19 September 2025
By Syed Muaz Shah
This article was originally published on the ICRC blog. It is reposted here with permission from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). All rights remain with the original publisher.
Executive Summary
This article examines sexual violence during armed conflict and other situations of violence through a historical and Islamic perspective. It highlights that while sexual violence was widespread in ancient warfare—from Mesopotamia to Rome—Islam introduced a decisive ethical and legal framework that condemned such practices. Early Islamic teachings, the Prophet Muhammad’s example, and the directives of the Rightly Guided Caliphs established clear prohibitions against harming women, children, and non-combatants. Islamic law emphasized consent, human dignity, and protection of captives, anticipating principles later echoed in modern humanitarian law.
The analysis contrasts these norms with historical abuses and with contemporary extremist distortions, underscoring that groups such as ISIS fundamentally contradict Islamic tradition in their treatment of women. By revisiting both early sources and later practices, it shows that Islamic jurisprudence consistently rejected sexual violence as unlawful, whether in armed conflict or in other violent contexts. The conclusion affirms that safeguarding women’s dignity is a central Islamic value that aligns with international humanitarian law and remains vital to addressing sexual violence in today’s conflicts.
Introduction
The history of sexual violence in armed conflict is an ancient one, linked to the development of the rules of war and law in general. The Islamic historical perspective was influenced by earlier experiences, particularly those in surrounding regions. In the earliest days of recorded history, the Mesopotamians are credited with some of the first written laws. Foreshadowing the development of the laws of warfare, King Hammurabi proclaimed: “I prescribe these laws so that the strong do not oppress the weak.” [2]
Ancient Egyptian traditions suggest that humanitarian concerns were not paramount, with entire cities put to the sword for resistance. Nevertheless, exhaustion with war spurred a desire for peace. The first recorded peace treaty was the Treaty of Kadesh between the Egyptians under Ramesses II and the Hittites under Mutawalli II.[3] Interestingly, the terms stated that “persons of rank or importance would be returned to their own rulers if they tried to flee from one territory to the other in order to escape punishment for crimes”.[4] This suggests the development of an international agreement to return fugitives, something we will see later in the Islamic tradition. Nonetheless, this rudimentary start was a response to the horrors of war that were witnessed at the time – both in terms of sexual and other forms of violence.
Herodotus, the famous Greek known as the father of history, wrote about Cambyses’ invasion of Egypt and the revenge he took on Memphis because a ship sent for safe passage to encourage the surrender of the Egyptians was slaughtered to a man. Memphis paid the price of 10 men per sailor lost by the Persians when 2000 captives were killed in retribution. Herodotus wrote that Cambyses also did a very “un-Persian” act by opening up the tomb of Amasis, the Pharaoh who died just before the Persian invasion, and “he proceeded to have it treated with every possible indignity, such as beating it with whips, sticking it with goads, and plucking its hairs” and eventually ordered the body to be burned.”[5]
The Asiatic Vespers is considered to be one of the first recorded massacres in history, when Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus in early 88 BC vainly attempted to resist Roman hunger for more land and influence in Asia. He allied with locals in Asia Minor to massacre all Latin speaking Romans and it was estimated that 80,000 to 150,000 people were killed in a coordinated assault. Appian writes that “such was the awful fate that befell the Romans and Italians throughout the province of Asia, men, women, and children, their freedmen and slaves, all who were of Italian blood”.[6]
When King Khusro Pervez of Persia declared war on Rome in 602 AD, he razed to the ground all Christian churches and monasteries in his kingdom. In 614 AD, Jerusalem fell after a 20-day siege. Churches such as the Holy Sepulchre were pillaged, and relics like the True Cross and the Holy Lance were seized.[7] Reports of forcing Christian worshippers to worship fire, in accordance with the Persians’ Zoroastrian faith, are also found.[8] He reportedly killed 90,000 Christians and captured Pope Zacharias. The Romans were not subtle in their response, when Roman Emperor Hercules attacked Persia from the north, he destroyed the holy places of Zoroastrian fire-worshipers in the town of Urinea and made all efforts to humiliate their religion.[9]
Such acts were not limited to the Persians. In 533 AD, Emperor Justinian, alongside Roman General Belisarius, was said to have eliminated almost the entire Vandal population. It was said that before the war, the nation had 120,000 able men and after the final defeat of their king Gelimer fled with just 800 men. Apart from these, women, children and slaves were also in large numbers. When Rome gained control over them, not a single able person was left. Gibbon states that the whole nation was almost completely exterminated.[10]
Another stark example is that of Shahpoor Zulaktaf, the ruler of Persia, in 339 AD. He executed Bishop Marshimun along with 105 clergymen, looted monasteries, and subjected Christians in Persia to four decades of oppression.[11]
The early church forbade Christians to be soldiers and participate in war, but this eventually changed with the conversion of the ruling class in Rome. St. Augustine of Hippo developed the concept of “just war”. He stated that “they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.'”[12]
The Romans in turn influenced the church, and the rulers of Europe developed a code of chivalry and knightly behaviour. These codes, rules, and regulations crystallized from the 16th century CE onwards into the doctrine of chivalry that we know today, forming the basis of the individual sense of morality and rules of conflict. Simultaneously, from St. Augustine’s proposal in the 5th century AD mentioned earlier, St. Thomas Aquinas further developed the theory in the 12th century AD into bellum justum (just war) or rather, as one academic put it, “war carried out in accordance with law.” Aquinas’ theory proposed three key principles in his famous Summa Theologica: (i) Proper authority to wage war is with the State and not private individuals, (ii) “A just cause is required” and (iii) Necessity that war is for an objective to achieve good and not evil.[13]
