So does the Quran actually endorse crucifixion?
-
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.
-
WOW!
I have to say something...
When I read surah 5 I did so from the beginning, and when I came to verse 33 I did not even blink. I saw nothing strange about the punishment for those who commit such grave crimes against humanity, remember, oppression is worse than murder 2217.... I wish Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and all other dictactors I can't remember the names of were crucified a thousand times for what they did...
Key word is "wish".....If I personally had the chance of crucifying any of the above stated idiots I would not. Why? God knows my heart and instinct cries for revenge and that is why 824 O ye who believe! Give your response to Allah and His Messenger, when He calleth you to that which will give you life; and know that Allah cometh in between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom Ye shall (all) be gathered.
So, because God is the one helping me to "think before I act" I will remember 3132 Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord and for a Garden whose width is that (of the whole) of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous, (133) Those who spend (freely) whether in prosperity or in adversity; who restrain anger and pardon (all) men; for Allah loves those who do good, (134) And those who having done something to be ashamed of, or wronged their own souls earnestly bring Allah to mind; and ask for forgiveness for their sins,and who can forgive sins except Allah?,And are never obstinate in persisting knowingly in (the wrong) they have done
So is there any endorsement for crucifixion in 533? I would plainly say "no"
Or....am I totally wrong as seeing verse 33 in combination with all the other verses in Surah 5 as a message, not a rule?? A rule that evidently would require us to kill? Is it really so simple that in 533 our Lord asks us to be just as brutal as the brutes?
Peace out.
-
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
