You must need to login..!
Description
Welcome to a new episode of For All Humans.
Now, they say all is fair in love and war, but is it, or rather, should it really be?
In August of 1864, it would seem the world finally came to a general consensus
that not all should be fair in love and war.
It was about time.
This was the meeting that would mark the establishment of the first Geneva Convention,
attended by delegates and military and medical personnel from 16 countries.
They convened in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss the conditions of a wartime humanitarian
agreement.
So what exactly is the Geneva Convention?
History.com explains that the Geneva Convention is a series of international diplomatic meetings
that produced a number of agreements, in particular, the humanitarian law of armed conflicts.
This is a group of international laws for the humane treatment of wounded or captured
military personnel, medical personnel, and also non-military civilians during war or
armed conflicts.
In subsequent years, the first Geneva Convention would be amended and extended, leading to
the second and third Geneva Conventions.
And then after World War II, when many of the principles of the Geneva Convention were
abused or almost entirely ignored, the existing provisions were further extended and codified,
and two protocols were subsequently drafted.
All in all, the Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties and three protocols.
With the third protocol being adopted as recently as 2005.
Ethics and etiquettes of war.
What a civilized notion.
We are humans, after all, and our humanity should guide us in everything we do.
In an ideal world, of course, there wouldn’t be any war in the first place.
But let’s face it, our world is far from ideal and conflicts happen.
Sadly, sometimes these conflicts escalate into combat.
And when that happens, there must be limits and boundaries.
And our shared humanity must be protected.
Our shared humanity must not be allowed to be forgotten or ignored.
In the International Criminal Law Review, Ray Murphy, a senior lecturer in law at the
Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland in Galway, and Mohamed
M. El Zaidi, a legal officer at the International Criminal Court, conducted a comparative study
of the principles of international humanitarian law and the Islamic law of war.
Now you might imagine that a system of laws regulating warfare that was put into place
1400 years ago would in our modern day appear archaic or barbaric.
But in fact, they found the opposite.
Not only were the Prophet Mohammed’s rules of warfare revolutionary for his time, but
even by today’s standards, they are considered closely comparable to, and in some cases superior
to the laws and protocols outlined in the Geneva Convention.
For example, the article explains that the approach followed by the Islamic conception
of IHL does not define the humanitarian rules as soon as weapons are used and armed forces
are deployed.
As the Islamic concept of IHL does not categorise or define the type of
war or conflicts referred to, its rules extend through time and space to all armed conflicts.
This broad categorisation facilitates the effective protection of POWs through the prompt
implementation of its provisions, thus avoiding any delay that might arise when applying Geneva
law.
Additionally, we must bear in mind that the notion of rules of warfare was almost unheard
of in the Prophet’s time.
In fact, battles, ambushes and skirmishes were just so common among the Arabian tribes
prior to the advent of Islam that all the tribes agreed to stop fighting for four months
of the year, called the sacred months, just so that their trade caravans and pilgrims
could move about their business and actually get something done.
But outside of these four sacred months, it was business and battle as usual.
And as the article in the International Criminal Law Review explains, in the sphere of Arabia,
performing acts of reprisals, in the sense of mutilating the enemy combatant’s bodies,
was a custom.
Occasionally, women participated in these sinister practices, sometimes devouring the
enemy’s liver to avenge a husband or brother killed in battle.
The Prophet Mohammed’s own beloved uncle, Hamza, was a victim of this barbaric custom
when his liver was cut out of his dead body in battle.
dead body, chewed, and then spat out on the battlefield by a woman seeking revenge.
Qasim Rashid, the human rights lawyer and visiting fellow at Harvard University’s
Prince Al-Walid bin Talal School of Islamic Studies, puts it plainly.
Prophet Muhammad is history’s first major figure to condemn collateral damage in word and deed.
His advanced rules of war, established 1,400 years ago, are a yet unmatched humanitarian standard.
Even ardent critics of Islam, like Sir William Muir, admit that Muslims treated
prisoners of war with immense dignity. Captives were well fed, and ransoms were according to
their means. Poor captives, meanwhile, he wrote, were allotted ten boys to be taught the art of
writing as a ransom. A ransom of education. Now there’s an ideal that would be beneficial to all.
