![\"\"](\"https:\/\/natharatmouchrika.net\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/4195d6d589ecc36c831fbf50a8752a52-201x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
What does Islam say about war and how it should be conducted? This publication covers the rules of engaging in war as outline in Islamic scholarly tradition.<\/p>\n
This statement became one of the essential \u201cfive maxims\u201d that govern all actions in Islamic law.<\/p>\n
Every action that causes harm to another person or animal is forbidden by default, unless it is taken to secure a greater benefit or repel a greater harm according to the subsidiary principle, \u201cGreater harm is removed by lesser harm.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u00a0It is forbidden in Islam to remove a lesser harm with a greater harm.<\/span><\/div>\n The persecution condemned by this verse refers to the Quraish who violently suppressed the practice of Islam, preventing people from performing pilgrimage at the Sacred Mosque in Mecca and driving Muslims out of their homes for no reason other than their\u00a0beliefs. War, which involves killing, is certainly an evil,\u00a0but the evil of this religious persecution was greater. Persecution\u00a0at that time\u00a0involved the\u00a0violent\u00a0curtailment of freedom to practice faith and systematic violent oppression of the poor and weak. Islamic just war was instituted to ensure Muslims would not have to endure the same suffering as that of their predecessors.<\/span><\/div>\n It is only in this sense that the verse, \u201cFight in God\u2019s cause against those who fight you,\u201d<\/p>\n was claimed by some jurists to be \u201cabrogated\u201d by the \u201cverse of the sword.\u201d As explained by the exegete Al-Badawi, the latter verses authorized war against \u201cthose who fight you\u00a0or<\/em>\u00a0from whom that is expected<\/em><\/span>.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n The principle of non-aggression itself was not abrogated or canceled, but rather Muslims were commanded to take the initiative against\u00a0actual\u00a0threats to their safety, namely the Roman and Persian empires, instead of waiting to be attacked in their own lands.<\/span><\/div>\n He exempted all categories of people from aggression except for the \u201cpeople of combat and obstruction,\u201d that is, those who attack Muslims or who violently prevent them from practicing their religion. Non-combatants such as women, children, monks, elders, the blind, and others may not be attacked unless they\u00a0join the war effort.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n Fight in God’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits: God does not love those who overstep the limits.<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0However, when it became necessary for Muslims to fight back against aggression, lest they be killed, this verse was revealed commanding the Muslims to go to war. From this verse, many critical Islamic rules of engagement are derived.<\/span><\/div>\n Islam complements this argument. Muslim jurists have derived from the above verse that it is impermissible to kill those not engaged in the actual fighting, especially women, children, the elderly, priests, monks, the handicapped, and even laborers or farmers who work for the enemy but are not directly involved in the fighting.<\/p>\n You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to God. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves\u2026 Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the spoils, and do not be cowardly.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n In another narration, the Prophet \ufdfa explained his condemnation by saying, \u201cShe was not fighting,\u201d demonstrating non-combatant immunity, and he further commanded his companions not to kill workers.<\/p>\n The message of non-aggression was even written on the Prophet \ufdfa\u2019s sword as a reminder to all, \u201cVerily, the worst of people in insolence are those who strike at whoever did not strike them, a man who kills those who did not fight him.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0There are many narrations and traditions like these that emphasize protecting the lives of civilians and noncombatants.<\/span><\/div>\n a) In the event of the use of force and in case of armed conflict, it is not permissible to kill non-belligerents such as old men, women and children. The wounded and the sick shall have the right to medical treatment; and prisoners of war shall have the right to be fed, sheltered, and clothed. It is prohibited to mutilate dead bodies. It is a duty to exchange prisoners of war and to arrange visits or reunions of the families separated by the circumstances of war.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n b) It is prohibited to fell trees, to damage crops or livestock, and to destroy the enemy\u2019s civilian buildings and installations by shelling, blasting or any other means.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n On account of [his deed], We decreed to the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person\u2014unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land\u2014it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n The Quran is also deliberately worded towards protecting all life, including\u00a0the lives of\u00a0non-Muslims. It does not say, \u201cIf anyone kills a Muslim, it would be as if he killed all mankind.