So does the Quran actually endorse crucifixion?
-
Ahh. Asad's notes seem reasonable. It could be tested by seeing whether other punishments in AQ are given with a similar pattern etc. It's possible, there are different forms of crucifixion.
I do know that in AQ, fasad in the land refers to significant crimes (in severity and spread), and could warrant a significant punishment.
-
Honestly I don't find Asad's argument convincing at all. Reading the verses, they give no indication that this is "a description of what the unbelievers were doing to each other in their perverseness".
And this bothers me because it is similar to stoning. The Quran mentions stoning as always being done by unbelievers to believers, and it is the same with crucifixion, it is always the unbelievers doing it to believers. So it makes no sense that this would be mandated on Muslims to do.
And that is besides the point that it is an inhumane and barbaric punishment.
I can accept that the most extreme crimes in society could be punished by capital punishment, exile, or even that the hands and feet be cut off....but crucifixion?...
EDIT
This also affects the understanding of verse 538, where it says that hands should be cut off for theft. It doesn't make any sense for someone to claim that 533 mandates cutting off of hands, but that 538 talks of something totally different despite the phrasing to be almost identical.
533
538
-
Salam all,
question
2649 (Pharaoh) said Ye put your faith in him before I give you leave. Lo! he doubtless is your chief who taught you magic! But verily ye shall come to know. Verily I will cut off your hands and your feet alternately, and verily I will crucify you every one
How can you crucify someone with a hand and leg cut?
-
Salaam Wakas,
Well I haven't read Asad's notes directly, I am just responding to what the Encyclopedia of the Quran says of Asad's hypothesis
Without mentioning this hadith, M. Asad argues that the Qur'an would hardly promulgate a divine law which advocated a punishment identical to that inflicted by Pharaoh, whose quranic characterization is that of an enemy of God. Asad suggests that the aya is not a legal injunction, but rather a description of what the unbelievers were doing to each other in their perverseness (The message, 148-9
I don't know if Asad included other arguments in his notes, but that argument, in my opinion, is a very weak one.
Salaam Herbman,
How can you crucify someone with a hand and leg cut?
Well actually, people aren't crucified through the hands and feet, this is a common misconception. The hands and feet are not capable of supporting the load placed on them during crucifixion. Real crucifixion was done through the wrists and the ankles.
Also, it says "I will cut your hands and feet alternately", which is really odd, since verse 533 also says the same.
In fact, you just made me realize that the wording is identical!
2649
533
But the thing is, there is no way this verse is talking about the evildoers....there just isn't. It follows the style of all other verses where God is talking of punishments, and the very next verse says "Except for those who repent, before you have power over them."
-
You can read Asad's notes using www.quranix.net
-
Well, the context of this verse implies that these punishments only can be carried out if the mischief is directed at a messenger of Allah, as no human can make wage war against Allah.
Or am I way off?
-
Thanks Wakas, Asad's notes do indeed make a better argument than the encyclopedia entry entails.
Edip-Layth - End Note 8 (533)
The repeated use of the passive voice is not a coincidence; it is to indicate that the acts are not instructions, but statements of fact. In other words, those who roam the earth to promote and commit atrocities and bloodshed are going to get what they promote. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. The Arabic word fasad means destruction, mischief, discord, warmongering or corruption. It is frequently contrasted with islah and its derivatives, which mean reform or promoting peace (756,85). Fasad is not mere faith or opinion; it refers to the acts of corruption or aggressive and destructive actions (See 230,205,251; 564; 1091; 1894; 2122; 2240; 284; 3371; 8912; 2256, and 4140). The Bible has a similar statement "those who kill by the sword must die by the sword." See Matthew 2652; Revelation 1310. Also see the Quran 93-29.
Muhammad Asad - End Note 43 (533)
The term "apostle" is evidently generic in this context. By "making war on God and His apostle" is meant a hostile opposition to, and wilful disregard of, the ethical precepts ordained by God and explained by all His apostles, combined with the conscious endeavour to destroy or undermine other people's belief in God as well.
Muhammad Asad - End Note 44 (533)
In classical Arabic idiom, the "cutting off of one's hands and feet" is often synonymous with "destroying one's power", and it is possibly in this sense that the expression has been used here. Alternatively, it might denote "being mutilated", both physically and metaphorically -similar to the (metonymical) use of the expression "being crucified" in the sense of "being tortured". The phrase min khilaf-usually rendered as "from opposite sides"-is derived from the verb khalafahu, "he disagreed with him", or "opposed him", or "acted contrarily to him" consequently, the primary meaning of min khilaf is "in result of contrariness" or "of perverseness".
Muhammad Asad - End Note 45 (533)
Most of the classical commentators regard this passage as a legal injunction, and interpret it, therefore, as follows "The recompense of those who make war on God and His apostle and spread corruption on earth shall but be that they shall be slain, or crucified, or that their hands and feet be cut off on opposite sides, or that they shall be banished from the earth such shall be their ignominy in this world." This interpretation is, however, in no way warranted by the text, and this for the following reasons(a) The four passive verbs occurring in this sentence- "slain", "crucified", "cut off" and "banished" -are in the present tense and do not, by themselves, indicate the future or, alternatively, the imperative mood.
(b) The form yuqattalu does not signify simply "they are being slain" or (as the commentators would have it) "they shall be slain", but denotes - in accordance with a fundamental rule of Arabic grammar-"they are being slain in great numbers"; and the same holds true of the verbal forms yusallabu ("they are being crucified in great numbers" and tuqatta'a ("cut off in great numbers". Now if we are to believe that these are "ordained punishments", it would imply that great numbers - but not necessarily all - of "those who make war on God and His apostle" should be punished in this way obviously an inadmissible assumption of arbitrariness on the part of the Divine Law-Giver. Moreover, if the party "waging war on God and His apostle" should happen to consist of one person only, or of a few, how could a command referring to "great numbers" be applied to them or to him?
(c) Furthermore, what would be the meaning of the phrase, "they shall be banished from the earth", if the above verse is to be taken as a legal injunction'.? This point has, indeed, perplexed the commentators considerably. Some of them assume that the transgressors should be "banished from the land " but there is no instance in the Qur'an of such a restricted use of the term "earth" (ard). Others, again, are of the opinion that the guilty ones should be imprisoned in a subterranean dungeon, which would constitute their "banishment from the earth"!
(d) Finally-and this is the weightiest objection to an interpretation of the above verse as a "legal injunction" -the Qur'an places exactly the same expressions referring to mass-crucifixion and mass-mutilation (but this time with a definite intent relating to the future) in the mouth of Pharaoh, as a' threat to believers (see 7124, 2071 and 2649). Since Pharaoh is invariably described in the Qur'an as the epitome of evil and godlessness, it is inconceivable that the same Qur'an would promulgate a divine law in precisely the terms which it attributes elsewhere to a figure characterized as an "enemy of God".
Muhammad Asad - End Note 46 (534)
I.e. before belief in God and in the ethical principles decreed by Him becomes prevalent for, in that event, repentance on the part of "those who make war on God and His apostle" would be no more than an act of conforming to the dominant trend and, therefore, of no moral value ,whatever. It is to be noted that the exemption from suffering relates to the hereafter.
So my questions are
-
Are there any legal injunctions that are in the passive voice? If there are none, then we can safely agree with Asad, Edip, & Layth that this is not a legal injunction.
-
If this verse is just a "live by the sword, die by the sword" verse as Edip and Layth believe, then why is it identical to the Pharaoh verses?? That makes no sense, because if the Muslims are not supposed to cut off hands and crucify their enemies, why would those who fight God and his Apostles end up crucified with their limbs cut off?
So their argument is not a strong one either, in my opinion.
Asad seems to have noticed this, which is why he doesn't endorse this view.
-
-
THS, are you able to link to equallu thorough end notes that endorse a literal interpretation of 533? I would greatly appreciate it. Asad's arguments seem logical, but there's no way for me to confirm whatever he states as facts ( which is why I at this state prefer to compare opposing views to each other).
-
Thanks Wakas, but I came to the same conclusion about the crucifixion of Jesus a while ago. What I'm more concerned with is whether or not the Quran is stating in 533 that crucifixion is an acceptable punishment in Islam
Peace be upon you,
with all due Respect.I'd say that if believers crucified George W. Bush in the last days of January, 2001, plenty of lives would be saved.
God knows best.
If we killed Hitler in 1939, also, plenty of lives would be saved.
But this is all, if, if, if, if. We need to focus on what is. Right now, we don't have an Islamic/Qur'anic country.
Let's establish one, God willing.Peace be upon you.
-
Peace be upon you,
with all due Respect.I'd say that if believers crucified George W. Bush in the last days of January, 2001, plenty of lives would be saved.
God knows best.Well if somebody (whether they are believers or not doesn't matter) crucify Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts then it will certainly save a lot of souls as well.
And also Saddam Husein and others lunatics in the world..If we killed Hitler in 1939, also, plenty of lives would be saved.
But this is all, if, if, if, if. We need to focus on what is. Right now, we don't have an Islamic/Qur'anic country.
Let's establish one, God willing.And Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Idi Amien and others as well..
Quranic Country??? Naah I wouldn't support it.. it will be just yet another sectarian country where the 'believers' can oppress the 'unbeliever'.
Similar to the Zionist Israel, Sunnist Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, Kimist North Koream Nazist Germany and other lunatic country..Salam / Peace
-
- Are there any legal injunctions that are in the passive voice? If there are none, then we can safely agree with Asad, Edip, & Layth that this is not a legal injunction.
I do not recall any legal injunctions in the passive voice.
- If this verse is just a "live by the sword, die by the sword" verse as Edip and Layth believe, then why is it identical to the Pharaoh verses?? That makes no sense, because if the Muslims are not supposed to cut off hands and crucify their enemies, why would those who fight God and his Apostles end up crucified with their limbs cut off?
Pharaoh used first person active verb in future tense, while the Quran uses third person passive verb in continuous tense.
Peace,
Edip -
Salaam captain awesome,
THS, are you able to link to equallu thorough end notes that endorse a literal interpretation of 533?
Sorry but I'm not sure what you're asking here!
Salaam Edip and thanks for joining the discussion,
I do not recall any legal injunctions in the passive voice.
Thanks, that indeed makes your argument stronger.
Pharaoh used first person active verb in future tense, while the Quran uses third person passive verb in continuous tense.
This is true, but it still doesn't address the logical problem of this verse. Let us assume that it is a "live by the sword, die by the sword" as you have proposed. We can say that it is directed at Pharaoh, or people like Pharaoh, because it matches what Pharaoh said
Pharaoh I will cut off your hands and feet alternately, and crucify you all!
Quran Those who fight God and his Apostles shall be crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off alternately!
Why will they be crucified and have their hands cut off? Who is going to do that to them, if the Muslims aren't supposed to?
My first reaction was that this will happen to them in the hereafter, as a punishment, but the verse continues and identifies that this is only the worldly punishment
that is a disgrace for them in this world and in the Hereafter they will have a great retribution.
So why would they be crucified in this world if they fight against God and his Messengers?
The only two explanations for this that I can think of at the moment are
-
the verse isn't talking specifically about crucifixion and cutting off of limbs, but as a general painful punishment....but that still doesn't answer why it is mirrored with Pharaoh's words.
-
the verse is verifying the concept of equal retaliation (qisaas), as in 2178, although I never thought this concept was this literal.
This explanation also makes sense given the next verse "Save those who repent before ye overpower them," as in
'if someone commits crimes against the God and his Messengers, even if they be crucifixion and other great wrongs, they shall have an equal punishment, unless they repent before you are able to capture them.'
I have to read up on qisaas though, to see if this explanation fits.
-
-
Salaam all, been reading about Qisas.
The Encyclopedia of Islam has a long article on qisas, and in it I found this
The execution of Qisas is open to the avenger of blood, and according to Abu Hanifa consists in beheading with the sword or a similar weapon; if the avenger slays in another fashion he is punished with ta'zir, but not imprisoned. According to Malik and al-Shafi'i, the quilty person, with certain limitations, is killed in the same way as he killed his victim; both views are given by Ahmad b. Hanbal.
I believe that this judgement stems from the following
Among the traditions (hadiths) is one that must be genuine, according to which Muhammad had a Jew, who had smashed the head of a Muslim djariya (slave girl or young woman) with a stone, killed in the same way, because in this case there was no question of an avenger of blood.
So it seems that avenging a death by similar punishment already has a tradition in Islamic practice. To make sure that my above interpretation is most likely, we have to narrow down qisas and see whether the Quran is actually advocating that people be killed in the manner in which they kill.
EDIT
What complicates this verse is the fact that only a few verses later in 538 comes the command
NOW AS FOR the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off the hand of either of them in requital for what they have wrought
And since this is definitely not in the passive voice, we can conclude it is a legal injunction, whatever its true meaning may be. But the similarity of it with 533 supports my argument of qisas by punishing in the way of the crime, as it is unlikely that a legal injunction in 538 is something completely different in 533.
But again, its similarity with what Pharaoh was doing is confusing the hell out of me
-
Salaam,
Maybe a bit redundant but...
There are many ways in which 533 can ring true without the hands of muslims being involved (i.e. mischief against disbelievers results in retribution through crucifixion, etc). Further, a passive statement of fact is in no way an endorsement of the circumstances that resulted in that facts existence.
Peace
-
Salaam Wakas,
Yeah I'm familiar with the arguments against interpreting the cutting of hands verse literally, but that doesn't really matter to this argument, because salb is defined as crucifixion in the Quran, which is why I noted all its uses in my first post, and because whether it means to cut off the hands or not, it is still exactly what Pharaoh was doing!
And we know that Pharaoh was evil and an unbeliever, so in his verse it is readily interpreted as actually cutting of the hands, but if we interpret it that way, then we cannot interpret the same sentence 5 verses later as an idiom, either they are both idioms, or they are both literal.
And even if they are idioms, then we still have to deal with the problem of crucifixion, why it is being endorsed on God's enemies, and why it is mirrored with the actions of Pharaoh.
Honestly this verse is a real conundrum.
Salaam eat that,
I don't really buy that argument....I mean the very next verse says that these punishments shall not be done to them if they repent before they are caught by you, ie. the believer. This indicates that the punishments will also be meted out by you.
And secondly, it just isn't logical to assume that someone waging war against God and his Messengers would end up being crucified randomly in a totally unrelated story....the context of the verse is that they are waging war against believers, and thus it makes perfect logical sense for it to be interpreted as believers doing these things to God's enemies.
So the strongest argument so far, in my opinion, is that this is a qisaas verse, or honourable retribution, as Asad calls it. It mentions those who wage war against God, and states that they shall have a horrible worldly punishment - but - it states the exact same punishment that was used by Pharaoh.
Therefore, I believe that this is sort of a law giving verse, but not against all people - only to the leaders of nations/armies that wage war against Muslims. Ie. If Switzerland, as an example, attacks a Muslim state and begins to prohibit the worship of God in it, and punishes those worshipers with terrible punishments, lets say waterboarding, then the President of Switzerland is to be punished with waterboarding as well, unless he "repents" before he is overpowered by the Muslims.
This is all that I can logically infer from the evidence, and it also alters the concept of Qisaas in a big way.
-
It says "or" amongst the list of options. Thus "crucifixion" is one of the options. Implying a range of punishment depending on severity of crimes, if one takes it that way.
You could read it as a fear-inducing verse for the enemy who hears it, but whether they will actually get that punishment is another matter, but to implant in the mind that they might get it might make them think twice. If it is passive verbs and this is a unique occurrence, then I think that is relevant.
