In this series, I try my best to select an ayah discussing a practical problem in our day to day life. Those who are guided to devote more time for religious pursuits can dwell on purely theological problems like the meaning of Rooh or the definition of Rehman and Raheem. Is the fate of war prisoners in Islam a practical problem today? Certainly not. Yet I have chosen it for our discussion because it is a common topic to discredit and disparage Islam and Muslims.

The index ayah which discusses the treatment of prisoners of war is the middle segment of a long ayah. As I proceeded I realized that the preceding and following parts are also relevant. Hence I have include them in our discussion.

The preceding part of the index ayah: [3]

“Now when you meet [in war] those who are bent on denying the truth, smite their necks until you overcome them fully, and then tighten their bonds”

The latter part of the ayah:  [4]

“And [know that] had God so willed, He could indeed punish them [Himself]; but [He wills you to struggle] so as to test you [all] by means of one another. And as for those who are slain in God’s cause, never will He let their deeds go to waste”

The end of the preceding ayah reads فَشُدُّوا الوَثاقَ ie tighten the bond. Dr. Mohammed Asad comments on this segment in his valuable tafseer “The Message of the Quran” as “According to almost all the commentators, this expression denotes the taking of prisoners of war. In addition, it may also refer to any sanctions or safeguards which would make it unlikely that the aggression could be resumed in the foreseeable future.” Zamakhshari, quoting an opinion of Imam Ash-Shafi’i, says the term “ransom “ used here includes a mutual exchange of prisoners of war.

Allah Ta’aala Subhaanahoo has expressed in this ayah one of if HIS sunnah when HE states ذٰلِكَ وَلَو يَشاءُ اللَّهُ لَانتَصَرَ مِنهُم وَلٰكِن لِيَبلُوَ بَعضَكُم بِبَعضٍ ۗ   i.e. “He could indeed punish them [Himself]; but [He wills you to struggle] so as to test you [all] by means of one another.” The believers were required to prove by actual deeds their claim and depth of their Faith and their readiness to struggle for it.

This verse specifically refers to meeting the unbelievers in the battle field and is the only text in the Holy Quran defining the rules for the captives of war. The words and the context of ayah lead us to believe that the index ayah was revealed after fighting was formally permitted but before any actual hostilities played out at Badr. Another reports suggests that this verse was revealed on the day of the battle of Uhud after the dead and the wounded had become numerous among the Muslims.

The index ayah is training the Muslims what to do فَإِذا لَقيتُمُ الَّذينَ كَفَروا  i.e. “when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight)”. The Muslims are encouraged to fight with strength and kill the enemy —“smite at their necks” most vital points both literally and figuratively and the predominant method of slaying.—and when they are subdued to arrest and well secure them—“bind a bond firmly (on them)”.  Once the enemy is restrained, the Muslims are encouraged to show generosity and release the prisoners with ransom or even without ransom. Put another way “This verse lays down two points of law: first, it lays down that when war breaks the might and power of the enemy, and does away with their pomp and glory, they should be arrested rather than be killed. The Muslims are then given two options regarding the prisoners of war – either confer favour on them and release them without ransom or compensation; or set them free against payment of ransom.” It was the former of these alternatives that the Holy Prophet adopted in most cases according to Maulana Mohammed Ali in his tafseer. He mentions “for instance, in the case of the prisoners of the Bani Mutaliq, in which a hundred families were set at liberty, and in the case of Hawåzin, in which fully six thousand prisoners of war were released merely as an act of favour. Only in the case of the seventy prisoners taken at Badr is there mention of redemption having been taken, but this was when Islam was very weak and the powerful enemy was determined to crush it.”

This admonition was required because under the pressure of the prevalent principle of “an eye for an eye” people could kill the prisoners. At the first opportunity therefore they were restricted to two options only: release them with goodwill or compensation; they cannot be killed or made into slaves. There is an exception here “implicit in every law, every rule, and every command.” For example if a person has committed multiple crimes, he will be punished under the rules for those crimes and not protected by rulings of the index ayah. Nasr et al in their modern tafseer “The Study Quran” declare “ It (the index ayah) does not, however, command that prisoners be released. They may thus continue to be held captive as well or in certain cases even executed, alternatives practiced by the Prophet at various times during different battles according to different circumstances………… Whether to slay prisoners of war because they are implacable adversaries, continue to hold them captive, or set them free must thus be decided on a case-by-case basis.” However, it is a historical fact that the Holy Prophet and later his companions had put some of these captives as prisoners and had killed some others. These examples seen in Muslim history are not an Islamic rule. It is the result of special circumstances. All the instances seen in history of Muslims of any other verdict are based on other factors apart from fighting the Muslims.