Pre-Islamic Customs
The story of the rules of warfare in Islamic law, particularly in relation to sexual violence, has its roots in the pre-Islamic era. Though this study is not focused on pre-Islamic practices during conflict, it is important to identify key elements to understand how the Islamic perspective was formed, because Islamic law consists of Quranic injunctions interpreted by subsequent generations which included “the customary law of the Arabs”.[15]
Most sources from this time period are poems, as the Arabs had a strong oral tradition, communicating through poems and odes. Some of these were lamentations of grief and loss, while others memorialized great feats. The record of pre-Islamic Arabia is filled with details of how war was conducted. Women were often subjected to harassment and sexual violence, as one poet writes:
Women, whose husbands at the slightest slight to them rankle,
I undid the adornments of their fair ankle.[16]
Another poet writes:
That time, fair maidens, our attention captures
Not the camels returned from their pasture.[17]
The apprehension of losing women in an armed struggle can be seen in the words of Umro bin Kulsoom, who emphasized the importance of women as the “honour” of the tribe:
If we lose, we [will] leave behind women fair with hair dark as raven,
Who will satisfy lusts of some and be by others craven.[18]
The violence witnessed was severe – the killing of pregnant women was even eulogized. Amir ibn Tufail narrates the victory of his tribe at Feef Al-Reeh:
In our Anger we unseamed the bellies of the pregnant women then to Nahda and Khasham of Feef Al-Reeh, on war, we gave a lesson.[19]
Evidence of killing holy men and women, particularly of the opposite faith, who were considered non-combatants, is plentiful. One example was during the reign of Qubad in the 6th century when, at the behest of the Persians, Mundhir the King of Herah attacked Syria and captured 400 clergymen and sacrificed them on the altar of his god, Uzza.[20] Another infamous incident was when Dhu Nawas, the Jewish King of Himyar, had all those who rejected his religion caught and burnt alive. This revenge on an opposing religious clergy is further highlighted among Arab tribes caught in proxy conflict as client states of either the Romans or Persians, often exacting revenge on each other and creating a cycle of violence against religious sites and clerical classes.
The use of fire as a tool of punishment and war was also referenced in pre-Islamic poems. When Manzar bin Mundhir Al-Qais defeated the Bani Shayban tribe in the Battle of Awara, he began casting all their young girls into the fire. Only the intercession of one man saved some lives. Poet Asaa Isi relates the incident with pride:
He rescued and delivered from the pain,
When we would their women, by fire have slain.[21]
Elsewhere, Umro bin Mundhir vowed to burn alive 100 men of the Bani Darim tribe as revenge for some misdeed. He attacked the tribe but was only to be able to capture 99 men. An unlucky traveller named Asad went to the glowing camp only to be caught and thrown in to make up the number. Jami wrote:
O! Where are those who in the fire Umro threw?
And where is Asad who was among you?[22]
Surrendering did not guarantee safety, as prisoners were often tortured. At the Battle of Awara, Al-Qais had all the prisoners of war gathered at the top of Mount Awara with orders to his soldiers to kill them until the blood reached the base of the mountain. In the end, after he had killed all the prisoners and the blood still did not reach the base, he added water to fulfil his pledge. Another incident was an attack on the Bani Asad tribe; the soldiers had orders not to kill the prisoners with swords, but to beat them to death with staves.[23]
Violence against the dead was not unusual either. As noted earlier, bodies of the dead were subject to indignity, and the practice of pre-Islamic Arabia was no different. In the Battle of Hayamim, when Asba bin Umro of the Jadila tribe was killed, a man from the opposing Sumbas tribe cut off his ears and attached them to his shoes. Abu Sarda Sumbasi of the tribe wrote the following couplet:
And with your ears, we patch our shoes.
Another Sumbasi poet writes, addressing the Jadila tribe:
If you hold a grudge against us, it is well,
For we cleft your ears and noses and captured you to sell.[24]
The desecration of dead bodies is described by another poet:
A second attack they had made,
Dragged them by their feet,
Targets of their bodies made. [25]
This practice was also witnessed in the Battle of Uhud when the Muslims were defeated and Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, promised to eat the liver of the Prophet Muhammad’s uncle, Hamza ibn Abdul Muttalib. Also at this battle, the skull of Asim was obtained by the mother of two fallen Meccans in the Battle of Badr, who swore she would drink from it.
These stories show how such violations were a common practice in war – from the abuse of prisoners to the mutilation of corpses, and sexual violence against women. The pre-Islamic Arabs were only continuing in traditions inherited partly from their patron states of Rome and Persia to whom various tribes had pledge allegiance.
General Principles of Islamic Warfare
The advent of Islam began to challenge the norms of the pre-Islamic Arabs. The beginnings of women’s rights, the rights of captives, and the development of huqooq ul-ibaad not only sought to change the behaviour of the Arabs, but essentially challenged the established status quo. The laws of war were no different. The sacredness of life was emphasized in a frequently cited passage of the Quran:
If anyone slays a human being – unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth – it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind. (Q 5:32)
This sentiment is echoed in a famous narration of the Prophet Muhammad, who stated: “A believer continues to guard his iman (faith), so long as he does not shed blood unjustly.”[26] The Prophet Muhammad also expressed that “The first thing that a man will be questioned about, on the Day of judgment, will be the account of his prayers and the first thing to be settled between the men will be claims of blood.”[27] Hence, protecting life and respecting dignity, especially in conflict where bloodshed is highly likely, is extremely important.
