All this talk about American civil/military jurisprudence and I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_war_in_Islam
which I found to be a very interesting read. I doubt that, if this at all accurate, it is taught in madrasas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_war_in_Islam
which I found to be a very interesting read. I doubt that, if this at all accurate, it is taught in madrasas.
Islamic military jurisprudence refers to what has been accepted in Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) by ulema (Islamic scholars) as the correct Islamic manner which is expected to be obeyed by Muslims, though it may differ with what has been done in Muslim history.
Contents
* 1 Development of rulings
* 2 Ethics of warfare
* 3 Criteria for soldiering
* 4 Legitimacy of war
o 4.1 Defensive conflict
o 4.2 Offensive conflict
* 5 International conflict
o 5.1 Declaration of war
o 5.2 Conduct of armed forces
+ 5.2.1 Civilian areas
o 5.3 Negotiations
o 5.4 Ceasefire
o 5.5 Prisoners of War
* 6 Internal conflict
* 7 See also
* 8 Notes
* 9 References
* 10 External links
Development of rulings
See also: Jihad, Muhammad as a general, and Muhammad as a diplomat
The first military rulings were formulated during the first century after Muhammad established an Islamic state in Medina. These rulings evolved in accordance with the interpretations of the Quran (the Muslim Holy scriptures) and Hadith (the recorded traditions of Muhammad). The key themes in these rulings were the justness of war, and the injunction to jihad. The rulings do not cover feuds and armed conflicts in general.[1]
Jihad (Arabic for "struggle") was given a military dimension after the oppressive practices of the Meccan Quraish against Muslims. It was interpreted as the struggle in God's cause to be conducted by the Muslim community. Injunctions relating to jihad have been characterized as individual as well as collective duties of the Muslim community. Hence, the nature of attack is important in the interpretation — if the Muslim community as a whole is attacked jihad becomes incumbent on all Muslims. Jihad is differentiated further in respect to the requirements within Muslim-governed lands (Dar al-Islam) and non-Muslim lands (Dar al-Harb).[1]
According to Shaheen Sardar Ali and Javaid Rehman, both professors of law, the Islamic military jurisprudence are in line with rules of modern international law. They point to the dual commitment of Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) member states (representing most of the Muslim world) to Islamic law and the United Nations Charter, as evidence of compatibility of both legal systems.[2]
Ethics of warfare
See also: Islamic ethics
The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist.[3][4][5][6] The principle of forgiveness is reiterated in between the assertions of the right to self-defence.[3]
During his life, Muhammad gave various injunctions to his forces and adopted practices toward the conduct of war. The most important of these were summarized by Muhammad's companion, Abu Bakr, in the form of ten rules for the Muslim army:[7]
“ Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone. ”
These injunctions were honored by the second Caliph, Umar, during whose reign (634–644) important Muslim conquests took place.[8] These principles were also honoured during the Crusades, as exemplified by sultans such as Saladin and al-Kamil. For example, after al-Kamil defeated the Franks during the Crusades, Oliverus Scholasticus praised the Islamic laws of war, commenting on how al-Kamil supplied the defeated Frankish army with food:[9]
“ "Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power."[10] ”
During the Battle of Siffin, the Caliph Ali stated that Islam does not permit Muslims to stop the supply of water to their enemy.[11] In addition to the Rashidun Caliphs, hadiths attributed to Muhammad himself suggest that he stated the following regarding the Muslim conquest of Egypt:[12]
“ "You are going to enter Egypt a land where qirat (money unit) is used. Be extremely good to them as they have with us close ties and marriage relationships. When you enter Egypt after my death, recruit many soldiers from among the Egyptians because they are the best soldiers on earth, as they and their wives are permanently on duty until the Day of Resurrection. Be good to the Copts of Egypt; you shall take them over, but they shall be your instrument and help. Be Righteous to God about the Copts." ”
The early Islamic treatises on international law from the 9th century onwards covered the application of Islamic ethics, Islamic economic jurisprudence and Islamic military jurisprudence to international law,[13] and were concerned with a number of modern international law topics, including the law of treaties; the treatment of diplomats, hostages, refugees and prisoners of war; the right of asylum; conduct on the battlefield; protection of women, children and non-combatant civilians; contracts across the lines of battle; the use of poisonous weapons; and devastation of enemy territory.[9]
Criteria for soldiering
Muslim jurists agree that Muslim armed forces must consist of debt-free adults who possess a sound mind and body. In addition, the combatants must not be conscripted, but rather enlist of their free will, and with the permission of their family.[14]
Traditionally, "adults" have been defined as post-pubescent individuals above the age of 15.
Legitimacy of war
See also: Defensive jihad and Offensive jihad
Muslims have struggled to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate wars. Fighting in self-defense is not only legitimate but considered obligatory upon Muslims, according to the Qur'an. The Qur'an, however, says that should enemy hostile behavior cease, then the reason for engaging such enemy also lapses.[15]
Some scholars argue that war may only be legitimate if Muslims have at least half the power of the enemy (and thus capable of winning it). Other Islamic scholars consider this command only for a particular time.[16]
Defensive conflict
The Hanafi school of thought holds that war can only be launched against a state that had resorted to armed conflict against the Muslims. War, according to the Hanafis, can't simply be made on the account of nation's religion.[15] Sheikh Abdullah Azzam considers the defense by Muslims of their territory as one of the foremost obligations after faith.[17] Abdulaziz Sachedina argues that the original jihad according to his version of Shi'ism was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges. Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces.[18]
Offensive conflict
Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i (d. 820), founder of the Shafi'i school of thought, was the first to permit offensive jihad. He limited this warfare against pagan Arabs only, not permitting it against non-Arab non-Muslims.[15]
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi believes that after Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for military jihad is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. Islam only allows jihad to be conducted by a government.[19][20][21]
According to Abdulaziz Sachedina, offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds. He states that the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship, through offensive measures. To this end, the Quranic verses revealed in the latter part of Muhammad's career require Muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers. This has been complicated by the early Muslim wars of expansion, which he argues were although considered jihad by Sunni scholars, but under close scrutiny can be determined to be political. Moreover, the offensive jihad points more to the complex relationship with the "People of the book".[18]
International conflict
International conflicts are armed strifes conducted by one state against another, and are distinguished from civil wars or armed strife within a state.[22] Some classical Islamic scholars, like Shafi'i classified territories into broad categories: dar al-islam ("abode of Islam"), dar al-harb ("abode of war), dar al-ahd ("abode of treaty"), and dar al-sulh ("abode of reconciliation"). Such categorizations of states, according to Asma Afsaruddin, are not mentioned in the Qur'an and Islamic tradition.[15]
Declaration of war
The Quran commands Muslims to make a proper declaration of war prior to the commencement of military operations. Thus, surprise attacks are illegal under the Islamic jurisprudence. The Quran had similarly commanded Muhammad to give his enemies, who had violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, a time period of four months to reconsider their position and negotiate.[23] This rule, however, is not binding if the adversary has already started the war.[24] Forcible prevention of religious practice is considered an act of war.[25]
Conduct of armed forces
During battle the Quran commands Muslims to fight against the enemy. However, there are exceptions to such combat. Torturing the enemy, and burning the combatants alive is strictly prohibited.[26] The mutilation of dead bodies is also prohibited.[27] The Quran also discourages Muslim combatants from displaying pomp and unnecessary boasting when setting out for battle.[28]
According to professor Sayyid Dāmād, no explicit injunctions against use of chemical or biological warfare were developed by medieval Islamic jurists as these threats were not recognized. However, Khalil al-Maliki's Book on jihad states that combatants are forbidden to employ weapons that cause unnecessary injury to the enemy, except under dire circumstances. The book, as an example, forbids the use of poisonous spears, since it inflicts unnecessary pain.[29]
Civilian areas
Islam expressly prohibits the killing of non-combatants.[30][31] Javed Ghamidi argues that this principle is not just based on the Islamic faith but also founded in customs and reason.[32] Shia scholar Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi holds a similar position regarding non-combatants.[33]
Harming civilian areas and pillaging residential areas is also forbidden,[34] as is the destruction of trees, crops, livestock and farmlands.[26][35] The Muslim forces may not loot travellers, as doing so is contrary to the spirit of jihad.[36] Nor do they have the right to use the local facilities of the native people without their consent. If such a consent is obtained, the Muslim army is still under the obligation to compensate the people financially for the use of such facilities. However, Islamic law allows the confiscation of military equipment and supplies captured from the camps and military headquarters of the combatant armies.[34][37]
Negotiations
Commentators of the Quran agree that Muslims should always be willing and ready to negotiate peace with the other party without any hesitation. According to Maududi, Islam does not permit Muslims to reject peace and continue bloodshed.[38]
Islamic jurisprudence calls for third party interventions as another means of ending conflicts. Such interventions are to establish mediation between the two parties to achieve a just resolution of the dispute.[39]
Ceasefire
In the context of seventh century Arabia, the Quran ordained Muslims must restrain themselves from fighting in the months when fighting was prohibited by Arab pagans. The Qur'an also required the respect of this cease-fire, prohibiting its violation.[24]
If, however, non-Muslims commit acts of aggression, Muslims are free to retaliate, though in a manner that is equal to the original transgression.[40] The "sword verse", which has attracted attention, is directed against a particular group who violate the terms of peace and commit aggression (but excepts those who observe the treaty). Crone states that this verse seems to be based on the same above-mentioned rules. Here also it is stressed that one must stop when they do.[3][5] Ibn Kathir states that the verse implies a hasty mission of besieging and gathering intelligence about the enemy, resulting in either death or repentance by the enemy.[41] It is read as a continuation of previous verses, it would be concerned with the same oath-breaking of "polytheists".[3]
Prisoners of War
Main article: Prisoners of war in Islam
See also: Islam and slavery
Men, women, and children may all be taken as prisoners of war under traditional interpretations of Islamic law. Generally, a prisoner of war could be, at the discretion of the military leader, freed, ransomed, exchanged for Muslim prisoners,[42] or kept as slaves.[43] In earlier times, the ransom sometimes took an educational dimension, where a literate prisoner of war could secure his or her freedom by teaching ten Muslims to read and write.[44] Some Muslim scholars hold that a prisoner may not be ransomed for gold or silver, but may be exchanged for Muslim prisoners.[45]
Women and children prisoners of war cannot be killed under any circumstances, regardless of their religious convictions,[46] but they may be freed or ransomed. Women who are neither freed nor ransomed by their people were to be kept in bondage and referred to as ma malakat aymanukum. Islamic law does not put an exact limit on the number that can be kept in bondage. It strictly forbids keeping female slaves as a means of sexual enjoyment and luxury according to the Islamic scholar Maududi.[47]
Internal conflict
Internal conflicts include "civil wars", launched against rebels, and "wars for welfare" launched against bandits.[22]
During their first civil war, Muslims fought at the Battle of Bassorah. In this engagement, Ali (the caliph), set the precedent for war against other Muslims, which most later Muslims have accepted. According to Ali's rules, wounded or captured enemies should not be killed, those throwing away their arms should not be fought, and those fleeing from the battleground should not be pursued. Only captured weapons and animals (horses and camels which have been used in the war) are to be considered war booty. No war prisoners, women or children are to be enslaved and the property of the slain enemies are to go their legal Muslim heirs. [48]
Different views regarding armed rebellion have prevailed in the Muslim world at different times. During the first three centuries of Muslim history, jurists held that a political rebel may not be executed nor his/her property confiscated.[49]
Classical jurists, however, laid down severe penalties for rebels who use "stealth attacks" and "spread terror". In this category, Muslim jurists included abductions, poisoning of water wells, arson, attacks against wayfarers and travellers, assaults under the cover of night and rape. The punishment for such crimes were severe, including death, regardless of the political convictions and religion of the perpetrator. Further, rebels who committed acts of terrorism were granted no quarter.[49]
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
