 1209) defines al-muqātilı̄n (combatants), as understood by him from this verse, as follows: “They must be taking part in the fighting; anyone who is willing or prepared to fight cannot be described as a combatant, except in metaphor, until they enter into combat.”(14) Thus, based on many reports attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, Islamic law protects civilians and non-combatants against military attack. Moreover, if an enemy withdraws from combat or enters Muslim territory and requests protection, whether explicitly or implicitly, they may not be targeted, as will be shown later in the discussion of amān (protection, safety).
A number of the Prophet’s Hadiths specifically prohibit the targeting of women, children, the elderly, ‘usafā’ and aṣḥāb al-ṣawāmi‘ (monks or religious hermits). The word ‘usafā’ is the plural of the word ‘ası̄f , which means hired man or employee, and in the context of war it refers to anyone who works for, or is paid by, the enemy to perform services on the battlefield, as was common practice in wars in the past. These individuals would perform tasks such as minding belongings and animals, but would not engage in the fighting and therefore could not be classified as combatants. By drawing a parallel with the prohibition on attacking ‘usafā’ on the battlefield, it follows that attacking medical personnel (both civilian and military) accompanying enemy armies is also prohibited, as are attacks on military reporters or anyone else who provides services to enemy armies, as long as these individuals do not take part in military operations. This principle is conveyed by various Hadiths of the Prophet, including: “Do not kill an aged person, a young child or a woman”,(15) “Do not kill children or the clergy”(16) and “Do not kill children or ‘usafā’”.(17) On that basis, when it came to protecting non
----------------
(13) Qur’an 2:190.
(14) Muḥammad ibn ‘Umar al-Rāzī, Tafsīr al-Fakhr al- Rāzī: Al-Mushtahar bi-al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr wa-Mafātīh ạlGhayb, Vol. 5 (Dār al-Fikr, 1981), 138.
(15) Aḥmad ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Bannā al-Sā’atī, Badā’i’ al-Manan fi Jami’ wa Tartīb Musannad al-Shafi’i wa alSanan: Mudhayla bi-al-Qawl al-Hasan Sharah Badā’i’ al-Manan, 2. izd., Vol. 2 (Cairo: Maktabah al-Furqān, 1983), 12.
(16) Sadīq ibn Hasan ibn ‘Ali al-Husseini al-Qannūji al-Bukhārī Abū al-Ṭayyib, Al-Rawdah al-Nadiyyah Sharah al-Durar al-Munīryyah, Vol. 2 (Cairo: Idārah al-Tibā’ah al-Munīrīyah), 339.
(17) Ibid.
combatants, the Companions followed the Prophet’s example; for instance, the first caliph Abū Bakr (d. 634) instructed his army commander thusly: “Do not kill a child or a woman; or an aged person; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees or destroy buildings; do not slaughter a sheep or a camel except for food; do not burn or drown palm trees; do not loot; and do not be cowardly.”(18) In addition, ‘Umar ibn alKhatṭạ ̄ b issued written instructions to his soldiers ordering them to fear God and not to kill farmers: “Fear God in farmers; do not kill them unless they fight against you.”(19) This warning to fear God reaffirms the religious imperative to respect the Islamic law of war.
The jurists also specified various other types of non-combatants who must not be targeted in a war, including the blind, the incapacitated and the insane, as well as craftsmen and traders. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah concisely indicated the Islamic position regarding those who can be targeted during war as follows: “Muslims must fight those who attack them, but not those who do not attack them.”(20) This brief statement unequivocally affirms the principle of non-combatant immunity in Islam,(21) and thus aligns with article 48 of Additional Protocol I (AP I), which stipulates:
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.(22)
This does not mean, however, that this protection is absolute; beneficiaries forfeit the right to non-combatant immunity if they engage in combat. Islamic legal scholars studied these issues in depth, specifying the cases in which the aforementioned non-combatant parties can forfeit the protection afforded to them by Islam against military attack. For example, jurists discussed the permissibility of killing a woman if she kills Muslim soldiers, throws stones at them to kill them or stands guard over enemy armies or strongholds, or if she is queen of her country or a wealthy woman and spends her money to incite the army to fight on the battlefield, and similarly if a child is king or queen of his or her country and does
----------------------
(18) ‘Abdullah ibn Abı̄ Shaybah, Al-Kitāb al-Musannaf fı̄ al-Aḥādı̄th wa al-Āthār, Vol. 6, Dār al-Kutub al‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1995, p. 478.
