Understanding Sacred/Involiable/Forbidden Months

[Student]

Salaam,

If waging war, aggression or causing mischief/corruption in the land is part of prohibitions in the 4 sacred months then does that mean it is allowed or permissible in other 8 months albeit conditional? If so, this conditional war in defense is already permitted even in these 4 months. What's the correct understanding?

Anything that aids the clarity on the question is greatly appreciated.

Regards,
~Student.

[wanderer]

War is only permitted in self defense during the 8 months. However, it is not permitted at all during the sacred months, except in the most DESPERATE of occurrences.
Regards
wanderer

[Student]

Thanks but that is exactly my question, did Quran talk about DESPERATE situation? And desperate for some is not so desperate for others, who gets to decide?

If this is addressed in some posts, kindly can someone provide the link and pardon me for failing to find one.

[wanderer]

A desperate situation would be when someone is DIRECTLY attacking you and you have to respond. Go see 2:194.
Regards
wanderer

[Student]

2:194 does not talk about DESPERATION at all. Ayat 5:45 encourage or even allow withholding the reciprocation as expiation, what better month to put this to practice than in forbidden months? Defending an unprovoked attack is an inherent and undisputed right, forbidden or not. The question still begs the answer...anyone out there please, besides Sir Joseph unless or until I get lucky 

[wanderer]

Yes, it does. "Fighting in the sacred months is (only) for Agrsession committed in the sacred months..." In non sacred months you are allowed to fight because of things like repeated broken treaties and forced expulsion. However, in the sacred months, fighting is only in response to a direct assault (that was commited in the sacred months themselves). Do you get it now?
Regards
wanderer

[Wakas]

peace Student,

Please see:
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=194#(2:194:1)
&
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=9&verse=5#(9:5:1)
and its context

Let us know what you think.

[Student]

Salaam Brother Wakas,

Sorry but I don't see anything in the links besides word-level breakdown of heavy grammar. I'm basically looking for clear and distinct difference between the two sets of months, exceptions looks and sounds common to both hence my confusion. Hope you understand my question.

Thanks,
Student.

[wanderer]

Peace
Do you understand what I am trying to say?

[Student]

Salaam Wanderer,

Yes, I do and thanks for your input. I'm still looking for understanding of senior and veterans in the field and I hope you don't mind.

[wanderer]

  Sadly, Joseph hasn't been here for a while.. we're all waiting for him to return.
Regards
wanderer

[Joseph Islam]

Dear All,

As-salamu alaykum

Please kindly note that I oft reserve my opinion to allow learned brothers and sisters to share their views and advance the thread with collective thoughts. Just because I do not respond, it respectfully does not imply that I do not read the posts / certain posts. As I have already kindly shared, I will only respond when I feel I need to or can, given my commitments and not merely because a forum member is requesting it. I know that most of you understand and appreciate my humble sentiments and I thank you all for the great contributions you make on this forum with God's grace.


Dear Student,

Verse 2:194 certainly covers the scenario of a direct physical attack in the Holy months. That is, the right to retaliation is not taken away in the holy months (wal-ḥurumātu qiṣāṣun (for all violations / sacred - there is retribution)). Otherwise, the Islamic communities could have been potentially slaughtered or wiped out during these months by the aggressors. Please kindly note the implication of 'qisas' which has a particular rendition in the Quran [1]

Therefore, in the context of the other 8 months, this does imply a sense of desperation as Wanderer has implied and I am not sure why you have appeared to dismiss this. This is potentially an extremely dire situation where someone is directly attacking you.

In the other 8 months, self-defence is still applicable but to consider ‘self-defence’ in merely its rudimentary form as 'only attack when being attacked' would in my humble view, be far too simplistic an understanding from a 'state' action perspective. 'State' is the operative context here as these verses are not carte blanche approvals for individuals to take action as they deem appropriate. A state has governance, control, consultation, accountability and responsibility over the interests of its people, culture et al.

