Islamic Military Jurisprudence in Relation to Noncombatant Status

[Abu Zallaq Tyrannomach]

Greetings forum-members:

I will preface my question by saying I am of non-Islamic background but am seriously interested in learning about Islam (having no conformist preconceptions or prejudices and a hatred of the "pornocratic" nihilism of Western modernity), and my only motive is philosophical and spiritual learning...

I have heard some Muslims argue that the laws of warfare or military jurisprudence in the Islamic tradition are not simplistically comparable to the laws of warfare embedded in the "Western" understanding of military jurisprudence. In particular, I have read some Muslim authors (whose representativeness of the average Muslim viewpoint I do not assert either way) state that the concept of "noncombatant status" is differently conceptualized in Islam.

For example, in the Catholic tradition, there developed in the early Middle Ages the "Peace of God" and "Truce of God" movements, which banned military parties from attacking the parts of the population perceived as defenseless noncombatants. These trends were part of the papally-directed innovation of "chivalry" (humane combat) and also the developing idea of the Augustinian-Thomistic "just war". In the Catholic tradition also, irregular or extrajudicial warfare is recognized as a special case in the concept of tyrannicide, but in tyrannicide the warlike force is to be applied only to the direct agent of tyranny, the tyrant himself or his immediate agents. I am not invoking Catholic customs and ideas for polemical reasons here but just for the sake of comparative study.

I suppose I am asking how Islam conceptualizes noncombatant (and combatant) status (and related issues like collective punishment). (The question of so-called "terrorism" intersects here too, as so-called "terrorism" is based on the notion of the "innocent noncombatant"). E.g., at what point does a non-fighting member of a perceived "enemy" force or population become licit as the object of coercion and force--does merely passively paying taxes or other ways of non-violent support to the enemy government constitute a transition from noncombatant to combatant status? etc... How do the great Islamic philosophers and theorists conceptualize the issue of noncombatant status?

[cloud360]

Before we start, here are some miracles of Al-Islam: http://www.miraclesofislam.com/indonesia.shtml
Boy converted 1000+ people to Islam: http://www.discoveringislam.org/tanzanian_boy.htm

The Killing of non combatant may be permissable in islam. This is according the the following hadith:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.CRCC: Center For Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Resources: Religious Texts
This related to the Banu Qurayza incident in which the Prophet attacked and behead 700+ jews, including non combatant. The beheading of all jews who has reached puberty was order. The woman were spared.
The verse in the Quran which says "whoever kills a person has killed all of makind" does not apply to non muslims according to the early followers of Muhammad (saw) the Tabiun, mentioned in the the tafsir, which are books that explain the meaning of the Quran, made by companions of Muhammad (saw) and others.
This is according to Mujahid ibn Jabar.By the way, Ibn Abbas was the companion of Prophet Muhammad, and Ibn Abbas and Mujahid went through the Quran 30 times together and memorised the meanings, Ibn Abbas was present around the time when these verses were revealed and Muslim scholars consider him to have the highest reliability Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Accordingto Ali (RA), Muhammad (saw) said "a muslim can not be killed for killing a non muslim." However Imam Abu Hanifa (found of the hanafi school) believed that a muslim can be killed if he kills a "Dhimmi" only. Imam Shafi (founder of the Shafi school of thaught) holds the view that regardless if the person is a Dhimmi or not, the muslim can not be killed. -Sahih Bukhari 1:3:111 Islam Web - Fatwa Center - Killing a Muslim in punishment for killing a non-Muslim

[cloud360]

Before Muhammad (saw) passed away. he revealed Surah al tawbah. Which was the last complete Surah of the Quran before he passed away.Surah al Tawbah is dedicated to Jihad, are muslims are asked to break peace treaties with non muslims. For offensive jihad was made mandotoory. Not to convert non muslims to islam, but to force them to pay Jizyah. Surah al Tawbah was the last message and the ultimate message of al islam
Some verses of the Quran which are cancelled and we should not follow

[Abu Kamel]

Bismillahr Rahmanir Rahim

Greetings forum-members:

I will preface my question by saying I am of non-Islamic background but am seriously interested in learning about Islam (having no conformist preconceptions or prejudices and a hatred of the "pornocratic" nihilism of Western modernity), and my only motive is philosophical and spiritual learning...

I have heard some Muslims argue that the laws of warfare or military jurisprudence in the Islamic tradition are not simplistically comparable to the laws of warfare embedded in the "Western" understanding of military jurisprudence. In particular, I have read some Muslim authors (whose representativeness of the average Muslim viewpoint I do not assert either way) state that the concept of "noncombatant status" is differently conceptualized in Islam.

