what crimes are punishable by death in al quran?
-
Peace,
Samia, I have a question. Based on your belief, how would we take care of people that we are at war with that wont listen to our talks? If they have swords against us? Do we just be pacifists and let them come? If you want to use that ayat as proof against capital punishment, shouldn't you apply that to this as well, despite the other ayat that tells us to kill the disbelievers where we find them? Isn't it all just the context of the message, where the context of "killing one soul is like killing the world" applying to murderers, not the course of justice?
Peace
-
If you are, as a muslim, in war, it will be in self defense. Suppose during this struggle the other party killed some soldiers/citizens from your side, but then they surrendered and left. Are you going to pursue them to apply this capital punishment? What does the qur'aan tell you to do then?
-
Peace
If you are, as a muslim, in war, it will be in self defense. Suppose during this struggle the other party killed some soldiers/citizens from your side, but then they surrendered and left. Are you going to pursue them to apply this capital punishment? What does the qur'aan tell you to do then?
It would be in self defense, because thats the context that it is in. Isnt the context of "killing a soul" in context with killing aimlessy, murder, and not the course of justice?
Surrendered and left, thats basically running away. If they surrendered, they would give up and let us deal with them. Whats to stop them from doing it again? Are we to just let them run throughout the society and do what they will? I dont think you and I disagree with punishment in general, its just the form of punishment given? If thats the case, in the Quran, how does it tell us to deal with a murderer?
Say, "Come let me tell you what your Lord has really prohibited for you You shall not set up idols besides Him. You shall honor your parents. You shall not kill your children from fear of poverty - we provide for you and for them. You shall not commit gross sins, obvious or hidden. You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand."
Is the translation of this incorrect?
Peace
-
Peace Samia
What's the punishment for manslaughter? Just pay blood money and go?
I think the choice of punishment is left for the authority. God tells us , when it is explained, the maximum punishment, but not the minimum. The rest is left for us.
So do you believe that people that intend kill for greed, lust, etc. should be put to death?
Also, there are worst things then death. What about this people? I think death is really too easy for them.
Peace
-
Peace Samia
So do you believe that people that intend kill for greed, lust, etc. should be put to death?
Also, there are worst things then death. What about this people? I think death is really too easy for them.
Peace
No capital punishment is stated in the qur'aan. There is what's labeled as "lawful" killing that does not call for any punishment self defense and corruption of earth (whatever that might be).
-
peace samia, all,
The following are the verses I've gathered on the subject
532-33, 545, 6151, 2178-179
From these, it would seem there is an allowance for killing the perpetrator of murder .
Salaam Wakas
532 "Because of that we ordained to Banu Israel that who kills a soul not in defense of another soul or against corruption in the earth would be as if he/she killed the whoe mankind..."
This is about which murder will not be punished. The traditional translation says "who kills a soul not in retaliation". Is God giving each one the right to "retaliate"? The literal words are "nafs for nafs", where the preposition "for bi" is the same one used in trade. It is to save another life, exchange life for life not kill an extra one.
533 " The punishment of those who wage war against God and His message and do mischief in the land is to "yuqat-talu" or "yusal-labu"
This is in war domain. Self defense and fighting in the cause of God and His message, not for people.And if they incline to peace, incline you to it as well, and place your trust in God And should they seek but to deceive you , God is enough for you? (861-62)
545 "And We ordained for them that soul for soul, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds are for its equals. But if one forfeit it in charity "tasad-daqa bihi" it shall be for tem an epiation.."
The key word is "tasad-daqa" pay charity, not (not take off your eye). Also, remember the story of The merchant of Venice. No wound is equal to another A wound for someone with diabetes could have grave consequences. A two eyed man would be with one eye, a one eyed man will be blind. A man with one eye will have less consequences as a woman with one eye.
6151 "..And do not kill the soul that God forbade to be killed except for a just cause (see 5532 for the just causes)
2 178 "O you who believe! Equality in punishment "qasaa" is prescribed for you in case of the murdered the free (male) for the free (male), the slave (male) for the slave (male) and the female for the female..."
I do not think this verse concerns humans. God speaks of "soul" when discussing humans. Souls have neither gender nor different freedom status (see all the above verses). It's about animals where a female animal stands a category by itself. Animals for entertainment, race..etc are different from animals for servitude.
Secondly, it gives legitmacy to the way people in Upper Egypt take revenge You killed my mother, I kill your mother or a similar female (or maybe two or more because your mother is already dead, and two or more of your aunts are equal to your mother). -
Peace "wakas"
peace all,
So far, I have murder, corruption in the land, in war*, and high treason. e.g. 532, 6151
*not exactly a crime, but killing of direct participants is allowed.
