Section Seven
The Parameters and Obligations
of Defence
Ad-Difā’
Defending one’s self and what is related to it is an instinctive matter firmly established in man. The Shari’ah accepted this and commanded and encouraged people to do it, promising reward for doing it and punishment for ignoring it; this is because of its utmost importance to man’s happiness, the nations’ advancement and societies’ stability.
Defending the self against personal dangers may sometimes become a specific obligation (wājib ‘ayni) and allowed in others, and if the person was incapable of stopping the danger to himself, it becomes obligatory on others to do so as an obligation under the conditions of sufficiency (wājib kifā’i). As for defending the homeland and similar public matters, its obligation is originally a wājib kifā’i, but it may become wājib ‘ayni on some occasions.
(A) Defending one’s self and what relates to it
First: Defending one’s self
742. It is obligatory on every person, man or woman, to fend off harm directed against him by others, whether the source is man, animal or other things, natural and earthly or from outside the earth; it is forbidden that the person inflicts harm on himself and he is obliged to abstain from that and to protect himself from harm.
The level of harm which must be stopped, and what the self must be protected from, is what most sane (reasonable) people strive to defend themselves against. Death is the greatest of these, then follow the significant forms of harm that are similar to death, such as permanent coma, paralysis, insanity, blindness or other things that stop the major organs or bodily functions from operating; then follow intense wounds, burns or fractures and severe and debilitating illnesses and pains, and similar matters of harm that exceed the minimum level of harm and pain. If it is things like bruises, blows, contusions, simple pain or discomfort resulting from things like stomach acidity, coughing, skin rash or the like, then these are not things that sane people strive excessively to evade and therefore it is not obligatory to protect oneself from them, although it is allowed to stop others who try to inflict them on others.
743. One of the forms of harm that must be stopped is sexual attack, such as intercourse or less, on both men and women, from both men and women. Attached to this is aggression on the dignity and the moral sanctity of the individual, such as with words or acts that lead to mocking and ridicule, discomfort or restrictions to one’s freedom and the like.
Included in aggression on sanctities is the case where someone intentionally climbs the fence of a house, makes a hole in the wall of a house, uses binoculars or installs tapping or camera systems, in order to watch them and uncover their secrets, or for sexual pleasure by watching women or the sexual activities of others; in these cases it is allowed, rather it may become obligatory, to deter the offender or stop him from doing this, and if this requires attacking him or destroying his possessions, there is no compensation to pay (if that results from the act of defence).
744. Types of harm that people have become accustomed to inflicting on themselves, such as smoking tobacco, are not excluded from this, nor harm that some people inflict on themselves for religious reasons, such as hitting the head with swords, wounding the body or burning it in (showing) sorrow for Imam osain (as), for it is forbidden to inflict such harm on the self even if such a thing has become common or invested with a religious tradition that the Shari’ah did not command, nor recommended.
745. Committing a lesser harm may become obligatory if stopping a bigger harm depends on it, such as in the cases of medical treatment with (chemical) drugs, surgical operations or the like; in fact, it may become obligatory, or allowed, to destroy oneself, such as in the martyrdom missions, if something more important, such as achieving victory, depends on it.
746. Stopping danger has two levels:
First: Protection and fortifying against it and using plans to fend off aggression and danger, which is the fundamental way to stop natural dangers to the self, such as the harms posed by heat, cold, epidemics, wild animals etc. If the aggressor is a man and it is possible to evade his aggression by fortifying oneself from him in a house, or by alerting him with things such as coughing or speech to indicate that you are awake and ready for him, or by running away from him and hiding from him, this is allowed if no humiliation, harm to one's honour or other things that lead to forbidden things resulting from them; in fact, it may become obligatory if this results in preventing harm to both the aggressor and the defender, such as if the attacker is one of his relations or is insane or similar. It must be noted that the situations and cases of this level are many and diverse, some of which are complicated and confusing; therefore, the person must be precise and cautious in situations of defence and its means, even when using force and violence so as to avoid the excessive use of force and overstepping the allowed boundaries of the Shari’ah.
