what crimes are punishable by death in al quran?
-
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 -
peace Samia,
I will try again
Re 1733
You are saying it literally says "do not exaggerate in killing/do not be extravagent with killing" but your interpretation/understanding is different. You then say about 1733I did not change my understanding that this verse is not about murdered people, but about killed animals.
But earlier you asked me (in support of your position that 2178 is about animals as it did not use "nafs"
Where has God spoken of a dead or a murdered person but in terms of "nafs"?
In 1733, the word is clearly "nafs". So, according to you "nafs" can be used for animals as well as humans now. Which is it?
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.
I have not researched the new plural issue stated above BUT when one cites conformity to the way of AQ, they must also admit that the word "hurr" is never used for animals (note verb form 2 refers to humans only and never animals) and even though "AAabd" is used many times it is never for an animal, thus your usage of them does not conform with AQ. I do not understand your reference of 1675, please clarify.
If he forgoes, relinquish, why is the other person asked to pay? (If he relinquishes..., then payment...)
He would be foregoing/relinquishing "qisas", hence compensation is then discussed.
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"
I agree that form is not used elswhere but also no other form of the root is used to mean "perished/deleted" in AQ.
-
Salaam Wakas
My previous reply was ALL based on 2178. I am sorry I was a bit neligence, but also I could not go through all my previous posts (and yours) to read the context. I did not consider 1733 in my last reply. But yes, this verse cannot be about murder for two reasons
-
"Israaf exaggeration, excess" in killing is meaningless. How much more is "israaf"? Maybe two unemployed are fair for the one who was working, or three supporting three families are worth one who was supporting three families! There is no explanation of how much "israaf" is. The word means "too much". Can you define how much is too much?
There doesn't even seem to be a strong prohibition like (whoever does this will get the wrath of God) for example, so no consequences in this world nor in the next. It doesn't, at least, remind that the "extra" killing falls within (killing not by "haq" -
It shows that the family, or nearest of kin of the victim, are allowed to take the law in their hands.
Maybe this is the logic of people in Upper Egypt where they would kill more than one for their victim, since it is not said it is forbidden...just "laa israaf" and they would think it is not "israaf" to kill two or more for their dear victim.
the word "hurr" is never used for animals (note verb form 2 refers to humans only and never animals)
Nor is it used for humans. As for the verb, unless you can change an animal from a state of "animal for servitude" to "animal of noble pedigree", and unless animals can be POW or just prisoners, we will not find "free =verb" for animals.
"AAabd" is used many times
Yes, always in relation to God, and does not mean "slave". Only one incident, as I previously mentioned, where it says "abdan mamluukan", thus denoting a slave, and it was in an example, not a ligislation.
He would be foregoing/relinquishing "qisas", hence compensation is then discussed.
Is it up to a person to forgive punishing a person who is doomed to hell? Can one forgive a wife, for example, caught in adultry to save her from being punished? Can I forgive a thief caught stealing my property? My understanding of punishment in the qur'aan is that it concerns crimes against the society. That's why many unlawful things that do not diectly affect the society have no punishment.
I agree that form is not used elswhere but also no other form of the root is used to mean "perished/deleted" in AQ
It's not just the form, but the different preposition which moves it from the meaning of "forgive".
-
-
Salaam Wakas
What intrigued me in this verse is not the usage of "3ufya" or "3abd" or any other word (although I can argue all of them", but the idea of "a slave for a slave, a free for a free, a female for a female". If someone does not want compensation, are they allowed to kill the like of the murdered? Say the chief of the tribe killed my mother, shall I seek the mother of the chief, or any other female, and have her pay for that? If not (and of course it is not), then what's the point of mentioning these categories with "qasaas", if "qasaas" means, according to you, retaliation?
If it is for compensation, do "nufuus" have different values? If so, how different? Are we starting from the most expensive to the least expensive (hurr> 3abd> female)? Is the nafs of a free female less than the nafs of a free male and of a male slave? Is "female" free or slave? Can we even have such discussion in the qur'aan?
-
peace Samia,
My previous reply was ALL based on 2178.
Thanks for clarifying.
Can you define how much is too much?
Yes, if we read other related verses in context, you will find none stating or implying one can kill anyone but the killer/guilty, and the wording used is "qisas" which is always used in context of "equivalent/likeness in settlement/exchange", not something more than the original. Secondly, to kill other than the killer would go against the entire ethos of AQ which never discusses punishing those not directly guilty.
It shows that the family, or nearest of kin of the victim, are allowed to take the law in their hands.
No it does not. To apply such a penalty for this crime and any other, it would have to be done under a judicial system. That is why it talks about involvement of others/community.
Yes, always in relation to God, and does not mean "slave".
What do you feel it means?
Is it up to a person to forgive punishing a person who is doomed to hell?
If you are implying we cannot punish those doomed to hell in all cases then this is impractical to have as a system. See below.
My understanding of punishment in the qur'aan is that it concerns crimes against the society. That's why many unlawful things that do not diectly affect the society have no punishment.
Seems reasonable. For sake of argument say this is the case, then murder would surely be a candidate for affecting the society! You could not let a murderer go simply because they are "doomed to hell" unless the victim's authority/family forgave them entirely, i.e. no death penalty, no compensation.
What intrigued me in this verse is not the usage of "3ufya" or "3abd" or any other word (although I can argue all of them", but the idea of "a slave for a slave, a free for a free, a female for a female". If someone does not want compensation, are they allowed to kill the like of the murdered? Say the chief of the tribe killed my mother, shall I seek the mother of the chief, or any other female, and have her pay for that? If not (and of course it is not), then what's the point of mentioning these categories with "qasaas", if "qasaas" means, according to you, retaliation?
This was the same thing that intruiged me. I have not studied this subject before (as it does not affect me) hence asking the question originally. It is hard to make a decision on what it means without having clarified the actual translation of the verse first, but I did come across the following
Equivalence is the Law
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.At first glance, it does seem unusual, but that does not mean it's not true. When I originally asked the question it was for another project I am working on, which needed to list what was punishable by death penalty in AQ. I did not consider that the death penalty may not even be an option.
To clarify, do you agree that the death penalty is allowed for "corruption in the land"?
-
Salaam Wakas
No it does not. To apply such a penalty for this crime and any other, it would have to be done under a judicial system. That is why it talks about involvement of others/community
Which part of the verse 1733 involves the community in condemning the killer to capital punishment? It's the guardianwali of the victim. Isn't the community "wali" of the killer too?
What do you feel it means?
I believe it means one at the service of God in what He created us for Khalifas/representatives/second to Him in applying His commands on this earth. We have the free will to do it or not to do it. Its plural is "3ibaad". The only verse that used the plural "3abeed", plural for slaves with no free will, is "inna/unna Allaha laisa bizallamin lil3abeed God is not unjust to the slaves", (3183; 851;2210) , "wa maa rabbuka bizallamin lil3abeed your Lor is not unjust to the slaves" 4146 and "wa maa Anaa bizallaamin llil3abeed I am not.." 5029. 3abeed in these verses also contains those who are forced/complelled to be, or not to be,at the service of God.
If you are implying we cannot punish those doomed to hell in all cases then this is impractical to have as a system. See below.
That's not what I meant when I said "doomed to hell". I meant such a gross crime that the one who commits it is doomed to hell.
Seems reasonable. For sake of argument say this is the case, then murder would surely be a candidate for affecting the society! You could not let a murderer go simply because they are "doomed to hell" unless the victim's authority/family forgave them entirely, i.e. no death penalty, no compensation.
I will ignore the second part of your post as I clarified it. I did not say that killing is not the business of the society. On the contrary, it IS the business of the society and that's why God stated a punishment for it. Therefore there is no place for an individual to decide what punishment to be apllied or to forgive. I gave examples of other crimes punishable by the society and where there was no room for forgiveness by individuals or choice of punishment.
By accepting compensation you also let them go. So letting a murderer go is not NOT an option.
This was the same thing that intruiged me. I have not studied this subject before (as it does not affect me)
Of course it does not affect you, since you/your family get the full compensation (under "Islamic" law", and is applied), if you, God forbids, got killed in such a community or lost a finger or any organ. As for us, women (slaves exist no more), we only get half price. So, for the price of one male, kill two females. We are on permanent sale/offer!
To clarify, do you agree that the death penalty is allowed for "corruption in the land"?
"Corruption in/of the Earth" is more literal. Have we even agreed on what constitutes "Corruption of /in the Earth"?
Of course, this is like "self defence" and is explicitly expressed as one of two conditions where killing a nafs is lawful. I won't call it "death penalty", not yet. It is killing in defence of the earth. -
I will ignore the second part of your post as I clarified it. I did not say that killing is not the business of the society. On the contrary, it IS the business of the society and that's why God stated a punishment for it. Therefore there is no place for an individual to decide what punishment to be apllied or to forgive. I gave examples of other crimes punishable by the society and where there was no room for forgiveness by individuals or choice of punishment.
By accepting compensation you also let them go. So letting a murderer go is not NOT an option.
I'm not clear on the society definition. Is it defined as the Juridical system or the People itself? if it is the people so there is no need of any juridical system? So there will be no judge? Just people's voice? who should lead then? The individual (in my understanding is the victim)?
For me, i am more to the soft side, if there is a room for the killer to repent, i prefer he/she to repent rather than kill.
Edit
In case of if that person is "doomed to hell" or not, that is for God to decide, He knows better.Peace handshake
-
I'm not clear on the society definition. Is it defined as the Juridical system or the People itself? if it is the people so there is no need of any juridical system? So there will be no judge? Just people's voice? who should lead then? The individual (in my understanding is the victim)?
Any of the above as appropriate, but not the individual. Besides, in murder crimes the victim is dead (of course ;D), so no room for even a family member to decide what to do about the killer.
-
Ok so we let the judge (or any leader who the people consider wise) decide... But is the victim's family or close relatives has the right to decide too?
I think it has been applied already as the civil law right? No? sorry if i'm not correct.. just my logical thoughts...
Peace handshake
-
I must ask again on this thread, why is it that so many think that God needs any help punishing the guilty?
Self defense is the only reason for fighting and killing, but that is where it ends, the Quran is clear
God has Hell to deliver why should we help Him?
