The Islamic Rules of War
Islam established a code of conduct in warfare over 1,400 years ago that preceded the Geneva Conventions by more than a millennium. Its prohibitions (on killing civilians, harming women and children, destroying the environment, and torturing prisoners) were not modern concessions but founding principles.
Contents
War in Islam Is Not Permitted Without Restraint
The default in Islam is not war; it is peace. War is permitted only under specific conditions: defence against aggression, removing oppression, or fulfilling treaty obligations. Even when war is permitted, it is governed by a comprehensive code of conduct that the Prophet ﷺ established through his own practice and explicit instructions.
Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, when dispatching armies, gave the following instructions that became the foundational code of Islamic warfare:
"Do not betray, do not be treacherous, do not mutilate, do not kill children, do not kill old men, do not kill women, do not cut down date palms, do not burn them, do not cut down fruit trees, do not slaughter sheep or cows or camels except for food. You will pass by people who have devoted themselves to monasteries — leave them and what they have devoted themselves to."
These were not aspirational guidelines. They were binding commands.
The Specific Prohibitions
Non-combatants: The Prophet ﷺ explicitly prohibited the killing of women, children, the elderly, and those not participating in combat. Ibn Umar reported: "A woman was found killed in one of the battles, so the Messenger of God ﷺ forbade the killing of women and children." (Bukhari and Muslim)
Monks and clergy: Religious figures who were not participating in fighting were explicitly protected. This extends to the principle that places of worship (churches, synagogues, monasteries) were not to be destroyed.
Prisoners: Prisoners of war were to be treated with basic dignity. The Quran (76:8) praises those who feed prisoners despite their own need. The Prophet ﷺ instructed that prisoners be fed and clothed.
No mutilation: The mutilation of enemy dead was explicitly prohibited, even in retaliation.
No treachery: Agreements and safe conducts were binding. A person given aman (safe passage) could not be harmed.
The environment: Trees, crops, and livestock were not to be destroyed except when militarily necessary. This is not a modern environmental principle; it was established in the 7th century.
Rape: Sexual violence was categorically prohibited. Any sexual act outside a valid marriage was zina, prohibited regardless of the circumstances of war.
What This Means for ISIS and Similar Groups
The atrocities most associated with these groups: targeting civilians, sexual slavery of captured women in defiance of the consent and marriage requirements jurists imposed, the destruction of heritage sites, theatrical executions of bound prisoners, fall outside what classical jurists, across the four schools, accepted as lawful conduct in war.
These groups are not practising a harsh form of Islam. They are violating the explicit rules of Islamic warfare. Muslim scholars from al-Azhar to the major Saudi institutions have stated this categorically. The condemnation is not reluctant or qualified; it is based on the explicit text.
The Question of Captives
The most common objection a sceptical reader raises is the historical Islamic permission of intercourse with female captives (ma malakat aymanukum). This requires honest engagement rather than silence.
The classical jurists imposed conditions: a waiting period before any relations to establish the captive was not pregnant, requirements around her treatment, and the full prohibition on coercion outside those conditions. The historical context is the 7th-century world in which slavery was universal, not a specifically Islamic institution but one the Quran regulated and the tradition persistently encouraged masters to move away from through manumission. Contemporary scholarly consensus holds that the conditions required to apply these rulings, a lawful Islamic state, lawful warfare, captives taken through established procedures, cannot be reconstituted in the modern world.
The Geneva Conventions Comparison
The Geneva framework eventually arrived at a similar prohibition on destroying civilian food sources, but it took until the 1977 Additional Protocols to articulate it explicitly. The prophetic code stated it directly in the 7th century.
The idea that rules of war are a modern Western achievement that Islam lacks is historically inverted.
Common Misconceptions
"Islam permits targeting civilians in jihad." The Prophet ﷺ explicitly prohibited killing women, children, the elderly, and non-combatants. Abu Bakr's military instructions codified this. There is no authentic Islamic legal tradition that permits civilian targeting.
"ISIS represents a harsh but authentic form of Islamic warfare." ISIS violated the explicit rules of Islamic warfare: targeting civilians, killing prisoners, committing sexual violence, destroying heritage sites. Muslim scholars across all major institutions have categorically condemned these acts as violations of Islamic law, not expressions of it.
"Rules of war are a modern Western achievement." The Islamic code of warfare, establishing protections for non-combatants, prisoners, the environment, and religious figures, was established in the 7th century: over 1,300 years before the Geneva Conventions.
Scholar References
- Sahih Bukhari and Muslim: prohibitions on killing women and children
- Abu Bakr al-Siddiq's military instructions: classical Islamic sources
- Quran: 76:8: on feeding prisoners
- Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid: on the rules of warfare in Islamic jurisprudence
- Geneva Conventions (1949): for comparison