Islam views on Prisoners of War

Ok, you made good argument and I accept it.



I totally agree, I never ever condone killing innocent civilians.



The Israeli propaganda machine always try to frame the victims as childern, this is not true, after all, tell me:

What is the difference between a palestinean suicide bomber using the only mean available to him to deliver the bomb and an israeli pilot wrapping himself with an AMERICAN F16 to deliver the bomb ??

They are both killers, both terrorists.



Again I agree with you, but dont you think violence generates violence ? dont you think terrorism stems from terror ?



And that is why I am against suicide bombings because innocent childern get killed.

I agree with Ahmad that the media in general tends to enlarge negative aspects of a certain topic/happening, or religion, like Islam. It should be noticed that this is a worldwide problem. When I read my own newspaper, watch the news, read Vrij Nederland or Elsevier (Dutch magazines), or Islamonline.com, it seems that the media uses popular - but wrong - ideas concerning things like religion, nationality etc.

When I read Elsevier, there was a topic about the "worst Dutch ever". I do not say they did it ON PURPOSE, but this conservative magazine had in his top five three socialists: the murderer of Pim Fortuyn - Volkert van der Graaf -, Martinus van der Lubbe (the man who burned the Reichstag and by that gave Hitler the opportunity to accuse the Communists and cease power - in a nutshell) and some Communist I never heard off before. But I did not see Anton Mussert (the leader of the Dutch Nazi party), or a Dutch nazi - who's name I forgot - who rounded up Dutch Jews and send them to the Nazicamps (and stopped counting after the 250th victim, among them Anne Frank and her family). I do think that these people are at least as bad as a person like Volkert van der Graaf. But Elsevier seems to have as purpose to put leftish people in a bad daylight (and this is not a generalization, for many articles in this magazine attack leftish ideas, leftish parties etc.). It should be said that Elsevier is a very prominent magazine in the Netherlands. On the other hand, a leftish magazine like Vrij Nederland does the same thing, but then with rightish ideas, rightish parties etc.

Also, just this week, I read an article on Islamonline.com (it was an old article) about Gretta Duisenberg. It was said that Dutch media attacked her alot (which is not entirely true), because the Dutch media was controlled by Jews.

Say what?

It are just two examples of the media being very subjective, and using that to spread wrong ideas about others. In my eyes it happens in both leftish and rightish media, secular and religious media etc.

But eventually I don't want to be too negative, so I also have to say the following: the media is improving. More and more there are stories from both sides, in all kinds of conflicts and situations. Nowadays there are as much articles about the Israelis in our newspaper as there are about Palestinians. Interviews with normal Iraqi's who criticize Americans, and interviews with American soldiers who give their point of view. There is hope :wink:

And our newspaper also reported the killing of Muslims in Nigeria by Christian fundamentalists Ahmad :wink:

Don't worry, MyOwnUsername, you wrote some interesting posts and you were speaking very wise words, both about your own country and the more general issue. Respect!

Thanks nimh...

Rick, oh well, I just must say that Martinus van der Lubbe is the biggest idiot in history of mankind. I don't know if I would call him worst Dutch or one of Top5 bad Dutchs, especially since every Dutch (same would be for Croatians or anyone else) that took part in Nazi regime are worse. But I really don't get those people that are basically on right side and are opposing lunatics and nazis, and then do something like that. Burning Reichstag is not problem - problem is that anyone with just a tiny piece of brain would know what will happen after that.

e-brown - where you seen idiotic bigoted attacks on his religion? where you seen any attacks on his religion? if anyone attacked anything then it was fact that many Muslims today are using Islam as tool for terrorism by twisting its real values and real messages. And it was pointed that Muslims themselves should deal with those people. Of course, it's absolutely same for any other religion - it's just that, as I said, it's kinda understandable that people worry more or talk more about when someone from Arab world destroys skyscrapers in USA or train stations in Europe, then when someone in Nigeria kills someone in Nigeria. They all committed same crimes, but it's normal that attention on those that affected wider population is bigger.
I don't know, maybe you read several topics in a row, so you confused some messages - you can see bigoted idiotic attacks on Islam in "Why is important that we refute Christianity..."
Here, it's just debate, and I doubt that Ahmad felt that anyone is attacking him - if he felt that from me then I am giving him my apology.

I strongly disagree with almost everything you "observe" here, which must be a first.

