veiled4allah: Islam on POWs

PG said:

Total comments: 64

If the standards of Islam are higher or lower than those of treaties to which an Islamic nation has agreed, which is the controlling authority?

I was thinking about this because of the International Criminal Court, as people complain that the ICC gives fewer protections to the accused than the US Bill of Rights does.

Superficially, "If you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks" in a religious text tends to be interpreted as meaning those who disbelieve religiously.
But the explanation of the first article seems to be that it really means those who disbelieve reality, i.e. those who refuse to admit that they have been taken prisoner and must now submit in body (but not in mind or spirit) to the enemy.

Moreover, my skimming of the articles gave me the impression that Islamic law deals only in war between Muslims and non-Muslims; that war between people of the same religion was not thought possible.

I am also curious as to whether Islamic law could justify the same kind of "switch" that the US government is pulling on the "enemy combatants" at Gitmo, pretending that they are not POWs and thus unprotected by Geneva.

"According to Muslim law, a prisoner qua prisoner cannot be killed. Ibn Rushd even records a consensus of the Companions of the Prophet to the same effect. This does not preclude the trial and punishment of prisoners for crimes beyond the rights of belligerency. For this, we possess the high authority of the practice of the Prophet when two prisoners of the Battle of Badr were beheaded by his order."

But if the prisoner is a soldier in an illegal and illegitimate war, is he really a prisoner? Certainly America's own failure to be clear and honest about its prisoners' status would make a similar vagueness by Iraq understandable.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Those are all good questions, thanks for asking them

If a Muslim country has entered into an agreement, it is bound by the terms of that agreement for as long as it is a party. There is complete consensus of the scholars on this issue because the Quran is very clear that contracts must be upheld. The Muslim country is free to give more rights and protections than the treaty or agreement calls for but must not give less. If Islamic law gives more rights and protections then it is hard to imagine under what justification a sincere Muslim could fail to uphold those rights and protections. It would seem more likely that there would be a problem if Islamic law gave fewer protections. If the Muslim country did not plan to go beyond what Islamic law called for, it should not enter into any agreements that go beyond it.

Regarding war between two groups of Muslims, there is in fact justification for this if one of the groups is doing wrong. This is discussed briefly in my article Muslims, Stand Up for Justice. However, you're correct that it isn't discussed much. As far as I know, the same rules would apply.

Finally, regarding the "switch" arguments applied by the U.S. I am not aware of any justification that could be made under Islamic law for this. I am not very knowledgeable in this field, so I hesitate to say too much, but from what I have read Islamic law simply distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants and the definition of a combatant is someone who takes up arms to fight. Another thing I do know is that if a Muslim soldier in the course of battle comes upon a person who offers peace, he has to accept that offer of peace. O you, those who have faith, when you go out to fight in the path of God, make things clear and do not say to someone who gives you peace, "You are not a believer," - you coveting the pleasures of the life of the world, and with God is abundant reward. You were the same as that before, then God was gracious to you. So make it clear. Surely God is aware of what you do. - Surah an-Nisa verse 94.

ken said:

Total comments: 5

n rtcl trnsltd by Mmr tlls s tht slmc lw wld crtnly b ppsd t th "hrsh" trtmnt gvn th prsnrs n Gntnm. Hw d th rq's (rgh gss, 99% Mslm) rcncl shtng prsnrs n th hd wth th bngn trtmnt dmndd by th Krn?
Jst wndrng.
Kn