The principles and ethics of warfare established by the Prophet Muhammad
were also honoured during the Crusades, as exemplified,
by sultans such as Salahuddin al-Ayyubi and al-Kamil.
Oliver of Paderborn, also known as Oliverus Scholasticus, is the author of three Latin
works on the history of the Crusades and the Holy Land, and the most prominent German preacher of
the Fifth Crusade. Oliverus Scholasticus praised the Islamic laws of war, commenting on how the
fourth Ayyubid sultan of Egypt, al-Kamil, supplied the Frankish army with food after defeating them.
Who could doubt that such goodness,
friendship, and charity comes from God? Men whose parents, sons, and daughters,
brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked
from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger, and showered us
with kindness, even when we were in their power. In their comparative study, Murphy and Zaidi also
cite numerous examples during which the Prophet and his followers applied these
humanitarian laws of warfare. There were a few occasions during the life of the Prophet when
gratuitous release, i.e. release without anything in exchange, took place. As narrated by Anas ibn Malik,
the Treaty of Hudda Ibiya represents one of those rare occasions. Eighty infidel soldiers from the
El Tannayn Mountains attempted to attack the Prophet. Although they were captured, the Prophet
then freed them and received nothing in exchange. Furthermore, after Mecca was conquered, the Prophet,
famously proclaimed to his captors, go your way, you are free. The practices of Saladin provide the
best examples of such methods of release. Subsequent to the conquest of Bayt al-Maktis, i.e.
Jerusalem, many enemy combatants were taken as prisoners of war. POW’s families, especially the
women, urged Saladin to release those captured due to the fact that women and children would suffer
as a result of losing their husband’s support. In response, Saladin ordered that all husbands, sons,
and fathers of the Prophet be released from their captors.
These women should be immediately released. This not only confirms the practice of gratuitous release,
but it also demonstrates the humanity of the treatment provided by the norms of Islamic law.
But it wasn’t just during war that Islam instituted legislation. Before it even comes to that,
there are actual conditions set out by Islam about how to enter into armed conflict in the first
place. Fighting in Islam is justified for legitimate self-defense.
To stop religious persecution, to aid other Muslims, and after a violation in the terms of a treaty.
But it should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist.
In chapter 2, verse 190 of the Quran, God emphasizes that even in times of war,
we must not transgress the limits. And fight in the way of God against those who fight against you
and transgress not the limits. Verily Allah loves not the transgressors. The fact that Islam doesn’t
force anyone to fight on its behalf is a very important part of Islam. It is a very important part of Islam.
The fact that Islam doesn’t force anyone to fight on its behalf helps ensure that these ethics of conduct
are followed. For when men are forced to join the army, they can harbor a great deal of resentment
and bitterness, which can lead to unjustified aggression toward the enemy.
Muslim jurists agree that Muslim armed forces must consist of debt-free adults who possess a sound
mind and body. In addition, the combatants must not be conscripted, but rather enlist of their
free will and with the permission of their family. It is deeply saddening and disturbing that people
seeming to be Muslim commit acts of terror and harm in the name of a religion they clearly don’t
understand very well. And it’s equally saddening that the media often engages in a great deal of
mudslinging in regards to Islam being spread by the sword. And it’s sad because it’s just not true.
Forced conversion is simply not allowed in the religion of Islam. God himself says in chapter 2,
verse 256 of the Quran, let there be no compulsion in religion, meaning that faith is a matter of
conviction, not coercion or compulsion. It’s also ironic that those who repeatedly make the claim
that Islam was spread by the sword are the very countries whose hands are soiled with blood from
a long history of occupation and imperialism. So whether by upholding the guidelines of the
Geneva Convention or the etiquette of war set out by the Prophet Muhammad, it’s high time that the
world remembers to find compassion in times of crisis and time for us all to be able to
mind our manners when it matters most.
We hope you enjoyed this episode, so let us know what you think in the comments section.
Meanwhile, share this with your friends and stay tuned for the next one.