Chapter 76

Ibn Umm Hani said: My mother's son [Ali ibn Abi Talib] claims he will kill a man I have granted asylum to, namely so-and-so son of Hubayrah. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: We grant asylum to whom you have granted asylum, O Umm Hani. Umm Hani said: And that was in the forenoon (duha). ¶

In Sirat Ibn Hisham: Umm Hani bint Abi Talib said: When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) descended at the upper part of Makkah, two men from my in-laws, from Banu Makhzum, fled. (She was married to Hubayrah ibn Abi Wahb al-Makhzumi). She said: My brother, Ali ibn Abi Talib, came to me and said: By Allah, I will surely kill them both. So I locked the door of my house upon them, then I came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), while he was at the upper part of Makkah... [the narration continues]. ¶

It is stated in Fath al-Bari: Abu al-Abbas ibn Surayj and others said: They were Ja'dah ibn Hubayrah and another man from Banu Makhzum, who were among those who fought against Khalid ibn al-Walid and did not accept the aman (safe conduct/asylum). So Umm Hani granted them asylum, and they were her in-laws. Based on what has preceded, the act of a Muslim granting aman to a disbeliever of the people of war (ahl al-harb) places them in safety; consequently, it is not permissible for Muslims to cause them any harm. ¶

And in order to preserve this right of asylum from any harm that might befall the Muslims as a result of it, the jurists (fuqaha) have stipulated for its validity that the grantor of the aman must be free from suspicion, and that the aman itself must be free from any corruption (mafsadah). ¶

Now, we arrive at the final point of this issue. ¶

Third: The role of aman in ceasing combat with the people of war (ahl al-harb). The role of aman in ceasing combat with the people of war who have been granted such asylum is clear, for there is no meaning to the aman if the fighting continues in such a state. This is what the schools of jurisprudence (al-madhahib al-fiqhiyyah) have established. ¶

It is stated in Al-Hidayah: 'If a free man or a free woman grants aman (safe conduct) to a disbeliever or a group of them, their aman is valid, and it is not permitted for any Muslim to fight them' (2). ¶

In Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar'iyya, regarding the case where a Muslim grants safe conduct to a man from the disbelievers or a limited number of them, it says: 'It is binding upon the Imam and others to fulfill it, provided there is no harm in it, regardless of whether there is benefit in it or not' (3). ¶

In Mughni al-Muhtaj, while clarifying the meaning of aman, its consequences, and who is authorized to grant it, it states: 'Aman: It is the opposite of fear, and it is intended here to mean the cessation of killing and fighting against the disbelievers... The contracts that provide them with safety are three: Aman, Jizya [i.e., the covenant of Dhimma], and Hudna [truce]. For if it pertains to a limited number, it is Aman. If it pertains to an unlimited number, then if it is for a specific limit [i.e., a fixed duration], it is a Hudna; otherwise, it is Jizya. Both [Hudna and Jizya] are restricted to the Imam, unlike Aman' (4). ¶

In Al-Sharh al-Kabir by al-Maqdisi, it states under the chapter of 'Aman': 'The proof for this is that when Aman is granted to the people of war (ahl al-harb), it becomes forbidden to kill them, take their wealth, or harm them' (5). ¶

Furthermore, it has been previously indicated that the Aman we refer to in this matter is the mutual safe conduct granted by each party to the other between the Muslims and the ahl al-harb. Accordingly, it is not permissible for Muslims who have been granted Aman by the disbelievers to launch an attack against them, nor to harm them in any way, because doing so constitutes treachery. ¶

(Notes: 1. The three madhahib, i.e., other than the Hanafis, do not stipulate that the Muslim granting Aman must be free; thus, it is valid from a slave. See: Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar'iyya p. 173; Al-Muhadhdhab by al-Shirazi 2/235; Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudama 10/432. 2. Al-Hidayah Sharh al-Bidayah by al-Marghinani 5/462. 3. Qawanin al-Ahkam al-Shar'iyya p. 173. 4. Mughni al-Muhtaj 4/236. 5. Al-Sharh al-Kabir by al-Maqdisi 10/555. Also see Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudama 10/432.) ¶

It is stated in Kitab al-Umm: 'Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If a group of Muslims enters the Dar al-Harb (territory of war) with an assurance of protection (aman), the enemy is safe from them until they depart or their term of safety expires; it is not permissible for the Muslims to oppress them or betray them.' ¶

