[B]The islamic verdict on hostages[/B]

[Dhagax-Tuur]

This article is published on JUS jihadunspun.com, which is an independent news website, run and owned by muslims.

 

I found this article thought-provoking and in line with my thought of how the so-called hostages are treated by the resistant fighters.

 

Finally, let us all know what your line of thinking is, when you read this interesting article.

 

=======================

 

 

 

In times of war, Islamic law permits the taking of hostages from the enemy camp and they can be: released, ransomed or punished appropriately. Ideally, the choice exercised should be taken in the interest of Islam and the concerns of the immediate community. However, the Muslims will be constrained and influenced by two external factors. First of all, the behavior of the enemies with regards to how they are treating the Muslim prisoners and conducting the war in general; secondly, the military capability of the Muslims in comparison to their enemies.

 

The first two options of releasing the prisoners or ransoming them for a price are not disputed. But the latter category of punishing the prisoners has caused some level of controversy due to the recent abduction of foreigners by the Iraqi resistance. Many of the Muslims, in particular the moderate brigades and unfortunately even some of the so-called radical groups, have capitulated to the media-generated pressure around them and started to issue erroneous verdicts on the matter that not only contradicts Islam but common sense. They have adopted the language of the belligerent aggressors, exclusively condemning the abduction of a small number of foreigners by the Iraqi resistance while remaining mute on the thousands of innocent civilians taken as hostage from their homes and subsequently tortured, abused, and in some cases murdered. The abductions of the foreign and Iraqi hostages are certainly related like married couples, even though the media pretends, that, they are divorced!

 

Just to digress a little, it is worthwhile noting the use of the word ‘foreign’ with respect to the Iraqi resistance. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi from Jordan, across the artificial colonial installed border, sharing the same blood, culture, language and religion, is a foreigner according to the occupying forces! So, who are the Australians and the Americans that have come from thousands of miles way across the ocean? Do they hold the Iraqi Green-Card issued by the former CIA operative Iyad Allawi? We certainly do not hear the Iraqis referring to the small number of Arabs/Muslims who have come across the border to aid the Iraqi resistance as foreigners: to the contrary how could they operate without the approval of the indigenous Iraqis?

 

Let us first examine the evidences pertaining to the permissibility to punish and execute prisoners of war. One should bear in mind that in Islamic law, there are mandatory obligations and prohibitions. And what lies in between these two rigid points is a matter of choice, to be selected as the best option on what should be done.

 

Islamic Evidences

 

Muslims are generally encouraged to treat the prisoners well; there are sayings (Hadiths) of the Prophet (SAW) on this matter. And he said, treat the prisoners well. The companions (Sahabas) of the Prophet (SAW) used to feed the prisoners with better food before feeding themselves. There are numerous incidences of where Muslims have released captives unharmed or for a very small price. No torture or humiliation was exercised over them.

 

Indeed, the Taliban treated the prisoners far better than the US forces reciprocated. They mass murdered the prisoners with their hands tied behind their backs, as was reported by Robert Fisk of the Independent along with pictures. Similarly, prior to the gruesome revelations of Abu-Ghraib, the Muslims did not behead the hostages; they treated their prisoners far better, given that the Iraqis are the real victims in defending their lands. Recently even the two Italian women released from captivity also confirmed the good treatment by their open support for the Iraqi resistance in media interviews.

 

However, the issue of treating the prisoners well is not an absolute decisive command but an advice. Furthermore there are other evidences that show the permissibility to execute prisoners of war they are elaborated below.

 

a) Battle Of Badr

 

After the battle of Badr, the Muslims acquired prisoners of war. Some of the companions of the Prophet (Sahabas) were inclined to ransom them for money whilst others took the more stern view, that, they should be executed. The Prophet (SAW) opted for the lenient option. However, it was the latter point of view that was upheld by the revelation, meaning that, execution was not only permitted but in this instance the preferred thing to do.

