Islamic Fiqh > Penalties (hudud) > Safe conduct, prisoners and espionage > Prisoners of war: status and treatment
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
After victory, the fate of prisoners of war rests with the imam. The jurists fix the options open to him: execution, pardon, ransom, enslavement and, for some, the poll tax. They also settle the case of the prisoner who converts, the question of mutilation and that of the treatment of the bodies of the slain.
This sheet follows the order of the leaves: the poll tax offered by the prisoner, the lawfulness of reprisal mutilation, the prisoner who embraces Islam, ransom in money, the fate of the heads of the slain, the revocation of the imam's choice, the manner of killing and the ban on mutilation, and finally the weighing of the Muslims' interest.
The Malikis and the Shafi'is state expressly that when the prisoner offers to pay the poll tax, it is accepted from him. Al-Lakhmi says that for the men the imam chooses among five options: pardon, ransom, execution, the poll tax and enslavement, acting on whatever view seems best to him (Mawahib al-Jalil 3/358). Khalil writes that he "weighs what is best for the prisoners: execution, pardon, ransom, poll tax or enslavement" (Mukhtasar Khalil 102). Al-Hattab reports from Ibn Rushd: Malik and the majority of the scholars say the imam chooses among five things, to kill, to enslave, to free, to take ransom, or to impose protected status and the poll tax. This choice is not a capricious ruling but an effort to seek the Muslims' interest, like the choice in the sentence of the brigand. If the prisoner is famed for his fighting valor and capacity for harm, the imam kills him and does not spare him; if he lacks that character and has a market value, the imam enslaves him for the Muslims' benefit or accepts a ransom above his value; if he has no value and no ability to pay the poll tax, he frees him, like the aged and the infirm who carry neither sword nor counsel; if he can pay it, he imposes protected status on him. And if the imam judges otherwise, preferring for instance the money of a famous warrior to his death, the weighing is his (at-Taj wa-l-iklil 3/358).
Mutilating the prisoner is forbidden after victory. Ad-Dardir says: mutilation, that is, the gruesome punishment such as crushing the head or cutting off the ear or nose, is forbidden once they have been overpowered, unless they mutilated a Muslim; then it becomes lawful (ash-Sharh al-kabir 2/179). Ad-Dasuqi specifies: before overpowering them, we may kill them in any manner, including a mutilating one; after overpowering them, mutilation is justified only as reprisal (Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 2/179, Bilghat as-salik 2/182). The Minah al-Jalil says the same: mutilating the polytheists, cutting off their limbs and gouging out their eyes after defeating them, is forbidden, but it is lawful during the fight before victory or after they have mutilated a Muslim, as al-Baji said of a polytheist prisoner of ours when they had mutilated one of ours (Manh al-Jalil 3/354, al-Mughni al-Muhta' 3/349, al-Furuq 6/203).
Ibn Taymiyya writes: if the polytheists mutilate the Muslims, mutilation is their right; they may practice it to obtain satisfaction and vengeance, and they may leave it, patience being superior, so long as the lawful mutilation carries no call to faith and no protection from their aggression; it then falls under executing the punishments and the jihad. That was not the case at Uhud, so patience was superior. As for mutilation that is a right of Allah, patience is obligatory there as where victory is impossible, and lamentation is forbidden (al-Fatawa al-kubra 4/610). He writes elsewhere: mutilation in killing is lawful only by way of retaliation. 'Imran ibn Husayn said: in every sermon the messenger of Allah commanded us charity and forbade us mutilation, even against the polytheists: when we killed them we did not mutilate them afterward, we cut off neither ears nor noses, we did not open their bellies, unless they had done the same to us; but leaving it is superior, as Allah says:
If you punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith you were afflicted; but if you endure, it is better for the patient. And be patient: your patience comes from none but Allah.
Surah an-Nahl 126-127
Ibn Muflih reports that it is disliked to carry their heads from town to town, to mutilate their dead and to catapult them, Ahmad stating it expressly, and that the first to whom heads were carried was Abd Allah ibn az-Zubayr; Ahmad also said they should not be tortured, and reported: if they mutilate, the like is done to them, as Abu Bakr mentioned (al-Mughni 9/261, Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/61, Sharh Muntaha al-iradat 1/624, al-Furuq 6/203, Majmu' al-fatawa 28/314).