The outstanding scholar Sayyid Qutb comments about the index ayah in his historic tafseer Fi Dhilalil Quran. He narrates a confusing story of the treatment meted out to the captives by the Muslims under the the Holy Prophet and his companions. He then concludes that “this is the consensus of scholars in all regions” that the Holy Prophet and the companions approved of execution  of prisoners as an option besides freeing them. This is not based on Quranic statement, he explains. Instead it should be viewed against the actions of the Holy Prophet and his companions. When studied critically, it is evident that they were not  executed just because they fought the Muslims. There were other compelling reasons and militating factors for their execution. This sets them apart from the general rule pronounced in the index ayah. He also comes out with a confident statement that “All commentators of Quran and scholars of hadith agree that surah 9 was revealed after Surah 47. Hence the former abrogates the latter.”

Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi spotlights on a significant style of Sunnat-e-Ilahi before his commentary on the index ayah in his great tafseer “tadabbur-e-Quran”. You have to read it in his own words: “It is noteworthy here that although this warning is about the future, it is stated in the past tense because at the time of the revelation of this Surah, the Quraish were still in control of Mecca. The reason for expressing it in the past tense is the same as that which we are explaining in this book from time to time, that what Allah Almighty has decided and whose manifestation is necessary, it is as if it has already happened. Therefore, Allah Almighty’s decisions cannot be changed. Allah’s promises and warnings have been stated in the past tense in the Quran to express this certainty. This style is well-known in every language, and its benefits are quite clear.”

Here is another of the scholar’s clarification of the Divine methodology: “Here, it should also be noted that the relationship between Allah Almighty and the Messengers has been such that if the number of believers who accept the Messenger’s message is very few, then the Messenger and his companions are ordered to migrate. And Allah has destroyed all the deniers of truth, either through earthly or heavenly punishment. And if the number of the Messenger’s companions is large, then they are ordered to engage in jihad, and Allah takes revenge from their enemies by their hands. This same situation happened with the Prophet, peace be upon him. Before also, the Prophets and Messengers were required to engage in jihad. Allah Almighty helped Prophet Musa, peace be upon him, and the Children of Israel against Pharaoh by causing a storm in the sea. Then after crossing the sea, they had to fight in many small and large battles, in which the Children of Israel were thoroughly tested. They failed in most of the tests, for which they had to bear the punishment.”

An ayah in Surah Anfaal, which is revealed after the index ayah also refers to prisoner of wars but in an enraged tone, causing some confusion. The injunction spelled out here is apparently in conflict with the rule mentioned in the index ayah: [5]

“It does not behove a prophet to keep captives unless he has battled strenuously on earth. You may desire the fleeting gains of this world – but God desires [for you the good of] the life to come: and God is almighty, wise. Had it not been for a decree from God that had already gone forth, there would indeed have befallen you a tremendous chastisement on account of all [the captives] that you took. Enjoy, then, all that is lawful and good among the things which you have gained in war, and remain conscious of God: verily, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.”

Time and again I come across instances wherein there is controversy and diversity about the interpretation of a Quranic ayah. The index ayah is a good example. Apparently and on the face of it, the message of the index ayah is clear and explicit about the prisoners of war: set them free as an act of grace, or collect a ransom against their liberty. Period. I remain convinced of this verdict.

Yet, there is intense discussion, confusion and controversy in the literature on the issue of prisoners of war. In the rest of this article, I have summarized this debate to give a full picture.

The prisoners of the battle of Badr were released against the payment of ransom, but Allah disapproved and expressed His displeasure against those who opined in favour of releasing them on ransom. The Messenger of Allah is reported to have said: “A grave punishment of Allah for this action of ours was very close, and if it had been meted out, no one besides Umar Ibn Khattab and Sa’d Ibn Mu’adh would have been spared, because only these two companions had disagreed with the idea of  accepting pecuniary compensation for the release of the Prisoners of War (POW)”. In short, the verses of surah Al-Infaal prohibits release of prisoners against ransom, their release without ransom would be prohibited all the more.”

As the index ayah permits both the alternatives, most of the Companions and jurists express the opinion that the index ayah has abrogated the verse of Surah Anfaal. This is the reported opinion of  Abdullah Ibn Umar, Hasan, Ata and majority of Companions and  jurists.

Qazi Thana’ullah cites this in his Tafsir Mazhari confirming that this is the authentic and preferred view, because the Holy Prophet himself acted upon it, and after him the Righteous Caliphs also did the same. Therefore, the index verse repeals the verse of Surah Al-Anfaal – the reason being that the verse of Surah Al-Anfaal was revealed on the occasion of the battle of Badr which took place in the 2nd year of Hijrah. The prisoners that were released by the Holy Prophet in the battle of Hudaibiyah without ransom in the 6th year of Hijrah was in accordance with the index ayah.