For example, in the Catholic tradition, there developed in the early Middle Ages the "Peace of God" and "Truce of God" movements, which banned military parties from attacking the parts of the population perceived as defenseless noncombatants. These trends were part of the papally-directed innovation of "chivalry" (humane combat) and also the developing idea of the Augustinian-Thomistic "just war". In the Catholic tradition also, irregular or extrajudicial warfare is recognized as a special case in the concept of tyrannicide, but in tyrannicide the warlike force is to be applied only to the direct agent of tyranny, the tyrant himself or his immediate agents. I am not invoking Catholic customs and ideas for polemical reasons here but just for the sake of comparative study.

I suppose I am asking how Islam conceptualizes noncombatant (and combatant) status (and related issues like collective punishment). (The question of so-called "terrorism" intersects here too, as so-called "terrorism" is based on the notion of the "innocent noncombatant"). E.g., at what point does a non-fighting member of a perceived "enemy" force or population become licit as the object of coercion and force--does merely passively paying taxes or other ways of non-violent support to the enemy government constitute a transition from noncombatant to combatant status? etc... How do the great Islamic philosophers and theorists conceptualize the issue of noncombatant status?

Greetings and thank you for your answer.
The standard by which warfare is to be conducted according to Divine Law (Ahkam Sharaa) is with an Islamic state that implements Islam in its entirety and whose leader has taken the allegiance of the Muslim people to uphold this state. Thus, the pinnacle of this standard is the Prophet Muhammad (saaw), followed by the 5 righteous caliphs who succeeded him: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hassan.

Today's 'post Geneva Convention War on Terror' standards of warfare are the product of international law devised by Western powers who built on the treaties of European empires over the past 200+ years. These treaties and the subsequent international law are one 'paradigm', and the Divine Law is another 'paradigm, if you will. Part of the objectives of the Colonization of the Muslim world and the continued War on Islam is to subjugate the Divine Law to the whims of men and their international law. The Muslim world is led by regimes that continually submit to Western pressure to allow such things as Western military operations within Muslim lands to 'acquire targets', and are continually pressured by Western ideological proponents to secularize and eliminate, if not confine Divine Law in the affairs of the Muslim world. So there is undeniably an ongoing conflict within the Muslim world that is being pushed by the former colonial powers and America, the global power/empire and their leader.

That is the context of today's Muslim world.
That being said, the proper standard for the Muslim people is to have a singular Islamic state with a caliph (also titled: imam, amir, sultan). The caliph is duly obligated to implement Divine Law in reality on behalf of the Muslim people. In the face of war, the caliph must adopt rulings that address the reality. If the Islamic state is fighting against an enemy, he must adopt rulings that provide justice, adhere to the standard set by the Prophet (saaw), and protect the Muslim people.

The normal rule is that women and children are classified as noncombatants. The exception is if women are explicitly identified as engaging in fighting (Israeli women being conscripted into combat roles being such an exception).

The caliph can adopt a general ruling on the matter as he considers to be just and in balance with terms of war, for example he could rule that elderly men could be protected, also unarmed men. But such rulings would be open to his judiciousness.

The matter of protection for an enemy combatant is generally determined on a case by case basis wherein an individual Muslim man of upstanding character could offer 'protection' for an enemy combatant, given he no longer poses an immediate threat (is disarmed).

"at what point does a non-fighting member of a perceived "enemy" force or population become licit as the object of coercion and force--does merely passively paying taxes or other ways of non-violent support to the enemy government constitute a transition from noncombatant to combatant status"

Ulama have already addressed this matter. For example, taxation in America is compulsory by force. No one eligible is able to avoid it. Thus, taxation is not grounds to render an individual a combatant. It is known that even during the time of the Islamic state in Madinah led by the Prophet Muhammad (saaw)- the highest standard in Divine Law- there were Muslims who lived in the capital city Makka of the enemies of Islam. As long as these Muslims did not actively engage in warfare against Muslims, they were not deemed 'enemy combatants'.
The caliph, as during the times of righteous caliphates, would likely close the borders and all trade and relations with enemies and their people. Any subjects of the enemy within the Islamic state would have to have formal protection by an upstanding Muslim, or become a dhimmi- protected person- status, ie. comparable to subject of the Islamic state. Otherwise, he could be removed from the state, his property confiscated, arrested, even imprisoned as an enemy.


With that in mind, what Cloud quoted does not pertain to this topic. The incident of Bani Qurayza was the case of that tribe violating their Pact of al Madinah, & engaging in sedition and treason during the battle of Khandaq (the Ditch).

Here is a link to the Pact of Madinah: Full Text of Medina Charter

They vowed to fight along with the Muslims, to defend their families against a common enemy, and not to side with the enemy. Moreover, that tribe refused to accept the Prophet Muhammad's (saaw) judgement, choosing the ruling according to Jewish Law as administered by a Muslim judge, Sa`d ibn Muadh (rah) who they thought would be more favorable. He ruled against them according to the Law of Moses.
It was already known previous to this incident that the Prophet (saw) granted seditious tribes exile, but the Banu Qurayza sealed their own fate.

As for collective punishment, of what situation exactly are you speaking?

And Allah knows best of all.