Islamic tradition dictates that war should be conducted in a disciplined way to avoid injuring non-combatants: with the minimum force, without anger, and with humane treatment towards prisoners of war. Islamic permission for conflict is restricted to only those “who have been wronged” (Q 22:39), and the objectives of any such conflict shall only be for the cause of God and not any other motive (such as gaining prestige, wealth, or slaves) (Q 4:74). And even if prisoners are to be taken, the command of God is to:
…secure their bonds, and either [confer] favour afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others (Q 47:4).
The acquisition of war plunder and slaves for their own sakes is discouraged in general, but in this verse the apparent conclusion is to either set them free or ransom them accordingly through a treaty or prisoner exchange.
In the initial days of Islam, the rules of war were not legislated, and the Prophet and the first generation of Muslims faced great hardship due to the persecution of their new faith. It was only when the Prophet migrated to Medina that the rules and regulations regarding war came about. The central concept in the Islamic tradition in this respect was the right to self-defence against those who were hostile – but only until the hostilities ceased. The Quran states:
And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for God, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors (Q 2:190).
This verse is illustrative: hostility should only be directed towards oppressors, while others who are not hostile should not be harmed, an acknowledgement to the existence of non-combatants.
Protection of such non-combatants, those who do not directly or indirectly participate in war, including children, the aged, women, the wounded, the mentally or physically disabled, those responsible for the care and maintenance of places of worship, and all those considered harmless, is fundamental in Islamic law. Specific reference to the protection of women and children are highlighted in the following Prophetic traditions:
It is narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children.[28]
It is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.[29]
A clear indication in the second tradition shows an abhorrence at witnessing the loss of life of a single woman during conflict. This illustrates the sensitivity of the Islamic tradition to uphold their protection and safety even in times of war. A Prophetic tradition narrated by Sa’b bin Jaththama does state that unintentional killing of women and children may unfortunately occur during war, but caution should be taken, as every innocent life is treasured as representative of all mankind.[30]
The more specific rules of warfare were developed over time as incidents occurred during the time of the Prophet, of which some particular events are key for our understanding.
The First Engagement: Expedition of Abdullah ibn Jahsh
The Expedition of Abdullah ibn Jahsh was the first true military engagement in Islam[31] and demonstrates the beginning of the rules of warfare in Islam. It is important to note that no rules of warfare were defined at this stage by the Prophet. Abdullah was ordered by the Prophet to serve as a reconnaissance party observing the Quraish at a place called Nakhla, between Mecca and Taif. This event was even before the Battle of Badr, the first large scale confrontation between Muslim forces and their opponents. During their reconnaissance, Abdullah and his scouting team decided to raid a Meccan caravan which approached on the last day of Rajab. They killed one person and took two prisoners, while another escaped. Abdullah ordered that the prisoners and the spoils acquired should be kept safe and declared: “A fifth of what we have taken belongs to the Prophet.” Ibn Ishaq comments: “This was before God had appointed a fifth [share] of the booty to him.”[32]
Upon returning to Medina, the Prophet rebuked Abdullah ibn Jahsh and his companions, saying: “I did not order you to fight in the sacred month [of Rajab]”.[33] He held the caravan and the two prisoners until a decision could be made. During that time, Abdullah and his companions were under pressure from their own community, and the individual who escaped reported the fighting to the Meccans. It was at this pinnacle moment that a verse was revealed to the Prophet:
They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of God, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with God; for persecution is worse than killing” (Q 2:217).
After this, the regulations regarding the spoils of war were defined, reaffirming the position that Abdullah ibn Jahsh had taken, including procedural aspects.
From these incidents, two key conclusions can be drawn. First, the raiding party followed a rule of warfare not yet legislated in Islam: the practice of gheimeh or war-booty. Before this event, such a practice was unknown among the Muslims, and it originated here. Prophet Muhammad accepted it and integrated it so that one-fifth of the war spoils were assigned to the State. This was not unusual in Shariah, as the Prophet often adopted existing practices that did not contradict the fundamentals of faith, which later became part of Islamic law as we know it today.[34]
Secondly, all war plunder that was captured, including men and material, was surrendered to the State, which then determined the distribution. This principle is reflected in the verse revealed shortly thereafter:
“They will ask about the spoils of war. Say: “All spoils of war belong to God and the Apostle.” Remain, then, conscious of God, and keep alive the bonds of brotherhood among yourselves, and pay heed unto God and His Apostle, if you are [truly] believers.” (Q 8:1)
The commentary of Ubadah ibn Samit on the revelation of the Surah Al-Anfal confirms this: “It was revealed concerning us the participants of the Battle of Badr when we disagreed over the booty. When our disagreement became aggravated, God took it from us and made it a prerogative of the Messenger of God.”[35] As will be discussed further, such rulings went so far that no plunder was distributed except at the Prophet’s order.
The Conquest of Mecca
The will to commit to something can more accurately be demonstrated when such will is tested – it is one thing to sign a covenant, but quite another to express humanitarian principles even without an agreement in place. During the Conquest of Mecca, the Prophet exhibited this by showing mercy even though the Muslims had been subject to war and oppression for over a decade by the Meccans. He stated to Abu Sufyan (RA), the leader of the Meccans, “he who enters Abu Sufyan’s house is safe, and he who locks his door is safe, and he who enters the mosque (Kaaba) is safe.”[36]
The Prophet gave specific instructions to fight only those who resisted them, except for a few individuals guilty of heinous crimes such a murder who had escaped justice.[37] But even in these cases, some were forgiven, just as in the case of Thumamah discussed earlier. Those who initially resisted and fought were also granted clemency, namely Ikramah, Safwan and Suhayl – all of whom were second-generation Quraish tribal leaders.
The distribution of war spoils in the Conquest of Mecca also belies the common understanding around the issue, that it is the State which holds the complete authority in its distribution and as such can make arbitrary decisions such as whether to adhere to treaty terms. This incident is a clear indication that general mercy is to be preferred to heal the divide amongst warring parties in an effort to reconcile differences; the priority is not to accumulate wealth and slaves but rather to bring peace.
The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah
The principles and sanctity of treaties are a theme repeatedly emphasized in the Quran:
Fulfil the covenant of God when you have covenanted, and break not the oaths after affirming them, and you have made God surety over you. Lo! God knows what you do. And be not like unto her, who unravelled the thread after she hath made it strong, into thin filaments, making your oaths a deceit between you because of a nation being more numerous than (another) nation. God only tries you thereby, and he verily will explain to you on the day of resurrection that wherein ye differ (Q 16: 91-92).
There are many verses on the subject in the Quran, such as:
- (The chosen of God is) he who fulfilled the pledge and wards off (evil); for lo! God loveth those who ward off (evil). Lo! Those who purchase a small gain at the cost of God’s covenant and their oaths, they have no portion in the hereafter (Q 3: 76-77).
- Such as keep the pact of God and break not the covenant; Such as unite that which God has commanded to be joined, theirs will be the sequel of (heavenly) abode (Q 13: 21-22).
- And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing (Q 2: 177).
- And if you give your word, do justice to it, even though it be (against) a kinsman; and fulfill the covenant of God. This he commands you that you may remember (Q 8: 152).
- And keep the covenant. Lo! Of the covenant it will be asked (Q 17: 34).
There is possibly no greater example of fortitude in conflict and adherence to treaties in the Islamic tradition than the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, whose terms were to some extent unfavourable to Muslims but ultimately aimed to create an environment of peace. Prophet Muhammad was focused on the greater good rather than particulars, but many of the Muslim observers present during the signing of the treaty were disturbed at the unfairness of the terms to which the Prophet agreed. One particular term that caused unease was that the Muslims agreed to extradite any Meccans who sought protection with them, while the Meccans were under no reciprocal obligation. This essentially created a one-sided extradition clause. The Muslim observers felt humiliated by this, but the Prophet was not concerned because his vision was focused broadly on the greater scheme of peace for ten years, which would impact many more lives and tribes.
He even removed his honorific prophetic title to appease the Meccan negotiator Suhail ibn Amir. The Muslims felt insulted, but Suhail bluntly stated: “If we believed in your prophecy, we wouldn’t be fighting; it is best to put your name according to Arab tradition, which is by the father’s name”. Thus Prophet Muhammad signed as Muhammad ibn Abdullah (‘Muhammad, son of Abdullah’), while Suhail signed as “Suhail, son of Amir”.
The commitment to the difficult treaty terms is clear in the case of Abu Jandal, a Meccan who became Muslim and attempted to escape to Medina right after the conclusion of the treaty. It was difficult to send him back, but those were the terms. The Prophet explained: “We have entered a pact of peace with these people and we have given them our word and they have given us theirs by God and we do not want to betray them.”[38] This is significant: in times of a mutual armistice, the rules of war are suspended and adherence to the conditions of the cease-fire must be observed both letter and spirit.
The argument by some that Islam’s purpose for war was to spread their faith by the sword is countered by this event. Az-Zuhri notes: “No previous victory was greater than this. It was only fighting when people met; however, when there was an armistice instead of war, people felt secure, sat together and negotiated disputes. No one rationalized what was said about Islam except that he embraced it. In those two years, so many embraced Islam as never before or even more.” Ibn Hisham verified this by noting the sheer increase in the Prophet’s companions, from 1,400 men at Hudaybiyyah to over 10,000 at the Conquest of Mecca.[39]
A verse in the Quran summarizes the impact of this event quite succinctly:
Verily we have granted thee a manifest victory (Quran 48:1).
We are left with a firm conclusion: in Islamic law, the State is to adhere to treaties it has signed and ratified, as it is obligated to uphold its commitment. This naturally suggest that international covenants such as the Geneva Conventions must also be respected in good faith, as Islamic law requires.
Islamic International Law – Siyar
Siyar, is plural of sira, meaning path, way, conduct or behaviour. Siyar basically regulates the rules and regulations during war or peace. Imam Abu Zahra has defined it as: “The rules of jihad and war, what is allowed in it and what is not, and the rules of [permanent] peace treaties and temporary truce, and the rules of who should be granted alien status and who should not, the rules of war booty, ransom and enslavement, as well as other problems that arise during wars and its aftermath. In short, it designates the rules of international relations between Muslims and other [communities] during peace and war, although most of the discussion is about the war.”[40] It is established in the Quran and the Sunnah. Shaybani has defined treaties in the Islamic Law of Siyar in the following terms:
A treaty (muwada’a) is a form of aqd (literally a tie or conjunction) signifying an agreement on a certain act which has the object of creating legal consequences.[41]
Both Islamic jurists and Western writers employ the term ’treaty‘ to refer to international instruments with an obligatory and binding character. Different terms are used in Arabic to convey the same idea: aqd (pledge), muwada’a or muhadah (treaty), mithaq (covenant or pact), sulh (peace treaty), and hilf (alliance). The aim of treaties is not limited to the maintenance of peace but also the regulation of international relations.
In the policy of Islam, enforcing treaties creates good-will and peace at the international level, and maintains relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. In Islam there is great emphasis on treaties, as Muslims are bound by their treaty obligations both morally and legally. It is important to mention that there is a limitation: treaties must not violate the constitutional law of the parties, and State organs or representatives must not have exceeded their powers in concluding them. If there is a breach, the other party has the right to revoke the treaty. For an amendment, mutual consent is essential, as in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, when the Muslims asked the Quraish to extend their stay in Mecca by one more day, but they were denied and accordingly followed the treaty terms to stay only for three days.
These points are essential to understanding Islamic law’s position on the sanctity of treaties: to violate one is to violate sacred law, as the Quran states:
Believers! Why do you say things which you shall not do? Saying things that you shall not do is hateful in God’s sight (Q 61:2-3).
The Rightly Guided-Caliphs
In the early 7th century, the first Sunni Muslim Caliph, Abu Bakr, laid down rules against the mutilation of corpses, and the killing of children, women, and the elderly, while instructing his Muslim army. He also ruled against environmental harm to trees and the slaughter of the enemy’s animals:
I charge you to refrain from ten things: (i) do not kill a woman (ii) or a child, (iii) or an aged, decrepit man; (iv) do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; (v) do not destroy any built-up place; (vi) do not slaughter a yearling (shāt) or a camel, except for food; (vii) do not burn (viii) or drown [bees][42]; (ix) do not misappropriate booty from the battlefield; and (x) do not be cowardly.[43]
Specifically, regarding women and violence against them during war, a few case studies stand out. For example, in the time of Abu Bakr, Khalid ibn Waleed was detained despite being a high-ranking commander, as there were rumours he might have been guilty of killing an innocent person and taking female prisoners and marrying them. This demonstrated the importance of the rule of law: once the investigation was complete, Khalid was released.
When Umar ibn Al-Khattab became Caliph, there were many incidents illustrating the Islamic position. When Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas besieged Nahmsher while leading Muslim troops in Persia, they raided the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. As a result, they captured over 1,000 people, mainly peasants. Sa’d wrote to Umar for instructions. Umar responded: “If the peasants are faithful to their agreements with you and refrain from assisting the enemy, grant them amnesty.”[44] Sa’d released the prisoners accordingly.
Another incident was the surrender of Damascus, when Abu Ubaydah arranged the peaceful surrender of the city to the Muslim forces. Khalid ibn Walid reacted negatively, but Abu Ubaydah took a strong stance, saying that he had given his word and the lives and property of those who surrendered would be preserved. Both appealed to the Caliph, who they thought was Abu Bakr at the time. By the time the letter reached Medina, Abu Bakr had passed away and Umar had become Caliph. Umar responded with a letter appointing Abu Ubaydah as commander, agreeing with his peaceful means and removing Khalid ibn Walid from his post. Part of the letter is worth quoting:
Do not send the Muslims into destruction desiring booty… Beware of being deceived into throwing the Muslims towards destruction. Lower your gaze from the world and keep your heart occupied from it. Beware of being destroyed like those before you. You have seen their destruction and way of thought…
As for your dispute with Khalid about whether the conquest was by peaceful surrender or by conquest of the sword, well you are now the governor in charge. Your treaty is to be implemented with the Romans.[45]
The incident was witnessed by others, and one Dirar ibn Al-Azwar expressed that Abu Ubaydah made a bad deal. His companion Atiyah ibn Amir responded: “O Ibn al-Azwar, the trustworthy one of the Ummah (Abu Ubaydah) only desired good for the Muslims by saving their blood and sparing their wives from the fatigue of war. Indeed, the sanctity of human life is better than whatever the sun has risen upon. God has placed mercy in the hearts of the Believers and has stated in some of His revealed books, ‘The Lord does not have mercy on those who do not have mercy’ and has also said: ’Wa-sulhu khair (And reconciliation is best) (Q 4:128).’” Dirar agreed. This again reflects the spirit of the Conquest of Mecca, where reconciliation was favoured after victory on the battlefield.
The example of Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz, known as the fifth righteous Caliph, also illustrates the Islamic perspective. He once wrote to a provincial governor: “It has reached us that when the Messenger of God dispatched a raiding party, he would tell them, ‘Set out in the name of God, knowing that you are campaigning for the sake of God. You are fighting those who deny Him. Do not misappropriate booty from the battlefield, do not be treacherous, do not mutilate the bodies of your fallen enemies, and do not kill a child.’ Convey this message to your armies and raiding parties, if God wills, and may peace be upon you.”[46]
The Issue of Female Prisoners
Female captives are probably the most controversial issue concerning prisoners of war, with some even theorizing that sexual violence can be justified in Islam – this is unequivocally not the case. The example set by the Prophet, or the Sunnah, is key, though it is not often discussed. The Prophet Muhammad himself had multiple wives who were prisoners or captives at one point; therefore, if any rules are to be determined, they should be informed by how he treated them.
Prophet Muhammad’s wife Rayhana bint Zayd was of the Banu Nadir tribe, a Jewish tribe that rebelled against the Muslims in Medina. Rayhana was freed and eventually married the Prophet;[47] she was given a dowry and a home just like any of his wives.[48] She died during the Prophet’s lifetime and was buried with the rest of his wives in the graveyard of Jannatul Baqi in Medina. This is a clear indication that the manumission of Rayhana and her consensual marriage were important.
A similar case is that of Safiyah bint Huyayy, also of the Banu Nadir tribe. A tradition states that the Prophet “married her and her Mahr[49] was her manumission” after the Battle of Khaybar.[50] Al-Waqidi mentioned that “people were wondering whether the Prophet would marry the captive woman ‘Safiyya’ or take her as his concubine, and when the Prophet made her cover her face, they knew that he had married her.”[51]
There is also the clearer case of Mariyah Qubtiya, a slave that was given as a gift to the Prophet from Muqawis of Egypt. Hatib b. Abi Balta’ah was the companion who visited Muqawis to deliver the Prophet’s message, to which Muqawis responded with gifts. Among them were two slave sisters, Mariyah Qubtiya and Shireen. Hatib explained Islam to them both before arriving in Medina, and they converted.[52] The Prophet was reported to have married Mariyah set her free. At-Tabari[53], Hakim[54] and others have confirmed this position.
The story of Juwairiayh bint al-Harith is even more important: her marriage to the Prophet, shortly after the surrender of her tribe, the Banu Mustaliq, resulted not only in her freedom but also in that of her entire tribe. Mahmood Ahmad Ghadanfar describes how:
At the first opportunity (after her capture) she went to the Prophet and pleaded her case with him. She told him that she was the daughter of a chieftain and used to command and because of her unfortunate circumstance she found herself in this helpless position. From a throne made of gold she had fallen into dust. (…) How could she possibly live the life as a slave? She pleaded with the Prophet to take notice of the pitiful and desperate condition in which she found herself.[55]
The Prophet was moved and paid for her release himself, and she consented to marry him. All war spoils acquired in men and material were returned because the Companions felt uneasy about retaining what would become the property of the Prophet’s family through marriage. The majority of the Banu Mustaliq thereafter became Muslim.
It is significant to note that several of the Prophet’s wives were former captives, but through his personal example it was demonstrated that no sexual violence was committed, and that by releasing them they were able to marry freely. The Quran states:
O Prophet! Say to those who are captives in your hands: ‘If God finds any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what has been taken from you and He will forgive you. For God is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful (Q 8:70).
A Prophetic tradition reflective of the principles the Prophet embodied can be seen in his own words:
If any of you have a slave girl, whom he gives good education and excellent training and then he emancipates her and marries her, he shall have a two-fold reward.[56]
The idea that Islam came to increase slavery is contrary to the historical record. The fact that slavery was permitted does not mean it was encouraged: this institution pre-existed the Prophet, but what did not exist before were rights and the right to manumission. The Quran says:
And as of one those whom you rightfully possess (captive/slaves) desire [to obtain] a deed of freedom, write it out for them if you are aware of any good in them: and give them [their share] of the wealth of God which He has given you. And do not, in order to gain some of the fleeting pleasures of this worldly life, coerce your [slave] maidens into whoredom if they happen to be desirous of marriage; and if anyone should coerce them, then, verily, after they have been compelled [to submit in their helplessness], God will be much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace! (Q 24:33)
According to the Quranic tafseer (exegesis), scholars concur that these verses were revealed in the context of Abdullah ibn Sahlul, a notorious man in Medina who forced some of his female slaves into prostitution and non-consensual sexual relations.[57] A reflection on the Arabic wording adds further nuance.
- Ibn Kathir writes that bigha’ee translated to “whoredom” is also inclusive of zina or illegal sexual intercourse,[58] essentially forcing women to engage in sexual interaction outside the bounds of marriage.
- The wording “to be desirous of marriage” does not accurately convey the Arabic: aradna, which means to intend or make an internal decision, and tahasuna which means to maintain chastity or purity.
- The desire for chastity (tahasuna) is not only indicative of purity, but also of remaining closed or protected which hints at a physical element of keeping access to their intimacy protected.[59]
A reading of the verse indicates that if women prisoners, or women under one’s control, do not wish to engage in sexual intercourse outside marriage, it is incumbent upon their guardians not only to allow them to marry freely but also to protect their honour and chastity.
This understanding is further supported by certain narrations of the Prophet:
If someone stabs a person with an iron needle in the head, that would be better for him. Than this person touches a woman who is not permissible for him.[60]
Imam Malik narrates an incident when a guard raped a slave-girl: “Umar ibn al-Khattab had him flogged and banished him, but he did not flog the slave-girl because the guard had forced her.”[61] This confirms the position reflected in the verse Q 24:33. Scholars such as Tamara Sonn[62] and Rabb Intisar[63] have agreed that forced sexual relations with female captives was not an Islamic norm.
The ethics of sexual relations in Islam are defined around kindness and respect, and violence against women and children is an established Islamic prohibition. The Quran and the Prophet’s hadiths mention various forms of sexual violence such as false accusation (qadzfu al-muhshanat)[64], forced marriage (al-ikrah ‘ala al-nikah), rape (al-Ikrah bi al-wath’i atau al-ikrah bi az-zina) and other forms of violence – all of which are condemned.[65]
Pregnant female captives received protection under Islamic law, as the Prophet strictly “prohibited intercourse with female prisoners, until they deliver what is in their wombs.”[66] When a report of such an incident reached him, he said: “I am inclined to invoke a curse on him, which will enter his grave with him. How can he do this, when it is not lawful for him?!”[67] This ruling was instituted after the Battle of Khaybar, showing that Islamic legal tradition increasingly limited earlier Arab norms.
Additionally, if a woman was already married before capture, her marriage remained recognized, and no sexual interaction with her was permitted. This was the practice of Uthman ibn Affan, the third Caliph, and Imam Malik reports a similar case regarding Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf. Thus, a married captive woman could not be considered for sexual relations, and her rights were preserved.[68]
Even separating a captive woman from her children was condemned in Islam, which promoted family unity even in captivity – a stark contrast to the practice of slavery in American history. Imam Ahmad stated it was absolutely forbidden to separate an enslaved woman from her children, even if both she and her master agreed.
Muslims believe the Prophet worried about this category of women, which is why in his farewell speech he mentioned captive women and said to Muslim men: “They are captive (awan)[69] between your hands and asked them to treat women kindly and to fear God in their dealings with them.”[70] Such strict rules regarding prisoners of war and slaves were instituted that the Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said: “He who kills his slave, we shall kill him; who mutilates his nose, we shall cut his nose; and who gelds our slave, we shall get him gelded in return.”[71]
A fundamental idea that slaves, specifically female slaves, were of a lower social status under Islamic law was unequivocally rejected by the Prophet’s hadith:
None of you should say: My slave and my slave-girl, for all of you are the slaves of Allah , and all your women are the slave-girls of Allah; but say: My servant, my girl, and my young man and my young girl.[72]
Respect for female slaves in particular is evident in this narration: they are first servants of God before all else, and therefore deserve dignity. Any demeaning treatment, even in how they were addressed, was not tolerated under Islamic law. The classical jurist al-Sarakhsi expressed the view of many jurists who defined human beings as inherently free, while slavery was an incidental aberration: “The free and the slave are of the same species, for the human being is regarded in his original state as free. Then, he is exposed to slavery and emancipation nullifies the slavery to which he was exposed.”[73]
Conclusion
The modern era has witnessed ISIS subjection of Yazidi women and girls to rape and severe sexual violence, while citing Islamic law to justify such behaviour. As we have seen, consent is part of the basic sexual ethics of Islam, even with captives. Even if ISIS were considered an Islamic regime of sorts, their actions stand in contradiction to Islamic principles.
It should be noted that this is not to say all modern cases of female prisoners under “Islamic” regimes during war are not treated in the spirit of the Shariah. The Islamic Courts Union in Somalia and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan provide contrasts. The former, for example, had the unique case of Yvonne Ridley, who was taken prisoner by the Taliban but eventually became a Muslim, influenced by how well they treated her.
Furthermore, the value and recognition of a covenant or treaty is demonstrated in the Islamic tradition to the extent that even if some terms are unfavourable, if they achieve peace they are to be implemented in letter and spirit. This practice was limited to the Prophet’s time but continued afterwards. Such an understanding today naturally suggests that signatories of international conventions and protocols – particularly the Geneva Conventions with respect to the rules of war – must adhere to them in good faith.
Violence of any sort was condemned and prohibited in Islamic law, including sexual violence against women, whether in armed conflict or other situations of violence. The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Dr. Shawki Ibrahim Allam, unequivocally stated in a recent fatwa: “verily, the sexual violence against woman is a big sin and the most disgusting and bad acts in the perspective of the Sharia. The sexual violence is only delivered of the souls that are possessed and low lusts, so that they only spit their sexual needs with the animal instinct, out of logical and humanity reason.”[74]
[1] Bushra Sial LLB graduate from Ziauddin University Faculty of Law, Politics and Governance and currently a Research Associate at The Centre for Law, Justice and Policy (CLJP) Denning Law School, was an integral researcher for this article.
[2] The Code of Hammurabi.
[3] Mark, Joshua J., World History Encyclopedia. https://www.worldhistory.org/Kadesh/, 2009.
[4] Bunson, M., The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Gramercy Books, 1991. Pg. 87.
[5] Herodotus (Trans. Robin Waterfield, Carolyn Dewald), OUP (1998)., The Histories, Book III, Chapter 16.
[6] Appian of Alexandria, (Trans. Horace White), The Mithridatic Wars, pg. 5.
[7] Norwich, John Julius (1997), A Short History of Byzantium, Vintage, ISBN 978-0-679-77269-9, p. 90.
[8] Gibbon, Edwards., Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 5, Para XLVI.
[9] Ibid. Vol.1, Chapter XLVI.
[10] Ibid., Vol. 5, Chapter XLIII.
[11] Sykes, Percy M., History of Persia, Vol. 1 (1915), pg. 448.
[12] St. Augustine’s City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21.
[13] St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundæ Partis, Question 40, Article 1. Second and Revised Edition, 1920, Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. (2017 Online by Kevin Knight) Accessed Online at https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm.
[14] Landau-Tasseron, Ella, “Non-Combatants” in Muslim Legal Thought, Hudson Institute (2006), pg. 1.
[15] Pearl David and Werner Menski. Muslim Family Law. 3rd Edition. London (1998): Sweet & Maxwell.
[16] Maulana Maududi’s Al-JIhad Fil Islam. (Trans. By Syed Rafatullah Shah) Idara Tarjuman-ul-Quran (Lahore: 2017), pg. 135.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Sykes, Percy M., History of Persia, Vol. 1 (1915), pg. 482.
[21] Maududi, pg. 136.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Maududi, pg. 137-138.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Riyad us Saliheen. Hadith 220.
[27] Sunan al-Nasai, Kitab al-Salat, Hadith 466.
[28] Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Kitab al-Jihad wa’l Siyar, Hadith 4319.
[29] Ibid, Hadith 4320.
[30] See Q 5:32 above.
[31] There were smaller engagements but not of significance as this one would turn out.
[32] Guillaume, Alfred. The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. p. 287. OUP. 1955.
[33] It was a custom of the Arabs to not have hostilities during the months of Rajab and 3 other months, namely: Dhu al-Qadah, Dhu’l-Hijjah and Muharram. This initial reaction also is illustrative of the respect and acknowledgement of jus cogens or customary international law that was in practice amongst the Arabs.
[34] Another good examples is diyah or blood-money which was a pre-Islamic Arab concept to award monetary compensation to victims’ family to resolve murder and other related crimes. Prophet Muhammad integrated this in the Islamic criminal torts regime we now have in Islamic law.
[35] Ibn Katheer’s Al Bidayah wan-Nihayah – (Trans. By Research Dept. of Darussalam in Series). In Defense of the True Faith. Riyadh, KSA (2010) pg. 62.
[36] Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (Trans. By Guillaume) Pg. 548.
[37] 2 examples such as Abdullah ibn Khatal & Miqyas ibn Hubaba.
[38] Ahmed bin Hanbal’s Musnad. Hadith 18910.
[39] Al Bidayah wan-Nihayah – In Defense of the True Faith. pg. 250.
[40] Munir, Muhammad. Islamic International Law (Siyar): An Introduction. International Islamic University Islamabad. pg. 9.
[41] Shaybani, Muhammad. Al-Siyar al-Kabir with al-Sarakhsi’s Commentary, Vol. IV, pg. 60.
[42] This narration had “date palms” but when read together with other narration it is clear the reference is to bees. The reason for this anomaly is most probably a scribal mistake – Arabic being a dot over one of the three letters: nahl (bees) versus nakhal (date palms).
[43] Imam Malik’s Al-Muwatta. (Royal Moroccan Edition) (Trans. By Mohammad Fadel & Connell Monette) Harvard Series in Islamic Law. Hadith 1293.
[44] Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Tarikh wa al-Maghazi (Trans. Maulana Sulayman Al-Kindi) ZamZam Publishers (2011) Vol. 2.
[45] Ibid, Vol. 1 pg. 162.
[46] Al-Muwatta pg. 359-360. Hadith 1294.
[47] Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, pg. 466.
[48] Ibn Hajar. Isabaha. Vol. IV, pg. 309.
[49] Bridal gift or dowry.
[50] Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 14, Hadith 68.
[51] Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, pg. 399.
[52] At-Tabari, Abu Jafar. The History of al-Tabari, Volume 9: The Last Years of the Prophet. (Trans.by Ismail K. Poonawala). SUNY Press. pg. 131.
[53] Ibid, pg. 137.
[54] al-Hakim, Abu Abdullah, al-Mustadrak. Beirut. (1990). Hadith 6819.
[55] Mahmood Ahmad Ghadanfar, Great Woman of Islam, pg.108-109.
[56] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 5083.
[57] Sahih Muslim. Hadiths 7180 & 7181.
[58] Ibn Katheer. Tafseer ibn Katheer. Darussalam Publications. Riyadh. (2000). Volume 7
[59] Related to Arabic word hisn, representative of a fortress indicating a physical aspect of keeping themselves closed and protected.
[60] At-Tabarani al-Kabeer, Hadith 486.
[61] Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 6949.
[62] Sonn, Tamara. Islam: History, Religion, and Politics. John Wiley & Sons. 2015, pg. 18.
[63] Rabb Intisar. Doubt in Islamic Law. Cambridge University Press. pg. 152.
[64] This is a unique aspect of Islamic law where qadhf refers to falsely accusing someone of sexual misconduct. This element is connected with the Islamic jurisprudential position to protect and preserve individual’s ird (honor), one of the “necessities” that Shariah is designed to achieve as per Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi, a 13th century Maliki legal scholar. (Cross Reference – Al-Qarāfī, Shihāb al-Dīn. Kitāb al-furūq aw Anwār al-burūq fī anwāʾ al-furūq. 3rd ed. Edited by Muḥammad Sarrāj and ʿAlī Jumuʿa. 2 vols. Cairo: Dār al-Salām, 2010)
[65] Rahima, Swara. Islam Rejects Sexual Violence. (Blog 2020 (https://swararahima.com/en/2020/10/05/islam-rejects-sexual-violence/)
[66] Jami’ at-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1564.
[67] Sahih Muslim, Chapter 23, Hadith 138.
[68] Saad, Salma, The Legal and Social Status of Women in the Hadith Literature, University of Leeds (1990), pg. 256.
[69] An Islamic term for a captive, especially female.
[70] Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (Trans. By Guillaume) Pg. 651.
[71] Sunan an-Nasa’I. Hadith 4736. [72] Sahih Muslim, Book 27, Hadith 5591.
[73] Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Miṣr wal-Maghrib. Cairo: Maktabat al-Thaqāfah al-Dīnīyah, (1995)
[74] Rahima, Swara. Islam Rejects Sexual Violence. (Blog 2020)
Syed Muaz Shah is a senior fellow at the Quran Covenant Research Center, a candidate for LLM in International Law at the Geneva Graduate Institute, and an associated researcher at Making Aid Work. [email protected] @smuazshah LinkedIn / Twitter / Facebook