(19) Aḥmed ibn al-Ḥussein ibn ‘Ali al-Bayhaqı̄ , Al-Sunan al-Kubra, 2nd ed., Vol. 9, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 2003, p. 155.
(20) See Wahbah al-Zuḥaylı̄ , Mawsū‘ah al-Fiqh al-Islāmı̄ wa al-Qaḍāyā al-Mu‘āsiraḥ, Vol. 7, Dār al-Fikr, Damascus, 2010, p. 511.
(21) For further information on the principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatants, see Ameur Zemmali, Islam and International Humanitarian Law: Principles on the Conduct of Military Operations, 4th ed., ICRC, 2010, pp. 162–163.
(22) Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, 1125 UNTS 3, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978), Art. 48, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty. xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=D9E6B6264D7723C3C12563CD002D6CE4.
the same. On this issue the jurists disagreed, with some authorizing the targeting of women and children in the aforementioned cases, and others classifying it as undesirable.(23) They also disagreed on whether or not an aged person could be targeted if they entered the battlefield to support the enemy in planning war operations.(24)
In summary, Islamic law advocates the principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatants, meaning protection of civilians and noncombatants from being targeted during military operations, provided that they do not participate in military operations.
2. Permissible weapons in war
Although the weapons and military tactics used by Muslims in the early Islamic period – and therefore those addressed by Islamic law – were extremely primitive in terms of their simplicity and limited capacity to inflict severe damage on enemy individuals and property as compared to those available today, the establishment of rules on weapons demonstrates that the Muslim jurists were dedicated to two objectives: firstly, not to endanger the lives of civilians and noncombatants, and secondly, to spare the property of the enemy unless otherwise dictated by military necessity. The rules developed by classical Muslim jurists show that at the time, “war” was made up of two scenarios. The first of these was direct or one-to-one combat with enemy fighters, in which case the most commonly used weapon was the sword (a weapon of high status in Arab culture and heritage), followed to a lesser extent by the lance, bow and spear. In cases where civilians and noncombatants are present among enemy combatants, sword fighting does not endanger the lives of bystanders or risk incidentally destroying their property. It should be noted here that the jurists, in particular those of the Mālikı̄ school, discussed the permissibility of shooting the enemy with poison-tipped arrows. On this issue, as on many others, the jurists disagreed; some prohibited the use of poison-tipped arrows, while others merely disliked the idea of it, on the basis that
---------------
(23) V. Ahmad al-Dardīr, Al-Sharh al-Kabīr, ur. Muhammad ʼAllīsh, Vol. 2 (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr), 176; Ahmad ibn Idrīs al-Qarāfī, Al-Dhakhīrah, ur. Muhammad Būkhubzah, Vol. 3 (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 1994), 399; Muhammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Kitāb al-Jihād wa Kitāb al-Jizyah wa Ahkām al-Muhāribīn min Kitāb Ikhtilāf al-Fuqahā’ li-Abī Ja’far Muhammad Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, ur. Joseph Schacht (Lajden: Brill, 1933), 9; ʼAlāʼ al-Dīn al-Samarqandī, Tuhfah al-Fuqahāʼ, Vol. 3 (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, 1984), 295; ʼAbd al-ʼAzīz Ṣaqr, ʼAl-ʼAlāqāt al-Dawliyyah fī al-Islām Waqt al-Harb: Dirāsah lil-Qawā’id al-Munaz˙z˙imah li-Sayr alQitāl, (Cairo: Mashrū’ al-’Alāqāt al-Dawliyyah fī al-Islām, nb. 6., Al-Ma‘had al-‘Ālamı̄ lil-Fikr al-Islāmı, 1996), 46–48; al-Shaykh Niz˙ām al-Dīn al-Balkhī et al., Al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah: Fı̄ Madhhab al-Imām alA‘z˙am Abı̄ Hanīfah al-Nu‘mān, Vol. 2 (Dār al-Fikr, 1991), 194.
