Qur'an Wiki - Surah 47: Muhammad Ayat 4 (2024)

Overview (Verse 4)

An Order to Fight

The principle stated in the first verse of the surah is made the basis of the directive to the believers to fight the unbelievers. The believers are the ones who follow the truth that must be established in human life on earth. It, truth, should be given the power to conduct life's affairs. Thus, human life becomes based on the truth and refers everything to it. The unbelievers, on the other hand, follow falsehood. This should be removed with all its effects on human life: "Now when you meet the unbelievers in battle, smite their necks. Then when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly. Thereafter, set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom, until war shall lay down its burden." (Verse 4) This verse refers specifically to meeting in battle, not any other meeting between believers and unbelievers. Up to the revelation of this surah, idolaters lived in the Arabian Peninsula, some of whom were at war with the believers and some bound by peace treaties. Surah 9, Repentance, had not as then been revealed giving notice that treaties specifying dates of expiry would not be renewed. On the other hand, treaties without a specific term were given a four-month notice of termination. Thereafter, idolaters were to be killed if they were found anywhere in the Arabian Peninsula. The aim of these rules was to make the Peninsula the permanent base of Islam.

The verse tells the believers specifically to smite the unbelievers' necks, but this only occurs after Islam is explained to them and they reject the call to accept it. The order is given in a way that describes the actual killing and the action it requires, so as to fit with the general ambience of the surah.

"Then when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly." (Verse 4) The Arabic verb `athkhana' , translated here as 'subdue', also connotes strong fighting involving killing of opponents. The situation the verse envisages as a result of fighting is the total collapse of the enemy's power so as to leave the enemy incapable of putting up any defence, let alone launching a counterattack. At this point only, captives are taken. While the enemy still has substantial force, the fight goes on to remove the danger it presents.

Thus, like most commentators on the Qur'an, we see no conflict between this verse and the one in Surah 8, The Spoils of War, which remonstrates with the Prophet and the Muslims for taking many captives of war during the Battle of Badr. At the time, continuing the battle to kill more of the unbelievers was a better option. The relevant verses state: "It does not behove a Prophet to have captives unless he has battled strenuously in the land. You may desire the fleeting gains of this world, but God desires for you the good of the lift to come. God is Almighty, Wise. Had it not been for a decree from God that had already gone forth, you would have been severely punished for what you have taken."' (8: 67-68) This means that killing the enemy and breaking its power comes first. When this has been accomplished, captives may be taken. The wisdom in all this is clearly apparent. To remove aggression by forces hostile to Islam must be the first objective of fighting, particularly when the numerical strength of the Muslim community is well below that of the unbelievers. In such circ*mstances as prevailed at the time of the Battle of Badr, killing an enemy fighter was far more important in the balance of power between the two sides. However, this ruling remains valid in general, and it should be applied in any armed conflict with the aim of making the enemy powerless.

The Ruling on Captives of War

The verse then sets the ruling concerning those who are taken captive in war. This is the only Qur'anic text stating a ruling on such captives:

"Thereafter, set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom." (Verse 4) This means that captives of war are to be set free gratis, without any compensation. No specified ransom or exchange of prisoners is required. The Qur'anic verse does not mention any third option, such as putting idolater captives to death or binding them into slavery. Nevertheless, what happened in practice was that the Prophet and the caliphs succeeding him put some war captives into slavery, and killed specifically named individuals. We will quote what Imam Abu Bala al-Jassas, of the Hanafi school of Islamic law, says about this verse in his book Ahkam al-Qur'dn, making some comments as necessary. We will then conclude by stating our view of the relevant rulings:

God says in this verse: "Now when you meet the unbelievers in battle, smite their necks." On the surface, the statement makes it clear that killing the unbelievers is the only option until they have been thoroughly subdued. This is consistent with what God says in the other verse: "it does not behave a Prophet to have captives unless he has battled strenuously in the land." (8: 67) Ibn 'Abbas is quoted as saying that this last statement applied to the Battle of Badr, when the Muslims were a small minority. When their numbers increased and they became more powerful, God established the ruling: "Thereafter, set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom." Thus, God allowed the Prophet and the believers all options: to kill their prisoners, enslave them or set them free. However, the transmitter of this hadith doubts whether Ibn 'Abbas mentioned enslaving prisoners.

Since the reporter was uncertain that Ibn 'Abbas mentioned slavery in this context, we discard that option altogether. As for killing such prisoners of war, we see no basis for this in the verse under discussion. The verse mentions only freeing them either as an act of grace or against ransom.

Al-Suddi is reported to have commented on the ruling, "set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom," saying that it has been abrogated by the subsequent verse in Sarah 9, stating: "slay the idolaters wherever you find them." (9: 5) However, we say that the Qur'anic statements: "Now when you meet the unbelievers in battle, smite their necks," and "It does not behove a Prophet to have captives unless he has battled strenuously in the land," and "Should you meet them in battle, make of them a fearsome example for those who follow them," are most probably outlining valid rulings, none of which has been abrogated. God commanded His messenger to kill the unbelievers and not to take captives from among them until they had been thoroughly subdued. This was the case when the Muslims were small in number, compared with their enemy. In that situation, only when the unbelievers were subdued after being killed in numbers and were made an example of to those who followed them, was it then permissible to take some of them captive, keeping them alive. This should be a permanent rule, applicable at any time when the Muslims are in a similar situation to that which prevailed in the early days of Islam.

In comment, we say that the order to kill the idolaters wherever they were found applied specifically to the idolaters in the Arabian Peninsula. The verse in the present surah is general in its import. When the enemy is thoroughly subdued and its power is smashed, it is permissible to take prisoners. This was the practice followed by the caliphs after the Prophet. Prisoners were killed only in particular cases which we will explain presently.

The statement, "set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom," provides for one of two alternatives: freeing the prisoners either by an act of grace or against ransom, which suggests that killing them was prohibited. However, early scholars differ on this point. Al-Hasan is reported to have objected to killing prisoners of war, saying that they should be freed against ransom or indeed without it. Vita' is also reported to have held this view.

When asked what to do with prisoners, al-Hasan answered: 'Do with them what the Prophet did with the prisoners taken in the Battle of Badr: they were freed by an act of grace or against ransom.' Ibn T./mar was given a prisoner, a man of high position from the city of Istakhr, so that he could kill him, but he refused to do so citing the Qur'anic statement: "set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom." Likewise, Mujahid and Ibn Sirin are reported to have spoken against killing prisoners of war. We have already mentioned al-Suddi's view that this ruling was abrogated by the other Qur'anic instruction: "slay the idolaters wherever you find them." (9: 5) Likewise, Ibn Jurayj is of this view. He cited the case of Uqbah ibn Abi Mu'ayt whom the Prophet ordered to be killed after he was taken prisoner during the Battle of Badr.

Scholars from all provinces are unanimous that a prisoner of war may be killed, and we do not know of any taking a different view. Reports are numerous that the Prophet sanctioned such killing. He ordered the execution of liqbah ibn Abi Mucayt and al-Nadr ibn al-Harith after the Battle of Badr, and Abu (Azzah, the poet, after the Battle of Uhud. He also put the Qurayzah prisoners to death when they accepted Sa`d ibn Muldh's judgement to the effect that their men must be executed and their offspring be enslaved. From among them, he set al-Zubayr ibn Bata free by an act of grace. When he conquered Khaybar, partly by war and partly by peaceful agreement, he stipulated a clear condition on Ibn Abi al-Huqayq, but when his treachery was exposed, he ordered his execution. When he later entered Makkah, he ordered the killing of a number of people, stating that they should be killed, 'even if found clinging to the robes of the Ka 'bah.' However, he freed the people of Makkah and took nothing of their property.

Abu Bakr is quoted to have said: "I wish I had not ordered al Fuja'ah to be burnt when he was brought to me. I wish I had ordered his execution normally or set him free." Abu Musa al-Ash 'ari mentions that he executed the chief priest of al-Sus, after he had given him a guarantee of safety for a number of people whom the priest named. However, he forgot to include himself, and therefore, the guarantee of safety did not apply to him. So, Abu Musa ordered his execution.

All these reports and hadith confirm, without any doubt, that the Prophet and his Companions approved the execution of prisoners of war or setting them free. This is the consensus of scholars in all regions.

The permissibility of executing prisoners of war cannot, however, just be based on the Qur'anic statement. It should instead be viewed against the actions of the Prophet and some of his Companions. When we carefully consider all the cases where prisoners were killed, we find that they were all special; in other words, there were additional militating factors other than merely fighting against Muslims and subsequent captivity. The men killed after the Battles of Badr and Uhud, namely, Uqbah, al-Nadr and Abu Azzah, respectively, were all hostile opponents who were determined to harm the Prophet. The case of the Qurayzah Jews was also special, given they had agreed, in advance, for judgement to be passed on them by Sa`d ibn Mu 'adh. In all these cases we find special reasons placing them outside the general rule on prisoners of war stated in this verse: "set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom." (Verse 4)

Scholars differed on setting prisoners free against ransom. Those of our school, the klanafi, maintain that a prisoner cannot be set free against financial ransom, and cannot be sold to the enemy so as to join them again in fighting. Abu Hanifah also states that a prisoner of war cannot be set free in exchange for Muslim prisoners. In no way should he ever be returned to join an enemy army. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan differ with Abu Hanifah on this point, allowing the exchange of prisoners of war between Muslims and non-Muslims. This last view is subscribed to by major scholars like al-Thawri and al-Awzai. Al-Awza'i adds that it is permissible to sell prisoners of war to the enemy, but the men among them may not be sold except in an exchange of prisoners. On the other hand, al-Muzni quotes al-Shell as saying that a Muslim ruler may set male prisoners of war free by an act of grace or against ransom after their defeat.

Those who approve of exchange of prisoners and setting enemy prisoners free against financial ransom cite in support of their view the Qur'anic statement: "set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom." This apparently permits setting them free against ransom and in exchange for Muslim prisoners. They also cite the fact that the Prophet set Quraysh prisoners from the Battle of Badr free against financial ransom. As for the permissibility of an exchange of prisoners, they cite in support a hadith reported by 'Imran ibn Husayn: "The Thaqif tribe took two Companions of the Prophet prisoner, and the Muslims took a man from the tribe of 'Amir ibn a`sa.`ah prisoner. The Prophet passed by this prisoner when he was tied up, and the man called him. The Prophet went to him. He asked: 'Why am I taken prisoner?' The Prophet said: 'Because of your allies' offence.' The man said: 'But I am a Muslim.' The Prophet replied: 'Had you said this when you were free, you would have greatly prospered.' The Prophet moved away, but the man called him again. When the Prophet went to him, he said: 'Feed me, for I am hungry.' The Prophet said: 'This is what you need.' The Prophet then exchanged him for the two men taken captive by the Thaqif."

In our view, the evidence in support of those who say that prisoners of war may be set free against ransom is weightier and more valid than that stated in support of the view of aliassis's school. This is true even though they differ concerning the form of ransom and whether it is financial or in exchange with Muslim prisoners of war. Imam al-Jassas concludes his discussion by endorsing the view of his Hanafi school of Islamic law:

As for the mention in this verse of freeing prisoners as an act of grace or against ransom, along with what is reported of the action concerning the prisoners during the Battle of Badr, all this is abrogated by the Qur'anic verse that says: "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive, besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place. Yet if they should repent, take to prayer and pay the zakat, let them go their way." (9: 5) We have mentioned that this is the view of al-Suddi and Ibn Jurayj. Further confirmation of the abrogation is seen in the verse that says: "Fight against those who — despite having been given Scriptures — do not truly believe in God and the Last Day, and do not treat as forbidden that which God and His messenger have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth, till they [agree to] pay the submission tax with a willing hand, after they have been humbled." (9: 29) Both verses speak of the duty to fight against the unbelievers until they accept Islam or pay tribute, or ji*zyah. To free them against ransom runs contrary to this. All commentators on the Qur'an and scholars of hadith agree that Sarah 9, Repentance, was revealed later than Sarah 47, Muhammad, which means that the rulings it states abrogate the earlier ones including that of freeing them against ransom.

We have already stated that this ruling to kill idolaters unless they adopt Islam is specific to idolaters living in the Arabian Peninsula. Others living outside it can live in the Muslim state and pay a tribute, just like the payment of tribute is accepted from followers of earlier religions. That the tribute is accepted from them when they submit to the rule of the Muslim state does not preclude that some of them may fall prisoner before such submission. What ruling applies to such prisoners, then? We say that a Muslim ruler may free them by an act of grace if he determines that this serves the interests of the Muslim community. He may also free them against financial ransom or in exchange for Muslim prisoners, when their people continue to have a fighting force and remain hostile. When the enemy renounces hostility by agreeing to pay tribute to the Muslim state, a different situation applies with clearly specified rulings. This means that the ruling concerning prisoners of war continues to be valid in cases that are not settled by the payment of tribute.

What We Say

To sum up, this is the only Qur'anic text providing a ruling on prisoners of war. All other texts relate to situations other than that of taking prisoners. Therefore, this represents the permanent basis for dealing with this question. In those cases where the practice differed, this was the result of specific and temporary situations. Putting some prisoners to death applied only in individual cases, which could be similar to future ones. Those individuals were executed for actions they committed before being taken prisoner. They were not killed merely for fighting the Muslims. A spy, for example, may be taken prisoner and tried. In this case, he is tried for spying, not for being an enemy soldier taken prisoner in open battle. His captivity merely brought him under the authority of the Muslim state.

A word needs to be said about placing prisoners of war in slavery. We have already stated on more than one occasion that this was in response to prevalent universal situations and common practices in war. These situations made it impossible for Islam to implement in all circ*mstances the general statement "set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom," when enemy camps used to put any Muslim taken prisoner into slavery. Therefore, this ruling was applied by the Prophet in certain situations: he set free some prisoners in acts of grace, while in other cases he exchanged prisoners and in still other cases, he accepted financial ransom. In some cases prisoners were made slaves in order to deal with situations that could not be otherwise dealt with.

Should all camps agree not to treat prisoners of war as slaves, Islam reverts to its single positive ruling in the matter: "set them free either by an act ofgrace or against ransom." Putting prisoners into slavery is not an Islamic rule; it is a procedure dealing with special circ*mstances. This is the view that we derive from this clear Qur'anic statement and from carefully studying different cases, events and situations.

I should perhaps make it clear that I support this view because the Qur'anic statements and the study of events and cases support it. It does not occur to me that I should defend Islam against the accusation that it puts prisoners into slavery. Such a thought I never entertain. Had Islam adopted this practice, it would have been the right and better one. No human being with any degree of good manners would ever say that his view is better than God's ruling. I only look at the Qur'anic text, its wording and spirit. It is on this basis that I have formulated my view.

All this, i.e fighting, smiting the necks of unbelievers, binding them firmly and dealing with the captives according to this rule, continues "until war shall lay down its burden." (Verse 4) This means until war is over between Islam and its opponents. It remains the permanent Islamic rule. According to a hadith related by Abu Dawad on Anas's authority, the Prophet says: "Jihad shall continue until the Day of Judgement." Its purpose is to ensure that God's word remains supreme.