This research tackles one of the subjects known nowadays as "Public International Law” or “Internationl Relations Jurisprudence".

It is aimed by this to define Islam provisions related to killing of enemy civilians if they participate in war against Muslims, in addition to consequent religious, civil or penal liability upon the killer of civilians.

It explains that jurisprudents have two main opm10ns in defining the term “non-fighter enemy members" who are defined nowadays as “civilians". The first opinion defines them as Women, children and messengers. The second opinion defines them as "anyone who does not fight due to physical or traditional considerations", which is totally accepted by contemporary international interpretations.

It further indicates that jurisprudents agree on forbidding the killing of civilians who do not participate in the war at all, based in reported evidences in this regard, taking in consideration the Concept of civilians in relation with above two jurisprudential opm10ns.

In return, jurisprudents have approved the killing of civilians participating generally in fighting against Muslims, and in any form, either factual or arbitrator, fighting jointly with warriors or independently, based on proved evidences in this respect of practical actions by the Prophet Mohammed (Peace Be upon Him). This unanimously agreed by jurisprudents, supported by rational, and coincides with -in some forms­ contemporary international interpretations.

In conclusion, the Muslim warrior commits no sin, nor becomes libel for atone, blood money or any kind of responsibility for killing a civilian participating in the war against Muslims. On the contrary, he is rewarded in this for applying the rite of Jihad, as established by the community of jurisprudents.