verse 2:178 ? "the free for the free the slave for the
-
Dear all,
Why should a murder automatically mean there should be taken another life?
I do not understand the Qur?an such that murders come in pairs?The principle of ?an eye for an eye? means that a pay-back is due if a crime has been committed. It does not say that you have to do exactly the same thing; this is the law-interpretation of the religious sects. It is not Islam. It is more like shear stupidity.
peace .
why cannot it mean "exactly the same thing" ?42.40 The recompense for an injury is an injury equal
thereto (in degree) but if a person forgives and
makes reconciliation His reward is due from Allah
for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong. -
Dear Saladin,
42.40 says that if a person commits an evil, ?it serves him right? that an equally bad evil is committed against him/her as a recompense, but both parties are wrongdoers, and Allah does not reward wrongdoers.
But if an evil is forgiven and corrected then, and only then, will there be a reward from Allah. In other words, this is what Allah prefers.
This is how I understand it.
Regards
Ali Omar
-
Peace ,
First of all you need to look the Quran as a whole. You can't understand a verse by itself.
Ghandi was wrong, if the world had obeyed "eye for an eye" they wouldn't be in the mess they are in. God has given us limits in this case not absolutes.
Eye for an eye is a limit and like God says those who transgress this limit are the evil ones. You can always forgive. Eye for an Eye doesn't say you must kill the murderer.
These days we find 10 eyes for an eye. A drunk driver who has killed gets off with 6 months, but some guy who messed up figures on his Tax return gets 5 years. Because in the first the victim is a citizen and in the latter it's a filthy government.
Look at all wars, one side always suffered a greater loss due to the greed of the other, leaving a resentment so deep that it gets fused in the next generations DNA.
Layth said it right, (I hope), all though worded badly, Eye for an Eye will end all conflicts quickly leaving no resentment and a hope for the future.
"Someone" has also posted along the right lines.
The difference in loss of life can only be settled by good deeds/compensation not by killing, since you are bound by God's law not to kill innocent people.
Remember the Quran is clear ... you can't take an innocent life. Follow that and all will become clear.
-
salam burhan .
Layth said it right, (I hope), all though worded badly, Eye for an Eye will end all conflicts quickly leaving no resentment and a hope for the future.
but Layth said innocent ppl can be killed to end the conflict . but then u say
The difference in loss of life can only be settled by good deeds/compensation not by killing, since you are bound by God's law not to kill innocent people.
Remember the Quran is clear ... you can't take an innocent life. Follow that and all will become clear.
?!
thank u for the replies everyone .
-
Salaamun alaikum Saladin, all,
2/178 applies to believers. It is not for outside the group of believers. If we accept this, we need to take a look at 4/92, which explains 2/178
Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due) If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged
to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running by way of repentance to God for God hath all knowledge and all wisdom.it is clear that 2/178 isn't speaking about a LIFE compensation but a wealth compensation.
thanks and peace.
-
peace mq, all,
Also, there is another sign which discusses compensation for a similar event, to provide for dependents for 1yr or something, I cant rememeber the reference off-hand. I remember coming across it after discussing it with bro. Zlatan. Just thought I'd mention it.
Wakas
-
As in the example above, i will try to present a situation where 2 groups of people (groupA and groupB) are in war.
is this verse about war ?
Peace Saladin,
From the context of the verse, it's not about war specifically but can be applied to the case of war. I think that the scripture contains many ways to make peace justly in different situations, people have to "only" want it.
--
-
2178 talks about murder while 492 talks about mistaken killings, so the punishment is not the same. 2178 PICKTHAL "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. And for him who is forgiven somewhat by his (injured) brother, prosecution according to usage and payment unto him in kindness. This is an alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. He who transgresseth after this will have a painful doom." The language of "a slave for a slave" is clearly about life, not wealth. There is no insinuation of money being exchanged in that verse, until it talks about the forgiving of the killing by the brother of the slain. So, the actual punishment could not have been monetary compensation. It is interesting that 4240 states that "an eye for an eye" is wrong, but it is still allowed. Maybe that is the best way of doing things, though it is clearly wrong, and those who chose to acknowledege the innocence of the other party are given a reward.
-
Dear icephren,
I think we should pay more attention to Allah?s words that says it is wrong to take another human life.
As long as we interpret 2.178 and 42.40 as a free pass to take another life if and when we decide it is justified, the continuous ?just? killings of human beings will go on.