A band of 'Ukl, or of 'Urayna as he also said, came to Medina; the Prophet gave them dates and camels, and they drank their urine and milk until they recovered their health. Then they killed the shepherd and drove off the flock. News reached the Prophet in the morning; he sent men after them, and before midday they were brought to him. He had their hands and feet cut off and their eyes branded, then had them cast on the stony ground, crying for water and none given. Abu Qilaba said: these men stole, killed, disbelieved after their faith, and fought Allah and His messenger.
reported by al-Bukhari (6420) and Muslim (1671)
Ibn Battal draws from it the proof of retaliation: since it was permitted to brand their eyes with fire although they had not burned the shepherd's eyes, it is a fortiori lawful to burn the polytheist who burned a Muslim (Sharh sahih al-Bukhari 5/179). Ibn Hiban notes in his Sahih (10/325) that the Prophet branded the eyes of the 'Uraynites only because they had branded the shepherd's, and Muslim (1671) reports from Anas: "The Prophet only branded their eyes because they had branded the shepherd's."
Ibn Hajar says: if the prisoner converts, his execution lapses by agreement (Fath al-Bari 6/152). Al-Bukhari and Muslim report from Usama ibn Zayd that an enemy man, on the point of being struck, said "there is no deity but Allah"; his Ansari companion held back but Usama ran him through and killed him. On their return, the Prophet said: "Usama, did you kill him after he said: there is no deity but Allah?" Usama replied that the man had said it out of fear, and the Prophet kept repeating the same question until Usama wished he had never been a Muslim before that day (reported by al-Bukhari 4269 and Muslim 288). Ibn Taymiyya draws the rule: there is no disagreement among the Muslims that if the combatant converts before the sword, bound or free, his Islam is valid and his repentance accepted, even if appearances suggested otherwise; the Prophet accepted the outward profession of the hypocrites, leaving their secrets to Allah, though Allah had informed him of their duplicity (as-Sarim al-maslul 3/618).
The jurists then differ on the convert's status: does he become a slave at once, the imam's choice lapsing, or does only his execution lapse, the imam keeping the choice among the other options? The Hanafis, ash-Shafi'i in one of his two views and Ahmad in one version hold that he becomes a slave at once and follows the status of women and children. The Hanafis explain: if he converts before the division, his blood is protected but he is shared in the spoils, execution being a penalty for disbelief that falls away with Islam, while Islam does not exclude enslavement; they may not be sent back to the land of war, which would strengthen the enemy, but they may be enslaved to preserve the interest once the taking has occurred, unlike conversion before capture. Al-Kasani writes that if the prisoner converts in the land of war he does not become free and enters the division, the conquerors' right having attached to him through the taking, a later Islam not annulling it; if he converts before being captured, he becomes free, Islam then repelling the right rather than lifting it (Badai' as-sana'i' 7/122, al-Jawhara an-nira 2/363, al-Hidaya 2/141). Az-Zarkashi says his enslavement becomes fixed; Ahmad stated it expressly and his companions followed, for he is a prisoner whose killing has become unlawful, like the woman; Abu Muhammad writes in al-Kafi that execution falls and the imam chooses among the other three, execution having been blocked by an impediment (Sharh az-Zarkashi 3/178, al-Insaf 4/133).
The Shafi'is on the more apparent view, which is also a Hanbali view per al-Insaf, preferred by Ibn Qudama, hold that the imam keeps the choice among all the options; this is what one understands from the Malikis, who grant the choice over the polytheist prisoner among pardon, ransom, enslavement and the poll tax: the Muslim, a fortiori, is an object of choice, but without the poll tax, never imposed on a Muslim by consensus. An-Nawawi says: if the prisoner, a free adult man, converts before the imam has chosen, his blood is protected; does he become a slave by Islam? Two ways: the sounder contains two views, one affirming enslavement, for he is a prisoner whose killing is forbidden, like the child, the other, more apparent, refusing it, the imam being free to enslave, favor or ransom him; the other way fixes the choice as standing. If the imam opts for ransom, the man must have kindred or a tribe to pay it with his person; whether one says he becomes a slave or that his enslavement is possible, he is spoils, and if ransomed with money the money is spoils. Had he converted before his capture, his blood and property would be protected, whether he was besieged and near fall or in safety, in the land of war or of Islam; his young children are likewise shielded from capture and follow his Islam (Rawdat at-talibin 10/252, Bidayat al-mujtahid 1/79, Tafsir al-Qurtubi 6/227, adh-Dhakhira 3/415, at-Taj wa-l-iklil 3/358).
Ibn Qudama writes: if he converts, he becomes a slave at once and follows the status of women, ash-Shafi'i having said so in one of his two views; in the other, execution falls and the choice runs over the remaining three, on this report, related by Muslim (1641): the Prophet's companions had captured a man of the Banu 'Aqil, an allied brother of Thaqif, who cried out to the Prophet: "Muhammad, for what offense am I taken?" The Prophet answered: "For the offense of your allies of Thaqif; you took two of my companions." The man called him back and said he was a Muslim; the Prophet said: "Had you said that while you held power, you would have had complete success," and he exchanged the man for the two companions. The Hanbalis conclude that once execution falls, the other options stand: the convert is like the woman, a possible slave; the hadith does not preclude his enslavement, for a captive can be ransomed with a slave woman, as Salama ibn al-Akwa' reported of a woman given as ransom. But neither his enslavement nor his favoring takes place without the captors' leave, since he has become their property; his favoring remains conceivable, more than before his Islam, Islam being a fine deed that calls for honor; he may not be returned to the polytheists unless a tribe of his restrains him among them; ransom is permitted since it frees him from servitude. Had he converted before his capture, his execution, his enslavement and his being ransomed as a captive are all forbidden, whether he was in a fortress or elsewhere, for he had not yet fallen into the captors' hands (al-Mughni 9/180, Charh az-Zarkashi 3/178, al-Insaf 4/133).
The majority of the jurists, the Malikis on the famous view, the Shafi'is, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan among the Hanafis and the Hanbalis in one version, permit ransom in money for prisoners over whom the imam has the choice. The Malikis allow it for a sum above the prisoner's value; on Muhammad's view, as Sarakhsi reports, it is conditioned on the Muslims' need for money, and al-Kasani restricts that to the old man from whom no offspring is expected; the Shafi'is permit it without restriction, the imam being free to ransom prisoners with money taken from them, whether from their own wealth or from ours in their hands, and prisoners may be ransomed with our weapons in their hands; ransom through their weapons carries two views, the more apparent with them being its lawfulness. The proof is the word of Allah:
It is not for a prophet to hold captives until he has battled upon the earth. You desire the goods of this world, but Allah desires the hereafter. Then, either release by favor or ransom.
Surah Muhammad 4
and the Prophet's act of ransoming the captives of Badr, seventy men, each for four hundred dirhams, the least of his act being lawfulness; and ransom without money holds no interest, the imam acting only where benefit lies. Abu Dawud (2693), an-Nasa'i in al-Kubra (8607), al-Hakim (2573) and al-Bayhaqi (6/321) report from Ibn Abbas that the Prophet set the ransom of the captives of Badr at four hundred dirhams, with an authentic chain without the figure of four hundred.