Please kindly remember that the declaration in verse 9:1 appears to be have given at a time when a strong community / state had been formed or at least, had the ability to protect itself from concerted attack and yet, still allow its aggressors to roam freely around them for a period of time (9:2). Furthermore, the idea that the believing community were now in a position to agree treaties must have meant that a sufficient state like structure must have been in situ.

A distinction in my humble opinion must be drawn. The right for a 'state' only to respond when it is being 'physically attacked' in 'self-defence' could be argued as inappropriate at times. A preventative attack in self-defence when an attack from an aggressor is extremely foreseeable or imminent or a vital treaty is broken (which is not assault related) could still be argued as 'self-defence' even though it was 'interventionary' or 'pre-emptive' to a certain degree. Even the declaration in verse 9:1 can be argued as somewhat 'interventionary'. If there was an imminent attack, 2:194 would provide sufficient grounds for imminent retaliation in the 4 holy months.  However, there would need to be extremely strong grounds for this and justifications.

As implied above, it is noteworthy that treaties can be broken in a number of ways and may constitute a wide range of agreements (not related to physical attacks).

For example, let us assume that two states, one of which has control over the sole supply of a water source decides to punish another state without any justification putting at risk the lives of all the millions of inhabitants of that country who would surely perish without water supply within a very short space of time. Albeit there is no physical attack, there is an insidious assault on life-preserving resources which would mean the potential death of multitudes.

In this situation, would the 'victim' state be justified to 'fight' to regain equal control over its water supply after given them a declaration? No assault would have taken place, just the severance of life preserving resources. That is why the emphasis on upholding treaties is an extremely important matter which may not only include protection against 'physical' assaults, but numerous other agreements as well. It remains noteworthy that unjustified state aggression can have a number of facets to it. One just has to note the wrath unleashed on a people by God after an instruction was broken where a she-camel was not allowed to drink leaving her hamstrung. (2:155-157; 54:27-30; 91:13-14). It is also important to remember that from a Quran's perspective, oppression is far worse than slaughter (2:191).

Therefore in the 4 Holy months, fighting will only be permissible in extreme situations. Brother Wanderer has already alluded to a sense of 'desperation' and I do not disagree with him in the context of wider Quranic themes and verses. Brother Wakas also appears to have alluded to this, albeit I will leave it to him to elaborate if he so deems appropriate as to his intention of sharing his post.

In the remainder of the 8 months, fighting is still restricted to self-defence, but the sense of 'urgency' and 'imminence' that is present in the holy months are arguably not present in the remainder of the 8, albeit any attack must be wholly justified and argued within the remit of 'self-defence', a criteria and bar which the Quran sets as extremely high. Any attack should also arguably be conducted with the sole intention to bring the matter back to justice and peace and with a view to eliminate undue aggression and injustice. If the aggressor returns back to a peaceful stance, then this should be acknowledged immediately (8:61).

I believe we must be careful not to overtly simplify the Quran's guidance and present it as a 'pacifist' religion. It is indeed a just, peaceful and merciful religion, but an absolute pacifist religion it is not. Retribution is certainly permissible in certain circumstances.

I hope this helps, God willing
Joseph



REFERENCE:

[1] QURANIC PUNISHMENT - MURDER vs MANSLAUGHTER
http://quransmessage.com/articles/murder-manslaughter%20FM3.htm

[Student]

WalekasSalaam,
Sir Joseph,

Thank you so very much for sparing your time to explain this in detail. Bringing the state in the picture clears things up completely, otherwise as I mentioned earlier self-defending seems always as an option on the table under real life threatening situation.

So, if I the grasped the entire picture fully as an individual pilgrim or not the 4 months are for Hajj and utmost care must be taken not to violate any forbidden things mentioned so also is the case for the state but given its added and heavy responsibilities it is given the permission for retaliation in measured way as alluded to in 9:2 announcement/warning from/by the Prophet pbuh as an state leader for serious violations. Individually we're still strongly encouraged in these 4 months to take highway for forgiveness.

Jazak Allah Khair