So does the Quran actually endorse crucifixion?
-
Salaam eat that,
Well, I would say that I don't have to show how this scenario is impossible, but only to show that that is not what the verse means.
I say it is illogical, because the Quran identifies you as the believers, and then says that these punishments will not happen if they repent before you have power over them. This indicates that you are in charge of these punishments.
Let us say that we catch some of these people who fight against God, but have repented, so we throw them in jail instead of crucifying them or whatever. And then a jail riot happens and some of the criminals in the jail crucify each other! This would render God's statement in this verse untrue.
Furthermore, anyone can have their hands cut off in a freak accident. Even the holiest and devoutest of Sheikhs could get into a car crash and have his hands amputated, and certainly innocent people the world over have suffered terrible accidents and died in terrible ways.
So that is why I say it is illogical to assume that these punishments will happen to people randomly in unrelated events, and that it is a "live by the sword, die by the sword" verse. People "live by the book, and die by the sword" all the time in this world.
Also, the next verse is not in the passive tense, like in 533, see here
Peace
I have looked a bit closely at 534 and I now interpret the verse as referring to repentance to God so that you can be close to him in the afterlife. That is why it says know that "God is merciful..." since God is the one who is releasing his punishment in the afterlife.Also, I figure those who repent will not have any of the said punishments (crucifixion, etc) as a "reward" for making war on Allah and his Messenger; they could have this stuff happen to them in unrelated scenarios though.
Since this verse talks about making war with Allah and his Messenger and causing corruption in the land, does it only hold whilst the Prophet is alive? Seems logical considering that you can not make war on the Messenger after he is gone.
Salaam
-
Salaam guest,
Random soldiers are willingly obeying the satanic order; therefore, they brought the punishment upon themselves. They have the option to migrate to other land. Your reasoning is similar to the one who says I committed idol worship because I found my parents doing it or forced me to do it. And this is not acceptable.
This isn't really a good analogy. Each scenario is different, and these scenarios aren't really comparable. Worshiping idols simply out of imitation and out of laziness to search for a truth is one thing, and joining an army (like the Mujahedeen or Taleban) for money, or pride, is completely different. I don't agree with the Taleban, for example, and think that they give Islam a bad name. But I support them in their fight against the US army. Many of them are angered because bad things have happened to their families, or they do not want to be occupied, or they have been offered money - my point is, situations are extremely complex, and one of these random fighters in the Taleban is not the same as Bin Laden or Zawahiri or Mullah Omar.
The one who orders it and the one who implements it are guilty of the crime. With your logic the disbeliever will claim that satan led them astray and thus they should not be punished.
This is also a bad example. If I disobey satan, I will not be punished. If I disobey Pharaoh, I will most certainly be punished, and my family will suffer. There is coercion involved, and the person who ordered the crime is different from the one who has to see it through.
Salaam eat that,
I now interpret the verse as referring to repentance to God so that you can be close to him in the afterlife. That is why it says know that "God is merciful..." since God is the one who is releasing his punishment in the afterlife.
Yes but 5.33 clearly states that the crucifixion and other punishments are tortures of this world, and not the afterlife. 5.34 then states that these will not happen if they repent before WE catch them, indicating that God will forgive them of a worldly punishment even for this huge sin - although they may still face punishment in the afterlife.
Since this verse talks about making war with Allah and his Messenger and causing corruption in the land, does it only hold whilst the Prophet is alive? Seems logical considering that you can not make war on the Messenger after he is gone.
This is a good point, actually, but after some thought, I disagree with it.
The reason is that such an interpretation is very literal - that you are actually fighting the Prophet (wa-rasuulahu). But fighting God is in itself an idiom, because one cannot literally fight God, instead you fight the concept of God, or the divinity of the Quran - that is fighting God. And since the Quran was sent by God through his Prophet, you are also fighting the Prophet.
Interestingly, I wonder what this says about free speech?....does arguing that the Quran is a man-made book mean that one is fighting against God and his Prophet? To me it does, but that would entail that there is no free speech in a Quranic society.
-
peace ths, all,
The reason is that such an interpretation is very literal - that you are actually fighting the Prophet (wa-rasuulahu). But fighting God is in itself an idiom, because one cannot literally fight God, instead you fight the concept of God, or the divinity of the Quran - that is fighting God. And since the Quran was sent by God through his Prophet, you are also fighting the Prophet.
Interestingly, I wonder what this says about free speech?....does arguing that the Quran is a man-made book mean that one is fighting against God and his Prophet? To me it does, but that would entail that there is no free speech in a Quranic society.
A few points...
I wouldn't class "fighting God" as an idiom, more like "allegorical". Although, I would say it has a real-world structure, e.g. if one is oppressing others, they could be said to be fighting God, depending on what one takes God as, e.g. His attribute of Just, if one seeks to commit injustice, they are fighting Just. Whilst this may seem like a small point, I do feel this is one of the key overarching concepts of The Quran, which I summed up quite nicely here.
Do not confuse the terms "messenger" and "prophet".
Your deduction of "no free speech in a Quranic society" is ridiculous. I assume you have read The Quran in which many many examples are given of questioning/ridiculing God/Quran/messengership/etc with no this-world consequences whatsoever.
-
I wouldn't class "fighting God" as an idiom, more like "allegorical".
True, good point.
Your deduction of "no free speech in a Quranic society" is ridiculous. I assume you have read The Quran in which many many examples are given of questioning/ridiculing God/Quran/messengership/etc with no this-world consequences whatsoever.
Obviously I do not believe that free speech should be banned in any society, and your charge that that is what I believe is even more ridiculous.
You must learn to differentiate between thinking out loud and statements of belief before you begin prancing around the forums making jackass assumptions
I assume you have read The Quran
The point I was trying to make is that "fighting God" is a vague term. The very next sentence disqualified it as an acceptable interpretation. It's called playing the devil's advocate.
I assume you have some common sense? Then please use it instead of wasting my time and throwing threads off course. -
- 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.
Research fasad/corruption, and you'll see why it is mirrored...
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598298.msg226829#msg226829
-
"jackass assumptions" would be classed as a metaphor.
"playing the devil's advocate" would be classed as an idiom.
Just pointing it out for you, so we can learn together. ;D
Interestingly, I wonder what this says about free speech?....does arguing that the Quran is a man-made book mean that one is fighting against God and his Prophet? To me it does, but that would entail that there is no free speech in a Quranic society.
As a side note "fighting God and His messenger" and "fasad/corruption in the land" is only used in specific contexts and all are for significantly bad acts, not "yo Muhammad, I dont think you're God's messenger" etc.
-
Salaam eat that,
Yes but 5.33 clearly states that the crucifixion and other punishments are tortures of this world, and not the afterlife. 5.34 then states that these will not happen if they repent before WE catch them, indicating that God will forgive them of a worldly punishment even for this huge sin - although they may still face punishment in the afterlife.
This is a good point, actually, but after some thought, I disagree with it.
The reason is that such an interpretation is very literal - that you are actually fighting the Prophet (wa-rasuulahu). But fighting God is in itself an idiom, because one cannot literally fight God, instead you fight the concept of God, or the divinity of the Quran - that is fighting God. And since the Quran was sent by God through his Prophet, you are also fighting the Prophet.
Interestingly, I wonder what this says about free speech?....does arguing that the Quran is a man-made book mean that one is fighting against God and his Prophet? To me it does, but that would entail that there is no free speech in a Quranic society.
Peace
533 says that a punishment in the afterlife awaits. Then 534 says if they repent God is merciful. Thus, it is quite reasonable to assume that 534 is referring to God's forgiveness in the afterlife since I would assume that God's mercy refers to his ultimate judgement. In fact, considering that 533 is in the passive and a command in the passive tense is quite unusual in the Quran and in any dialect, this to me seems the best interpretation.
Further the verse says those who make war and cause corruption in the land. It is quite the stretch to argue that saying the Quran is man made classifies as an act of war as well as fasad.
Salaam
-
Salaam jack,
533 mentions the punishment for fasad/corruption.
8912 mentions Pharoah committing fasad/corruption.
533 is for the "pharaohs" of the world.
I think you are agreeing with me here? I've been arguing this throughout the thread. I am arguing that this verse specifically talks about the pharaohs of this world, as in the leaders of armies/nations that wage war against God and his messengers. - But that doesn't explain why the wording is similar to Pharaohs. The only way (I have spotted) to explain the concordance of the wording is through qisaas ie. if Pharaoh had been conquered by the believers he would have faced crucifixion and cutting off of his limbs because that is what he did to them, and the reason it is uttered in the passive voice is because this punishment is specific to Pharaoh, as that was his crime.
-
Three pages that must be read, and understood by all educated honest and unbiased people of this world.
These our three pages can be searched in Google with following lines. Each line represent each pageA Great Page for Muslim Reverts - A Gift From TRUUTHZ
Flow diagram about the life of Jesus from A to Z - 100% TRUTH
What was religion (DEEN) of all Prophets & their TRUE Followers?
-
Quran never ever denies the nailing of Jesus on Cross but denies his death on Cross. This is the point that majority of 2 billion muslims fail to understand.
Quran says, Jesus survived death on Cross but also gives are implicit but very solid explanation that Jesus was died naturally at VERY OLD AGE. The Arabic word "Kahlan. When a person is so old that usually he cannot talk clearly.
See full proof at http//motughu.notlong.com
Definition of Crucifixion To kill some one after tieing or nailing him on Cross.
So see carefully, here TO BE FINALLY KILLED ON CROSS is condition of Crucifixion. If a person is nailed on Cross but was removed from cross before his death and he healed later by treatments by his friend; HE is now live and NOT DEAD.
So we will say, that though that and this person was tried to Crucify by nailing at Cross but he was NOT-Crucified ---->in Arabic NOT CRUCIFIED is ---> Wa Ma Salabu. The same word that is used in Noble Quran. -
5.33 From the first time I read 5.33 I didn't understand it as a legal punishment, but rather as what I think is called poetic justice. If it was a legal punishment, as has already been explained it would not have that formulation, I do not think that the word jazaa'u can legitimately be taken as meaning legal punishment. In pedagogic litterature like for children where they are taught that bad actions lead to unhappiness, the word reward might be used, also in plainer speech, it could be used and in fact very likely used sarcastically when one behaves usually in a nasty way and somewhere along the line gets slapped with something nasty, tastes his or her own medicine. Those who live among criminals get definitely to taste at some time what criminal can do to others, who may be also criminals. That would be the reward for their being so "clever" and "above" good, simpler minded people. The point is that in that aya and in the contest I do not see anywhere any punishment except those inbedded in nature laws, which are also God's laws. As to those who repent, that is also plain, if they do not join the criminal crowd, they are not exposed to the rewards. Obviously after they are in believers hands there is no reason for them to fear anything. If they repent afterwards, they would fall under the general category of repenters and the general rules for repentance would apply to the them, whatever they are. Also, it may be understood that when they repented when still banding with the corruptors they earned God's forgiveness and protections.
In 5.38 it is equally the term jazaa' that is used, which for me means not a punishement, but in view of imperative mood, it would be a "reward" to be applied by those addressed, that is, those who believe, and the reward would be to "cut the hands".
I would point out that the verb used in 4.33 and 5.38 is not the same. In 5.33 it is form II, it is form I in 5.38.
Given the use of the term yad (hand) in Arabic as a synonim of capacity or power and the use of hands (in the plural, and not in the singular or dual) I take it that yad is meant precisely in the sense of capacity or posibiity.Salaam