The Hanafis, apart from Muhammad's version, and Ahmad in one version, forbid it, for killing the captives is commanded by the word of Allah: "Strike above the necks and strike every fingertip of them" (Surah al-Anfal 12), a verse bearing on what follows the taking and the enslavement, and by "Kill the polytheists wherever you find them" (Surah at-Tawbah 5), the command to kill being a path toward Islam, abandoned only for that for which it was instituted, and ransom in money does not realize that pressure, and his harm is never bought off. The Hanafis add an analogy: the scorpion and the viper are left alive with their fangs broken, warding off their harm from the Muslims while they remain in the land of war and preserving their offspring, and their harm is never bought off with payment (al-Mabsut 10/24, Badai' as-sana'i' 7/119-120, al-Ikhtiyar 4/133, ad-Durr al-mukhtar 4/139, Charh Fath al-Qadir 5/473-476, al-Jawhara an-nira 6/273-277, Tabyin al-haqa'iq 3/250, al-'Inaya 7/482, 'Umdat al-qari 4/265-289, Charh Ibn Battal 5/304, Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'ulama 3/479, Bidayat al-mujtahid 1/79, Tafsir al-Qurtubi 6/227, adh-Dhakhira 3/415, al-Hawi al-kabir 8/410, al-Ahkam as-sultaniyya p. 53, al-Muhadhdhab 2/235-236, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/228, Fath al-Bari 6/151-152, al-Mughni 9/179, al-Kafi 4/270-272, Zad al-masir 3/399, Charh Muntaha al-iradat 1/625, Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/53, Ruh al-ma'ani 26/40, Nayl al-awtar 8/146-148).
Al-Kamal ibn al-Humam writes: this is no mutilation; mutilation is what is done originally with no cause of punishment; the Sahih of Muslim says the Prophet branded the eyes of the 'Uraynites only because they had branded the shepherd's; if a man multiplies injuries to limbs and retaliation is exacted from him, what befalls him is not the forbidden mutilation. The gist of the view is that mutilation in retaliation for mutilation remains established and is not abrogated, and that mutilating one who deserves death without having mutilated is not unlawful without being abrogated, for it was never instituted. Ibn Hajar says the lesson of the 'Uraynites contains identical retaliation, which is not the forbidden mutilation (Charh Fath al-Qadir 5/451, Fath al-Bari 1/341). Ibn al-Qayyim writes, in the law drawn from this hadith, that the wrongdoer is treated as he treated: the punishments are complete, not abrogated, though they preceded their promulgation, the punishments having come to confirm them (Zad al-ma'ad 3/286).
Carrying off the head of the slain polytheist draws three views. The Hanafis permit it. The Shafi'is and Hanbalis dislike it, save for a benefit. The Malikis forbid carrying it to another town while permitting it within the town where the death occurred. Al-Haskafi says: nothing prevents carrying the polytheist's head if it assuages their anger and fills our hearts; Ibn Mas'ud carried the head of Abu Jahl on the day of Badr and laid it before the Prophet, who said: "Allah is greater! This is Pharaoh and the Pharaoh of this community; his harm to me and to my community was greater than Pharaoh's to Moses and his." Ibn Abidin reports that Abd Allah ibn Unays did the same with Soufyan ibn Abd Allah, and Muhammad ibn Maslama with Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, and that most of our masters permit it for a commander of the polytheists or a great combatant (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/132, Sharh Mushkil al-athar of at-Tahawi 7/401). Ad-Dardir writes that carrying it to another town or to a governor is forbidden, while it is lawful in the town of the battle; ad-Dasuqi specifies that the ban bears on carrying it on a spear, and that carrying it within the town of battle outside the governor is permitted, unlike for rebels, where it is not; the apparent sense is that the ban on carrying it to a second town lapses where a religious benefit lies, such as assuring hearts of his death, and it is related that the head of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf was carried from Khaybar to Medina (Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi 2/179, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 3/115). An-Nawawi, reported by Zakariyya al-Ansari, writes that carrying the heads of the polytheists from their lands to ours is disliked, per al-Bayhaqi's report: Abu Bakr disapproved of it and said it was not done in the Prophet's time; the account of Abu Jahl's head is disputed, and it would have been a carrying from one spot to another in the same area, that the people might be sure of his death; al-Mawardi and al-Ghazali except the case of striking terror into the polytheists (Asna al-matalib 4/192, al-Muhadhdhab 2/236, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/226).