Ahmad's post did not evoke a "knee-jerk" response that came down to "attacking the religion". If you read MyOwnUsername's posts, especially his later ones, if you read my post, or even just au's one-liner, none of them "attacked" Islam itself - each of them distinguished between Islam as a religion, and what people do in the name of Islam in practice.

If you look again, you'll see that even MyOwnUsername's first post, which was the most 'passionate' by far, neatly distinguished the violent acts of extremists as "twist[ing] Koran and Islam in every possible way". We didn't equate the religion with those abusing it - we didn't attack "their religion", we attacked what is done in its name. I'd say we passed "beyond bigotry 101", there. Basically, you're crying wolf, and you know what happens if you cry wolf too often ...

All that was noted here was that, however beautiful the religious words he posted here are, they would be better posted to those who actually claim adherence to the religion these words represent, but who do not live by them. And it was Ahmad's reaction to that, which constitutes the one single clearest "knee-jerk reaction" in this thread.

In Ahmad's knee-jerk reaction, any reference to what someone who claimed to act in the name of Islam did wrong is immediately brushed aside with the notorious "but you're worse" argument -- the last refuge of those who are bent on escaping self-criticism. We know it from all sides. "There's some writers being imprisoned in the Soviet Union" -"Oh yeah, and what are you doing in Chile? Isn't that worse!?". "US soldiers are torturing prisoners in Iraq" -"Oh yeh right, as if the way they behead their prisoners isn't much worse!". State of denial, 101.

In Ahmad's world, apparently, no Muslim can spontaneously do wrong. If a Muslim does wrong, he's probably not a real Muslim -- see what he wrote about the 9/11 hijackers. Or it was because he was led to do so, by us: "Unless the west stop its own terrorism against Muslims, bin laden and his henchmen will be always there." There is no autonomous responsibility here. Everything bin Laden and his brand of Islamist extremists do is the direct product of what we did - they wouldn't ever come up with something like that by themselves. Why not, one would wonder? Every other culture has come up with its own crooks, but a Muslim crook must have been foisted on Muslims purely by external factors?

I'm not saying the West didn't play a crucial role in building up Osama -- and in exacerbating the socio-economic and political conditions that make people like him flourish. Of course we have a partial responsibility. But in Ahmad's world, it's by definition all our fault, and any reference to "internal" aspects are instantly drowned out by an indignant clamour about everything the West does wrong.

(It's the one thing someone like Ahmad seems to have in common with the patronising Westerners who see their own culture as the center of the world, the only motor of the world's development: they both believe that everything that happens, happens because of the West. In a way, this brand of Arab denialism is a kind of internalisation of the West's imperialist worldview).

I find it all ironic. Ahmad posts a bit from Islamic teachings here that is excellently fitted for evoking some self-reflection and self-evaluation. But he uses it merely to bludgeon the enemy over the head with it. I think we quickly picked up on that.

A final irony - and more evidence of "knee-jerkism" - must be that every crime referenced to a Muslim is rationalised as having nothing to do with the Islam as a religion (but with politics, injustice, mere crooks) - but any crime a Christian committed, is a "Christian" crime. I loved MyOwnUsername's patient explanation about Bosnia, but Ahmed didn't buy it, at first: after all, if we are seeing pictures of Serb generals massacring Bosnian Muslims, "we can see clearly that this war was indeed religious war". Never mind that the Bosniaks are an ethnic group as much as a religious one, and that the slaughter was attempted ethnocide rather than religious warfare ... He did exactly the very thing he blames us for! Funny.

The way you rushed to his defence, to be honest, has a patronising flavour to it, way I see it. You know that if it were an American conservative posting crude simplifications like his, you'd be on his case. Just because he's a Muslim from Finland rather than an American doesn't mean he can't be expected just as much to put up a coherent, reflective argument.

God that was long. Sorry.

Ahmad - well I think you are wrong about Palestinians - they do committ terrible crimes very often. That has nothing to do with Israel where you are right that they are the cause of all terror in Middle East. Although, I believe that Arabs were first that started with attacks on Israelis, but then Israel crossed all reasonable borders and limits in "defending" themselves.

On other issues we agree. Violence does generate violence unfortunately. I cannot find one good word for American behaviour in Middle East.