Imagine a situation where one party think the verdict of ?guilty?, and the subsequent killing of the one who was sentenced, was wrong.
Does this then justify another party to take the life of the one who he/she claims gave a wrong verdict in the first case?
This reminds me of a ?mafia?-style of justice, or ?balancing the accounts?. This makes the value of a life cheap, contradicting the words of God, and we see the effects of this kind of ?justice?.
Recently, the London-bombings are justified in some people?s minds, maybe, because the British armed forces killed people calling themselves ?Muslims?. So, one murder ?justifies? another.
And this was just one tragic incident amongst many.To understand these verses literally has caused much suffering, and will continue to do so, as long as we do not pay proper attention to Allah?s basic prohibition in the case of taking another humans life.
Regards
Ali Omar
-
Ichripren 2178 talks about murder while 492 talks about mistaken killings, so the punishment is not the same
Can you please provide evidence for this? The same words are used for both so 'al-qatla'and 'yuqtalu'. To add to this, the word 'khathaa' is used to denote an accident. Further, 2/178 speaks about believers and not to others. Please put these 2 verses together.
-
WakasAlso, there is another sign which discusses compensation for a similar event, to provide for dependents for 1yr or something, I cant rememeber the reference off-hand. I remember coming across it after discussing it with bro. Zlatan. Just thought I'd mention it.
Thanks, man. I cant seem to find it though. I looked up sineen and wahid. Any suggestion for a word ?
-
The language of "a slave for a slave" is clearly about life, not wealth. There is no insinuation of money being exchanged in that verse, until it talks about the forgiving of the killing by the brother of the slain. So, the actual punishment could not have been monetary compensation.
salam .
i agree with ichephren here .mquran wrote
2/178 applies to believers. It is not for outside the group of believers. If we accept this, we need to take a look at 4/92, which explains 2/178
Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake,
2178 does not only apply to believers . here God is addressing the believers , that they should apply the law of equality (against anyone and everyone , not only against believers) . so there is hardly any such link between 492 and 2178 , i believe .
-
what do u guys think about this understanding from RK's translation
In dealing with murder, the Quran definitely discourages capital punishment (2179).
"The free for the free, the slave for the slave,and the female for the female" (217.Due to human meanness and injustice, many people cannot even imagine what this Quranic law says.
They refuse to accept the clear injunctions that strict equivalence must be observed - if a woman kills a man, or a man kills a woman, or a slave kills a free person, or a free person kills a slave, capital punishment cannot be applied.
The Quran prefers that the murderer compensate the victim's family. Killing the murderer does not bring the victim back, nor does the family of the victim benefit from executing the murderer. The compensation, however, must be sufficient to be a deterrent for others. In Islam (Submission), the victim and/or the victim's family are the judges for all crimes; they decide what the punishment shall be under the supervision of a person who knows the Quran.but i once asked Muhammad Asadi( www.members.aol.com/silence004 ) the same question about 2178 , he said that 2178 is about warring groups or parties . and the "free for the free , slave for slave " thing is to control bloodshed during battle or conflicts between groups . if a freeman killed a slave or a slave killed a freeman , he(the murderer) cannot be killed in retaliation . he said this verse is not about individual crime .
but how is this verse only about groups ?
i emailed Asadi again , but he has not replied yet .
salam.
fahad. -
I think we misunderstood word qiSaaS. It's a verbal noun form III and for it to mean "recompense" it should be in form VI (reciprocal verb). Its root is talking about cutting unnecessarily pieces from something, so we have it as qaSaS for a story w/o details, just what is most important, it's "a short story". We have same meaning of the verb, as well as "going by shorter path" (taking a shortcut), as in 1864 or in 2811. There's no more word forms, besides qiSaaS, from this root. If we look at its passive maqSooS or a noun of tool meqaSS, we can see that they talk about trimming, clipping, for example hair. In my language hair is called "kosa" from the same root, and scissors are "makaze" from meqaSS, and "kus" is a shorten animal tail (or no tail). Slightly different root q-S-b gives qaSSaab for a butcher, who cuts pieces of flesh.
I understood that qiSaaS means "(the) exception" from a civil norm of a society where Qur'an came. I understood that they had a rule "free man by free man, slave by slave, woman by woman" (I think a proposition bi- matches English by in most cases). So, believers were ordered to leave this norm and to forgive (or better "to pardon" instead.
Those who understand the essence/heart/core (oolu-l-elbaab) can take care of themselves and qiSaaS will give them life.