Has anyone done or knows of a study on what is classed as corruption/fasad in the land?
Thanks.
JK- I believe "fasad" refers to high treason as well such as a double agent or someone inciting two otherwise peaceful parties to fight each other for his/her own gains. James Bond could be a good example of a fasad fighter, IMO. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "wakas"
JK- I believe "fasad" refers to high treason as well such as a double agent or someone inciting two otherwise peaceful parties to fight each other for his/her own gains. James Bond could be a good example of a fasad fighter, IMO. GOD Bless!
I think this might be "fasaad fil bilaad" like the tyranny of the Pharaohs, Thamud and Iram (chapter 89).
-
peace Samia, all,
I do not think the context of 2178 or the words used refer to animals, unless there are some serious errors in the translation, e.g.
O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain (al qatla), the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother (akheehi), then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.
Also, some other signs on the topic
1733
And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided.1874
So they went. When they met a young boy, he killed him. He said, "Why did you kill such an innocent person, who did not kill another person? You have committed something horrendous." -
Allah has allowed the punishment for killing with an advice " You had better remit if one repents; for it is an atonement for your own sins that shall be punishable by death."
And if He were to punish you for your misdeeds then and there, no organism will be left on the earth
26130
And when you seize, you seize very cruelly
24.10
And were it not for Allah's grace and mercy on you;- and that Allah is Oft-Returning, full of Wisdom,-So follow Allah and be Merciful and kind and oft-forgiving; no way Allah has ever permitted killing as a punishment; He has only allowed with a very sensible advice.
-
peace Samia, all,
I do not think the context of 2178 or the words used refer to animals, unless there are some serious errors in the translation, e.g.
O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain (al qatla), the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother (akheehi), then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.
Salaam Wakas
Why the word (aggrieved) is between paranthesis? Because it is not there in the original text. Nor is there "prosecution", nor "bloodshed". What's according to usage? Is it a "usage" to have people killed and paid for? Or is the "usage" the price of murdered people?
This is as far as the translation is concerned. Now, according to God's language. Where in the qur'aan has God categorized humans according to their being free or not, or based on gender? Where has God spoken of a dead or a murdered person but in terms of "nafs"? We already have a verse discussing manslaughter. Even faith was not a factor in determining the punishment, but covenants between communities. Punishment is for and by the community, not for or by people, except in matters narrowly related to them.
This verse does not even mention "killing" the killer. It goes directly to compensation "Following what is accepted/known and giving it in the best manner".
If the punishment of manslaughter was so much detailed, and for adultry we are even advised not to have mercy on them, although God says they will be forgiven if they repent, but it is claimed that are we asked to have mercy on a killer, whom God tells us He will condemn him/her to eternal hell?1733
And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided.How is "exceed the just limit in slaying"? Not to kill his/her family too, for example?
Also, there is no "just limits" in the Arabic text, only "do not exaggerate in killing/do not be extravagent with killing"; which could be understood as "do not kill", because one killing is one too many (like killing all mankind). The verse says "his guardian". Is his guardian supposed to carry out the execution? Again, a support for "do not kill".1874
So they went. When they met a young boy, he killed him. He said, "Why did you kill such an innocent person, who did not kill another person? You have committed something horrendous."Well, Moses was not the wise one in this story, was he? The wise man did not kill the child because he was going to be a murderer.
-
peace Samia, all,
I should have clarified. I simply quoted Shakir's translation. I was aware some words did not appear in the Arabic and that the translation may not be 100% accurate (like all translations), but as far as I was aware, they did not hamper any of my points, e.g. why is "akheeh" used? You did not answer this question.
Where in the qur'aan has God categorized humans according to their being free or not, or based on gender?
I assume you mean all 3 together. If so, then nowhere, but individually, they are used to refer to a person's status, e.g. 492.
Where has God spoken of a dead or a murdered person but in terms of "nafs"?
"al qatla" is only used once in AQ, and that is in 2178. Where has God spoken of a person being an "akhee" of a dead or murdered animal?
Re "usage"
This was the author's choice of word, feel free to use your translation of "what is accepted/known".This verse does not even mention "killing" the killer. It goes directly to compensation
It mentions "al qisas" for "al qatla" (the slain), which is a self-contained explanation, then states "faman.............XYZ etc". If it went directly to compensation, then what is the reason for stating "al qisas", because compensation is not "al qisas".
How is "exceed the just limit in slaying"? Not to kill his/her family too, for example?
That would be exceeding "al qisas".
"do not exaggerate in killing/do not be extravagent with killing"; which could be understood as "do not kill"
No it could not. If it was meant as simply "do not kill" there would be no need to qualify the act with "do not exaggerate / do not be extravagent". See your previous question for why this wording is used.
The verse says "his guardian". Is his guardian supposed to carry out the execution?
Not sure of this question's relevance, but I would assume it would be the state.
By citing 1874, I was showing how Moses' first reaction was to state the law that you cannot kill unless the person has killed.
So follow Allah and be Merciful and kind and oft-forgiving; no way Allah has ever permitted killing as a punishment; He has only allowed with a very sensible advice.
I agree 100% that we are strongly discouraged from choosing killing as a punishment, but I believe sister Samia is suggesting the option of killing does not even exist, which does not stack up with the evidence so far.
-
Salaam Wakas, all
Thank you for responding to my post in details.
I assume you mean all 3 together. If so, then nowhere, but individually, they are used to refer to a person's status, e.g. 492.
"
The word used here is "raqaba", not 3abd. Again, it is not used to categoize people. And I did not mean all 3 together, but any one to classify people in case of responsibilities or rights without making explanation as to why.
Still you did not respond to my initial question What's the meaning of "the slave for the slave, the free for the free and the female for the female"? Isn't that the murderer is the one who has to be punished, irrespective of what his category is or what the category of his victim was? Why don't we have the same categorization in the case of manslaughter (492)?
"al qatla" is only used once in AQ, and that is in 2178. Where has God spoken of a person being an "akhee" of a dead or murdered animal?
But "akheehi" is not the brother of the dead. Neither of the two in "akhihi his brother" refers to the victim
The pronoun here (hi his) is not related to the dead, nor is "akh". The "akh" is the accused and the suffixed pronoun is the one who should get the compensation.
It mentions "al qisas" for "al qatla" (the slain), which is a self-contained explanation, then states "faman.............XYZ etc". If it went directly to compensation, then what is the reason for stating "al qisas", because compensation is not "al qisas".
The root is (qaaf saad saad). From this root we have "qasas stories telling accounts of a past event", and "qas-sa to come nearer to something" and "taqaassaa (the two) to settle accounts. Nowhere does it mean "to punish". Settling accounts is always with someone alive, not dead.
That would be exceeding "al qisas".
I agree. Like setting too high a price.
Not sure of this question's relevance, but I would assume it would be the state.
The relevance is that in the verse the guardian of the "killed" is ordered not to exaggerate in the "qasaas" the price.
By citing 1874, I was showing how Moses' first reaction was to state the law that you cannot kill unless the person has killed.
I know. But Moses first reaction to every action proved to be wrong. The account of what happened (qissa ;D) was told to us in order to learn from the wise man, not from Moses.
-
peace Samia, all,
And I did not mean all 3 together, but any one to classify people in case of responsibilities or rights without making explanation as to why.
Thanks for clarifying. I do not see why the underlined part has to be stated alongside the people classification. The words "al hurru" "al AAabdu "al ontha" are used to describe their status. I dont see it as more than that.
What's the meaning of "the slave for the slave, the free for the free and the female for the female"?
There are only a few possibilities in my mind, but once you provide me with an accurate rendering of the passage then I will be in a better position to give my opinion. See below
But "akheehi" is not the brother of the dead. Neither of the two in "akhihi his brother" refers to the victim
The pronoun here (hi his) is not related to the dead, nor is "akh". The "akh" is the accused and the suffixed pronoun is the one who should get the compensation.
Can you clarify by providing an accurate translation of 2178 with the theoretical possibilities NOT your specific understanding. Thanks.
Nowhere does it mean "to punish".
I did not mean that. I meant it is always used in the context of "equivalent/likeness in settlement", e.g. 2178, 2179, 2194, 545.
The relevance is that in the verse the guardian of the "killed" is ordered not to exaggerate in the "qasaas" the price.
In 1733, they are asked not to exaggerate in "al qatli", not "qasaas".
-
Salaam Wakas
Thanks for clarifying. I do not see why the underlined part has to be stated alongside the people classification. The words "al hurru" "al AAabdu "al ontha" are used to describe their status. I dont see it as more than that.
Why do we need their status? They are dead= they are nufuus (pl. of nafs). Again
There are only a few possibilities in my mind, but once you provide me with an accurate rendering of the passage then I will be in a better position to give my opinion. See below
It's in the animal kingdom that we have different values for the free (of noble pedigree), slave (for serviyude and labour) and female (for reproduction). A free for a free compensation equals to the value of a free (of a noble pedigree) animal...etc
Can you clarify by providing an accurate translation of 2178 with the theoretical possibilities NOT your specific understanding. Thanks.
I do not understand what you exactly mean by an accurate translation which is not mine. I do not like any translation because they all take it as people.