 

“It is not fitting for an Apostle (Muhammad) that he should have prisoners of war, until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You look on the temporal goods of this world but Allah (SWT) looks to the hereafter†Holy Qu’ran 8:67

 

Another incidence after Badr was the capture of the notorious Umayah ibn Khalaf and his son who were the owners and torturers of Bilal (RA). When Bilal (RA) spotted them as prisoners of Abdul Rahman bin Auf (RA), he with the help of the residents of Medina (Ansars) cut the two prisoners to pieces for their earlier belligerent hostility. Similar punishment was given to the tortures of Abu-Ghraib in Fallujah for their heinous crime! The Prophet (SAW) did not rebuke the action of Bilal and therefore consented to the execution of these prisoners of war.

 

The Prophet also ordered the execution of three prisoners of Badr by the name of Ruqba bin Abi Muwayed, Nadr bin Harith, Tuima bin Adiee, another clear evidence of the permissibility to execute the Prisoners of war.

 

b) The Incident With The Jewish Tribe Of Banu-Quraiza

 

The tribe of Banu-Quraiza committed treachery against the Muslims; they were taken as captives and all the adult men were put to death, around 600 men. Note, all of the adult male captives were slain not just those committed the breach. Why? Because, they were engaged with the Muslims as a nation hence punished as a nation.

 

c) The Quran

 

Apart from the abovementioned verse (8:67), the chapter of Muhammad (47:4) also alludes to the permissibility or in this case recommendation to execute prisoners of war. It states:

 

“Therefore, when you meet (battlefields) the unbelievers smite their necks; At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them bind (the captives) firmly: therefore either Generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burden.†Holy Qur’an 47:4

 

Here, the verse clearly recommending the execution of prisoners until the Muslims has the upper hand. When they are encouraged to either set them free or ransom them. The use of the word “smite their necks†(Darab ar-Riqab) refers to execution as oppose to the general killing in the battlefields mentioned in the other verse where it uses the word “Qatilâ€

 

There are other evidences but the abovementioned evidences should suffice to prove the point that the Muslims have the three options in dealing with the prisoners of war. In general advice is that they should treat the prisoners well but at certain times, harsh measures may be more suitable and necessary. These situations arise primarily due to the circumstances imposed upon the Muslims, as stated earlier the treatment of prisoners will be influenced by the behavior of the enemy and the huge disparity in the military capability between the Muslims and non-Muslims. Hence let us briefly examine these external factors.

 

External Factors

 

Moazzam Begg, the British captive held at Guantanamo Bay, who was originally kidnapped from Pakistan by the US, has clearly stated in his letter about the use of torture, abuse, and other forms of violations. He has even witnessed the torturing of prisoners to death by the US authority. The Iraqis and the world have already witnessed the inhuman brutality of the US soldiers in Abu-Ghraib, where even young boys and girls were subjected to rape, sodomy, torture and other forms of sexual perversion that is definitely ‘foreign’ to the Arab/Islamic culture. It certainly does not come from ‘foreigners’ like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!

 

Seymour Hersh revealed that young Iraqi boys were sodomized and shrieking while they were being filmed as souvenirs for the friends and relatives back at home. This speaks volumes about these subhumans, exhibiting a behavior that is worse than animals! When the Pentagon showed the pictures and videos, implicit references were made to executions and Necrophilia committed by the US soldiers. If this were not an American phenomenon, why else did Arnold Schwarzenegger recently abolish Necrophilia in California?

 

The abuse is not confined to Abu-Ghraib. Recent investigations by American legal investigators [1] have once again showed that torture and rape is rampant throughout the U.S.-run prison system in Iraq. Such incidences are still occurring. Proving the point that Abu-Ghraib was only a sample of what was caught on camera; the real horror is much greater.