Finally, a question may arise regarding this matter: how is it permissible for a Muslim combatant or his equivalent to grant amnesty to an individual or a group of disbelievers during a state of war or on the front lines, subsequently allowing them to enter the ranks of the Muslims based on that amnesty? This could lead to grave risks that the person granting the amnesty might not perceive at the time, especially under the circumstances of modern warfare today. Does this right of a Muslim to grant amnesty to the people of war, in general, not constitute a gateway through which harm can be inflicted upon the Muslims? ¶

The answer to this problem is that it has already been established that the condition for the validity of this amnesty is the prevention of harm and corruption (mafsadah). ¶

In any case, it is permissible for the authority in charge to regulate the Muslims' exercise of this right, in a manner that does not nullify the right on one hand, while surrounding it with procedures and conditions that ensure it is not used as a means of causing harm on the other. Such procedures and conditions fall under the regulation of the exercise of this right. This regulation is part of overseeing affairs entrusted to the authorities, which is beyond objection and is necessary, in accordance with the saying of the Prophet (ﷺ): 'The Imam (leader) is a shepherd, and he is responsible for his flock.' ¶

Furthermore, in Al-Siyar al-Kabir and its commentary, there is an explanation of some of the methods adopted by the authority in this matter to prevent this right from being exploited for deception or plotting against the Muslims. It states: 'If the leader (i.e., the commander of war or the leader of the Muslim army) orders that it be announced to the people of the fortress, or that it be written to them, or that a messenger be sent to them saying: If one of the Muslims grants you amnesty, do not be deceived by his amnesty, for...' ¶

Their pledge of safety (aman) is void. Furthermore, if a man grants them protection and they descend based on his pledge, they are considered war booty (fay'). This is not because a Muslim’s grant of protection is invalid after this prohibition, but because this statement from the Imam is equivalent to a formal declaration of termination (nabdh) of any prior peace. Just as it is valid to terminate a treaty after a pledge of safety, it is likewise valid to do so before it. The validity of this termination before the pledge of safety is to ward off harm from the Muslims; for if this were not valid, some corrupt individuals among the Muslims could obstruct the conquest of fortresses by granting protection every time the commander issues a declaration, thereby preventing the Muslims from ever capturing a fort. Therefore, to avert this harm, the declaration of termination before the pledge of safety was made valid through formal notice and warning (i'dhar wa indhar). Thus, it becomes evident how the matter of 'aman' (pledge of safety), even if it entails the cessation of hostilities against an individual or individuals from the 'ahl al-harb' (people of war), is surrounded by Shariah rulings that prevent such a pledge from being exploited in a way that causes harm to the Muslims. With this, we conclude this issue, and with its conclusion, we reach the end of this chapter, moving forward to another chapter with the help and guidance of Allah. ¶

Chapter Four: The Sacred Months (Al-Ashhur al-Hurum). This is the fourth reason for the cessation of combat in Islam. We shall address the discussion of this subject through the following issues: Issue One: What is meant by the Sacred Months? Which are they? What is the meaning of the sanctity of these months? What are the evidences for the prohibition of fighting during the Sacred Months? And what is the wisdom behind prohibiting combat during them? Issue Two: The opinion regarding the abrogation of the prohibition of combat in the Sacred Months, along with its evidence. Issue Three: The opinion that the prohibition of combat in the Sacred Months remains valid, and a discussion of the majority's evidence regarding the abrogation of the prohibition of combat therein. Issue Four: The preferred (weighted) opinion on this issue. ¶

Issue One: What is meant by the Sacred Months? Which are they? What is the meaning of the sanctity of these months? What are the evidences for the prohibition of fighting during the Sacred Months? And what is the wisdom behind prohibiting combat during them? Firstly: What are the Sacred Months? The identification of the four Sacred Months, along with their specification, was provided in the sermon delivered by the Prophet (peace be upon him) on the Day of Sacrifice (Yawm al-Nahr) at Mina during the Farewell Pilgrimage. As recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, narrated by Abu Bakrah, he said: '... The year consists of twelve months, four of which are sacred: three are consecutive: Dhu al-Qa'dah, ...' ¶

And Dhu al-Hijjah, and Muharram, and the Rajab of Mudar (1), which is between Jumada and Sha'ban (2). ¶

Secondly: The meaning of the sanctity of the Sacred Months (Al-Ashhur al-Hurum). ¶

Imam al-Jassas says regarding the intended meaning of the sanctity of the Sacred Months, in the context of his tafsir of the Almighty's saying: “Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve months in the Book of Allah, [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them…” (6). ¶

Al-Jassas states: “His saying (the Almighty): ‘Of these, four are sacred’: These are the ones clarified by the Prophet (peace be upon him) as Dhu al-Qa'dah, Dhu al-Hijjah, Muharram, and Rajab. The Arabs say: Three are consecutive (7), and one is singular. He called them 'Sacred' (Hurum) for two reasons: First, the prohibition of fighting during them. The people of the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah) also believed in the prohibition of fighting during them... Second, the magnification of violating sacred boundaries (al-maharim) during them is more severe than in other months, and there is also an increased magnification of acts of obedience during them (8).” ¶

Evidence that the Arabs in the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic era) refrained from fighting during these months is found in the narration in Sahih al-Bukhari from Abu Raja al-Utaridi, who said: 'We used to worship stones. If we found a better stone, we would discard the first and take the other. If we found no stone, we would gather a mound of earth, bring a sheep, milk it over the earth, and then circumambulate it. When the month of Rajab entered, we would say: "Musalli al-Asinnah" (The one who removes spearheads). We would not leave a single spear or arrow that had an iron tip; we would remove it and cast it aside, for it was the month of Rajab.' ¶

Third: What is the evidence for the prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Months? The evidence for the prohibition of fighting during the Sacred Months is summarized as follows: A - The words of the Almighty: 'They ask you about the Sacred Month—about fighting therein. Say, "Fighting therein is a great sin, but to prevent [people] from the way of Allah and to disbelieve in Him and [prevent access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and to drive its people out of it is greater [sin] in the sight of Allah, and fitnah is greater than killing." ¶

In Tafsir al-Alusi, it states: 'Say: "Fighting therein is a great sin," meaning: it is a grave transgression. This establishes the sanctity of fighting during the Sacred Month and refutes the belief of those who deemed fighting therein permissible.' ¶

(The author continues): 'Allah Almighty ordained this for the sake of the benefit inherent in abandoning injustice during these months due to their exalted status in the decree of Allah, and to hasten towards acts of obedience. Thus, abandoning injustice and evils during these months and in these sacred places serves as a call to abandon them elsewhere. Likewise, performing acts of obedience and maintaining them during these months and sacred places [such as the Sacred Mosque and the Prophet’s Mosque] serves as an incentive to perform similar acts elsewhere, due to continuity and habituation. It involves the divine assistance (tawfiq) that accompanies a servant when he turns to His obedience, as opposed to the abandonment (khidhlan) that befalls a servant when he persists in sins and becomes accustomed to them. Therefore, in the veneration of certain months and places lie the greatest benefits in inviting [people] to obedience and the abandonment of evils. Furthermore, things attract their likes and repel their opposites; thus, increasing in obedience invites more of it, and increasing in disobedience invites more of its kind.' ¶

The actions of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) fell under the category of an error in ijtihad (legal reasoning), which is pardoned. In fact, one who exerts ijtihad and errs is entitled to one reward, as stated in the hadith. ¶

Regarding this, Al-Alusi’s analysis suggests that the combat committed by the Companions during the Sacred Month was an error in ijtihad, serving as an indication of the cause of revelation (sabab al-nuzul) for the preceding verse. Several narrations exist on this matter, the summary of which is: The Prophet (peace be upon him) dispatched a reconnaissance unit led by Abdullah bin Jahsh in Rajab of the second year after the Hijrah to a place called Nakhla, between Makkah and Taif, for the purpose of gathering intelligence on the Quraish, not for combat. The unit arrived at Nakhla, and on the last night of Rajab—one of the Sacred Months—they happened upon a Quraish trade caravan traveling from Taif to Makkah. The caravan included Amr bin al-Hadrami, Uthman bin Abdullah al-Makhzumi, his brother Nawfal, and al-Hakam bin Kisan, a freedman of Hisham bin al-Mughira. A debate ensued among the members of the unit regarding whether to attack the caravan and seize the opportunity. ¶

Ibn Hisham’s Sirah states regarding this: 'The men said: By God, if you leave them tonight, they will enter the Sacred Territory (Haram) and be safe from you. If you kill them, you kill them in the Sacred Month. The men hesitated and feared taking action. Then they encouraged themselves and resolved to kill as many as they could and seize their belongings. Waqid bin Abdullah al-Tamimi shot an arrow at Amr bin al-Hadrami and killed him, and they took Uthman bin Abdullah and al-Hakam bin Kisan captive. Nawfal bin Abdullah escaped. Abdullah bin Jahsh and his companions returned to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in Madinah with the caravan and the captives.' Ibn Ishaq says: 'When they arrived in Madinah to the Prophet (peace be upon him), he said: I did not command you to fight in the Sacred Month! He suspended the matter of the caravan and the captives. Their fellow Muslims also reprimanded them for what they had done. The Quraish said: Muhammad and his companions have violated the Sacred Month and shed blood.' ¶

In it blood was shed, they seized wealth, and they took men as captives! Then those among the Muslims who were defending them from Makkah said: 'They only committed what they committed in the month of Sha'ban.' ... When people spoke much about this, Allah revealed to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): 'They ask you concerning the sacred month—fighting in it? Say: Fighting in it is a great (sin), but a greater (sin) with Allah is to prevent mankind from the way of Allah, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and to drive out its inhabitants from it.' (1) ¶

Furthermore, Ibn al-Qayyim comments on the Quranic revelation regarding the expedition of (Ibn Jahsh), saying: 'The intent is that Allah, the Glorified, judged between His allies and His enemies with justice and fairness. He did not exonerate His allies from the sin of fighting during the sacred month; rather, He informed them that it is a grave sin! And that what His enemies, the polytheists, are upon is greater and more momentous than merely fighting in the sacred month. They are more deserving of blood, blame, and punishment, especially since His allies were exercising interpretation (ta'wil) (2) in their fighting, or committed a minor shortcoming that Allah would forgive them for, in light of their monotheism (tawhid), acts of obedience, migration with His Messenger, and preferring what is with Allah. They are as it was said: "If a beloved commits a single sin, their thousand virtues come as intercessors! So how can one equate that with a hateful enemy who came with every evil and brought no intercessor of virtues?!" (3). ¶

This is what is said regarding the first proof for the prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Month... The summary is: That His saying, the Almighty: 'Say: Fighting in it is a grave sin,' in the context of what happened regarding the Muslims initiating the fight against the disbelievers in the expedition of (Ibn Jahsh), may Allah be pleased with him, points to the prohibition of such fighting." ¶

(1) Sirat Ibn Hisham: (Al-Rawd al-Unuf: 3/23, 24). See Tafsir al-Tabari (Jami' al-Bayan): 2/202. See Sunan al-Bayhaqi, where a narration similar to this is mentioned with a continuous chain containing: (From al-Hadrami, from Abu al-Siwar, from Jundub ibn Abdullah, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent a group...) 9/11. Shaykh al-Albani says about this hadith of al-Bayhaqi: "Its chain is authentic if this al-Hadrami is (Ibn Lahiq); for it has been said that he is someone else and is unknown." [Fiqh al-Sirah by Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali, with Al-Albani’s authentication of its hadiths: pp. 230-231]. Al-Bayhaqi reported the narration we cited from Ibn Ishaq with an authentic chain, but it is Mursal (disconnected) from (Urwah ibn al-Zubayr). See Sunan al-Bayhaqi: 9/58-59. (2) Perhaps the interpretation (ta'wil) Ibn al-Qayyim refers to is what came in some narrations of (al-Tabari) that the occurrence of this incident was at the end of Jumada al-Thani... "And the Muslims thought it was the last day of Jumada, while it was the first day of Rajab, so the Muslims killed Ibn al-Hadrami..." Tafsir al-Tabari: 2/204-205. However, this is not in the category of interpretation but in the category of error. What is considered interpretation is what came in some narrations in which some companions defended the fighting in the month of (Rajab) by saying: "We only fight those who drove us out of the Sacred City, in the Sacred Month." Majma' al-Zawa'id: 6/66. (3) Zad al-Ma'ad, by Ibn al-Qayyim: 3/170-171. ¶

Al-Qurtubi: 'Great is the fighting therein: meaning, detestable; because the prohibition of fighting in the sacred month was established at that time, provided the initiation was from the Muslims'(1). ¶

B - In 'Ahkam al-Qur'an' by Al-Jassas, there is another evidence for the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months. He says: Regarding the Almighty's saying: 'The sacred month for the sacred month, and for all violations is legal retribution' (2): It is narrated from Al-Hasan that the Arab polytheists said to the Prophet (PBUH): 'Are you forbidden from fighting us in the sacred month?' He replied: 'Yes.' The polytheists intended to raid him [i.e., to attack him] in the sacred month and fight him, so Allah the Almighty revealed: 'The sacred month for the sacred month, and for all violations is legal retribution.' This means: If they make something permissible against you in the sacred month, then treat them the same... Then He (the Almighty) followed it with His saying: 'So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you' (3). This indicates that if they fight them in the sacred month, it is incumbent upon them to fight them in it, even though they are not permitted to initiate the fighting' (4). ¶

C - Among the evidences for the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months is the saying of the Almighty: 'O you who have believed, do not violate the rites of Allah (5), nor the sacred month' (6). In the Tafsir of Al-Qurtubi, it states: 'His saying: "Nor the sacred month": It is a singular noun indicating the category of all the sacred months, which are four... And the meaning is: Do not make them permissible for fighting or raiding...' (7). And in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, it states: '"Nor the sacred month": meaning thereby its sanctity,' ¶

And the acknowledgement of its sanctity, and abandoning what Allah has forbidden to engage in during it, such as initiating combat... as the Almighty says: 'They ask you about the sacred month – fighting therein? Say, fighting therein is a great [sin]'... And Ali bin Abi Talha reported from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) regarding the Almighty's saying: 'And [do not violate] the sacred month,' meaning: Do not consider fighting in it permissible. Similar statements were made by Muqatil bin Hayyan and Abd al-Karim bin Malik al-Jazari, and it was also preferred by Ibn Jarir (1). ¶

D - Among the proofs for the prohibition of fighting during the sacred months (al-Ashhur al-Hurum) is what was previously cited from the saying of Allah the Almighty: 'Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the register of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them...' (2). In Fath al-Bari, it is stated: 'His saying "do not wrong yourselves during them": that is, during the four, by considering fighting in them permissible! It is also said: by committing sins' (3). ¶

This is in addition to what was previously cited from Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim, regarding the Farewell Sermon (Khutbat al-Wada') in which the Prophet ﷺ defined the intended sacred months, saying: 'The year consists of twelve months, of which four are sacred...' ¶

Ibn Kathir, in his Tafsir, comments on the verse of the sacred months and the Farewell Sermon regarding the identification of those sacred months, stating: 'And this indicates the continuity of their sanctity until the final time, as is the view of a group among the Salaf' (4). ¶

The meaning of Ibn Kathir's statement, in reference to the continuity of the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months until the end of time, is that Surah At-Tawbah, which contains the verse of the four sacred months, is among the last parts of the Quran revealed regarding the subject of combat; because it was revealed in the ninth year after the Hijrah. And the Farewell Sermon... ¶

The determination of these four sacred months by their names took place in the tenth year of the Hijrah, that is, in the final period of Prophethood and legislation. ¶

(e) Among the evidences that align with the view of prohibiting fighting during the sacred months is what is narrated in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad with an authentic chain of narration: ¶

«On the authority of Jabir ibn Abdullah, who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would not wage war during the sacred month, unless he was attacked. Or, if he were out on a campaign and that month arrived, he would stay put until it had passed.» (1) ¶

The meaning of his words «unless he was attacked» is that he, peace and blessings be upon him, would fight in the sacred month only in the state of defense and repelling aggression, and he would not initiate an attack against the enemy during it, outside of a defensive situation. ¶

And the meaning of his words «or if he were on a campaign» is that when he would set out for a campaign before the sacred month, if the sacred month arrived while he was on the campaign, he would cease fighting until the month had passed and the time arrived in which fighting was permissible. I say: This cessation, naturally, applies if he was not in a state of defense or pursuing the aggressors. ¶

Ultimately, this is what is said regarding the Shariah texts that indicate the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months. ¶

Fourth: What is the wisdom behind the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months? ¶

Al-Suhayli answered this question in the context of his discussion on the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months, mentioning: «The prohibition of fighting in the sacred months was a ruling practiced since the time of Ibrahim and Ismail. It was among the sanctities of Allah, and among those things which He established as a benefit for the people of Makkah. Allah says...» ¶

Allah the Almighty says: 'Allah has made the Ka'bah, the Sacred House, a source of stability for the people.' This is due to the prayer of Ibrahim (AS) for his progeny in Makkah, while they were in a valley without cultivation, asking that the hearts of the people be inclined toward them. Thus, the Hajj to the Sacred House was made an obligation for the people, serving as a pillar for their welfare and livelihood. Allah then established four sacred months: three consecutive and one solitary, which is Rajab. The three consecutive months are to ensure the safety of pilgrims traveling to and from Makkah—one month before and one month after Hajj—giving enough time for a traveler from the farthest parts of Arabia to arrive and return, in accordance with the wisdom of Allah. As for Rajab, it is for those performing Umrah, so they may be secure while arriving and departing—half the month for the journey there and half for the return—as the distance for Umrah from the farthest reaches of Arabia is not as extensive as that of Hajj; the longest journey for those performing Umrah is fifteen days. Provisions would reach them during these seasons, while it would be cut off during the rest of the year. Thus, Rajab provided security for those traveling to it, which was a benefit for its inhabitants—a divine providence arranged by Allah and preserved from the creed of Ibrahim, remaining unchanged until the coming of Islam, at which point fighting within it was forbidden. ¶

Furthermore, regarding the scholarly opinion that the prohibition of initiating combat during these sacred months persists in Islam, the wisdom behind it remains clear, even if the original rationale for this prohibition—the lack of security before the entire Arabian Peninsula came under Muslim rule—has ceased to exist. ¶

It appears that the wisdom in maintaining the prohibition of fighting during these months in the present state is to provide a 'temporal oasis' for the rest of the warrior. During this time, the Mujahideen lighten the burdens of combat and devote themselves in this oasis to other acts of worship through which their souls are purified and their spirits elevated, such as Hajj, Umrah, fasting, Dhikr (remembrance of Allah), Da'wah (calling to Allah), and the like. ¶

In Islam, the role of certain acts of worship can be more effective than others in treating various diseases of the heart and soul, and vice-versa. Thus, different types of worship alternate in refining Muslims and elevating them through the stages of perfection, whether they are characterized by sternness or gentleness. ¶

Furthermore, when Muslims conquer lands through jihad, their goal should not merely be to subject the conquered territories to Islamic rule through the power of arms and then move on to others in a continuous advance. Rather, it is essential to consolidate these conquests so that the territories do not revolt against the Muslims. That is, the enemy should not have an opportunity to ignite internal uprisings in those lands against the Muslims while they are occupied elsewhere. This consolidation is achieved by dedicating efforts to the conquered lands through the propagation of the Islamic call (Da'wah) and striving earnestly to guide non-Muslims toward entering the new religion. Hence, those sacred months (al-Ashhur al-Hurum), during which the clashing of weapons ceases, serve as a suitable opportunity for the Mujahideen to fulfill this noble mission. ¶

Having said this, we suffice with this amount of discussion regarding the first issue of this chapter, and we move on to the second issue: ¶

Second Issue: The view that the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months is abrogated, along with its evidence: The majority of Muslim jurists hold that fighting during the sacred months was initially prohibited in Islam, except in the case of repelling aggression. This means it was not permissible for Muslims to initiate jihad against the people of war (Ahl al-Harb) during these months if the disbelievers had not committed an act of aggression against the Muslims. However, when the people of war attack Muslims during these months, repelling that aggression is legitimate. This was the initial ruling in Islam; subsequently, this ruling was abrogated and replaced by the legitimacy of jihad, making it permissible to initiate fighting against the disbelievers at any time, including the sacred months. ¶

Ibn al-Qayyim states this by writing: 'There is no disagreement regarding the permissibility of fighting in the sacred month if the enemy initiates it; the disagreement lies only in initiating combat during it. The majority have permitted it, stating that the prohibition of fighting has been abrogated. This is the position of the four Imams, may Allah have mercy on them.' ¶

As for the evidences relied upon by the majority (jumhur) in asserting that the prohibition of fighting during the sacred months (al-ashhur al-hurum) has been abrogated, although they are not in complete agreement on all of them (1), we shall present everything they have cited regarding this issue. ¶

First: Evidences from the Quranic texts. A: The Almighty’s saying: "And fight against the disbelievers collectively" (2). Regarding this text, they stated: "Allah commanded them to fight the disbelievers without temporal restriction, thus the text indicates by its apparent meaning that fighting during the sacred months is permissible" (3). B: They also used as evidence the Almighty’s saying: "Then kill the disbelievers wherever you find them" (4). Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan states regarding this text: "It implies the permissibility of killing them at any time and in any place" (5). ¶

In Tafsir al-Alusi, it is stated: "The majority hold that this ruling [i.e., the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months] is abrogated by the Almighty’s saying: 'And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the disbelievers wherever you find them' (6). The 'sacred months' [in this specific verse] refer to specific months during which the polytheists were allowed to travel (7), based on the Almighty’s saying: 'So travel freely, O disbelievers, throughout the land [during] four months' (8), and it does not refer to the [general] sacred months. ¶

of the sacred months of every year. Restricting it [to those months] implies that killing them after they have passed is commanded in all places and at all times." (1) C - They also invoked the Almighty’s saying: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day..." (2). Imam al-Jassas establishes the method of deriving proof from this verse regarding the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months, stating: "Because it [the command to fight] comes after the prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Month." (3) That is, the command in the previous verse ('Fight') is general, without restriction to a specific time, and therefore it encompasses all times, including the sacred months. Thus, this general text commanding fighting abrogates the specific text prohibiting fighting in the Sacred Month. In conclusion, these verses and similar general injunctions commanding jihad are what the majority (Jumhur) utilized as evidence for the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting during the sacred months. Second: Evidence for the majority's view from the Prophetic Biography (Sirah). The majority mentioned in this context several military expeditions (ghazawat) and similar events that took place during the sacred months. Furthermore, their occurrence after the expedition (sariyya) of Ibn Jahsh serves as proof of the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting during those sacred months—the prohibition that was revealed in the Almighty's saying concerning the expedition of Ibn Jahsh: "They ask you about the sacred month—fighting therein? Say, 'Fighting therein is a great sin.'" (4). Imam al-Tabari summarizes for us, in his Tafsir, what is mentioned in the Prophetic biography and the purified Sunnah regarding those expeditions and similar events, in support of his preference for the majority's view, stating: "The correct view regarding this is... that the prohibition against fighting the polytheists during the sacred months is abrogated... due to the concurrent reports from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) that he campaigned against (Hawazin) at Hunayn, and (Thaqif)..." ¶

at Ta'if, and he sent Abu Amir to Awtas to fight the polytheists there during some of the sacred months. This occurred in Shawwal and part of Dhu al-Qa'dah, both of which are among the sacred months. Thus, it was known that if fighting during them were forbidden and a sin, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would have been the person most distant from doing so. Another [argument]: All scholars of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) biography agree that the 'Pledge of Ridwan' to fight the Quraish took place in Dhu al-Qa'dah. He (peace be upon him) only called his companions to it that day because he had received news that the polytheists had killed Uthman ibn Affan when he sent him to them with a message. So, he (peace be upon him) took the pledge to engage the people in war and fight them, until Uthman returned with the message, and a peace treaty was established between the Prophet (peace be upon him) and them, at which point he refrained from fighting them. This occurred in Dhu al-Qa'dah, which is one of the sacred months. Since this is the case, it makes clear the correctness of what we said regarding the verse: 'They ask you about the sacred month – fighting therein? Say, fighting therein is a great sin,' which is that it has been abrogated (1). ¶

This is what al-Tabari said in arguing for the opinion of the majority regarding the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months, based on the Prophet’s biography. With this, we conclude this issue and turn to the next. ¶

Third Issue: The view that the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months remains, and a discussion of the majority's evidence regarding the abrogation of that prohibition. The opinion that the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months remains without being subject to any abrogation is attributed to the Tabi'i, 'Ata' ibn Abi Rabah. It is narrated from Ibn Jurayj that he said: 'I said to 'Ata': "They ask you about the sacred month – fighting therein? Say, fighting therein is a great sin." I asked: What is the matter with them, given that at that time it was not lawful for them to fight the people of shirk during the sacred month, yet they fought them in it!?' ¶

'Ata' swore to me by Allah: It is not lawful for people to engage in military expeditions in the sacred month, nor to fight in it, and it was not abrogated! (2) Meaning, the verse 'Say, fighting therein is a great sin' was not abrogated, and based on this, it still indicates that the prohibition of fighting in the sacred month remains in its original state, just as it was. ¶

Imam al-Qurtubi states: 'Ata' used to say: The verse is muhkam (definite/decisive) [meaning, no acceptable evidence has come to abrogate its ruling], and fighting is not permissible in the Sacred Months. He would swear by this, because the verses revealed after it [i.e., after the verse 'Say: Fighting therein is a great (transgression),' which the majority used as evidence for the abrogation of the prohibition] are general regarding all times, whereas this is specific, and by consensus, the general does not abrogate the specific. Abu al-Zubayr narrated from Jabir, who said: 'The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would not fight during the Sacred Month, unless he was attacked.' ¶

Having previously known the arguments of the majority regarding the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Months, we will now restate those arguments without repeating the explanation of their implications—as established previously—sufficing with what has passed. We will only present what those other than the majority said regarding these evidences in a way that does not make them contradict the position that the prohibition of fighting in the Sacred Months remains in effect. ¶

First: The texts of the Holy Quran. A: The saying of the Almighty: ﴿And fight the polytheists collectively as they fight you collectively﴾. ¶

They stated: The word 'kaffatan' (collectively/all together) here refers to the generality of persons. It is stated in 'Mukhtar al-Sihah': 'Al-kaffah: The totality of people. One says: I met them kaffatan, meaning all of them.' According to Shaykh al-Sayis in 'Ayat al-Ahkam', it functions in both instances as a state (hal) for either the subject or the object: 'The meaning in the first case is: Fight the polytheists while you are all united and cooperating, not abandoning one another, just as they fight you united and cooperating, not abandoning one another. The meaning in the second case [i.e., considering 'kaffatan' as a state for the object] is: Fight the polytheists while they are all included, without distinction between one group of them and another, just as they fight you all together without sparing one party among you over another.' ¶

I say: Based on this, there is no contradiction between this verse—with its implications for the generality of those fighting or being fought—and the verse or verses that specify the time of the Sacred Months by preventing Muslims from initiating fighting against the polytheists. This is because the subject of the verse 'Fight' is an exhortation directed at all Muslims. ¶

that they should fight all the disbelievers, without explicitly specifying the timing of this required combat—when it is to occur and when it is not. ¶

Whereas the subject matter of the verse, or verses, prohibiting combat during the sacred months is to prevent Muslims from initiating combat against the disbelievers during a specific timeframe—namely, the sacred months. Thus, there is no contradiction between the two topics in this situation. ¶

Consequently, both pieces of evidence are applicable within their respective scopes. That is, the conclusion we reach by implementing both evidences is as follows: O Muslims, fight all the polytheists, except during the sacred months, in which you should not initiate combat against them. ¶

In this regard, Sheikh Abd al-Azim al-Zarqani states in 'Manahil al-Irfan' that the generality of persons does not necessitate the generality of times. ¶

B - The Almighty's saying: {And kill the polytheists wherever you find them}. ¶

They say that the word 'wherever' here indicates generality in terms of location; meaning, fight the disbelievers in any place. However, as Sheikh al-Zarqani says: the generality of places does not necessitate the generality of times. That is, there is no contradiction between this verse, which calls for fighting the polytheists in every place, and the verse or verses that specify the timeframe of the sacred months as a time in which one must not initiate combat. ¶

C - The Almighty's saying: {Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day...}. ¶

This verse indicates the fighting of all the disbelievers mentioned therein. As stated previously, there is no contradiction between the verse that indicates the generality of disbelievers regarding waging war against them, and the verse or verses that forbid initiating war against those disbelievers during a specific time, which is the sacred months. ¶

Secondly: Evidence from the Prophetic Biography (Seerah). ¶

A- The majority (jumhur) state that the Battle of Hawazin, and the connected Battle of Awtas and the Siege of Ta'if, involved events that took place during the sacred months (al-ashhur al-hurum), as previously mentioned. ¶

In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, while refuting the validity of using this as evidence that the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months has been abrogated, it states: "The believers were permitted to fight the polytheists in the sacred month if the aggression originated from them [i.e., the polytheists]... Likewise, the answer regarding the Messenger of Allah’s (PBUH) siege of the people of Ta'if, and his continuation of the situation until the sacred month began, is that it was a continuation of the fighting against Hawazin and their allies from the Thaqif tribe. It was they who initiated the fighting, gathered their men, and called for war and combat; therefore, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) targeted them, as has been mentioned. When they fortified themselves in Ta'if, he went to them to bring them down from their fortresses. They harmed the Muslims and killed a group, and the siege continued with catapults (manjaniq) and other means for nearly forty days. It began in a permissible month, and when the sacred month entered, he continued it for a few days, then withdrew from them; for that which is not permitted at the start may be overlooked in continuation (dawam). This is a settled matter, and it has many parallels, and Allah knows best." This is what Ibn Kathir mentioned in response to the majority's use of the Siege of Ta'if—following the battles of Hawazin and Awtas—as evidence for the abrogation of the prohibition of fighting in the sacred months, because the Siege of Ta'if, at least in part, took place in Dhu al-Qi'dah. ¶

Ibn al-Qayyim clarifies this, saying: "He (PBUH) conquered Makkah with ten days remaining in Ramadan, and he stayed there after the conquest for nineteen days, shortening his prayers. Then he set out towards Hawazin. With twenty days of Shawwal remaining, Allah granted him victory over Hawazin, and he distributed their spoils. Then he went from there to Ta'if and besieged it... It is narrated from Anas ibn Malik regarding the story of Ta'if: (We besieged them for forty days, and they resisted and defended themselves). So this siege... ¶