(24) V. Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘ı̄ l al-Ṣana‘ānī, Subul al-Salām: Sharḥ Bulūgh al-Marām min Adillah al-Aḥkām, ur. Muḥammad ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Khūlī, 4. izd., Vol. 4 (Beirut: Iḥyā’ al-Turāth al-‘Arabī, 1959), 50; Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Alı̄ ibn Yūsuf al-Shirāzī, Al-Muhadhdhab: Fı̄ Fiqh al-Imām al-Shāfi‘ī, ur. Zakariyyā ‘Imīrat, Vol. 3, (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1995), 277; Muḥyı̄ al-Dīn ibn Sharaf al-Nawawī, Al-Majmū‘: Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab, ur. Maḥmūd Matrajī, Vol. 21 (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 2000), 55; Wahbah al-Zuhaylī, Al-‘Alāqāt al-Dawliyyah fī al-Islam: Muqāranah bi-al-Qānūn al-Dawlı̄ al-Ḥadīth (Beirut: Mu’assasah al-Risālah, 1981), 71; Ahmed alDawoody, note 7, 112–114.
the enemy could shoot the arrows back at the Muslims and also because there was no precedent for this action in the age of the Prophet.(25) However, the great Ḥanafı̄ jurist al-Shaybānı̄ (d. 805) permitted the use of poison-tipped arrows because they were more effective in defeating the enemy.(26)
The second type of war scenario is one in which the enemy retreats inside fortifications and one-to-one combat is not an option. In regard to such cases, the jurists discussed the use of mangonels (a weapon for catapulting large stones), fire, flooding and even siege as weapons to force the enemy to surrender.(27) In the preIslamic period, the ancient Greeks and Persians used mangonels to attack enemies sheltering in citadels or fortresses, by loading the weapons with fire or large rocks and bombarding the enemy with them. Moreover, during the battle of al-Ṭā’if in the eighth year of the Islamic calendar (630 AD), Salmān al-Fārisı̄ introduced the mangonel to the Prophet Muhammad. Regardless of whether or not the mangonel was actually used in that battle, this serves as evidence that attacks by Muslims against their enemies using mangonels had the potential not only to damage the enemy’s military and civilian property but also to cause incidental casualties among civilians. It should nonetheless be taken into account that, at that time, when an enemy retreated inside fortifications it was impossible to distinguish between military and civilian property. The jurists unanimously permitted the use of mangonels against an enemy fortress if required by military necessity, but opinions differed on whether it was permissible to use fire as a weapon against the enemy: some prohibited it, some disapproved of it, and others permitted it either as a military necessity or in reciprocity.
The Muslim jurists’ deliberations and discussions over the use of these weapons show that indiscriminate attacks or excessive use of military force beyond that required by military necessity were inconceivable, even in the context of the detailed discussions over which types of weapons and tactics were permissible and which were prohibited. Nonetheless, the aforementioned differences of opinion among jurists once again illustrate the challenges that arise when applying the provisions of the Islamic law of war both historically and in the modern era, firstly because the rules that permitted the use of those primitive forms of indiscriminate
------------------
(25) Sohail Hashmi, “Islamic Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Argument for Nonproliferation”, in Sohail H. Hashmi and Steven P. Lee (eds), Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Religious and Secular Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, p. 329; Khalı̄ l ibn Isḥāq ibn Musā al-Jundı̄ , Mukhtasạr Khalı̄ l fı̄ Fiqh Imām Dār al-Hijrah, ed. Aḥmad ‘Alı̄ Ḥarakāt, Dār al-Fikr, Beirut, 1994, p. 102; A. al-Dardı̄ r, above note 22, p. 178; Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Raḥman al-Hatṭạ̄ b, Mawāhib alJalı̄l li-Sharḥ Mukhtaṣar Khalı̄ l, 2nd ed., Vol. 3, Dār al-Fikr, Beirut, 1977, p. 352.
(26) Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥassan al-Shaybānı̄ , Sharḥ Kitāb al-Siyar al-Kabır̄ , commentary by Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Sarakhsı, ed. Abı̄ Abdullah Muḥammad Ḥassan Muḥammad Hassan Ismā‘il al-Shafi‘ı̄ , Vol. 4, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1997, p. 277.
