So does the Quran actually endorse crucifixion?
-
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.
-
Peace ths,
Messenger of Allah establishes Allah?s system on Earth which is truth based and just for all human being. This system leads people to peace and happiness forever.
Those who fight Allah?s system are fighting to establish falsehood and unjust system that is bad for humans both here and in the hereafter. This system leads people to unimaginable punishment.
So, if the bad people get crucified for their crime then what is wrong with it? Please try to envision the enormity of the crime. Maybe, when the truth is realized some of us will say the crucifixion was not severe enough.
Punishment in the hereafter is described to be more severe than the crucifixion on earth. And this is ordained by Allah. Do you disapproved of it or are you implying Allah is unjust.
And how do you know crucifixion is more painful than electric chair?. If you don?t know then don?t compare.
-
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.
Salaam,
I think you are presuming your conclusion when you say that the next verse says the punishment "shall not be done." It just says that those who repent will not suffer such worldly punishment in the same statement of fact passive sense as the previous verse. The best example for such a verse has already been given "Live by the sword, die by the sword."I don't see how it is illogical. It is quite possible that those who terrorized the world or Allah and his Messenger through crucifixion or etc, could suffer in situations unrelated to Allah and his Messenger. In order for this to be illogical, you have to show me how this scenario is in some way impossible. You might instead think it is implausible, but to me, it makes sense. People who terrorized Allah and his Messenger probably would have fostered hate against one another and probably would have carried out dangerous punishments (i.e. crucifixion, etc) against each other as a result. Imagine a 7th century Congo War where friends become enemies quite quickly.
I think your interpretation of this verse as a general prescription of qisas is quite fine as well though.
Peace
-
Salaam Wakas,
Yes one of the interpretation is that it is giving punishments ranging in severity.
But another is that it is not the punishment that is important, but that there are many and various punishments that can be given.
And the only explanation for the verse being almost out of Pharaoh's mouth is that God is here indicating that we should read this in conjunction with the Pharaoh verses. I don't believe that this is a coincidence and that the punishments just happen to be very similar.
To me it is identifying the people in question when it says "Those who fight God and his Messengers" - it is identifying these people who are going to be punished severely with Pharaoh. But Pharaoh is already dead, and we know that he wasn't crucified or had his limbs cut off, and "those" is plural - therefore we can infer that it is referring to a class of people like Pharaoh. And who was Pharaoh? He was a) the leader of a nation/army fighting against God and his Messenger, and b) The one who ordered those punishments to be meted out.
Also the fact that the verse is mirroring Pharaoh, and that we know God had Pharaoh killed in a totally different manner means that the specific forms of punishment isn't what's important here.
Finally, looking at the concept of Qisaas and its occurrences in the Quran lends weight to interpreting Qisaas in this way. Not all verses referring to Qisaas have to mention the word specifically, just as there are many verses in the Quran that deal with salah (in my opinion) that don't mention the word itself.
Salaam guest,
So, if the bad people get crucified for their crime then what is wrong with it? Please try to envision the enormity of the crime. Maybe, when the truth is realized some of us will say the crucifixion was not severe enough.
Punishment in the hereafter is described to be more severe than the crucifixion on earth. And this is ordained by Allah. Do you disapproved of it or are you implying Allah is unjust.
And how do you know crucifixion is more painful than electric chair?. If you don?t know then don?t compare.
Look crucifixion is a brutal and inhumane punishment. This is only my opinion, but punishment must be related to the crime committed.
Secondly we know that in the Quran not one criminal against God is crucified, nor has his hands cut off, and the only other time these punishments are mentioned, is when Pharaoh, an unbeliever, threatens people with it!
Thirdly, if someone is so morally decrepit, that they are willing to punish others in this way, then I do not have a problem with them suffering the very same punishment, but not some random soldiers being payed to fight for a cause they couldn't care less about.
Lastly, we know that the Quran states that no one will be punished for the crime of another. So if the Pharaoh commands that someone be crucified, and some lowly servants go and do the deed, then the lowly servants should not then be crucified, because they were following orders, and would likely be killed themselves if they refused to obey. So the weight of the punishment must fall on the one who ordered it.
Salaam eat that,
I think you are presuming your conclusion when you say that the next verse says the punishment "shall not be done." It just says that those who repent will not suffer such worldly punishment in the same statement of fact passive sense as the previous verse. The best example for such a verse has already been given "Live by the sword, die by the sword."
I don't see how it is illogical. It is quite possible that those who terrorized the world or Allah and his Messenger through crucifixion or etc, could suffer in situations unrelated to Allah and his Messenger. In order for this to be illogical, you have to show me how this scenario is in some way impossible.
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.
It just says that those who repent will not suffer such worldly punishment in the same statement of fact passive sense as the previous verse.
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 ths,
Look crucifixion is a brutal and inhumane punishment.
I disagree because crucifixion is not the punishment for all crime. It is mandated for those who commit the ultimate crime i.e. deceiving people and leading them to hell and terrorizing the Allah fearing people in this world. Thus it is neither brutal nor inhumane. In fact showing feeling for these criminal demonstrate lack of character.
This is only my opinion, but punishment must be related to the crime committed.
Ultimate crime requires ultimate punishment. And crucifixion is a punishment for the ultimate crime.
Secondly we know that in the Quran not one criminal against God is crucified, nor has his hands cut off, and the only other time these punishments are mentioned, is when Pharaoh, an unbeliever, threatens people with it!
Quran does not give full account of everything that happened in the past. It is book of salvation for mankind. Therefore, you should reconsider your logic!
Thirdly, if someone is so morally decrepit, that they are willing to punish others in this way, then I do not have a problem with them suffering the very same punishment, but not some random soldiers being payed to fight for a cause they couldn't care less about.
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.
Lastly, we know that the Quran states that no one will be punished for the crime of another. So if the Pharaoh commands that someone be crucified, and some lowly servants go and do the deed, then the lowly servants should not then be crucified, because they were following orders, and would likely be killed themselves if they refused to obey. So the weight of the punishment must fall on the one who ordered it.
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.