Second: Taking the initiative by attacking the attacker to stop the danger – even if his aim was less than murder – using the available means. In this case, it is allowed to use any available means so as to fend off danger and stop the enemy, even if it leads to inflicting grave harm on the aggressor or killing him. That said, the defender must, where possible, go about defending by starting with the lighter approach before moving on to the more intense – and when we say ‘where possible’ we mean if the defender is capable of directing the confrontation as far as the physical power, tools, time and place are concerned in this gradual way; this is in contrast to the situation where it is not possible, i.e. when the defender is confused, afraid, lacking the suitable tools or other things that make gradual defending impossible.
747. For every case of defence there is a particular way of gradual defending, something which can be generally specified as follows:
First: Resorting to any means less than beating, such as: separating oneself from the aggressor with things like shields or doors, yelling or shooting in the air, waving the hand or a weapon or the like.
Second: Hitting the aggressor with the hand or a stick on less painful parts of the body, moving gradually to more painful places; also, one has to be gradual in the intensity of the hitting starting with blows that do not leave any mark, moving on to blows that cause reddening to blueish then black marks, and so on up to using sharp tools to inflict light wounds then gradually to inflicting deeper wounds, taking care of the levels between deep wounds and fractures, going from the lesser to the more severe.
That said, if the defender believes – at the start – that the aggressor will not be stopped except by using the more intense level, he is allowed to use it immediately. The same applies if there is no time or possibility to specify the lighter level with regard to the nature of the situation and the complexities of defence. (In any case,) judging what is lighter and what is more intense is a matter of norms and customs.
748. The defender is not responsible for paying compensation for the harm of wounds or fractures inflicted on the aggressor, or his possessions, such as his clothes, car etc, if the defender abided by the acceptable method of defending, i.e. without aggression or exaggeration; otherwise the aggressor would be liable for compensation to the extent of his aggression and exaggeration.
749. If a person believes, wrongly, that another person wants to harm him and he fends him off causing him harm, then he discovers his error, he is liable to pay compensation of the harm he has caused to his body and possessions, (but) he has not sinned.
750. There are conditions that must exist in the defender in order that he is allowed or obliged to carry out an act of defence:
First: Ascertaining that the other party wants to harm him; so if he thought or thought probable that this was what the other person intended and he was certain of his ability to stop him at any time, in this case he is not allowed to defend himself until after becoming certain of the attack on him. But if he fears a surprise attack at a time when he will not be able to defend himself, and his fear is commonly regarded as valid, in this case he is allowed to carry out a pre-emptive defence.
Second: It is probable that he is going to defeat the enemy at the minimum level; so if he believes that he is not capable of defeating the enemy, defence becomes not obligatory then, unless if failing to defend leads to a worse situation, in which case he is obliged to confront the aggressor even if he is defeated.
Third: He must be certain of being safe from being killed; so if he is certain that he is going to be killed, defence becomes not obligatory in all situations. That said, it is not forbidden for him to defend in any situation in which the attacker proceeds in a way that must be stopped, such as with murder, wounding, aggression on his honour etc; otherwise it is forbidden, such as if the attacker wants to hit him or the like.
751. For the defence to be allowed or obligatory, there is no distinction between the situation in which the attacker is a stranger or someone of his kinship or the like, such as the father, son, husband and so on; so if the father attacks his son, the son his father or the husband his wife, the person on the receiving end is allowed to defend himself or herself, even if this leads to killing the attacker or wounding him when defence depends on this.
752. After the attacker stops and the defender becomes certain of this, the defender is not allowed to continue defending; the same applies if the attacker turns his back or backs away from the incident; so in both of these cases, if defender now causes him harm, he has sinned and is liable for paying compensation.