(27) See Muḥammad ibn Idrıs al-Shāfi‘ı̄ , Al-Umm, 2nd ed., Vol. 4, Dār al-Ma‘rifah, Beirut, 1973, pp. 243, 257; S. Hashmi, above note 24, p. 328; A. al-Qarāfı, above note 22, pp. 208 ff.; M. al-Shaybānı̄ , above note 25, Vol. 4, p. 154; A. Al-Dawoody, above note 7, pp. 122–126.
attack in that specific era and war context are now exploited to justify attacks against civilians, and secondly because some people draw parallels with those primitive weapons to justify the use of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
3. Human shields and night attacks
Based on the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, Islamic law jurists set out detailed provisions on two key methods of warfare that were used in the primitive wars described above: these are al-tatarrus (human shields) and al-bayāt (night attacks), both of which were first deliberated during the time of the Prophet. In their discussion of human shields, most jurists distinguished between two cases: first, if enemy combatants take women, children, the aged, etc., as human shields in order to force Muslims to cease fighting; and second, if the enemy takes any Muslim individuals in general, or individuals from ahl aldhimmah (nonMuslim citizens of the dār al-Islām (the Islamic state)), as human shields for the same purpose. The difficulty here is that attacking a human shield carries the risk of killing these non-combatants, Muslims or ahl al-dhimmah through the use of indiscriminate weapons such as mangonels. Broadly speaking, all of the jurists permit shooting at the human shields in these two cases if required by military necessity, provided that Muslims aim to direct their attack at the combatants and avoid hitting non-combatants as far as possible,(28) although this does seem impossible from a practical point of view. The jurists strongly disagree over what exactly constitutes the military necessity that would justify an attack on human shields in this context. For al-Māwardı̄ and al-Shirāzı̄ , the military necessity in this case would arise from the risk of a Muslim defeat.(29) On this point, certain jurists add that attacking human shields in this case is a matter of protecting the rest of the Muslims, because if Muslims did not attack the shield and the Muslim army was defeated as a result, many Muslims would be killed. In the view of alQurtubı̄ , military necessity in this instance meant avoiding “the collapse of the entire Muslim nation into the hands of the enemy”.(30) As for the second case, a minority of the jurists prohibit attacks against human shields based on the following verse: “had they [believing Muslim men and women] been separated, We would have inflicted a severe chastisement on those who disbelieved from among them [the Meccans]”.(31)
-----------------
(28) M. al-Nawawı, above note 23, p. 59; I. al-Shirāzı̄ , above note 23, p. 278; Naj̄ ıb al-Armanāz̄ ı̄ , Al-Shar‘ alDawl ı̄ ı̄ f a l-I sl ā m, 2nd ed., Riad El-Rayyes Books, London, 1990 (first published 1930), p. 124.
(29) ‘Alı̄ ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥabı̄b al-Māwardı̄ , Kitāb al-Aḥkām al-Sulṭ āniyyah wa al-Wilāyāt al-Dıniyyah̄ , ed. Aḥmad Mubārak al-Baghdādı̄ , Maktabah Dār ibn Qutaybah, Kuwait, 1989, p. 57; I. al-Shirāzı, abovē note 23, p. 278.
(30) Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Anṣārı̄al-Qurtuḅı̄ , Al-Jāmi‘ li-Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, Vol. 16, Dār al-Sha‘b, Cairo, pp. 287 ff.
(31) Qur’an 48:25. See N. al-Armanāzı̄ , above note 27, p. 124; A. Al-Dawoody, above note 7, pp. 116 - 118.
With respect to bayāt, fighting at night meant that the two armies were unable to fight hand to hand because they could not see one another in the darkness, which rendered it necessary in such cases to target the enemy using mangonels or other types of indiscriminate weapon. On that basis, according to the Hadith narrated by Anas ibn Mālik, the Prophet avoided attacking the enemy at night. Moreover, according to another Hadith narrated by al-Ṣa‘b ibn Jaththāmah, when the Prophet was questioned about the permissibility of attacking the enemy at night, which could result in casualties among women and children, he did not declare it prohibited.(32) Jurists therefore took varying stances, with some permitting night attack on enemies, and others disapproving of it. Nonetheless, the jurists justified any casualties that might occur among women and children in such cases as collateral damage.(33)
With that in mind, it must be underlined at this point that Islamic law places strong emphasis on the sanctity of the life of non-combatants and the importance of avoiding endangering the lives and property of non-combatants except in cases of military necessity. It should also be noted that the provisions established by the Muslim jurists were designed to regulate the conduct of the army during fighting on the battlefield in the context of the primitive wars waged between the Muslim army and its enemies in the time of the Prophet. These provisions also impose restrictions on military operations, in spite of the fact that enemy armies were not bound by the same rules and had not signed any form of agreement to be so.
