Restricted 'months'
-
Peace,
The four restricted 'months' seems to me to be an antiquated thing in so far as the fact that most people don't have a need to actually hunt animals from the wild for meat nowadays. Most cultures depend entirely on special animals kept/farmed for this purpose.
Where restrictions on hunting are required to keep wild animal populations this is usually done by instituting seasons on their hunting - an intuitive thing which is done in more advanced cultures. These periods vary for different animals to a degree.
As for not fighting wars in such restricted 'months' there is an Arab cultural undercurrent to this. It seems to me that this was a pagan practice in which time there could be free unrestricted travel in the land (presumably for pilgrimages to idols).
In this context the pagans probably wished for this practice to be ratified in treaties of peace, but they broke these agreements when it suited them.
I don't think there is a generalised ban on conducting a war in a regular 4 month restricted time. If there is a treaty then yes - you honour it to the extent the other party honours it. But beyond that I think any 4 month regular yearly ban on fighting wars is an Arab cultural thing related to paganism.
What say you?
-
Peace Truth,
In this context the pagans probably wished for this practice to be ratified in treaties of peace, but they broke these agreements when it suited them.
Why would they wish for this practise to be ratified in treaties of peace? A peace treaty would mean that fighting is restricted permanently/year-round. What purpose would a restricted four months have in such a context?
Are you suggesting that the pagans would sign treaties that only lasted four months with the believers?peace
-
Peace Truth,
In this context the pagans probably wished for this practice to be ratified in treaties of peace, but they broke these agreements when it suited them.
Why would they wish for this practise to be ratified in treaties of peace? A peace treaty would mean that fighting is restricted permanently/year-round. What purpose would a restricted four months have in such a context?
Are you suggesting that the pagans would sign treaties that only lasted four months with the believers?peace
I don't know what they did to be honest; but the official histories (fwiw) generally mention this 4 month non-fighting period per year being honoured by pagans. I presume that this was due to the need for the pagans to be able to travel unmolested during their alleged annual pilgrimages.
My feeling is that there is no generalised ban on fighting for these times for believers - whereas the Arabic cultural thing is to believe that the four months are somehow "holy" or "sacred". My point was to indicate that there is no holy/sacred months in my opinion that prevent fighting any time of the year if the need arises.
I think this concept of holy/sacred months is a pagan practice associated with unmolested travel for pilgrimages. The present traditionalist pilgrimage to Mecca is a carryover of pagan practices and any concept of holy/sacred months is an Arabic cultural thing that I can't find support for otherwise.
Peace.
-
The four restricted 'months' seems to me to be an antiquated thing in so far as the fact that most people don't have a need to actually hunt animals from the wild for meat nowadays. Most cultures depend entirely on special animals kept/farmed for this purpose.
...
As for not fighting wars in such restricted 'months' there is an Arab cultural undercurrent to this. It seems to me that this was a pagan practice in which time there could be free unrestricted travel in the land (presumably for pilgrimages to idols).There is an emphasis of importance placed on these 'months'/term, yet at the same time, it doesn't seem like there's something for the layman in this day and and age to 'do' in this time. As you say, we don't have a need to actually hunt. Come to think of it, I've never met anyone who hunts for other than sport, but maybe that's just me. ?
In regard to war, makes me wonder about the interpretation. I can't think of a time where muslims would go to war for other than defending themselves. If this is the case, and we know there is a provision of 'unless you're under attack', then what is it all about? In other words, you're not supposed to provoke or attack someone anyway, restricted term or not, and you will defend yourself no matter what, restricted term or not... so, what is it for again? ?? (ref 2194/2217)
Peace
-
Peace Truth,
Let me address your second comment first.
As for not fighting wars in such restricted 'months' there is an Arab cultural undercurrent to this. It seems to me that this was a pagan practice in which time there could be free unrestricted travel in the land (presumably for pilgrimages to idols).
In this context the pagans probably wished for this practice to be ratified in treaties of peace, but they broke these agreements when it suited them.
I don't think there is a generalised ban on conducting a war in a regular 4 month restricted time. If there is a treaty then yes - you honour it to the extent the other party honours it. But beyond that I think any 4 month regular yearly ban on fighting wars is an Arab cultural thing related to paganism.
What say you?
I agree that the restricted full-moons have nothing to do with fighting restrictions. We are clearly told in 2217 that when asked about fighting during the restricted full-moons, the answer is yes fighting is allowed in it. The same restriction on fighting applies allover the year at any time, namely that we only fight in self-defense those who attacked us.
The four restricted 'months' seems to me to be an antiquated thing in so far as the fact that most people don't have a need to actually hunt animals from the wild for meat nowadays. Most cultures depend entirely on special animals kept/farmed for this purpose.
Where restrictions on hunting are required to keep wild animal populations this is usually done by instituting seasons on their hunting - an intuitive thing which is done in more advanced cultures. These periods vary for different animals to a degree.
Even in the most advanced cultures, people hunt animals. The need for hunting is even prevalent in modern times because the population of many natural predators has been declining. Thus, for example, in certain areas the population of animals that humans have normally hunted for food, such as deer, has been growing. If left unchecked, this could cause imbalances in those areas.
For those animals that humans have naturally preferred to consume such as deer and birds such as wild geese and ducks, you will find that their hunting is restricted during summer because that is when their young are born or have been recently born and can't fend for themselves. If a hunter gets their mother, then her young will unnecessarily die for sure. By early fall, the young are old enough to fend for themselves and the population of those animals and birds sees a huge increase. This is when the hunting restrictions are lifted.
Summer is also the time when the population of livestock sees the bigest increases. However, unlike wild life, the young of domesticated livestock can be easily cared for by humans if the mother is slaughtered. Thus, it is not a coincidence that livestock is not covered by the restriction as clear from 51-2.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace,
So I think it's quite clear that there is no such thing as a holy or sacred month or time.
The restricted months have the purpose of defining hunting seasons to protect animal populations as explained well by Ayman.
Otherwise each day is as important as any other in terms of the blessings we get from the God; and equal in so far as the benefits of doing good works. There is no extra reward or special time or month which has extra reward for us like traditionalists believe.
Regards.