A bundle of twigs is not a tree : sample

 Soundbite 7: “& if a people in Darul Harb embrace Islam…”

 

Sahnun (R) said, “& if a people in Darul Harb embrace Islam, it is permissible for them to kill whoever they can & take their wealth.”–An Nawadir wa-ziyadat[1]

Link to the Arabic text (في الأسير المسلم أو من أسلم بدار الحرب - viewed 01/05/2025)

C7/1	Regarding a Muslim prisoner of war or whoever accepts Islam in the land of war, does he have the right to do whatever he can in terms of escaping, criminality, killing or taking captives? What about if they release him conditionally, or he gives them is word over certain matters? And what about if he fornicates or steals?
C7/2	From Ibn al-Mawaz’s[2] book, and it is also in al-‘Utbiyah,[3] reported from Asbagh and from Ibn al-Qasim, who said about the Muslim prisoner of war, if he is able to escape[4] from whoever of the enemy has him, either he is left to come and go as he pleases, in which case it is permissible for him to flee unless he is released on parole.[5] If his being left to come and go has no parole condition, then he may kill, plunder and take whatever he can;[6] likewise anyone of them who was held under restraint but managed to break his bonds by himself. Either that, or he is released from restraint on condition that he does not attempt to escape or to act treacherously towards them; such a person does not have the leeway to do that.
C7/3	‘Isa narrated something similar from Ibn al-Qasim,[7] who said, “Someone of whom I approve said it”[8] – and I suspect that it was Malik who said it – “of a prisoner of war who, on a guarantee of safety, is not restrained, he is not permitted to escape or to take anything of theirs. However, if they release him without any guarantee of safety, as they might release a slave, and they show no fear of him, then he has the right to escape and take what he can.”
C7/4	Ibn al-Mawaz said, “Except where those who released him from his bonds left him in a place from which he cannot escape, leaving him on the basis that he would not escape, this person has the right to make what he can of that situation.”
C7/5	Ibn al-Mawaz also said, “Ibn al-Qasim said, ‘If they did not impose that condition on him at the time of releasing him from his bonds, then he has the right to do whatever he can in terms of seizing property, killing, and taking women and children captive. However, if he is released on condition that he does not try to escape or to engage in any unlawful act, then he is not permitted to do any of that, as in the case of a compact.”[9]

 

---

[1] See https://shamela.ws/book/96257/1470 (viewed 01/05/2025) for the Arabic text of Fi al-asir al-Muslim aw man aslama bi-dar al-harb. The work’s full title work is al-Nawadir wa-al-ziyadat ʻala ma fi al-Mudawwanah min ghayriha min al-ummahat by Abu Muhammad ʻAbd Allah ibn ʻAbd al-Rahman Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d.386/996). The title of the book from which this excerpt is taken refers to those unusual opinions not found in al-Mudawwanah but only other core Maliki texts.

[2] Muhammad ibn Ibrahim, known as Ibn al-Mawaz (d.269/882 or 3), wrote a book on Maliki law called al-Mawaziyah. The opinions in this book may therefore be taken as ‘exploratory’ rather than of acknowledged authority within the Maliki school.

[3] This refers to the work of Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-‘Utbi (d.255/869)

[4] See also the footnote to C6/5 above on Article iii of the Code of Conduct for members of the Armed Forces of the United States, “If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. […] I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.”

[5] Compare Article 21 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War states that “Prisoners of war may be partially or wholly released on parole or promise, insofar as is allowed by the laws of the Power on which they depend. Such measures shall be taken particularly in cases where this may contribute to the improvement of their state of health. No prisoner of war shall be compelled to accept liberty on parole or promise. […] Prisoners of war who are paroled or who have given their promise in conformity with the laws and regulations so notified, are bound on their personal honour scrupulously to fulfil, both towards the Power on which they depend and towards the Power which has captured them, the engagements of their paroles or promises.”

[6] This is closest text found to the Daesh quotation, “& if a people in Darul Harb embrace Islam, it is permissible for them to kill whoever they can and take their wealth.” The assertion in the Daesh soundbite that a person who converts to Islam in ‘the land of war’ can plunder and kill as much as he is able appears to have no basis except in the question, since the opinion in the response itself refers only to Muslim prisoners of war who were not released conditionally on parole.

[7] ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Qasim (d.191/806) studied for about twenty years under Malik ibn Anas, the founder of the Maliki school of jurisprudence.

[8] This peculiar turn of phrase (“Someone of whom I approve said it…”) appears in a number of Maliki law books, but not readily in the works of Hanafi, Shafi‘i or Hanbali scholars. Sahnun (d.240/854), who studied under students of Imam Malik ibn Anas, is mentioned in the soundbite as given to me by a convicted terrorist, but not in the quotation itself. In this instance, Sahnun rather than Malik may or may not have been the person approved of by Ibn al-Qasim. However, why would Ibn al-Qasim refer to his own student, Sahnun, in this way rather than just naming his source for this opinion along lines that – out of context – appears to support Daesh propaganda? Either way, whatever one thinks of the opinion, it would have been clear to the originally intended readership with legal training that, under the normal rules of engagement, an escaped PoW would only be allowed to attack and kill those who presented a clear threat to their own safety and survival.

[9] This clear statement is particularly relevant when one thinks of the serious incident at the separation centre in HMP Frankland on Saturday 12^th April 2025, when Hashem Abedi assaulted three prison officers with hot butter or cooking oil and improvised bladed weapons, apparently made from a baking tray. Before using kitchen facilities or gym equipment, prisoners must sign a compact undertaking to do so in a safe manner. As we read in the excerpt above, which is only included here because Daesh propagandists chose to misquote it, such a compact is considered legally binding from the Sharia perspective, even if a Muslim considers him- or herself to be not a criminal, but a prisoner of war. Whilst knowledge of this fact may not have dissuaded Hashem Abedi from acting as he did on that day, it is not unreasonable to assume that it might be helpful in giving the majority of Muslim prisoners the confidence to view such assaults as contrary to the teachings of Islam rather than as heroic acts of jihad against oppression by the kuffar (disbelievers).

Link to the blurb for A bundle of twigs is not a tree