4. Protection of property
Through the study of the wars that took place between Muslims and their enemies during the lifetime of the Prophet and the permissible weapons and methods of warfare as discussed above, it is clear that in Islam, war is not an indiscriminate free-for-all in which anyone and anything can be targeted. The use of military force is only permissible if required by military necessity, and the wanton destruction of enemy property is not covered by this condition; such acts instead constitute a crime of “al-fasād (destruction, damage) in the land”. This position was advocated by Imam al-Awzā‘ı̄ (d. 774), who said that “it is prohibited for Muslims to commit any sort of tak hr ı̄ b, wanton destruction, [during the course of hostilities] in enemy territories because that is fasād and God does not like fasād”, and referred to the following Qur’anic verse: “when he turns his back, he hastens about the earth, to do corruption there and to destroy the tillage and the stock”.(34) This is because according to the Islamic worldview, everything in this world belongs to God, and
-----------------------
(32) See, for example, Hadith 1745 in Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushayrı̄ , Ṣaḥı̄ḥ Muslim, ed. Muḥammad Fū’ād ‘Abd al-Bāqı, Vol. 3, Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth al-‘Arabı, Beirut, pp. 1364 ff.
(33) Muḥammad ibn ‘Alı̄ ibn Muḥammad al-Shawkānı̄ , Nayl al-Awṭār: Min Aḥādı̄ th Sayyid al-Khyār Sharḥ Muntaqā al-Akhbār, Vol. 8, Dār al-Jı̄ l, Beirut, 1973, p. 71; A. Al-Dawoody, above note 7, pp. 118–119.
(34) Qur’an 2:205; M. al-Shaybānı̄ , above note 25, Vol. 1, pp. 32 –33.
human beings – as His vicegerents on earth – are entrusted with the responsibility of protecting His property and contributing to human civilization.
Moreover, not only does Islamic law require protection of civilian property during military operations, it also states that even when targeting military property, the objective is merely to force the enemy to surrender or cease fighting, not to destroy or sabotage enemy property. On that basis, Most Muslim jurists permit the destruction of enemy property if required by military necessity.(35) It should also be noted that some jurists such as al-Shāfi‘ı̄ (d. 820) and Ibn Ḥazm (d. 1064) drew a distinction between inanimate objects and living property such as horses, cattle and bees, and ruled that inflicting damage on living property such as livestock for any reason other than for food was tantamount to torture, which is prohibited in Islam.(36) Notwithstanding, the jurists did permit the targeting of enemy horses when enemy warriors were fighting on horseback, because in this case the horse was being used as military equipment.(37) All of these provisions are in line with Article 51(4) of AP I, which prohibits indiscriminate attacks, defined as:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.(38)
Article 52(2) defines military objectives as “those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage”.(39)
-----------------
(35) Muwaffaq al-Dın̄ ‘Abd Allah ibn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Qudāmah, Al-Mughnı̄, eds. ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abd al-Muḥsin al-Turkı̄ and ‘Abd al-Fattaḥ Muḥammad al-Ḥilu, 3rd ed., Vol. 9, Dār ‘Ālam al-Kutub, Riyadh, 1997, pp. 233 ff.; Muḥammad al-Ghazālı̄ , Al-Waṣı̄ t fı̄ al-Madhhab, ed. Aḥmad Maḥmūd Ibrāhı̄m and Muḥammad Muḥammad Tāmir, Vol. 7, Dār al-Salām, Cairo, 1997, p. 31; M. al-Shawkānı̄ , above note 32, p. 74; I. al-Shirāzı, above note 23, p. 279; ‘A. al-Māwardı̄ , above note 28, p. 71; Muḥammad ibn Abı̄ Bakr ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Jāmi‘ al-Fiqh, ed. Yusrı̄ al-Sayyid Muḥammad, Vol. 4, Dār al-Wafā’, Al-Mansụr̄ ah, 2000, p. 97; M. al-Nawawı̄ , above note 23, pp. 60 ff.
