The whole world has been shocked by the news that two French journalists have been kidnapped in Iraq and that their kidnappers threaten to kill them unless France gives up the hijab ban legislation. The reason behind that worldwide shock is clear to all: There is no relationship between those two journalists and a legislation issued by the French Parliament. Allah Almighty says in the Qur’an: [And no burdened soul can bear another’s burden] (Fatir 35:18). The French government cannot even repeal a law issued by the Parliament. The separation between the executive and legislative authorities has been one of the French regime’s cornerstones. On the other hand, the bitter struggle in which the Iraqi people are engaged against the American occupation has been strongly backed by the French people and its diverse institutions: the government, the Parliament, and the press. It is known, as well, that those two journalists, under threat of death, have made great efforts to convey the tragedy of the Iraqi people, with honest objectivity and apparent sympathy, to the French public and to the world. Those two journalists should be awarded, never terrorized nor threatened to be put to death. Allah Almighty says what means [Is the reward of goodness aught save goodness?] (Ar-Rahman 55:62) and [When ye are greeted with a greeting, greet ye with a better than it or return it. Lo! Allah taketh count of all things] (An-Nisaa’ 4:86). The Islamic moral then makes it incumbent upon Muslims to greet people back with better, or at least similar, greetings.

It is true that the hijab ban legislation (to be enforced upon Muslim girls attending French state schools) is an unfair law that embodies an aggression against personal freedom and human rights, but the fact is that it is an outcome of a misunderstanding or misgiving felt by the French society and the government alike. Such a misgiving has to be treated through dialogue and by removing the fears. Kidnapping and killing, on the contrary, would amplify such fears, abort the dialogue, justify the insistence on the ban legislation, and deliver a painful blow to French Muslims instead of supporting them. The French Islamic leaderships have successfully managed to harness a quiet dialogue upon which some French men and women have sympathized with them. French Muslims are more knowledgeable of the best method to manage the conflict against that unfair legislation. They now sympathize with French society and have condemned the unjustified act of kidnapping though they are very indignant of an unfair hijab-ban law.

The shock has been caused by kidnapping and threatening to kill two journalists who do not belong to the occupation forces, who do not cooperate with them, and who advocate the Iraqi people’s stance. The act of kidnapping then is neither ethical nor human and is of no advantage to the Iraqi people in their resisting the occupation and of no benefit to the French Muslims in their objecting to the hijab ban legislation.

The real big shock has been that the act was attributed to the “Islamic Army in Iraq” and has subsequently been considered an act of jihad in the path of Allah. But the fact is that Islam, whose peak of duties is jihad, is innocent of such perverse acts.

Kidnapping and holding hostages are deemed military actions in Islam and are only permissible during wartime against the enemy or its allies. All the incidents of kidnapping and holding hostages reported in the seerah (biography) of the Prophet Muhammad (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) happened on that basis. The kidnapping of Thumama ibn Athal was ordered by the Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) because Thumama had been a bellicose enemy leader who had wanted to kill the Prophet’s envoy, Al-Alaa’ Al-Hadramy, had it not been that Thumama’s uncle, Aamir ibn Salama, prevented him. However, the Prophet Muhammad (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) pardoned and released Thumama in exchange for nothing. The incident of the kidnapping of a man from the Banu `Uqail tribe was in response to the capture of two of the Prophet’s Companions by that tribe’s ally, Banu Thaqeef. The Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) approved of the action but ordered that they treat the man well and attend to his needs.

Some other kidnapping incidents were not approved by the Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). In one incident, the Prophet’s Companions kidnapped some disbelievers living in the holy city of Makkah unawares, but the Prophet set them free because he had been on `Umrah (the minor pilgrimage to Makkah), not at war with the disbelievers.^[1] In another incident, Salama ibn Al-Akwa’ kidnapped four disbelievers after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, but the Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also set them free because he was not at war with the disbelievers at the time.^[2]

We, therefore, state that it is absolutely impermissible in Islam to kidnap any human being who has nothing to do with military actions and that the two French journalists should be set free at once as did the Prophet Muhammad (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) with similar innocent people. On the other hand, if the kidnapped were enemy fighters or collaborating with the enemy, it is permissible to kidnap them as long as they be treated as prisoners of war upon whom the rules of treatment of POWs in Islam should be applied.

1. Treat them with lenience, kindness, and friendliness as advised by the Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): “Remind yourselves to treat the captives well.”^[3] He also said with reference to Banu Quraizhah’s prisoners, “Let them not be tortured by both the heat of this day and the heat of your weapons.”^[4] Food and drink should be provided to the prisoners of war: [And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner] (Al-Insan 76:8). The Prophet’s Companions even used to serve the daily meals to captives first before they served themselves.^[5]

2. Set them free, whether in exchange for nothing, in exchange for Muslim prisoners of war, or in exchange for money or work. The Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), for example, ransomed some of the captives from the Battle of Badr in exchange for their teaching a group of Muslims how to write.^[6] These noble acts of the Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are based on the noble Qur’anic verse [Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens] (Muhammad 47:4).^[7]

3. Killing the prisoner of war is an exceptional ruling that was enforced by the Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) against some captives who had committed what is known today as war crimes and thus deserved the death penalty. In the Battle of Badr, the Muslims captured 70 prisoners of war, of whom only 3 were put to death: Uqba ibn Abi Ma’it, An-Nadr ibn Al-Harith and Tu`aymah ibn `Udday. The Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) set Abu `Azza Al-Jumahi free after the same battle on the condition that he pledge never to fight Muslims again. However, he breached his pledge on the Day of Uhud and again fell into the hands of the Muslims. The Prophet ordered his execution. He also approved of the execution of all of Banu Qurayzhah’s men because they had committed high treason. Although they lived in Madinah and signed a covenant with the Muslims stipulating that they would support them in fighting against any outside enemy, the tribe breached the covenant and joined the enemy forces amidst the heat of the battle. Though it had been the Prophet’s job to conduct their trial because he was the head of state, he agreed on Sa`d ibn Mu`adh to be the judge of that case. Having been their ally in the pre-Islamic era, Banu Qurayzhah also agreed on Sa`d’s arbitration. Sa`d issued the judgment that their men be put to death and the Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) enforced that judgment. Therefore, the majority of jurists following the four juristic schools said that the imam may kill a prisoner of war, but this must be in the public interest of the Muslim Ummah (nation). However, many other scholars believe that the prisoners of war must never be killed in any circumstances.^[8]

Threatening to kill the captive in order to get one country to do a certain deed or refrain from doing another is inconsistent with the above noble Qur’anic verse. The Prophet (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) only killed a prisoner of war as a punishment for a crime which that captive had committed and for which he had been fully responsible. The human being is principally protected from killing, as the Qur’an tell us [Whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind] (Al-Ma’idah 5:32).