\u201d Rather, the word used in Arabic is\u00a0nafs<\/span><\/em>, meaning \u201ca soul\u201d or \u201ca life,\u201d regardless of faith or ethnicity or any other identity trait. The murder of any life is tantamount to mass murder and a crime against humanity (in the literal sense); it is absolutely prohibited in the strongest terms.<\/span><\/div>\n \u00a0He makes a detailed case that it is legally and morally justified to kill enemy soldiers at any point during warfare and that even when not actively engaged in fighting at the time, designated soldiers do not regain their right to life.<\/span><\/div>\n \u00a0This verse was revealed after the signing of the Hudaybiyyah treaty when Muslims were about to embark on a pilgrimage to Mecca. They did not know how to react if they were met with aggression. Were they allowed to fight back against those who attacked them? Were they allowed to take back land and property wrongfully taken from them by force?<\/span><\/div>\n But if they stop, then God is most forgiving and merciful. Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to God. If they cease hostilities, there can be no [further] hostility, except towards aggressors. A sacred month for a sacred month: violation of sanctity [calls for] fair retribution. So if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him as he attacked you, but be mindful of God, and know that He is with those who are mindful of Him.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\nWar is one of the greatest of human activities\u00a0that\u00a0cause\u00a0harm\u00a0to\u00a0people, animals, and the environment. Hence, it should not be undertaken except to repel an even greater harm as God said, \u201cPersecution is worse than killing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n4<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\nSometimes the historical prescriptions of Muslim scholars are interpreted in ways\u00a0that appear to violate the principle of non-aggression. For example, some jurists developed a concept of \u201coffensive jihad\u201d\u00a0(<\/em>jihad al-talab<\/span><\/em>) which\u00a0involves\u00a0attacking\u00a0the enemy in their own lands. It is analogous\u00a0to\u00a0the Western concept of preemptive war, taking initiative against a credible threat. In the pre-modern world of expanding dynastic empires, such \u201coffensive\u201d activities were deemed necessary for purposes of self-defense. As the Arabs would say, \u201cWhen the Romans are not campaigned against, they campaign (against you).\u201d<\/p>\n\n5<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n6<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n7<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nFor this reason, jurists like Ibn Taymiyyah asserted that the Quran and the majority of scholars only authorize warfare against others on the condition that they wage or threaten war first.<\/p>\n\n8<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n9<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe Prophet \ufdfa\u2019s\u00a0principle of non-aggression not only prevents unjust wars\u00a0from starting, it also prevents\u00a0injustice from occurring once war has already been declared. We now turn our attention to how Islam established rules, based upon non-aggression, to minimize the harms of warfare as much as possible.<\/span><\/div>\n\n\nJustice in War (Jus in Bello<\/span><\/em>)<\/span><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n\nJust as \u201cpersecution is worse than killing\u201d is the key verse describing what authorizes a just war (jus ad bellum<\/span><\/em>), the following verse highlights the Islamic criteria for justice in war, or how war is properly fought within its rules of engagement:<\/span><\/div>\n\n10<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\nThis was the first verse in the Quran commanding Muslims to fight. Prior to this verse and others giving Muslims permission to fight, the Quran \u201cadvised Muslims to be patient against pains inflicted on them by disbelievers, even to ignore and forgive when they\u00a0can.\u201d<\/p>\n\n11<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe first and most important principle is this:\u00a0Fighting is limited to those individuals who fight you, to combatants alone<\/span>.<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n\nThe first and most important principle is this:\u00a0Fighting is limited to those individuals who fight you, to combatants alone<\/span>.<\/span><\/em><\/div>\nThe verse says explicitly \u201cFight against those who fight you,\u201d and therefore civilians may not be targeted. As Michael Walzer, a preeminent scholar of modern just war theory, argues, the killing of combatants\u00a0can only occur\u00a0when a war has been legally declared.<\/p>\n\n12<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n13<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nThis is highlighted by the statement of Abu Bakr, Prophet Muhammad \ufdfa\u2019s closest companion, and second-in-command, when he instructed his army as recorded in the earliest manual of Islamic law:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
\n14<\/a><\/div>\n\nThe Prophet \ufdfa himself set\u00a0this\u00a0precedent in a number of his actions and directives. On one occasion,\u00a0after\u00a0a woman was found to have been killed in the battle, the Prophet \ufdfa \u201ccondemned\u201d the killing of women and children.<\/p>\n\n15<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n16<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n17<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\nIn light of this principle, an additional rule of engagement must be emphasized:\u00a0Transgressing the limits is prohibited<\/span>.<\/span><\/em><\/div>\nOn the battlefield, the old, the weak, women, children, monks, laborers, and other civilians cannot be targeted unless they forfeit that immunity by fighting themselves. Even then, force is authorized only in proportion to the threat, so killing them should be avoided if at all possible.<\/span><\/div>\nTwo more rules outlaw cruelty against combatants\u00a0and\u00a0destruction of property: 1)\u00a0Mutilation and torture are prohibited<\/span><\/em>; and 2)\u00a0Destruction of crops, trees, livestock or civilian infrastructure is not permissible except in certain limited circumstances<\/span><\/em>\u00a0(explored later on).<\/span><\/div>\n\nThese very principles were affirmed by Article 3 of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, issued and adopted at the Nineteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers in Cairo in 1990, which was based on traditional\u00a0Sharia<\/span><\/em>\u00a0<\/em>(or principles of Islamic Law):<\/span><\/div>\n\n
\n18<\/a><\/p>\nThus, the Quran and Sunnah clearly provide stringent protections for noncombatants during warfare. Civilians may in no way be intentionally targeted. The Quran emphasizes this rule by saying, \u201cDo not transgress, for God does not love transgressors.\u201d In other words, fighting is limited to combatants\u2014those who are engaged in fighting\u2014and killing anyone besides them is a prohibited transgression hated by God according to Islamic Law. Unsurprisingly, these rules are consistent with Walzer\u2019s modern theory.<\/span><\/div>\nThe Quran is very clear about the gravity of taking innocent life:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
\n19<\/a><\/p>\nHere, the Quran makes a prohibition and an order simultaneously. It declares that taking an innocent human life is tantamount to mass murder, for approving one murder is to morally approve of every murder. At the same time, the verse makes it permissible for the state to use the death penalty under the strictest of conditions (discussion of which is beyond the scope of this article). Nonetheless, the enormity of killing a single person should give every believer pause if its legality is disputable, as the Prophet \ufdfa said, \u201cThe most restrained of the people regarding killing are the people of faith.\u201d<\/p>\n\n20<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\nHowever, the Quran clearly makes it permissible to kill combatants during warfare. According to just war theory, as outlined by Walzer, enemy combatants may legitimately be killed at any point, even when they are unarmed, as long as they are not wounded or captured.<\/p>\n\n21<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nIn the same vein, the Quran too considers the killing of enemy soldiers during a war to be legitimate, which is the context of the verse, \u201cKill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n22<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\nThis verse answered those questions. Namely, that it is permissible to attack and kill the combatants with whom you are at war and also to reclaim wrongfully taken land and property using proportional force. It would be entirely misleading to cite the clause \u201cKill them wherever you find them\u201d without reference to\u00a0the surrounding\u00a0verses or the historical and legal context. Often some non-Muslims and even Muslims misquote this verse to justify their own agendas as if the Quran was inciting wanton violence. However, this verse is very clear when interpreted within its proper context. It defines important limits in warfare. It does not permit the unrestrained killing of people \u201cwherever you find them.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\nThe Quran ends this verse by saying \u201cthis is what such disbelievers deserve,\u201d referring to the idolaters who attacked the Muslims in Mecca. It should be noted that this clause\u00a0does\u00a0not make\u00a0it permissible to kill non-Muslims simply because of their non-belief in Islam, as the previous verse only permitted attacking those who attacked first. Noncombatant men, women, children, elderly and so on were never targeted by Prophet Muhammad \ufdfa\u2019s army. In fact, Mecca was eventually liberated from the oppressive Quraish aristocracy and not a single drop of blood was shed, despite the fact that many of the idolaters who had persecuted Muslims for years were now vulnerable. They were all pardoned except for a few of the worst war criminals.<\/p>\n\n23<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n\nFinally, the relevant passage ends with the following mitigating qualifications:<\/span><\/div>\n\n24<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\nA concise picture of just war theory comes into focus. The passage reiterates the reason for fighting: to\u00a0bring an end to\u00a0aggression and oppression. That \u201cworship is devoted to God\u201d means that God\u2019s law of justice is upheld and the natural rights of all are protected. It does not require people to actually embrace Islam individually, but only that they uphold social justice consistent with Islamic and humanitarian values.<\/span><\/div>\nMoreover, if enemies desist in their fighting, such as when a soldier surrenders or a state calls for a peace treaty, then their peace offering should be accepted without any retribution (except for individuals guilty of war crimes). As the Quran states elsewhere, \u201cBut if they incline towards peace, you [Prophet] must also incline towards it, and put your trust in God.\u201d<\/p>\n