Debates on the Rights of Prisoners of War in Islamic Law

Muhammad Munir
{"title":"Debates on the Rights of Prisoners of War in Islamic Law","authors":"Muhammad Munir","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1802006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the rights of protection available to the prisoners of war under Islamic law. It analyzes the differences of opinion among the early fuqaha’ regarding the POWs. The paper finds that the Qur’an mentions only two ways to terminate\\ captivity, that is, mann (freedom gratis) and fida’ (ransom) (Qur’an 47: 4) a verse that was not superseded; that ransom was taken by the Prophet only from the POWs of Badr whereas the general practice of the Prophet (peace be on him) and his caliphs was to set POWs free without any condition or ransom. Non-Muslim states used to ask for ransom for the release of Muslim or non-Muslim POWs. In addition, enslavement of POWs as well as their execution had never been the general practice in Islam. Slaying the POWs had been very rare in Islamic military history. Finally, the Prophet and his caliphs had exchanged POWs on some occasions. Majority of classical Muslim jurists seem to have generalized exceptional cases regarding the execution and enslavement of POWs. The question of treatment has been debated particularly with reference to the La'ihah for the Mujahidin, a document issued by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2010. The paper argues that The Taliban have created new rules for terminating the captivity of POWs but have wrongly attributed them to Islamic law.","PeriodicalId":269513,"journal":{"name":"Islamic Law & Law of the Muslim World eJournal","volume":"13 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Islamic Law & Law of the Muslim World eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1802006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

This paper explores the rights of protection available to the prisoners of war under Islamic law. It analyzes the differences of opinion among the early fuqaha’ regarding the POWs. The paper finds that the Qur’an mentions only two ways to terminate\ captivity, that is, mann (freedom gratis) and fida’ (ransom) (Qur’an 47: 4) a verse that was not superseded; that ransom was taken by the Prophet only from the POWs of Badr whereas the general practice of the Prophet (peace be on him) and his caliphs was to set POWs free without any condition or ransom. Non-Muslim states used to ask for ransom for the release of Muslim or non-Muslim POWs. In addition, enslavement of POWs as well as their execution had never been the general practice in Islam. Slaying the POWs had been very rare in Islamic military history. Finally, the Prophet and his caliphs had exchanged POWs on some occasions. Majority of classical Muslim jurists seem to have generalized exceptional cases regarding the execution and enslavement of POWs. The question of treatment has been debated particularly with reference to the La'ihah for the Mujahidin, a document issued by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2010. The paper argues that The Taliban have created new rules for terminating the captivity of POWs but have wrongly attributed them to Islamic law.
伊斯兰法中战俘权利之争
本文探讨了伊斯兰教法下战俘可享有的保护权利。分析了早期福卡哈对战俘的不同看法。本文发现,古兰经只提到了两种结束囚禁的方法,即mann(免费的自由)和fida(赎金)(古兰经47:4),这节经文没有被取代;先知只向白德尔的战俘索要赎金,而先知(愿主福安之)和他的哈里发的一般做法是无条件释放战俘,也不索要赎金。非穆斯林国家过去常常要求赎金才能释放穆斯林或非穆斯林战俘。此外,对战俘的奴役和处决从来就不是伊斯兰教的普遍做法。在伊斯兰军事历史上,杀害战俘是非常罕见的。最后,先知和他的哈里发在某些场合交换了战俘。大多数古典穆斯林法学家似乎概括了关于处决和奴役战俘的例外情况。关于待遇的问题一直备受争议,尤其是在2010年阿富汗塔利班发布的《圣战者宣言》(La'ihah for The Mujahidin)中。该报认为,塔利班制定了结束战俘囚禁的新规则,但错误地将其归因于伊斯兰法律。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信