But, most of Americans and ALL Europeans were very shocked when they found out about torturing of Iraqi prisoners. On the other hand in SOME (once again: SOME, not all) Arab countries after 9/11 attacks thousands and thousands of people, ordinary people, children, elderly, all categories, were celebrating on streets. Personally I remember scenes from Palestine. So, problem is that in some parts it is beyond terrorist groups.
As I said there are many completely civilized and modern countries in Islam world. There are also countries like Iraq with many fanatics, but where I am sure majority of people are normal ordinary people that just want everybody to leave them alone already and let them live their lives.
But there are parts like Palestine where, maybe I am wrong but I am afraid I am not, 90% of population are total fanatics. Because when you see children dancing of joy because thousands of innocent people were killed then it's pretty scary.

nimh,

Go back and read the initial post in this thread. The author (and by implication Ahmad) is saying that according to their faith, mistreatment of prisoners is immoral.

What is there to argue about that?

Well MyOwnUserName goes off on how "some Iraqi's" treat prisoners. Au then points out that "Moslems never practiced what the preached" [sic] as if no Moslems have ever treated a prisoner well.

I think that Ahmad got roped into defending his statement of faith with this absurd tit-for-tat argument is unfortunate.

Here is the reason that the reaction to this post strikes me as bigotry.

Moslem thought is diverse, as is Christian thought and any other kind of thought. There is a significant portion of Moslems who would agree with the article that Ahmad presented.

There is a number of Moslems who clearly disagree with this article. But then 27% of Americans think that the abuse of prisoners (including sodomy and attacks with dogs) is justified.

When you generalize negative traits to inform your opinion of a of an ethnic group - that is bigotry by definition. In this country I can find blacks who are rapists, and Mexicans who sell drugs. Using these stereotypes to judge people is stil wrong.

Ahmad is Moslem. He believes that mistreatment of prisoners is immoral. He gives religious reason based on his faith. This is between him and God, but I know that many Moslems agree with him.

I am not a Moslem and I agree with him.

This absurd statement makes my point very nicely.

The difference is that the suicide bombers are taught and believe that they will receive a religious reward for their action. The targets are also nearly always civilian.

Well, imagine going onto a mostly Iraqi board, and posting a long thread there about how the US constitution prescribes - say - democracy, human rights for all and a safeguard against torture for any prisoner.

Of course, observed in pure isolation, most any Iraqi would share those values. But if an American would post just that treatise, at this point in time, there, wouldn't they fall all over him going - "yeh, right - that may be all great and beautiful - but thats not how your soldiers are behaving here now, is it!?"

Would you consider that reaction "bigoted"?

Apply the same standards to everyone.

you can disagree but that does not make your point by any mean - what exactly does my statement has with Islam?
In further and deeper analisys, using your own claims, it could be said that your opinion is in a way bigoted because you assume that someone that considers ONE nation too fanatic thinks that for entire religion - nation of million people (if that much) against religion of two BILLION people. Or that just shows your extreme lack of knowledge about Palestinians?
I haven't called them RELIGIOUS fanatics, I called them fanatics. People that send their children (not 1, not 7, not 15, HUNDREDS so far) to blow themselves with bombs, people that in TENS OF THOUSANDS celebrate killing of civilians, nation that is LEAD (NATION, not terrorist group) by terrorist fanatics...well, I think that there is nothing bigoted in my opinion. If you think that it is you can only call it bigotry against Palestinians, not against Islam.

Of course, I am not saying all Palestinians are like that. But it's clearly for anyone with any knowledge about Middle East that there is simply no comparation with ANY nation in world. And I am even on their side when it comes about conflict with official Israel. But, you know, when Israel bombed refugee camps and killed many innocent civilians, tens of thousands of protesters, Jews, went to streets of Tel Aviv. When terrorists kill 3,000 Americans, tens of thousands Palestinians go out to celebrate. Can't you see difference?
I can think and I think that Israeli government is racistic, bigoted and, sadly and ironically, nazistic. But I have absolutely no ground to tell that about Israeli people.
I am sorry for that, I deeply am sorry, but for Palestinians I have ground to say that - what does not mean that every single one of them is like that.

But that fact (neither fact itself, nor my opinion about it) has nothing to do with Islam.

Excellent point. I am SURE that Ahmad had no bad intentions, and he is more then welcomed on this forum and I enjoy our debate so far /in the light of that, he never showed that he is feeling abused by my opinions or that he thinks I am bigoted, so you are pushing too far - many would say that you are actually insulting him, although I know this was not your intention - but in, I am sure, good spirit, you were, surely accidently, patronizing him/.

