The Execution of Prisoners of War in Islamic Jurisprudence and International Law: A Comparative Doctrinal Study

Abstract

This study examines the legal ruling on killing or executing prisoners of war after capture in Islamic jurisprudence and contemporary international humanitarian law. It distinguishes post-capture treatment from the use of lethal force during active hostilities and asks whether captivity itself permits killing. The study clarifies the concept of the prisoner in Arabic usage, classical Islamic jurisprudence, and the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, and reviews key principles including the sanctity of life, human dignity, humane treatment, and the responsibility of the detaining authority. Using inductive, doctrinal, deductive, and comparative analysis, it examines Qur'anic texts, Prophetic reports, classical juristic works, historical materials, modern Islamic legal scholarship, and the Geneva Convention framework. The analysis identifies two principal juristic positions: one permitting limited governmental discretion that may include execution, and another rejecting killing merely on the basis of captivity. The study favors the latter view, while recognizing individual liability for separately established offences. It concludes that Islamic jurisprudence and international humanitarian law converge on the principle that prisoner status alone does not justify killing, and that any penal responsibility must be legally distinct and determined through lawful process.