Ibn Qudama says it is disliked to transport the heads of the polytheists from town to town, to mutilate them after death and to torture them, on Samura ibn Jundub's report: "The Prophet urged us to charity and forbade us mutilation", an authentic hadith reported by Abu Dawud (2667); and from Abd Allah: "The most restrained of men in killing are the people of faith", a weak hadith reported by Abu Dawud (2666) and Ibn Majah (2681). It is reported from the Prophet: "Allah has prescribed excellence in everything: when you kill, kill well, and when you slaughter, slaughter well", reported by an-Nasa'i. Abu Bakr disapproved when the head of the Syriac patrician was brought to him, saying: calling on Persia and Byzantium? No head is to be brought to me; the letter and the report suffice; az-Zuhri said no head was ever brought to the Prophet; the first to whom one was brought was Abd Allah ibn az-Zubayr, and catapulting them is disliked, Ahmad stating it expressly. Where a benefit lies, it becomes permitted: thus 'Amr ibn al-'As, besieging Alexandria, when the enemy took a Muslim's head, ordered one of theirs beheaded and returned to them by catapult, and they sent back the Muslim's head (al-Mughni 9/261, Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/61, Sharh Muntaha al-iradat 1/624). At-Tahawi devotes a chapter of his Sharh Mushkil al-athar (7/401-404) to what was reported from the Prophet and the companions on carrying the heads of the slain from town to town: 'Ali brought the Prophet the head of Marhab and he did not disapprove; the Prophet ordered Khalid ibn al-Walid and the Dailami to bring him the head of the liar al-'Ansi from Yemen, that he might see Allah's victory and the Muslims' standing; the Qur'an confirms it in "and let a group of the believers witness their punishment" (Surah an-Nur 2) and, on the brigands, "that they be killed or crucified" (Surah al-Ma'ida 33), the exemplary punishment being meant for people to see. As for Abu Bakr's objection to the patrician's head sent by 'Amr, Shurahbil and 'Uqba, at-Tahawi answers that they acted before their commanders, Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan and the Prophet's companions gone to Syria, who did not disapprove and followed their practice, establishing their followership; and Abu Bakr, though he disapproved, may have meant something else, his view being paired with the right sense. After him, recourse is to the imams' judgment according to the Muslims' need: thus Abd Allah ibn az-Zubayr did not disapprove when the head of al-Mukhtar was brought to him, in the company of remnants of the Prophet's companions (Sharh Mushkil al-athar 7/401-404).
The Shafi'is write that the imam or the army commander applies his legal reasoning to the original, free and complete prisoners, the adult sane men, applying after capture whatever is most profitable to Islam and the Muslims among four options: execution by the sword's blow, not by fire or drowning; favor, leaving them free; ransom through Muslim captives or through property; and enslavement of the followers. The verses are: "Kill the polytheists" (Surah at-Tawbah 5), "either release by favor or ransom" (Surah Muhammad 4), "when you have overcome them, bind them fast" (Surah Muhammad 4), that is, by enslavement. Should the most profitable option escape the imam, he detains them until it appears, for the matter is one of reasoning, not of passion (Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/228, Nihayat al-Muhtaj 8/69). Ibn Hajar al-Haytami says the question of revoking the imam's choice was not treated, and that it must be distinguished: if he chose an option he judged most profitable and another then appeared such, enslavement is never revocable, for the captors and the recipients of the fifth acquired his enslavement with the blow itself, and he cannot annul it; the other options remain revocable whenever a ground appears (Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/228).
The Shafi'is discuss the poll tax offered by the prisoner: the school requires that it be acceptable from him, the disagreement bearing only on whether it is due; and if he may be favored without money or ransomed once, he can a fortiori be bound to an annual poll tax. Ash-Shirbini says in the Muhadhdhab that when he offers the poll tax, his execution becomes forbidden and the imam chooses among the rest, as if he had converted, ar-Rafi'i validating it. The choice affirmed by the author applies to the man of revealed scripture; for the rest, a disagreement on his enslavement is noted, answered by the fact that one who may be favored or ransomed may be enslaved, like the man of the Book. The Hanbalis write that if prisoners of the Book offer the poll tax for their release, that is not permitted for their women and children, who became spoils through capture; for the men it is permitted without the established choice lapsing, the poll tax being an exchange to which a reply is not compelled, and their killing remaining lawful like that of the idolaters (al-Mughni 9/181, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/228, Nihayat al-Muhtaj 8/69).
Mutilation, in the lexical sense of Ibn al-Anbari, is the punishment that disfigures and leaves an ugly form, by cutting the ear, removing the nose, branding the eyes or opening the belly; the lasting disgrace is then called mutilation. In technical terms, it is the gruesome punishment such as crushing the head or cutting off the ear or nose (Lisan al-'Arab, al-Mu'jam al-wasit, Tafsir ar-Razi 19/11, ash-Sharh al-kabir 2/179). The jurists of the four schools agree on the prohibition of mutilating the prisoners, the ordinary sword blow sufficing. Al-Kasani writes that when the Muslims resolve to kill the captives, they must not torture them with hunger, thirst or any other torment, that being suffering without benefit (Badai' as-sana'i' 7/120). Ibn Qudama says: when he resolves on execution, he strikes the neck with the sword, per "strike therefore the necks" (Surah Muhammad 4), the Prophet having had the necks of those he had killed struck; mutilation is forbidden per Burayda's hadith, reported by Muslim (1731):
When the messenger of Allah appointed a chief over an army or a detachment, he would urge him personally to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims with him, then say: go in the name of Allah and in the path of Allah, fight whoever disbelieves in Allah, go and do not embezzle, do not betray, do not mutilate, do not kill a child.
reported by Muslim (1731)
Ibn Abd al-Barr writes after this hadith that the scholars are unanimous in following it without disagreement: no embezzlement, no treachery, no mutilation (at-Tamhid 24/233). Az-Zamakhshari says there is no disagreement on the prohibition of mutilation (al-Kashshaf 2/602). This is after victory: in the heat of battle, cutting limbs is lawful in the thick of combat, as with a duelist struck in the ear, then the eye, then the hand and the nose, per the word of Allah: "Strike above the necks and strike every fingertip of them" (Surah al-Anfal 12). Al-Haskafi writes that treachery, embezzlement and mutilation are forbidden to us once they are overpowered, but lawful before; az-Zayla'i approves, comparing it to burning, and restricts the prior lawfulness to actual fighting (Badai' as-sana'i' 7/120, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 4/132).
The Hanafis ground the ban on ransom in the duty to kill the polytheist once overpowered, and in what freeing for money entails: the prisoner turned detainee among us would be returned to the land of war to fight us again, the killing of the overpowered polytheist being a strict duty, and ransom forgoing it; moreover, through his capture he has become a detainee of our land who must not be returned to the land of war; committing a disobedience for a gain of money is never permitted, as one would not pay to suspend the prayer. Ibn Qudama writes that this choice is a choice of interest and legal reasoning, not of passion: as soon as the imam sees the interest in an option, it becomes obligatory on him, for he decides for them by way of consultation, like the orphan's guardian, and he may not forgo what is most profitable; in doubt, execution is preferable (al-Mughni 9/180, al-Mughni al-Muhta' 3/327, Badai' as-sana'i' 7/119). Ibn al-Manasif develops: if one fears a prisoner's valor, daring, counsel or command, which would strengthen the enemy by letting him live, killing him is preferable, unless a weightier impediment stands, such as a Muslim captive among them who can be freed only through his ransom. The man whose conversion is hoped for, or whose use lies in winning hearts or breaking the enemy's vigor, falls under favor; the man of craft or service falls under enslavement; and those able to pay the poll tax fall under it by case. The weighing of these interests is wider than these examples, and the imam must incline toward no option except for the Muslims' interest; so long as he deliberates without settling, execution remains open to him (al-Ingad fi abwab al-jihad p. 257-259).
These pages describe the law of war of another age, with its options for the ruler and the usages of their time, studied here as religious knowledge and the history of institutions. No contemporary authority applies them, and a Muslim living in a modern country is bound by its laws. The essential to retain: the chapter's ethical frame, mercy in execution, a ban on needless torture, an absolute prohibition of mutilating prisoners, and the primacy of the population's interest over passion or vengeance.