Are you folks in favor of modernizing the Quran?
-
Assalamu alaykum,
How the heck could you possibly lash someone 100X symbolically?!? D D D
Heres a piece from submission.org written by Dr. Fatimah Majidi, Nader Abbas Maudodi and Chris Abdul-Rahman
(11)Women are stoned to death for Adultery This is totally false as there is NO death penalty for adultery in Islam (Submission). The penalty of adultery is equal for both men and women, and involves symbolic lashing. Social pressure, i.e., public witnessing of the penalty, is the basic punishment see 241-2
http//www.submission.org/women/mis.html
Also a commentary on another article, not sure if Khalifa wrote this himself.
*242 Social pressure, i.e., public witnessing of the penalty, is the basic punishment (see also 53. The lashes shall be symbolic, not severe.
http//www.submission.org/sex/misconduct.html
Peace
-
Peace amuslim,
Ive tried searching on here about the hands. The Quran says "cut the hand" or "cut off the hand"? I know that the shariah that Islamic Countries follow isnt Quranic, such as adultery stoning, but not quite sure about hands. Khalifa says that cutting of the hands is symbolic, however I dont understand how that deters the criminal to not do it again.
I?m in favor of reading Qur?an which does not contradict thus if cross referenced usually will clarify as with the different uses of ?their hands? and take/apply best meaning?
Waalssariqu waalssariqatu faiqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan bima kasaba nakalan mina Allahi waAllahu AAazeezun hakeemun
538 As to the THIEF, Male or female, cut off his or her hands a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime and Allah is Exalted in power.
Wahuwa allathee kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi an athfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahu bima taAAmaloona baseeran
4824 And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makka, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.In above verse as in 511 what was held back/restrained is ?their hands? or means to carry out. Likewise, for known thieves; i.e. repeat offenders; cut off their hands or means to do so.
Prison is certainly an option along with other methods.
Question is for professional thieves in 7th century Arabia was the ?literal? severing a way to cut off ?their means" to perpetrate crime? Probably yes.
-
I agree with nun de plume. Also, depends on the connotations of the word modernisation; how it comes across to us.
When I hear that word, it makes me think that the Quran has been wrong and all they are doing is making new interpretations to fit todays mold. If it was good then it should be good now and just because it cant be explained today, doesnt mean it is wrong and it doesnt mean that we wont understand it 100 years from now. Its like embryology in the Quran. If people made it modern to the times 100s of years ago, it wouldnt have made any sense by todays standards.
There are many different aspects to it, personally I'm willing to look at any and all interpretations to see if they fit and/or make sense, regardless of what they might be labelled as.
Regarding modernisation, on the forum in the past, I've heard many fling that word around to discredit basic tenets in the quran...saying well, some people just want it to be palatable to their "modern" tastes or to appease " modern western values" etc. While motivations will always be shrouded (even though we might figure them out somewhat, they are not very valid to use as evidence), it's best to check out what the interpretation actually is and how it fits and refute, discuss, accept etc.
This can be taken on many different levels attesting to it's universal application regardless of time periods. In particular, in different time periods some verses could be taken differently, but as was mentioned, we take/apply the best meaning in any given time period. Changes/development in thought and application imo can span time and can be personal as well as collective depending on circumstances. I don't think the quran is static.
-
Peace all,
Peace amuslim,
I?m in favor of reading Qur?an which does not contradict thus if cross referenced usually will clarify as with the different uses of ?their hands? and take/apply best meaning?
..
.
....
.
.
.Question is for professional thieves in 7th century Arabia was the ?literal? severing a way to cut off ?their means" to perpetrate crime? Probably yes.
Thanks for the translation. I started out reading Rashad Khalifas translation of this, so thats all I really know besides what the Sunnis and Wahabbis do with the hand. Since Rashad is a big anti-hadith person, I wasnt sure what it said in Arabic.
I agree with crossreference, which many of the knowledgeable people do here
If we implemented this and other Quranic based Shariah laws, the world would probably be a better place. The only question is whether its for Muslims only or the whole world, such as the lashing of fornicators. Im personally for a world wide form of this shariah law. Less disease transmissions, and if someone does have aids, it will only be shared between the couple or that person if he/she is single.
I agree with nun de plume. Also, depends on the connotations of the word modernisation; how it comes across to us.
There are many different aspects to it, personally I'm willing to look at any and all interpretations to see if they fit and/or make sense, regardless of what they might be labelled as.
Regarding modernisation, on the forum in the past, I've heard many fling that word around to discredit basic tenets in the quran...saying well, some people just want it to be palatable to their "modern" tastes or to appease " modern western values" etc. While motivations will always be shrouded (even though we might figure them out somewhat, they are not very valid to use as evidence), it's best to check out what the interpretation actually is and how it fits and refute, discuss, accept etc.
This can be taken on many different levels attesting to it's universal application regardless of time periods. In particular, in different time periods some verses could be taken differently, but as was mentioned, we take/apply the best meaning in any given time period. Changes/development in thought and application imo can span time and can be personal as well as collective depending on circumstances. I don't think the quran is static.
I could perhaps understand this statement IF the quran wasnt the final message to humanity. But seeing that God knows the future, I dont see why He would expect us to take different interpretations each 100 years to fit the times. The times are also influenced by others that arent Muslims, again with the Western values. For example, TV 50 years ago wouldnt even be showing stuff that we consider PG-13 these days. So would the Quran be different from then compared to now? May God guide us all on the right path and not follow our own opinions.
Peace
-
I could perhaps understand this statement IF the quran wasnt the final message to humanity.
Universal application/understanding of the quran is in any time period according to what we know/perceive. Knowledge isn't static and neither is the quran and it's message. The message IS always there and can also be understood and refined as well with understanding/patience/knowledge etc.
But seeing that God knows the future, I dont see why He would expect us to take different interpretations each 100 years to fit the times.
It's about perception. This can happen in any time period regardless of "modern western values" or any other "values".
The times are also influenced by others that arent Muslims, again with the Western values. For example, TV 50 years ago wouldnt even be showing stuff that we consider PG-13 these days.
And there were times that were not influenced by others that aren't Muslims?
Every time period has been affected by violence, sexual situations, dubious values etc etc. Eastern culture is no exception. It might come out in slightly different forms but it's all basically the same thing which isn't surprising because we are all human with the same weaknesses and flaws.
So would the Quran be different from then compared to now? May God guide us all on the right path and not follow our own opinions.
perception once again. It's dependent on the reader and his frame of mind/reference/knowledge etc. How can we tie that down to a particular time/culture? We can't, which makes it universally applicable. Peace.
-
Arabic has a specific word for amputate and it is not cut "qaT3". The Arabic word "q T 3" literally means "to inturrupt, discontinue". Cut their hand means stop it or prevent it from what it is doing. This could be by treatment if the thief is psychologically impaired; find them a job or financial help if they are needy; imprison them if they are just criminals; keep them away from things that can be stolen if they are weak...
As for the punishment of "zena", the verb "yash-had" does not mean to see or "witness". It means "testify, endorse", i.e to authenticate. "yushaahid" is the verb for "to see". The decision of punishment should be endorsed by a group of believers and not to be left to one judge. The punishment is lashing.
-
Arabic has a specific word for amputate and it is not cut "qaT3". The Arabic word "q T 3" literally means "to inturrupt, discontinue". Cut their hand means stop it or prevent it from what it is doing. This could be by treatment if the thief is psychologically impaired; find them a job or financial help if they are needy; imprison them if they are just criminals; keep them away from things that can be stolen if they are weak...
As for the punishment of "zena", the verb "yash-had" does not mean to see or "witness". It means "testify, endorse", i.e to authenticate. "yushaahid" is the verb for "to see". The decision of punishment should be endorsed by a group of believers and not to be left to one judge. The punishment is lashing.
-
Arabic has a specific word for amputate and it is not cut "qaT3". The Arabic word "q T 3" literally means "to inturrupt, discontinue". Cut their hand means stop it or prevent it from what it is doing. This could be by treatment if the thief is psychologically impaired; find them a job or financial help if they are needy; imprison them if they are just criminals; keep them away from things that can be stolen if they are weak...
Yes, that is the true spirit of the Quran, with an emphasis on prevention, welfare and social justice rahter than a punishment that is clearly disproportionate for the crime.
Peace
Sister Francesca -
Arabic has a specific word for amputate and it is not cut "qaT3". The Arabic word "q T 3" literally means "to inturrupt, discontinue". Cut their hand means stop it or prevent it from what it is doing. This could be by treatment if the thief is psychologically impaired; find them a job or financial help if they are needy; imprison them if they are just criminals; keep them away from things that can be stolen if they are weak...
As for the punishment of "zena", the verb "yash-had" does not mean to see or "witness". It means "testify, endorse", i.e to authenticate. "yushaahid" is the verb for "to see". The decision of punishment should be endorsed by a group of believers and not to be left to one judge. The punishment is lashing.
If you were replying to my post, that was only a hypothetical situation.
What about lashing?
-
This is really a great thread! Its great that alot of you are not in favor of modernizing the Quran if it means twisting the words. That would be exactly as the Jews have done and if we did that knowingly I do not doubt that there will be repercussions on the day of judgment.
Peace
Al -
The problem is the wording. For instance, "Muslim" generally means "Sunni" in western terms. "Reform" would bring the same connotations to them as "revisiting" to Quranists. Hence "modernizing" or "liberalising" would be the same as "finding the meaning without ahadeeth". It's a silly mess.
-
Sis Samia, I've looked up in many classical arabic dictionaries and they do list 'To cut off' as a meaning. What do you base your saying on?
Nadeem
Since the qur'aan already used a derivative of the verb "batara amputate/cut off", there is no reason, or logic, in giving the same meaning to a different word.
Also, the usage of "qata3a" as "stopping/interrupting" is used in the qur'aan in verse 5633 "and abundant fruit, neither interrupted (in production; not seasonal) nor inaccessible"; 2166; 4722 (taqTa3uu ar7aamakum to disconnect from your close relatives. The opposite of this expression , Silatur ri7m connection with blood relatives, is used in the qur'aan).
-
If you were replying to my post, that was only a hypothetical situation.
What about lashing?
It was a response to the messages that mentioned these two subjects which are usually what come to the mind when speaking of the "modernization" of the qur'aan, yes, including yours, but not specifically to you.
I do not agree with modernizing the qur'aan and I hate this expression.
What about lashing? Lash.
-
Since the qur'aan already used a derivative of the verb "batara amputate/cut off", there is no reason, or logic, in giving the same meaning to a different word.
Also, the usage of "qata3a" as "stopping/interrupting" is used in the qur'aan in verse 5633 "and abundant fruit, neither interrupted (in production; not seasonal) nor inaccessible"; 2166; 4722 (taqTa3uu ar7aamakum to disconnect from your close relatives. The opposite of this expression , Silatur ri7m connection with blood relatives, is used in the qur'aan).
Sister Samia
Very well done!
The idea of cutting off hands is not just a problem of wrong interpretation, but also a problem of mis-translation.Peace to all,
I dont think we should modernize the Quran, we should Quranize the modern world.
Kurt
Yes, Kurt, you are right, but before we need to make sure that we fully understand what the Quran says and purge it of all mis-translations, mis-interpretations, etc.
Peace
Sister Francesca