18:74 Promotes Honor Killing?
-
He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
37I understand it to be a parable for Moses and for us. The lesson is not question what God does when you have no knowledge. If you read in context as you should always do it says earlier
So they found one of Our servants, on whom We had bestowed Mercy from Ourselves and whom We had taught knowledge from Our own Presence.
1865There are several references to "People of knowledge" in the Qur'an. They came to Abraham and told him that they were going to destroy the People of Lot but save his household. I'm not sure who exactly it is but if God has revealed it to be so then it is. Only people who want to "honour kill" will see that as an invitation hence the 37 quote I gave first therefore they will perpetrate what they wanted to perpetrate and end up where they want to. We know the laws God has sent down about murder in cold blood and they are repeated throughout the Qur'an. If you take all the related verses together you come to the correct meaning. That is the best way to read the Qur'an. Only those who wish to slander and degrade the Qur'an make verses stand alone without any context. Its for you to find out for youself to justify or refute that claim. You have a brain and reasoning so find it in the Qur'an.
Peace -
How is this verse related to "honor killing"? It's more related to pre-emtive strike. If you have a knowledge from God and you are sure 100% that a certain person is going to commit a serious crime, then go and kill this person! The question is who has a 100% knowledge of the future?
The way I read this verse and other related ones in chapter 18 is that things are not as they seem to be. The most devastating crisis could have in its folds lots of mercy " ...You may hate something whereas it is good for you; and you may love something whereasit is bad for you, and God knows and you do not" 2216
-
peace Nadeem, all,
It is the only time I have seen the Quran condone a pre-emptive strike.
Does it actually condone it? The Quran mentions stoning to death... does that mean it condones it?
Do these verses discuss laws in the usual format of Al Quran, or is it told in a story/parable format?
Doesn't the companion of Moses spell out the story right from the start when he says "And how can you have patience in that of which you have not got a comprehensive knowledge?"? We do not have comprehensive knowledge, making us Moses in this story.
If it is condoning pre-emptive strike or honour killing why is Moses' first reaction to say "Have you slain an innocent person otherwise than for manslaughter? Certainly you have done an evil thing."? Did Moses not know God's law?
-
Peace Wakas,
I see where you are coming from, and I'm leaning towards that position myself. However, there is one thing that needs to be resolved. The "executioner" is described in the quran as "a servant of Ours whom We had given him mercy from Us and We taught him knowledge from Us" . So if you pull out Moses' condemnation, then you must also consider the fact this servant is also someone who has knowledge of "Gods law", so why did he do it?
Do these verses discuss laws in the usual format of Al Quran, or is it told in a story/parable format?
I don't see the practical difference.
The Quran mentions stoning to death... does that mean it condones it?
No, of course, bro. I never used such faulty logic in my post. The only reason I think that the Quran condones a pre-emptive strike in that verse is the way that the Quran portrays the killer. He is described as a "servant of god", and his role in the story is that of a mysterious wise guru. How come the Quran shows such a regards for this person that killed an innocent?
For the record, I don't see any "honor killing" in this verse either.
I also believe that the Quran is against pre-emptive strikes.Nadeem
-
peace Nadeem,
Re my stoning to death comparison
I didn't mean to imply your logic was faulty, just to highlight the point that simply mentioning something does not imply condoning it.The practical difference lies in what we can conclude from it. From my studies of AQ, there is definitely a difference when it states laws in a no nonsense list type manner and delivers it via a story (IF it indeed does this). It is like saying, based on this story, every time we see a damaged structure/wall we have to repair it. Clearly, this does not make sense.
Even though I read it as a parable, lets say its taken literally as in it happened, then AQ states the servant had knowledge from God, which means he did have complete knowledge of these particular things. Can these circumstances be repeated by anyone alive today? Not in my opinion. If one wants to take it literally, they will have to claim knowledge from God to carry out a pre-emptive strike.
A servant serves the master, and for me, he served up a lesson, which is what I believe the master intended.
-
Peace Wakas,
The practical difference lies in what we can conclude from it. From my studies of AQ, there is definitely a difference when it states laws in a no nonsense list type manner and delivers it via a story (IF it indeed does this). It is like saying, based on this story, every time we see a damaged structure/wall we have to repair it. Clearly, this does not make sense.
I agree. But, is it not to be expected of people to start making law of the words uttered, and deeds done, by those given knowledge by god himself?
Even though I read it as a parable, lets say its taken literally as in it happened, then AQ states the servant had knowledge from God, which means he did have complete knowledge of these particular things. Can these circumstances be repeated by anyone alive today? Not in my opinion. If one wants to take it literally, they will have to claim knowledge from God to carry out a pre-emptive strike.
