Prisoners of war in Islam


The rules and regulations concerning prisoners of war in Islam are covered in manuals of Islamic jurisprudence, based upon Islamic teachings, in both the Qur'an and hadith.
The historical legal principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war, in shar'iah, Islamic law,, was then a significant improvement over the pre-existing norms of society during Muhammad's time. Men, women, and children may all be taken as prisoners of war under traditional interpretations of Islamic law. Generally, a prisoner of war could be, at the discretion of the military leader, freed, ransomed, exchanged for Muslim prisoners, or kept in bondage. In earlier times, the ransom sometimes took an educational dimension, where a literate prisoner of war could secure his or her freedom by teaching ten Muslims to read and write. Some Muslim scholars hold that a prisoner may not be ransomed for gold or silver, but may be exchanged for Muslim prisoners.

History

During his life, Muhammad made it the responsibility of the Islamic government to provide food and clothing, on a reasonable basis, to captives, regardless of their religion. If the prisoners were in the custody of a person, then the responsibility was on the individual.
Historically, Muslims routinely captured large number of prisoners. Aside from those who converted to Islam, most were ransomed or enslaved. Pasquier writes,
According to accounts written by Muhammad's followers, after the Battle of Badr, some prisoners were executed for their earlier crimes in Mecca, but the rest were given options: They could convert to Islam and thus win their freedom; they could pay ransom and win their freedom; they could teach 10 Muslims to read and write and thus win their freedom. William Muir wrote of this period:
During his rule, Caliph Umar made it illegal to separate related prisoners of war from each other, after a captive complained to him for being separated from her daughter.
These principles were also honoured during the Crusades, as exemplified by sultans such as Saladin and al-Kamil. For example, after al-Kamil defeated the Franks during the Crusades, Oliverus Scholasticus praised the Islamic laws of war, commenting on how al-Kamil supplied the defeated Frankish army with food:

Treatment of prisoners

Upon capture, the prisoners must be guarded and not ill-treated. Islamic law holds that the prisoners must be fed and clothed, either by the Islamic government or by the individual who has custody of the prisoner. This position is supported by the verse of the Quran. The prisoners must be fed in a dignified manner, and must not be forced to beg for their subsistence. Muhammad's early followers also considered it a principle to not separate prisoners from their relatives.
After the fighting is over, prisoners are to be released, with some prospect of survival, or ransomed. The freeing or ransoming of prisoners by Muslims themselves is highly recommended as a charitable act. The Qur'an also urges kindness to captives and recommends, their liberation by purchase or manumission. The freeing of captives is recommended both for the expiation of sins and as an act of simple benevolence. However, the Quran also permits certain forms of torture against certain captives, such as those who are deemed as waging war against Islam, disbelievers, adulterers and fornicators.

Women and children

Some Muslim scholars claim that women and children prisoners of war cannot be killed under any circumstances, regardless of their faith, but that they may be enslaved, freed or ransomed. Women who are neither freed nor ransomed by their people were to be kept in bondage and referred to as ma malakat aymanukum.
Some modern Islamic extremist groups have taken slaves, including women and children. Abubakar Shekau, the leader of Boko Haram, a Nigerian extremist group, said in an interview "I shall capture people and make them slaves" when claiming responsibility for the 2014 Chibok kidnapping. Shekau has justified his actions by appealing to the Quran saying "hat we are doing is an order from Allah, and all that we are doing is in the Book of Allah that we follow". In October 2014, in its digital magazine Dabiq, ISIL explicitly claimed religious justification for enslaving Yazidi women. Specifically, ISIL argued that the Yazidi were idol worshipers and justified the sexual slavery of the captured non-muslim victims as a permissible practice of enjoying the spoils of war. ISIL appealed to apocalyptic beliefs and "claimed justification by a Hadith that they interpret as portraying the revival of slavery as a precursor to the end of the world." .

Men

One traditional opinion holds that executing prisoners of war is strictly forbidden; this is the most-widely accepted view, and one upheld by the Hanafi madhab.
However, the opinion of the Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Jafari madhabs is that adult male prisoners of war may be executed. The decision for an execution is to be made by the Muslim leader. This opinion was also upheld by the Muslim judge, Sa'id bin Jubair and Abu Yusuf, a classical jurist from the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. El Fadl argues the reason Muslim jurists adopted this position was largely because it was consistent with the war practices of the Middle Ages. Muhammad Hamidullah, while reminding that execution in such cases was exceptional and depending on many factors, further precises that beheading was discouraged: "unanimity was reached among the Companions of the Prophet not to behead prisoners of war. In short, capital punishment for prisoners of war is only permissible in extreme cases of necessity and in the higher interests of the State."
Most contemporary Muslim scholars prohibit altogether the killing of prisoners and hold that this was the policy practiced by Muhammad. The 20th-century Muslim scholar, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi states that no prisoner should be "put to the sword" in accordance with a saying of Muhammad.
Yusuf Ali, another 20th-century Muslim scholar, while commenting on verse, writes,
Maududi further states that Islam forbids torturing, especially by fire, and quotes Muhammad as saying, "Punishment by fire does not behoove anyone except the Master of the Fire ."
Quoting from the sources, Muhammad Munir, from the Department of Law of the International Islamic University, Pakistan, says that early religious authorities standing against the execution of POWs at all include 'Ali b. Abi Tãlib, Al-Hasan b. al-Hasan al-Basrl , Hammãd b. Abi Sulaymän, Muhammad b. Sirin , Mujãhid b. Jabr, 'Abd al-Mãlik b. 'Abd al-'Azïz b. Jurayj, 'Atâ' b. Abi Rabãh and Abû 'Ubayd ibn Sallãm, while later scholars favouring the same opinion include Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Qurtubl, who shares to vindicate the sheer impossibility of execution if we follow the letter of the Qur'an. Ibn Rushd is also quoted: " number of jurists did not permit executing the prisoners of war. Al-Hasan b. Muhammad al-Tamïmï stated consensus of the Companions on this view." He further shows that the rare executions were more due to the crimes they committed before the captivity than their status of POW itself. A famous case being 'Abd Allah b. Khatal. One of the few persons who weren't granted immunity at the conquest of Mecca. A group of people which "could have been punished by a tribunal should there have been one at the time”. But he was the only one executed for what we would today call high treason. More generically, he also shows that "in the first one hundred years of Islamic military history, that is, from the time of the Prophet till the time of Caliph 'Umar b. 'Abdul 'Aziz, there were only six or seven such cases, even if we were to accept the spurious reports of such executions."