(36) M. al-Shāfi‘ı̄ , above note 26, pp. 257, 259, 287;‘Alı̄ ibn Aḥmad ibn Sa‘ı̄ d ibn Ḥazm, Al-Muḥallā, Vol. 7, Dār alĀfāq al-Jadı̄dah, Beirut, p. 294.
(37) On protection of property in general, see A. Al-Dawoody, above note 7, pp. 126–129.
(38) AP I, Art. 51(4). See also Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC I), Art. 50; Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC II), Art. 51.
(39) AP I, Art. 52(2).
5. Prohibition of mutilation of the enemy
Among the many Prophetic Hadiths that prohibit mutilation of the enemy is the following: “Do not loot, do not be treacherous and do not mutilate” [“lā taghlū wa lā taghdurū wa lā tumathilū”].(40) The prohibition of those three acts illustrates the principle of humanity during armed conflicts. The first of them, ghulūl (looting), refers to when a combatant takes or steals an item from the war booty before it is divided up, or allocates part of the war booty to themselves without handing it over to be distributed by the army chief. The establishment of such rules and restrictions on dealing with enemy property indicate that it was not simply free for the taking. Even food and animal feed were regulated. In cases where battles drew on for a long time and it was both impractical to carry sufficient food to the battlefield and difficult to buy supplies from the enemy, the jurists determined that, in cases of military necessity, soldiers may take as much of the enemy’s supplies as they require to feed themselves and their animals, provided that no more than the required quantity is taken.(41) Although at the time it was customary practice for enemy possessions to be distributed among the members of the winning side of the battle, these strict rules on the treatment of enemy possessions prohibit the theft of movable enemy property, especially in the case of Muslim soldiers of religious compunction in the present day.
While the Islamic prohibition of ghadr (perfidy, treachery) obliges Muslims to respect their contracts and agreements, this does not mean that ruses are prohibited in war, as the Prophet held that “war is ruse”.(42) The same sentiment is reaffirmed in Article 37 of AP I, which prohibits perfidy but permits military ruses such as “the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation”.(43)
As for the provisions of Islamic law prohibiting the mutilation of enemy corpses, these demonstrate respect for dignity and humanity, given that even though the two sides are at war and attempting to kill each other, the enemy is nonetheless a human being honoured by God, as stated in the Qur’an: “We have honoured the Children of Adam.”(44) The Prophet also instructed the Muslims to avoid injuring the enemy’s face during fighting,(45) out of respect for human beings and in order to preserve the dignity bestowed upon them by God in the aforementioned verse. In
-----------------------
(40) Mālik ibn Anas, Al-Muwaṭṭa’, ed. Muḥammad Fū’ād ‘Abd al-Bāqı̄ , Vol. 2, Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth al-‘Arabı̄ , Beirut, 1985, p. 448.
(41) M. al-Nawawı̄ , above note 23, p. 109; M. al-Shawkān̄ ı, above note 32, p. 131.
(42) Muḥammad bin Isma‘il al-Bukhārı̄ , Saḥ ı̄ p. 579.
(43) AP I, Art. 37.
(44) Qur’an 17:70. ḥ al-Bukhār ı̄ , Bayt al-Afkār al-Dawliyyah lil-Nashr, Riyadh, 1998,
(45) See Hadith 2458 in Muḥammad ibn Fattūḥ al-Ḥumaydı̄ , Al-Jam‘ bayn al-Ṣaḥı̄ ḥayn al-Bukhārı̄wa Muslim, ed. ‘Alı̄ Ḥusayn al-Bawwāb, 2nd ed., Vol. 3, Dār ibn Ḥazm, Beirut, 2002, pp. 210 ff.; Sobhi Mahmassani, “The Principles of International Law in the Light of Islamic Doctrine”, Recueil des Cours, Vol. 117, 1966, p. 303; A. Al-Dawoody, above note 7, p. 120.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق