freediver wrote on Jan 17
th, 2018 at 7:36pm:
Did Malik translate it incorrectly?
http://www.alim.org/library/quran/ayah/compare/2/194/retaliation-in-the-sacred-months
The Sacred month, in which fighting is prohibited, is to be respected if the same is respected by the enemy: sacred things too are subject to retaliation. Therefore, if anyone transgresses a prohibition and attacks you, retaliate with the same force. Fear Allah, and bear in mind that Allah is with the righteous.
Therefore, if
anyone transgresses a prohibition and attacks you, retaliate with the same force
note the singular 'any
one' The word translated here is 'اعتدي' - which is conjugated in the singular form. So it literally says "a (single) person attacks" (singular). If it was plural it would be written with the plural conjugation 'اعتديوا'. Moreover, Malik's translates "retaliate with the same force" - from the arabic 'فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ ' - which literally translated as "then attack (retaliate) upon him like he attacked upon you" - noting that both singulars "him" (the pronoun 'ه' after 'علي) and "he" (the third person singular conjugation of the verb اعْتَدَىٰ) - are expressed explicitly.
freediver wrote on Jan 17
th, 2018 at 7:36pm:
Also, can you explain why you use verse 2:193 as a reference to a just war doctrine of self defence:
http://www.clearquran.com/002.html
193. And fight them until there is no oppression, and worship becomes devoted to God alone. But if they cease, then let there be no hostility except against the oppressors.
Then insist that the very next verse means something entirely different when it talks about fighting?
I stated from the beginning I believe 2:194 is applicable to both civil law for assault, as well as warfare. Though it is clearly in specific reference to 'one on one' assaults - it makes no sense to insist there must be different rules for warfare. As for the proportionality issue, its pretty obvious where you are going with this - that Muhammad was so sinister he was at pains to make it clear that proportionality mustn't be seen as a general rule by specifying only one circumstance in which it should be used. Thereby implying that outside of that circumstance it can (and should) be carte blanche. Where this meme falls down of course is the fact that warfare is clearly and unambiguously specified as self defence only - several times, and that muslims must stop fighting if a) attacks against them cease or b) the enemy inclines towards peace.
Do you think we're discussing the sort of ethics that encompass both personal and collective struggles?