Human Rights During Conflict – 1

Author: 
Dr. Muhammad Al-Awwa
Publication Date: 
Mon, 2003-02-24 03:00

Perhaps it is neither mistaken nor an exaggeration to define man as a fighting creature. In certain aspects, human history is that of civilization and progress, the rise and subsequent fall of states and kingdoms, scientific progress, and geographical discovery. However, from a different angle, human history highlights fighting between different communities, ever since human beings grouped in tribes and nations.

In its military history, human progress is not measured by degrees of victory and defeat, or by the number of casualties inflicted or suffered. Human progress in this area is based on the principles each party to a conflict aims to defend and the good brought to people at the time of victory, while backwardness is related to the evil imposed on the vanquished. A further measure to determine progress or backwardness in this area is based on the rules fighting armies apply in their treatment of the enemy. An important aspect in this area is the treatment armies mete out to non-combatants with whom they have to deal, or whose lands such armies traverse during an armed conflict.

In these four articles we will try to shed light on Islamic rules governing the treatment of civilians during armed conflict. It is not our purpose to draw any comparison between Islamic rules and contemporary international agreements covering this area.

We only wish to outline Islamic rules in fulfillment of the duty the Qur’an assigns to scholars: “God has made a covenant with those who were granted revelations (when He bade them): ‘Make it known to mankind and do not conceal it.’” (3: 187) The Prophet emphasizes this duty as he orders us to spread what he has taught us, ‘even a single verse.’ He also states that ‘a person who is informed of a statement may be better able to understand it than one who heard it directly.’ And that ‘a person may carry information to one who is a better scholar than him.’

Furthermore, current international events require such explanation. Ever since the events of Sept. 11, 2001, Islam has been subjected to an avalanche of false accusations leveled at our faith by its enemies, and even by some people who claim to be Muslims. Remaining silent at such a time contributes to all this falsehood. However, Islamic views and attitudes should be outlined by competent scholars, the only people who can present the true image of Islam.

Article 4 of the Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians in time of war, adopted on August 12, 1949, defines civilians as those persons who somehow and in any form find themselves, in the case of conflict or occupation, under the authority of a party to which they have no affiliation, or under an occupying power of which they are not subjects.

The same article distinguishes those who have protection under the Convention and those who do not because they may be citizens of a state which is not party to the Convention, or of a neutral state, or a combatant state which retains diplomatic relations with the country under whose authority they find themselves.

Armed conflict is actual fighting whether between two regular armies, or one army and an armed dissident or rebel group, or between irregular armed forces not affiliated to the army of any state. All these are covered by the definition of armed conflict from which civilians need to be protected.

From the Islamic point of view, civilians are all those who carry no arms and take no part in fighting, whether they are citizens of a Muslim or non-Muslim state. The code Islam lays down for the treatment of civilians during armed conflict – as outlined by Islamic religious texts and in Islamic law – cover all such people without exception.

Armed conflict may be a war between Muslims and non-Muslims, which is permissible only when undertaken for God’s cause. Such a war may take place either to ensure the freedom of belief and free advocacy of the Islamic faith when an armed enemy tries to prevent such advocacy, or to repel aggression in order to protect and defend the faith or the land. It is this very kind of war that Muslims were not allowed to engage in until their enemies committed aggression against them: “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged. Most certainly, God has the power to grant them victory.

These are the ones who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, ‘Our Lord is God!’ Were it not that God repels some people by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques – in all of which God’s name is abundantly extolled – would surely have been destroyed. God will most certainly succor him who succors God’s cause. God is certainly most powerful, almighty.” (22: 39-40) In both cases, war is termed jihad for God’s cause. Fighting may also be against a group of Muslims who resort to wrongful measures. This is a fight against those who act wrongfully, as explained in Verse 9 of Surah 49. It is the only case in which fighting between two Muslim groups is permitted. In all these cases non-combatants have the same status which makes it forbidden to expose them to any aggression. But more of this later.

The basis on which we may define what Islam requires in the treatment of civilians during armed conflict is derived form the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah. The Qur’an addresses the believers, pointing out God’s orders: “Fight for the cause of God those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression. Indeed, God does not love aggressors.” (2: 190) When fighting is over and the aggressor stops aggression against the Muslims, the Qur’an states: “If they desist, let there be no hostility except against the wrongdoers.” (2: 193)

Thus, fighting is the measure taken against aggressors so as to repel their aggression and to cause them to stop it. Thus, it is a measure of retaliation, not pre-emption: “Fight against the idolaters all together as they fight against you all together, and know that God is with those who are God-fearing.” (9: 36)

The aggression mentioned in Verse 2:190 quoted above has been explained as to include killing non-combatants, disfiguring the bodies of killed fighters, laying land to waste, killing animals and destroying property without reasonable justification.

When fighting occurs between two Muslim groups, it generally aims to stop the wrongdoing group from carrying on with its wrongdoing: “If two groups of believers fall to fighting, make peace between them. But then, if one of the two goes on acting wrongfully toward the other, fight against the one that acts wrongfully until it reverts to God’s commandment; and if they revert, make peace between them with justice, and deal equitably with them. Indeed, God loves those who act equitably.” (49: 9)

Thus, fighting is allowed here only to achieve its rightful objective, which is to stop the wrongdoers from carrying on with their wrongful actions, so that the principles of truth and justice are upheld. This is what is meant by the clause included in this verse: “fight against the one that acts wrongfully until it reverts to God’s commandment.”

Next week, God willing, we will continue this outline of the Islamic principles on civilians caught up in the midst of armed conflict.

Main category: 
Old Categories: