Islamic Traditions: Foundational Pillars for Modern International Humanitarian Law

When we think about the rules that govern warfare today, we often trace them back to European treaties and modern conventions. Yet centuries before these formal agreements existed, Islamic traditions were already establishing comprehensive humanitarian principles that would become foundational to what we now call International Humanitarian Law. These principles, rooted in the teachings of Prophet Muhammad and developed by Islamic scholars, emphasized human dignity, protected non-combatants, and demanded humane treatment of prisoners-all concepts that remain central to modern warfare regulation.

The origins of humanitarian principles in Islamic law 🔗

Islamic law concerning warfare, known as siyar, developed during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century. This body of law drew from primary sources including the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the teachings and practices of Prophet Muhammad), supplemented by scholarly consensus and analogical reasoning. What made these principles remarkable was their emphasis on restraint and humanity during an era when warfare was often characterized by unrestricted violence.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has recognized that Islamic law developed detailed rules to regulate the use of force during war, with underlying objectives that mirror modern IHL. Both legal systems aim to limit suffering during armed conflict and protect those not actively participating in hostilities.

Human dignity as the foundation 🔗

At the heart of Islamic humanitarian tradition lies the principle of inherent human dignity, expressed in the Qur’anic verse stating that God has honored all children of Adam. This foundational concept meant that even enemies in warfare deserved respect and humane treatment. The Islamic emphasis on human dignity contributed significantly to limiting arbitrary violence and unnecessary suffering during conflicts, establishing boundaries that were revolutionary for their time.

This principle directly parallels the modern IHL requirement that all persons affected by armed conflict must be treated with humanity and respect, regardless of their status or allegiance.

Protecting non-combatants: the principle of distinction 🔗

One of the most significant contributions of Islamic tradition to humanitarian law was establishing clear boundaries between combatants and civilians. Prophet Muhammad gave explicit instructions to his armies prohibiting harm to specific categories of people. According to authenticated traditions, he commanded his forces not to kill women, children, the elderly, monks, or those devoted to worship.

Caliph Abu Bakr, the first successor to Prophet Muhammad, reinforced these protections when addressing Muslim armies. He instructed soldiers not to kill women, children, or the old and infirm, and prohibited the destruction of fruit-bearing trees, towns, or water sources. These injunctions went beyond mere distinction to include protections for the environment and prohibitions against pillaging.

Islamic jurisprudence developed detailed classifications of protected persons, including monks in monasteries, farmers, craftsmen, and traders. When non-combatants were killed accidentally, Islamic law required compensation to their families or punishment for those responsible-a concept similar to the modern obligation to provide reparation found in international law.

Distinguishing combatants from civilians 🔗

Islamic law also required combatants to distinguish themselves from non-combatants. During the Battle of Badr, Muslim fighters wore distinctive signs such as woollen cloaks to differentiate themselves from the enemy and from civilians. This practice established an early precedent for the modern requirement that combatants make themselves distinguishable from the civilian population.

Prohibited methods and means of warfare 🔗

Islamic traditions established specific prohibitions on how warfare could be conducted. Prophet Muhammad explicitly forbade the mutilation of enemy corpses, a practice that had been common in pre-Islamic Arabia. When the bodies of Muslims were mutilated during the Battle of Uhud, including the body of the Prophet’s own uncle, Muhammad nonetheless instructed his followers not to retaliate in kind.

According to classical Muslim jurists who deliberated throughout the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, Islamic law addressed protections for civilians and non-combatants, prohibitions on destroying property and the natural environment, humane treatment of prisoners of war, and prohibitions on mutilation, looting, and treachery.

The prohibition against torture and cruel treatment in Islamic law directly corresponds to modern IHL prohibitions. The Prophet stated that punishment by fire belonged to God alone, and Islamic jurists interpreted this to mean that causing unnecessary suffering was forbidden.

Environmental protection during warfare 🔗

Remarkably, Islamic law established restrictions against environmental destruction centuries before modern environmental concerns emerged. The instructions given to Muslim armies explicitly prohibited cutting fruit-bearing trees, destroying towns, or poisoning water sources except when absolutely necessary for military objectives. During the Battle of Siffin, Caliph Ali stated that Islam does not permit Muslims to stop the supply of water to their enemy.

Humane treatment of prisoners of war 🔗

Islamic traditions established comprehensive rules for the treatment of prisoners of war that prefigured modern conventions. The Qur’an instructed believers to feed the indigent, orphans, and captives, emphasizing care for those in vulnerable positions. Prophet Muhammad commanded his followers to treat captives well, not torture or mutilate them, and provide them with food and water.

According to historical accounts, the Prophet ordered that prisoners be kept away from the hot sun during detention. Islamic law recommended that prisoners of war be released after the cessation of hostilities, either through grace or ransom. After the Battle of Badr, approximately seventy prisoners were captured, but nearly all were eventually released after ransom was paid.

Islamic law also recognized a form of combatant immunity, holding that prisoners should not be held accountable for damage to Muslim life or property during battle, unless there were gross violations. All prisoners who died in detention were to be honorably buried, showing respect even for deceased enemies.

The principle of proportionality and military necessity 🔗

Islamic law incorporated concepts similar to the modern principle of proportionality. The Qur’an directs that if Muslims must respond to harm, they should respond only to the measure they were harmed, and that patience is better. This established that armies should only meet force with equal force and cease hostilities once military objectives were achieved.

Classical Muslim jurists debated the permissibility of using indiscriminate means of warfare such as mangonels, fire-tipped arrows, or conducting night attacks. They balanced military necessity against humanitarian principles, permitting such tactics only when absolutely required by military need and when efforts were made to direct attacks at combatants rather than protected persons.

Just cause and defensive warfare 🔗

Unlike modern international law, which separates the justification for war from the conduct during war, Islamic law intertwined these concepts. The Qur’an permits fighting primarily in self-defense, stating that permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made because they have been wronged. This defensive justification was coupled with requirements to conduct warfare ethically.

The historical evidence shows that Muslims’ engagement in armed conflicts during the period of Prophet Muhammad was defensive in nature. Islamic teachings emphasized that warfare should protect universal religious freedom, including temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques.

Relevance to modern international humanitarian law 🔗

The similarities between Islamic humanitarian principles and modern IHL are not coincidental. Both systems share universal values rooted in different religious and cultural traditions. Islamic law guarantees victims of armed conflict the right to protection, respect, and dignified humane treatment, while calling for protection of civilian facilities and property and limiting methods and means of warfare to military necessity.

Today, with many armed conflicts occurring in Muslim-majority regions, understanding the convergence between Islamic law and IHL has practical importance. When humanitarian workers and military forces can demonstrate that IHL principles align with Islamic traditions, compliance may be enhanced. The dialogue between these two legal systems continues to contribute to universalizing humanitarian principles and reducing suffering during armed conflict.

Contemporary applications and challenges 🔗

Modern scholars and humanitarian organizations work to highlight the common ground between Islamic law and IHL. The principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in modern IHL echo the deliberations of pre-modern Muslim jurists about what is permissible and prohibited in war. These principles appear innate to human civilizations, reflected across various cultures and traditions throughout history.

However, challenges remain. Islamic law was not codified at any point in Islamic history, and no formal punishments for violating its warfare provisions were established. Additionally, differing interpretations of primary sources have led to contradictory regulations in some areas. Nevertheless, because treaties are binding in Islamic law, modern IHL conventions can fill gaps in enforcement while building upon the strong humanitarian foundations already present in Islamic tradition.

What do you think? How might greater awareness of the historical Islamic contributions to humanitarian principles strengthen compliance with international law in contemporary conflicts? Can traditional religious and cultural values provide additional motivation for armed forces to respect civilian protections beyond what legal obligations alone might achieve?

References

1. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/islamic-laws-war/
2. https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/ihl-and-islamic-law
3. https://www.dlpforum.org/2022/11/25/islamic-law-and-international-humanitarian-law/
4. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/islamic-law-international-humanitarian-law