My reaction on his post was inspired by exactly what nimh says. Fact that he posted it without existing debate, in a moment when all world was shocked by tape of beheading of american civilian. And he posted it without addition such as "you have to know that what those idiots is not what Islam is - now, here's what Islam is:"
And we started debate, I wasn't insulting him or anything. Because, he meant only good, which does not mean that his first post was necessarily completely okay in a light of some other events.

Islam and prisoners of war
Vinod Kumar

Islamic website http://www.everymuslim.com quoting Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra, from
his book Concept of War in Islam; writes "Islam advocates clemency with captives. History has never known warriors so merciful to their captives as the early Muslims who followed the teachings of their religion. Numerous religious texts demand clemency with captives."It goes on to say the Koran offers only two alternatives regarding the captives - free dismissal or ransoming - without referring to enslavement.
(Ref: http://members.tripod.com/maseeh1/advices7/id227.htm)0

The official website of Middle East Media Research Institute, http://www.memri.org, recently posted a summary of an article from another website, probably run by Chechens. This article has different views on the issue of treatment of prisoners under Islam.
(Ref: http://memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD43402)
The article under reference is titled "A Guide to the Perplexed Regarding the Permissibility of Killing Prisoners," which appeared in the column "Jihad News from the Land of the Caucasus". In this the author suggests that the Islamic religious scholars present five different alternatives, drawn from the various interpretations of the Koran:
1) A polytheist prisoner must be killed. No amnesty may be granted to him, nor can he be ransomed.
2) All infidel polytheists and the People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians) are to be killed. They may not be granted amnesty, nor can they be ransomed.
3) Amnesty and ransom are the only two ways to deal with prisoners.
4) Amnesty and ransom are possible only after the killing of a large number of prisoners.
5) The Imam, or someone acting on his behalf, can choose between killing, amnesty, ransom or enslaving the prisoner.

The above two are diagonally opposite views of Islam about the treatment of prisoners.
How is one to arrive at a rational opinion regarding what Islam really says on this issue?
The best way, I believe is to look into what Islamic scriptures have to say. Of course, the most authentic source of Islam is the Koran itself and after the Koran it is the recorded traditions of the Prophet known as the Hadis. Of all the four most well known traditions, the one compiled by Imam Bukhari is deemed to be most authentic.
On the question of taking prisoners and freeing them with ransom, Sahih Al-Bukhari records
"It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he has made a great slaughter (among his enemies). You desire the good of this world (money or ransom) but Allah desires (for you) the hereafter, and Allah is All-mighty, All-Wise." (Sahih Al- Bukhari, vol. 4, pp. 161)
This is claimed to be as Statement of Allah.
What should be done with the warriors of the defeated people?
When the tribe of Bani Koreiza was defeated, they were ready to accept S'ad's judgement. So the Prophet sent for S'ad who was near to him. S'ad came and sat next to the Prophet who said to him, "These people are ready to accept your judgement." S'ad issued his judgement that the their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O, S'ad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgement of the King (Allah)." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 4, pp. 176)
It is worthwhile to note that the Prophet did not intervene to say that the prisoners should be freed but commended S'ad's judgement as "similar to judgement of the King (Allah)."
As a consequence all the seven or eight hundred men of the Jewish tribe were put to death in one day and the women and children sold into slavery and the spoils divided among the army. The same day her husband and all her male relatives were killed, the Prophet invited Reihana, the Jew to be his wife; an offer she declined, and chose to remain his slave or concubine. (The Life of Mahomet by Sir William Muir)
Many commentators claim Islam prohibits killing of women and children. While there is a hadith where the Prophet prohibits killing of women and children (Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 4, pp. 160) but there is also a Hadith that says a raid on the enemy should not be abandoned just because it might endanger the lives of women and children. (Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 4, pp. 158-159)
Thus the incidental killing of women and children has the sanction in the traditions of the Prophet. In the aftermath of 9/11, the oft repeated contention that killing of women and children is not allowed in Islam is not true.
It is not surprising that some Muslims conquerors have followed the practice of killing the prisoners and defeated combatants. To give one example: Hajjaj, the governor of Irak asked Muhammad bin Kasim to lead an expedition on Sind in 712 CE. Chach-nama - historical account of Sind -- records "after the conquest was effected, and the affairs were settled and the report of conquest had reached Hajjaj, he (Hajjaj) sent a reply to the following effect:
"O my cousin; I received your life inspiring letter. I was much pleased and overjoyed when it reached me. The events were recounted in an excellent and beautiful style, and I learnt that the ways and rules you follow are comfortable to the Law. Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, and make no difference between enemy and friend. God says, -- Give no quarter to Infidels, but cut their throats. Then, know this is the command of the great God….." (The History of India as told by its own Historians by Elliott and Dowson, vol. 1)
Beside this the Muslim conquest of India is full of Hindu prisoners being made slaves and sold in the markets of Ghazni and beyond, forced to convert to Islam at the point of sword and killed for refusing to do so. Timur Lang's killing of 100,000 Hindu prisoners in one day is unparallel in history.
Yes, there were times when the Prophet spared the lives of the prisoners but generally it was on one of the two conditions - either they converted to Islam or accepted the status of dhimmies and paid the jiziya. Muslim conquerors of India have followed this practice also.
In its posting, www.memri.org summarizes the article saying the author prefers the position that "the Prophet Muhammad had dealt with the prisoners in different ways to maximize the benefits to Muslims."
The position that "the Koran offers only two alternatives regarding the captives - free dismissal or ransoming - without referring to enslavement" does not have much basis. The underlying message that one gathers is whatever is good for the Muslims and serves the interests of Islam is valid.