 

Therefore, the Iraqis are entitled to inflict equivalent punishment on their prisoners in retaliation and as a means to deter the enemy from abusing their prisoners. Here too, the Muslims have excelled. Beheading a handful of captives is far less painful than being tortured to death as acknowledged by Nick Berg’s father. Even the degrading sexual torture can be worse than beheading. However, that only applies to those who have some degree of self-respect and honor. Sexual abuse inflicted on Lyndie England is unlikely to constitute punishment but rather a kind of titillation. Indeed, such examples highlight that Islam is indeed very different from the secular fanaticism of ‘freedom’!

 

The US forces have also used heavy weapons in civilian populated areas without any regards for their life. If the US truly wanted to minimize civilian casualties why could their ‘brave’ and well-equipped soldiers not engage in hand-to-hand combat? Incineration and beheading by the use of high-tech weapons entitles the Iraqi resistance to behead and dismember the captives who are party to the conflict, directly or indirectly.

 

Even if the US forces treated the Muslim prisoners well, the Iraqi resistance would be entitled to execute their prisoners or resort to other harsh measures as they have been invaded. Hence, it could be used as a form of deterrence and retribution. Furthermore, given the huge disparity between the US firepower and the Iraqi resistance, they are naturally entitled to use other means to defend themselves. In addition to common sense, there is general permission in Islamic law to widen the scope of permissibility in order to survive, providing it is a legitimate action of self-defense which is not disputed in the case of Iraq.

 

Many have argued that politically and militarily, it is better to restrict the target to the combatants. Of course, nobody disputes this but due to the vast disparity between the Iraqi resistance and the US forces, their options are very limited.

 

Status Of Non-Combatants

 

This brings us to the final argument about who is a non-combatant. Some people have argued civilian contractors and charity workers are not legitimate target. Many of these people have entered Iraq under the flag of the US, who is an illegal occupier. Even the UN Secretary has endorsed this point as he admitted that the war was a violation of the UN Charter. Thus, the non-combatants have entered without any covenant with the Iraqi people, as there is no legitimate Iraqi authority. If they have come under the US flag, they have come as part of the aggressor party.

 

"In any case, most of these non-combatants are mercenaries not on charitable missions. Like vultures, they are making a quick profit in exchange for the stolen (‘mismanaged’) Iraqi oil, Iraqi lives and their blood. They are helping the US forces directly or indirectly and are therefore part of them.

 

The Prophet (SAW) took hostage a man from the tribe of Uqail because of his alliance with the belligerent tribe of Thaqeef. Even though Uqail was not a combatant. This is a clear evidence to show that allied nations or those assisting the combatants, even if it is indirectly are treated the same way.

 

Finally, why should Muslims distinguish in taking only combatants when the Americans are clearly not doing this! The US has incarcerated many innocent civilians, including old men and children. Some were subsequently released as evidence of their innocence. Since, one is held without charge, it must be presumed that the detainee is innocent - that is if you believe another one of the masks of democracy “innocent until proven guiltyâ€, which is a mask that is pealing off rapidly.

 

At present, many Muslims and non-Muslims are exhibiting double standards, fostered by the mass media. So, they can’t stomach the beheadings of a few hostages done in retaliation but they are ready to tolerate the beheadings, incineration and much more of thousands of Iraqis using high-tech equipments. Even the deliberate torturing to death of prisoners in US custody is somehow appears to be more palatable than beheadings!

 

Footnote:

 

(1)http://www.antiwar.com/orig/croke.php?articleid=3645

 

Copyright © 2004 by Yamin Zakaria. Published exclusively by Jihad Unspun. All rights are reserved.

 

P.S. despite the rumours on the net, JUS is a genuine site, as far as I can believe. Read their response to the allegations.

[Blessed]

Appalling. :rolleyes:

 

The section on none-cambatants is very troublesome. One of the killed hostages was a woman who was married to an Iraqi. She was practicaly an Iraqibut they killed her still. Nothing justifies that.

[Haddad]

This is indeed a thought-provoking article. I concur with the analyses made.