Gd t th Prplxd bt th Prmssblty f Kllng Prsnrs"
n n rtcl ttld " Gd t th Prplxd Rgrdng th Prmssblty f Kllng Prsnrs," whch pprd n th clmn "Jhd Nws frm th Lnd f th Ccss[1] " th thr sggsts tht th slmc rlgs schlrs prsnt fv dffrnt ltrntvs, drwn frm th vrs ntrprttns f th Krn:
1. plythst prsnr mst b klld. N mnsty my b grntd t hm, nr cn h b rnsmd.
2. ll nfdl plythsts nd th Ppl f th Bk (.., Jws nd Chrstns) r t b klld. Thy my nt b grntd mnsty, nr cn thy b rnsmd.
3. mnsty nd rnsm r th nly tw wys t dl wth prsnrs.
4. mnsty nd rnsm r pssbl nly ftr th kllng f lrg nmbr f prsnrs.
5. Th mm, r smn ctng n hs bhlf, cn chs btwn kllng, mnsty, rnsm r nslvng th prsnr.
Kllng Prsnr fr th Sns f thrs s Prmssbl
Th lst pstn s th n prfrrd by th thr wh xplnd tht th Prpht Mhmmd hd dlt wth th prsnrs n dffrnt wys t mxmz th bnfts t Mslms.
H gvs xmpls rgrdng th mthds tht th Prpht Mhmmd hd chsn t kll, grnt mnsty, r rnsm prsnrs.
Th thr fnds t ncssry t prsnt th sbjct n rctn t n slmc crtcsm "whch hd trn hs hrt" bt th xctn f nn [Rssn] prsnrs ftr th Rssn Gvrnmnt hd rfsd t srrndr "n f Rss's bggst crmnls nd crks."
ccrdng t th thr, [th Chchns] hv xctd th prsnrs nt bcs f thr hrt's dsr, bt bcs thy hv sn bnft fr th Mslms n sch n ct.
n rctn t th rgmnts md by sm crtcs tht n n shld b pnshd fr th sns f thrs, th thr mntns tht llh prmts th kllng f prsnr bcs h s prsnr, nd ll th mr s f hs kllng fr th sns f thrs srvs n mprtnt slmc ntrst, s wll s dtrrnt (t th nmy). H brngs xmpls frm ctns f th Prpht. stt f wr jstfs ctns f th srt tht cld grnt th scrty f th sldrs f slm. Mrvr, nly wth sch ctn s t pssbl t prtct th hnr f Mslms.[2]
n n rtcl ttld "r Hstgs Prsnrs?" th thr xplns th cncpt f "hstgs" n ts mdrn pplctn t lcl kdnppd ndvdls nd frgnrs wh r hld s mns f prssr t chv spcfc gls. ccrdng t hm, h wh ws kdnppd n ccrdnc wth slmc lw shld b cnsdrd hstg, nd hnc prsnr, wh shld b trtd n th mnnr tht wld brng bnfts t th Mslms.[3]

[1] n n rtcl ttld "Prsnrs n slm" th thr ndcts tht thr r fv mthds tht slm prpss fr dlng wth prsnrs: rls wtht rnsm, rnsm, kllng, nslvmnt r sbjgtn t th thrty f th slmc stt. Th mthd chngs ccrdng t crcmstncs bt t hs t b n tht brngs th grtst bnfts t Mslms. Fr xmpl, f mngst th prsnrs thr s smn wh s strng nd s lkly t tntlz th Mslms nd hs kpng lv my cs hrm t thm, hs kllng wll b th prfrrd mthd. f thr s smn wh s wk bt wlthy, rnsmng hm s th bst mthd. f thr s smn wh hlds fvrbl vw f Mslms nd cld hlp thm nd thr prsnrs, mnsty s th bst mthd. f thr r ths wh cld rndr srvc, sch s wmn nd chldrn, nslvmnt s th bst mthd.
http://www.qqz.cm/qqz.sp?9=4&pp=1&sc=7
[2] www.qqz.cm/qqz.sp?p=4
[3] www.qqz.cm/qqz.sp?p=4&pp=1&sc=8

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Ken, I wondered where you had been; you hadn't commented in awhile.

I have cited the textual sources on Islam that I believe to be the most correct. The material you have posted is taken from a militant extremist site, as I am sure you well know. I have spoken over and over again about how these militant and extremist groups pervert Islam to justify their own actions. I'm not going to say it again.

I've also told you many, many times. I do not have control over any person other than myself. I can't answer for them or change what they do, I can only speak out for the truth as I see it. No matter how many times you ask me why some Muslims are wrong-doers my answer is always going to be the same.

I hope that someday we will be able to get beyond this impasse that we've reached and that you will be willing to look for the positive as well as the negative in Islam.

All comments are copyright their authors

RSS feed of comments on this entry

Finished reading and posting comments? Return to veiled4allah