I would say that the one taken from an anonymous article, on a website "probably run by Chechens", in a column called "Jihad News from the Land of the Caucasus" ...

would most probably be the less universally held, accepted and applied one in the Muslim world.

Common sense and all ...

I absolutely agree with you. However, if, let's say, hundreds of blacks would rape women of other races every day, and every single news about it would be welcomed with tens of thousands blacks dancing in the street filled with joy, then statement that there is something seriously wrong with blacks would not be bigotry.
On the other hand you have Iraqis who beheaded innocent civilian and I never said or thought that Iraqis are crazy lunatics and fanatics. Because, that IS something isolated. Tens of thousands of people celebrating killing of innocent civilians is not isolated thing. Neither is hundreds and hundreds of thousands people on funeral of one of world's biggest terrorists.
I don't know if really 90% of Palestinians are fanatics. Maybe it's 73% of them. Maybe 68%. Numbers are not important, and maybe they were used in wrong way. I don't care about numbers. Point is that this nation, like not a single other country in the world, is completely and totally run by terrorists (Edit: that DOES NOT mean that all Palestinians are terrorists, it means that their society in general is heavily and terribly affected by terrorism - where else in the world you can find so many KIDS ready to blow themselves along with as much possible innocent civilians, and then to see their parents filled with huge pride)
- it's not bigotry, it's pure fact. Not a single voice of reason can go through. And fact that I am on palestinian side in political argument, and that I completely despise Israeli government does not change my opinion about situation in Palestine.

I might be wrong. Sure I might. But fact that I never thought nothing like that, not even close, about Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians, Israelis, Americans, nor anyone else is, in my personal opinion, pretty important.
As well as fact that I never thought nothing even close to that about Serbs that were firing rockets and bombs directly on my town for four years, and that I had absolutely no personal problems with Palestinians.

What is important is the references to the hadiths. Fundamentalists of many religions can find ancient writings to justify their lunacy.

you are quite right mesquite, as well as you can find numerous websites about Bible contradictories.
Not to mention that crusade wars and inquisition had solid ground in Bible, because Christian fanatics back then found what suits them to, quoting mesquite, justify their lunacy

Re: Islam views on Prisoners of War


For sure you couldn't really accuse the German nazis of trying to imitate them. Maybe the ustashe in Croatia...

http://www.truthtree.com/islam/mohwar1.shtml
http://feistymama.com/bp/mohammed.htm
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/lifeofprophet.html
http://www.primechoice.com/philosophy/shelp/muhammad.htm

oh my favourite Serb is back Hello s(erbian)wolf, how are you? Still sad that serbian scum is all over Hague and your fellow compatriots are trying to become normal country while those alike you are buried deep in past? Are you disappointed honey? Do you feel rejected? Will you ever be able to forgive Serbs that they are becoming normal country?
So, now you are leading Holy War against Islam after your buddies ended up in Hague and in historical graveyards with their fellow Hitler, and YES, my dear friend, with their fellow Pavelic (edit: for others: Pavelic = notorius leader of croatian Nazis during WW2)?

Look, I have some other news for you - as always, unlike using cheap propaganda, I'll rather talk about what your kind was in 90's, by using Serb sources, glad that Serbia is becoming normal country again. For others - B92 is serbian radio station, SRNA is Bosnian Serb news agency

http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=11064&dd=29&mm=04&yyyy=2001