As for the two being alive, we have the pronoun in (adaa'un ilaihi) which refers to the first person (you assume to be the victim, I assume to be the owner of the dead animal), because one is giving and the other is receiving.This is the official translation of King Fahd Complex "...But if the killer is forgiven by the brother of the killed..."
3ufya here cannot mean forgiven. Forgive takes the proposition "3an" if it is about a person, (or if a direct object it will be something such as sin). Here the verb does not have a preposition. It takes a direct object shay'un something (in the nominative because 3ufya is passive). This shay'un is what is 3ufya, not a person. It means deleted/perished. My understanding of this part is If someone has something perished by his brother, then there should be adhering to what's known (itbaa3un bil ma3rouf) and payment to him in the best manner (wa adaa'un ilaihi bi ihsaan)
-
peace Samia,
Can you clarify by providing an accurate translation of 2178 with the theoretical possibilities NOT your specific understanding.
I just meant a translation with the theoretical possibilities, e.g. if word A can refer to X AND Y, then state so, dont only say X, even if X is your view, give me all the possible options, so I can see for myself.
I think you have clarified it though, here and there in bits, but not all in one place, so I will need some time to review it, as it'ss significantly different from other translations ive read.
-
peace Samia,
I will try to summarise and clarify
You translated 1733 as
"If some one is unjustly killed, we gave his ruler/governer authoritative power (to punish/decide what's apropriate..etc), but then he should not kill".
Then translated it as this
"do not exaggerate in killing/do not be extravagent with killing"
Then this
The relevance is that in the verse the guardian of the "killed" is ordered not to exaggerate in the "qasaas" the price.
Please clarify.
Re 2178
As for the two being alive, we have the pronoun in (adaa'un ilaihi) which refers to the first person (you assume to be the victim, I assume to be the owner of the dead animal), because one is giving and the other is receiving.
By your use of "assume" do you mean both of the underlined options are possible?
3ufya here cannot mean forgiven. Forgive takes the proposition "3an" if it is about a person, (or if a direct object it will be something such as sin). Here the verb does not have a preposition.
Let's say it doesn't mean forgiven, could it take its other meanings, e.g. forgo/remit/relinquish?
It (3ufya) means deleted/perished.
That is a possible meaning, but it is not used like this anywhere else in AQ as far as I'm aware.
Has the word "hurr" been used in AQ to describe an animal?
Has the word "AAabd" been used in AQ to describe an animal? -
peace Samia,
I will try to summarise and clarify
You translated 1733 as
Then translated it as thisThen this
Please clarify.
Salaam Wakas
These translations are out of context
Also, there is no "just limits" in the Arabic text, only "do not exaggerate in killing/do not be extravagent with killing"; which could be understood as "do not kill", because one killing is one too many (like killing all mankind). The verse says "his guardian". Is his guardian supposed to carry out the execution? Again, a support for "do not kill".
This is not necessarily how I understand it. I am giving the literal translation to clarify a different point.
How is "exceed the just limit in slaying"? Not to kill his/her family too, for example?
Also, there is no "just limits" in the Arabic text, only "do not exaggerate in killing/do not be extravagent with killing"; which could be understood as "do not kill", because one killing is one too many (like killing all mankind). The verse says "his guardian". Is his guardian supposed to carry out the execution? Again, a support for "do not kill".Same here. Emphasis on a different point. I did not change my understanding that this verse is not about murdered people, but about killed animals.
The relevance is that in the verse the guardian of the "killed" is ordered not to exaggerate in the "qasaas" the price.
I meant that since in the classical understanding the relative of the killed is the one who would carry out /accept or reject/decide the excution, it cannot be a correct understanding because it is contrary to the way of the qur'aan. To conform to the way of the qur'aan AND keep this understanding, the address should be in the plural (to the community/the authoity) just like the address in the punishment of zina and stealing.
By your use of "assume" do you mean both of the underlined options are possible?
No, I do not mean that. I meant that the subject I am talking about is the one I refer to as the owner of the killed animals but you refer to as the victim.
Let's say it doesn't mean forgiven, could it take its other meanings, e.g. forgo/remit/relinquish?
This is one of its meanings (linked to forgive someone=forgo the sin), but it will not fit here. If he forgoes, relinquish, why is the other person asked to pay? (If he relinquishes..., then payment...)
That is a possible meaning, but it is not used like this anywhere else in AQ as far as I'm aware.
The verb itself is not used in the passive elsewhere in the qur'aan, nor is the active verb with the prepositions "min" and "li"
Has the word "hurr" been used in AQ to describe an animal?
Has the word "AAabd" been used in AQ to describe an animal?Hurr is neither used for animals, nor for humans elsewhere.
Abd, apart from being understood as (abdullah), is used as (3abdan mamluukan) once in verse 1675