753. If stopping the attacker depends on seeking the help of the oppressor or infidel, this becomes allowed or obligatory according to the situation, even if this leads to exaggeration in fending off the aggression on the self or one's honour. That said, if one is able to forbid the oppressor from such exaggeration, this becomes obligatory. In any case, the person who seeks help is not liable to pay compensation for the harm inflicted (on the aggressor) by the oppressor, but it is the oppressor who becomes liable for this.
754. If two individuals fought and each one transgressed on the other, in this case each one would become liable to compensate the other for what he has inflicted on him; and if one of them stopped fighting but the other continued and renewed his attack so that the other, who stopped defending, was forced to resume defending himself, in this case the latter would not be liable to pay compensation to the former.
Second: Defending others
755. It is obligatory to defend others against whatever one defends one’s self against if the other party is unable to defend himself, wholly or partly; in fact, defending him is obligatory if he is capable to defend himself but if he is unaware of the danger and when warning him to defend himself is not possible, whether the danger may lead to his death or to lesser dangers that one must protect oneself from. However, if he is capable of defending himself but abstains intentionally to do so, in this case defending him – as an individual – is not obligatory, even in cases of grave danger that lead to death or effects similar to death, such as blindness, paralysis, insanity, but it is allowed.
756. In general, the rulings regarding defending one’s self apply to defending others, but the following must be noted:
First: All that was mentioned in defending the self apply to defending the family, i.e. those who are regarded as one's unmarriageable kinship, who are: fathers and mothers and their ancestors to whichever degree, children and their descendants to whichever degree, the husband and wife, brothers and sisters and their children, uncles and aunts on both the father's side and mother's side, since these have the same level of the self to the person.
There is no distinction (as far as defending is concerned) whether the aggression is aimed at the body with wounds or killing or at the honour of the family with rape or lesser acts.
Second: People other than the family whom we did not mention include his more distant relatives and all Muslims, especially whoever is related to his servant; it is obligatory to defend them unless he knows that the harm that will be inflicted on him is worse than what he hopes to save them from by defending them, so if, in this case, his defence of the others leads to a greater harm on him that is less than killing and the like, defending is allowed but not obligatory; but if his defence leads to his death or similar, it becomes not allowed, not to mention not being obligatory.
Third: Defending possessions
757. It is allowed to defend possessions if they are the target of burglary or destruction, even if this leads to killing the aggressor, or the death of the defender. It is also allowed to abstain from defending, whatever the amount or value of the possessions.
The same rulings apply as when defending the self regarding no liability to compensate the harm inflicted on the aggressor as a result of defending against him, as well as the rulings regarding the gradual escalation of defence and other rulings.
Just as the person may defend his possessions, he is allowed to defend his family’s possessions. Regarding the possessions of others, however, he is allowed to defend these unless he is certain of harm to himself, such as wounds, fractures or lesser injuries or anything which he must protect himself from.
(B) Defending the homeland
Under current common international customs, each Muslim country is regarded as a homeland to its citizens, as is each country in which Muslims reside in great numbers so that any aggression against it by occupation or the like is regarded as an aggression against them. So if the homeland is subjected to invasion by an outside non-Muslim enemy, it becomes obligatory on its citizens – in the first degree – as an obligation under the conditions of sufficiency (wājib kifā’i) to rise up to liberate the land and fend off the enemy, and if they are incapable, it becomes obligatory on the nearest people to them then the next nearest, as a wājib kifā’i as well, to defend them when possible and capable.
758. The obligation of defence is not – originally – exclusive to men and the youth, but it includes everyone who is able to defend at any level; so this includes men and women, the young and the elderly, the sick and the healthy. However, if some of them meet the obligation and the defence is achieved, the rest are relieved from the obligation.
759. The obligation may fall on everyone (wājib ‘ayni) who has certain expertise without whom defending is not possible, in which case they must hasten to play their role and they are not allowed to be complacent or run away; rather, it is obligatory on those of them who are outside the homeland to hasten to come and do their duty.
760. When it is possible to follow the orders of the righteous jurist (faqĪh ‘ādil), then defence is a person's duty, and in this case it is not allowed for him to defend unless under the jurist's command and authority. But when it is not possible to abide by the orders of the righteous jurist and when it is essential to start defending immediately, in this case the authority of justice is not conditional on the Muslim who is leading the defending process provided that his experience and loyalty are affirmed; in fact, it may become obligatory to abide by a non-Muslim whose experience and loyalty have been ascertained if leadership is not possible by any other than him.
761. It is obligatory on all Muslims who are the citizens of the occupied land to provide support and protection to the fighters who are carrying out the defence duty, and this is through all the types and levels needed in defending, whether financial or in terms of security and showing support for them and sponsoring the orphans and families of their martyrs and the like.
762. It is not conditional for the son who wants to carry out the defence duty as a wājib kifā’i to seek his parents’ permission, but he is allowed to do so even when they try to prevent him and forbid him.
763. The Zionist entity occupying the land of Palestine and others is a usurping and transgressing entity, so fighting it is obligatory until the liberation of all the occupied lands is achieved; it is not allowed to enter into truce with it, make peace with it or concede to its occupation of the land of Muslims; it is also not allowed to deal with it in any way. This applies to any occupier of Muslim lands.
764. If the nature of confrontation with the enemy requires freedom fighters to carry out martyrdom (istishhādiyyah) missions, this is allowed; in fact, this becomes obligatory if victory depends on it.
765. A country – in our times – may not be subject to aggression on the land, but to political conspiracy such as by imposing an unjust and treacherous government, or to economic aggression, such as through harmful agreements, or the like; in this case confrontation – as wājib kifā’i – is obligatory to such conspiracies with whatever means are suitable and under – as should be – the authority and advice of the righteous jurist and his leadership.
Epilogue
Reaction using similar acts (ar-Redd bil-Mithl)
We mean by ‘ar-Radd bil-Mithl’ what the party who was subjected to aggression is after the aggression, regardless as to whether the aggressor was defended against before then or not. The situation which we can assume is that an act of aggression has taken place, either because of lack of awareness on the part of the transgressed party, defeat at the hands of the aggressor, the victory of the aggressor, or the like. What should the reaction of the transgressed party be when he is able to confront the aggressor again? This is the question, which is, in fact, more a matter of punishment (qisās) than defence, hence its full details will be found in that section. Here, however, we shall explain some matters that are related to this section.
766. When reacting to the aggression after it took place, the reaction must be of the same intensity if this is something that can be measured, such as returning verbal abuse with the same, a blow with a blow, or a wound or fracture with the same etc.
But if the aggression was not possible to measure, such as major bruises, contusions or the like, in this case one is not allowed to return it with similar, but compensation (diyāh or arsh) should be taken. In all cases, pardon is nearer to God-fearing and more generous.
767. Verbal abuse that others commit comes in two forms: the first includes slander that calls for punishment (hadd), such as saying: ‘O you adulterer, you pimp’ or calling his family likewise, such as saying: ‘O you son of an adulterer’ for example. Such verbal abuse is not allowed to be returned because slander is forbidden absolutely even as a reaction, and because it involves abusing the family, so it is not allowed to react by abusing the slanderer's family, who have nothing to do with the aggression. The second is language that does not include slander, such as saying: ‘O you cheat, you shameless idiot’ and the like; this is allowed to be returned with similar words or with other words, taking care not to fall into lying by ascribing to the other party things that are not true.
There is no doubt that elevating oneself above this is more important than seeking recognition of one’s integrity or supporting one’s dignity by returning the abuse with similar words; it is nearer to God-fearing and exalted manners.
768. The enemy may resort in its war and aggression to internationally forbidden weapons, or bombardment of civilian targets and similar aggressions; in this case it is allowed to return the aggression with similar acts. It is allowed for freedom fighters to use such means initially if stopping the enemy depends on it and if this does not lead to greater harm. Specifying when such acts are to be taken, or its means, are precise and grand matters that must be given to the Islamic authority (al-hākim ash-Shar’i) and his assistants, who have expertise in these matters.