According to one version, a popular view of Imam Abu Hanifah is that setting the prisoners of war free with or without ransom is not lawful. Therefore, the Hanafi scholars regard the index ayah as abrogated by the verse of Suah Al-Anfaal. But Tafsir Mazhari made it clear that the verse of Surah Al-Anfaal was revealed first, and the index verse later – thus the later verse repealing the earlier verse. Therefore, the preferred view of Imam Azam – in keeping with the opinion of the great majority of the Companions  and leading jurists – it is lawful, if it is in the best interest and well-being of the Muslims. From amongst the Hanafi scholars, Uamah Ibn Humam shows his inclination towards this view in his Fath-ul-Qadir. He writes that according to the version cited in Qudtiri and Hidayah, Imam Abu Hanifah does not see it permissible to set prisoners of war free against payment of ransom. But according to another version of Imam Abu Hanifah, cited in As-Siyar-ul-Kabs, it is permitted in conformity with the majority view. Among these two versions, the latter is more likely to be his preferred view.

According to the majority of Companions and jurists, neither of the verses under discussion is abrogated. In fact, they are two injunctions for different situations. The leader of the Muslims may adopt either of the options depending on the conditions and needs of the Muslims. Qurtubi, on the basis of the Holy Prophet’s practice and that of the Righteous Caliphs, has shown that the prisoners of war were sometimes killed, sometimes enslaved, at other times they were set free against ransom, and yet at other times they were released without compensation. When the disbelievers are arrested and come into our control, the leader of the Muslims has four options:

(1)  If he deems appropriate, he may kill them

(2) If he feels that it is in the best interest of the Muslims, he may hold them in bondage;

(3)  If it is appropriate, he may release them in lieu of pecuniary ransom or in exchange of Muslim POWs; and

(4)  If it seems proper, they may be released.

There is a consensus of the entire Ummah on the permissibility of killing them and holding them in bondage. Although there is some difference of opinion on the issue of setting them free against ransom or without ransom, majority of the jurists holds the latter options lawful as well.

Maulana Maudoodi in his popular tafseer “Tafheemul Quran” attempts to explain this controversy: “A careful study of this passage shows that what had displeased Allah on this occasion was that before crushing down the enemy completely in the Battle of Badr, the Muslims had started taking the enemy soldiers as captives, whereas the instruction given to them in Surah Muhammad before the actual fighting was this: “When you have crushed them completely, then bind the captives tight.” However, as the Muslims had been permitted, among other things in Surah Muhammad, to accept ransom from the prisoners, Allah declared the money taken from the captives of Badr as lawful and did not punish them for that.”

The Maulana then goes on to give a long eleven  point discourse on the Laws of War and Making Prisoners therein. I have included this in the footnotes for ready reference[6]
[ maudoodi]………………

The prisoners of war were set free against ransom during the life time of the the Holy Prophet on the occasion of Badr; prisoners were set free on payment of one thousand to four thousand dirhams each. No example is found of this practice later on and “the jurists of Islam have generally disapproved it” declares Maulana Maudoodi. This is about freeing with ransom. However, the practice of setting them free as a favour continued through out the period of companions. For example,  Abu Bakr set free Ashath bin Qais al-Kindi and Umar granted freedom to Hurmuzan and the prisoners of Manadhir and Maisan. (Abu Ubaid, Kitab alAmwal).

Yet another approach to free the prisoners was seen after the Battle of Badr; in return for the services rendered by them. Those of the Quraish prisoners who could not afford the ransom money were offered the option to teach “reading and writing” to ten Ansar children to win their freedom.

This verse lays down two points of law: first, it lays down that when war breaks the might and power of the enemy, and does away with their pomp and glory, they should be arrested rather than being killed. The Muslims are then given two options regarding the prisoners of war – either confer favour on them and release them without ransom or compensation; or release them against payment of ransom. There are several ways in which ransom may be taken, for instance by exchanging Muslim prisoners of war for non-Muslim prisoners of war. It is also possible to set them free after accepting pecuniary ransom.

This injunction is apparently in conflict with the rule mentioned in Surah Al-Anfaal. The prisoners of the battle of Badr were released against the payment of ransom, but Allah disapproved and expressed His displeasure against those who opined in favour of releasing them on ransom. The Messenger of Allah is reported to have said: “A grave punishment of Allah for this action of ours was very close, and if it had been meted out, no one besides ‘Umar Ibn Khattab and Sa’d Ibn Mu’adh would have been spared, because only these two companions had disagreed with the idea of  accepting pecuniary compensation for the release of the Prisoners of War (POW). In short, the verses of Surah Al-Anfaal prohibits release of prisoners against ransom, their release without ransom would be prohibited all the more. On the other hand, this verse of Surah Muhammad permits both the alternatives. Therefore, most of the Companions and jurists express the that this verse of Surah Muhammad has abrogated the verse of Surah Anfaal. This is the opinion of  Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar, Hasan, ‘Ata and majority of Companions and majority of the jurists.

Sayyidna Ibn ‘Abbas says that on the occasion of the battle of Badr, the number of Muslims was small. Therefore, releasing the prisoners against ransom or releasing them as a gesture of grace were both prohibited. Finally, when Islam and Muslims went on to achieve total ascendancy, Allah Ta’aala abrogated the earlier injunction, and revealed this verse which permits both options. Qazi Thana’ullah cites this in his TafsIr MazharI confirming that this is the authentic and preferred view, because the Holy Prophet himself acted upon it, and after him the Righteous Caliphs also did the same. Therefore, this verse repeals the verse of Surah Al-Anfaal – the reason being that the verse of Surah Al-Anfaal was revealed on the occasion of the battle of Badr which took place in the 2nd year of Hijrah. The prisoners that were released by the Holy Prophet in the battle of Hudaibiyah without ransom in the 6th year of Hijrah was in accordance with the index ayah.

It is recorded in Sahih of Muslim on the authority of Sayyidna Anas that about eighty Makkans climbed down the mount ‘Taim with the intention of launching a sudden attack on the Messenger of Allah and the Muslim camp. They were all captured, but the Messenger of Allah set them free without any compensation, lest it became the cause of war on that critical occasion. At this, the following verse was revealed: [7]

“It is He who held their hands back from you, and your hands from them in the valley of Makkah, after giving you victory over them.”

According to one version, a popular view of Imam Abu Hanifah is that setting the prisoners of war free with or without ransom is not lawful. Therefore, the Hanafi scholars regard this verse of Surah Muhammad as abrogated by the verse of Surah Al-Anfaal. But Tafsir Mazhari made it clear that the verse of Surah Al-Anfaal was revealed first, and the verse of Surah Muhammad later – thus the later verse repealing the earlier verse. Therefore, the preferred view of Imam Azam – in keeping with the opinion of the great majority of the Companions and leading jurists – it is lawful, if it is in the best interest and well-being of the Muslims. From amongst the Hanafi scholars, Anamah Ibn Humam shows his inclination towards this view in his Fath-ul-Qadir. He writes that according to the version cited in Qudtiri and Hidayah, Imam Abu Hanifah does not see it permissible to set prisoners of war free against payment of ransom. But according to another version of Imam Abu Hanifah, cited in As-Siyar-ul-Kabs, it is permitted in conformity with the majority view. Among these two versions, the latter is more likely to be his preferred view. Imam Tahawi in his Ma’ani Athar has also regarded the latter version as that of Imam Abu Hanifah.

According to the majority of Companions  and jurists, neither of the verses under discussion is abrogated. The wordings of the verses of Surah Al-Anfaal and Surah Muhammad leave us with the impression that none of these two can be called the abrogator or the abrogated. In fact, they are two injunctions for different situations. The leader of the Muslims may adopt either of the options depending on the conditions and needs of the Muslims. Qurtubi, on the basis of the Holy Prophet’s practice and that of the Righteous Caliphs  has shown that the prisoners of war were sometimes killed, sometimes enslaved, at other times they were set free against ransom, and yet at other times they were released without compensation. Exacting ransom includes exchange of non-Muslim POWs for Muslim POWs or setting non-Muslim POW free against pecuniary compensation. Having cited these cases, he says that verses that have been regarded as abrogator and abrogated are in fact Muhkam or operative and perspicuous. Thus none of them is abrogated, because when the disbelievers are arrested and come into our control, the leader of the Muslims has four options: (1) if he deems appropriate, he may kill them ; (2) if he feels that it is in the best interest of the Muslims, he may hold them in bondage; (3) if it is appropriate, he may release them in lieu of pecuniary ransom or in exchange of Muslim POWs ;and (4) if it seems proper, they may be released.

“This is the view of the scholars of Madbah, Imam Shafi’I and Abu  Ahmad. Imam Tahawi cites this as the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifah as well, although his generally known view is that which we have already mentioned.

The foregoing discussion makes clear that the leader of the Muslims has four options regarding prisoners of war. There is a consensus of the entire Ummah on the permissibility of killing them and holding them in bondage. Although there is some difference of opinion on the issue of setting them free against ransom or without ransom, majority of the jurists holds the latter options lawful as well.

At the end of the ayah the martyrs are assured that the loss of their life is not in vain. A huge reward is awaiting them in the Hereafter.

……..and Allah knows best.

May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding–“fahm”–of our Deen, Aameen.

Dr. Khalid Mitha