Can non-Muslims be considered innocents?

I can not recall the specific hadith, but it is very clear that woman, children, non-combatants, Priests, Monks, and the disabled are innocents and not to be harmed. I strongly doubt if the priests or monks were considered Muslim, although they were considered non-combatants and innocents.

Name of Questioner

Joyce

Title

Islamic Treatment of Non-Combatants

Date

27/Jul/2006

Question

I have visited several Web sites about Islam, looking for confirmation of a passage I was told forbids the killing of women, children, the elderly or disabled, and a soldier if he surrenders. Is this actually in Islamic teachings, and if so, where? Thank you.
Topic

Human Rights, Politics & Economics

Name of Counselor

Shahul Hameed

Answer

Salam, Joyce.

Thank you very much for your question.

Islam has provided the most humane of the rules of combat in existence, and I assure you that Islam does forbid the killing of non-combatants, particularly the killing of women, children, the elderly or disabled, and soldiers who surrender.

Considering the importance of the topic against the background of the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, we have been repeatedly giving the details of Islam’s rules of combat and other related topics in our Web site.

It is evident that we can never have a world here below without the possibility of humans fighting one another. So the best we can strive for is to have a code of rules for war. And it is the merit of Islam that it does provide such rules, which remain ever nobler and more realistic than any other code existing for the conduct of war.

In religious or sectarian history, it was Islam that, for the first time ever, adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury.

Whether in war or peace, Islam insists that its injunctions are to be strictly observed. Worship does not cease during wartime. Islamic jurisprudence maintains that whatever is prohibited during peace is also prohibited during war. Here is the actual command of God permitting fighting; the Qur'an says what means:

*{Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:190)

The above permission to fight lays down clearly the following conditions:

(1) Never commit aggression; fighting is allowed only for self-defense.
(2) Fighting must never be against non-combatants or non-fighting personnel.

In the course of war, enemy soldiers are likely to be caught as prisoners. The Qur'an provides alternatives in dealing with the prisoners of war: either free them ("generosity") or ransom them. The Qur'an says what means:

*{Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers [in fight], smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly [on them]: thereafter [is the time for] either generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burdens.}* (Muhammad 47:4)

It is noteworthy that Allah does not give a third choice, so there is no provision for keeping enemy soldiers incarcerated in cells for abuse. And so Muslims cannot hold anybody—either soldiers or civilians—as "enemy combatants" in a legal limbo, to be chained or kept within cages as the leaders of the "civilized world" do.

The second option allowed in the case of prisoners of war is ransoming. This stands for a provision in the treaty following a war, for the release of the prisoners on certain conditions, such as the payment of compensation, exchange of prisoners, and so on. But undoubtedly, for fighting as an enemy soldier, no human should be put behind bars for an indefinite period.

Islam has given clear rulings for the kind treatment of captives. Whether a soldier is captured in battle or surrenders to the Muslims, he should be treated humanely. The example of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in this regard is well known, as he never enslaved a free man, never imprisoned anyone.

The later followers of the Prophet imprisoned enemy soldiers and kept them as captives to be exchanged for Muslim captives held by the enemies. This was in accordance with this Qur'anic verse that says what means:

*{If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:194)

But the Prophet had given them clear instruction to treat the prisoners of war in a kind and humane manner. He said, "Beware of the prayer of the oppressed; for there is no barrier between it and Allah."

Relating how the Companions complied strictly with this order given by the Prophet, one of the prisoners of the Battle of Badr, Huzayr ibn Humayr, stated, "Whenever they had lunch or dinner, they used to give me preference by providing me with bread while they’d eat only dates, in showing compliance with the Prophet’s order of treating prisoners well."

Abu Bakr, who was the first caliph in Islam immediately after the Prophet’s death, gave the following instructions to his commander who went on a campaign to Syria:

"Do not betray or be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut or burn palm trees or fruitful trees. Don’t slay a sheep, a cow or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in hermitages, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for."

And the guiding principle of such noble behavior on the part of Muslim soldiers and commanders is the Qur'an’s insistence on justice. The Muslims are commanded to stand out firmly for justice, even opposing their own parents or others intimate to them, if need be. The Qur'an says what means:

*{O you who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be [against] rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts [of your hearts], lest you swerve, and if you distort [justice] or decline to do justice, verily God is well acquainted with all that you do.}* (An-Nisaa' 4:135)

And again:

*{O you who believe! stand out firmly for God, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear God. For God is well-acquainted with all that you do.}* (Al-Ma'idah 5:8)

During the Crusades, the Muslim commander, Salah Ad-din Yusuf ibn Ayyub (Saladin; 1137–1193), while engaged in battle with Richard the Lion Heart of England, sent his own personal physician to treat him when he was seriously ill. In fact, he personally supervised Richard’s treatment until he became well.

This attitude was quite different from the behavior of the invading crusaders. When the Christian army entered Jerusalem on July 15, 1099, it slaughtered 70,000 Muslims, including women, children, and old men. They broke children's skulls by knocking them against walls, threw babies from roof tops, roasted men over fire, and cut open women’s bellies to see if they had swallowed gold. So wrote the famous Christian historian Edward Gibbon. (Quoted by Draper, History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, Vol. 2, p. 77.)

Islam never fought nations but fought only despotic rulers. War in Islam is always for truth and justice, or, in other words, in the Way of God. Muslims must bear this in mind, and so their behavior before, during, or after a war should never violate the commands of Allah and the example of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

And Allah knows best.

Hope this answer is satisfactory and please keep in touch.

Salam.

Useful Links:
Islamic Rules of Combat
War Ethics in Islam
In Times of War… Rights of Enemies
Treat Them Kindly… Prisoners of War

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...AskAboutIslamE

Question:

Question: Civilians in warfare when democratic countries are involved

Some people are declaring the prohibition regarding the killing of civilians during war to be inapplicable to democratic countries. They argue that the policies of those countries are enacted by the governments they themselves choose through their votes. It is not like the days when kings were authorities unto themselves and their actions did not reflect the will of the people. Therefore, in today’s democratic world, it is right to assume that the nation’s policies have the sanction of public at large. Is there any validity to this line of reasoning?


Answered by the Fatwa Department Research Committee - chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî


The argument being advanced by these people is false. This should become obvious to us if we consider the circumstances in which the rulings prohibiting the killing of civilians came about.

These rulings are from the Prophet (peace be upon him) when he was battling the pagans of Mecca and their allies among the pagan tribes of Arabia. The pagans of Mecca were a tight-knit community and their tribal leaders made their decisions together at their tribal councils. They were more like a very large and squabbling family than a burgeoning and impersonal nation. Moreover, the population of Mecca – indeed of all Arabia – was small and the region’s social organization was tribal. The average person in such a society had more personal access to the decision makers and had far greater influential on policy that an individual American or British person today has with respect to his country’s foreign policies which are determined largely by big corporations and powerful lobbies.


Indeed, there was solidarity among the pagan Arabs as to their purposes against the Muslims. During the Battle of Uhud, the women went out to the battlefield, led by Hind, to lend moral support to the soldiers. Before the battle, they sang the following song to inspire their men:

If you go forth, we will embrace you,
And spread out the cushions.
But if you retreat we shall leave you,
And do so without affection.

It has been said by historians that their singing had a maddening affect on their men folk and that this influenced their performance on the battlefield.



In spite of all this, Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) stressed the need to protect the weak and the noncombatants during war and was very considerate of them.

Ibn `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “I saw the body of a slain woman during one of the battles of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), so he forbade the killing of women and children.” [Sahîh al-Bûkhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

Rabâh b. Rabî` said: “We were with Allah’s Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) during a battle and we saw people gathered together. He dispatched a man to find out why they were gathered. The man returned and said: ‘They are gathered around a slain woman.’ So Allah’s Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ‘She should not have been attacked!’ Khâlid b. al-Walîd was leading the forces, so he dispatched a man to him saying: “Tell Khâlid not to kill women or laborers’.” [Sunan Abî Dâwûd]

It is also related that Allah’s Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Tell him not kill children or laborers.” [Sunan Ibn Mâjah]

Laborers are not to be attacked deliberately, even if they are present during the battle, as long as their activities are not directly connected with the fighting. Workers who are not present at the battlefield are definitely not to be treated with aggression, regardless of the fact that they are in the enemy country. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) would say the following words to his troops before sending them to war: “Go forward in the name of Allah. Do not kill an elderly person, nor a small child, nor a woman, and do not exceed the bounds.” [Sunan Abî Dâwûd]

Sheikh Salman al-Oadah comments: “These people today, just like those at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are the ones to whom the message of Islam must be conveyed.

http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_se...main_cat_id=15

format_quote Originally Posted by justahumane

One question regarding this, We know that almost all the male members of Bahu Quraiza were executed by muslims........is it possible that none of the member of said tribe could fall into the group which are forbidden to be killed? Can killing of such a large group en masse be justified?

The Banu Quraiza were victims of their own teachings - not of Islams: the judgement to kill the males was made by Sa'd who called for the jewish punishment to be enforced.

You need to read the full story: click me

p.s; recognise this?
"When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, YOU SHALL PUT ALL ITS MALES TO THE SWORD. You may, however, take as your BOOTY THE WOMEN, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you."

It's from Deuteronomy 20:10-14.

format_quote Originally Posted by justahumane

One question regarding this, We know that almost all the male members of Bahu Quraiza were executed by muslims........is it possible that none of the member of said tribe could fall into the group which are forbidden to be killed? Can killing of such a large group en masse be justified?

The people who said they never participated in fighting the muslims were not to be executed.



From the Book; Muhammadur Rasulullah by Abul Hasan Nadwi. [English translation.]

pages 249-252




http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h...ed2kx/P249.jpg





http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h...ed2kx/P250.jpg


The footnote says;

1) Deuteronomy 20: 10-14

2) Numbers 31: 7-10

3) Numbers 31: 13-15

format_quote Originally Posted by asdf12334

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIoFi...eature=relateda

Hi all,

Do watch the video above.

I wonder what are your views regarding the opinions given by this British Muslim leader. He says that only Muslims can be considered innocents victims when they are killed.

By that logic, in an event of a terrorist attack, if no Muslims are killed, then all the non-Muslims that are killed are considered not innocent anyway so the killing is legitimate?

Peace

Assalamu alaikum,
I didn't bother watching the video but I really hate it when certain "Muslims" say that only Muslims will go to heaven or have a chance to be forgiven.
In Surah 5 (Al-Maidah- The Tablecloth) verses 117-118, Isa (pbuh) says: "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things. If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servant: If Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in power, the Wise."

It is evident that Allah s.w.t. has the power to forgive/punish those who He wishes to. Nothing is mentioned about Muslims or Non Muslims. Just humans as Islam is a universal religion.