Whether or not these events took place is completely irrelevant, and it is even more irrelevant whether or not these events can be replicated again today. What is relevant is the status in Islam of a person who killed an innocent boy. In all cases in Islam such a person has a low status, except, it seems, in this particular story. Take Pharaoh. He was condemned by the Quran for doing the exact same thing as this guru (249). Pharaoh not only claimed knowledge from God, he claimed to be god himself!
Honestly, Brother, don't you think that you are setting the bar for killing innocents really, really low when you say that all you need to do first is to claim knowledge from god?
And am I right in that some president went to war with another country, a pre-emptive strike, because he claimed god wanted him to?
What would you have done if you met some guy claiming knowledge from god that was just about to kill someone? Would you stand idly by because he had claimed knowledge from god?
You suggest that there is another way of looking at this. What way?
A servant serves the master, and for me, he served up a lesson, which is what I believe the master intended
What is this lesson?
Peace,
Nadeem
-
<<What is this lesson?>>
Follow the guidance(Wahy) from God instead of your instinct.
-
Like Moses' doesn't your instinct tells you that whatever his companion did was wrong? Your instinct can make you do sth or believe that sth is true, even though it is not based on facts or reason. His instinct didn't tell him to kill that boy... "1882 - and I did not do it of my own accord"
-
Reading the Qur'an and taking the best out of it. Then God will judge you according to how you applied the Qur'an to your life. The difference would be just following ones ego/desires and not looking to the Qur'an for guidance.
I understand the lesson to mean, there are some things in the world that are difficult to take, suffering/famine/war/hatred and we may ask God why? I believe God is saying that you are bound to ask these things but there is a bigger picture that only God can see. He imparted some of that knowledge on this man, and he carried out his "duties" as a servant with knowledge. It's not an excuse for people to kill innocents or to commit honour killings because no one will be given divine knowledge or revelation after Muhammad. So no one can go around saying God told them to do this.Their guidance is solely in the Qur'an, which tells them to only oppose oppression, to kill/fight for justice and to kill in retribution for a kill (where forgiveness is greater). This is what should be followed. Looking to this for a reason to commit honour killing is the same as people using "seize and kill them wherever you find them" to mean kill everyone who is not devoted to God. When this is only referring to oppressive persecutors and it is also said "there is no compulsion in this religion". Everything should be looked at together and not pulled out alone. Conclusively my understanding of sura 18 is it consists of parables whose overall meaning does not lie in the murder of the innocent (who was to become a transgressor - whom only God knew about) but in the following of God's guidance and to bear patiently the terrible things that may happen in the World, because only God knows truly the purpose, and He does not have to answer for His actions.
-
Like Moses' doesn't your instinct tells you that whatever his companion did was wrong? Your instinct can make you do sth or believe that sth is true, even though it is not based on facts or reason. His instinct didn't tell him to kill that boy... "1882 - and I did not do it of my own accord"
Everything you just said about instincts applies equally to "wahy" or guidance.
-
You mean Wahy can also make us do or believe sth which is not true?
-
When I said Wahy, I meant Wahy and not any kind of delusion. Thanks for explaining at last...
-
I agree. But, is it not to be expected of people to start making law of the words uttered, and deeds done, by those given knowledge by god himself?
It's possible some will take it like this, and I dont think it's an unreasonable expectation. A bit like "give the excess" it is reasonable to expect some to be stingy and pretend they need more than they need thus give less excess. I am of the opinion (and I could argue AQ backs me up with 37) that AQ has internal distinguishing mechanisms, that will serve to expose an individual's true character.
Whether or not these events took place is completely irrelevant, and it is even more irrelevant whether or not these events can be replicated again today.
It is relevant if they actually took place or not, because if they did, then this raises questions and will provide us with an opportunity to weigh up the evidence on how to take this story.
Also, it is totally relevant if these events can be replicated or not, because if they cant, then this would go against AQ's significant preference for logic and practicality, again providing us with an opportunity to weigh up the evidence on how to take this story.What is relevant is the status in Islam of a person who killed an innocent boy. In all cases in Islam such a person has a low status, except, it seems, in this particular story. Take Pharaoh. He was condemned by the Quran for doing the exact same thing as this guru (249). Pharaoh not only claimed knowledge from God, he claimed to be god himself!
Claiming to have knowledge from God is different to God stating He gave a certain servant knowledge. One is a claim, the other is a fact, if we assume God exists and AQ is the Word of God. The example you brought of Pharaoh is different in the sense that Pharoah most likely did not know anything about how the children would turn out, and was doing it for oppressive/scare tactics/authority/punishment reasons. Let's say one feels there is a contradiction, the contradiction is only for those who wish to take such a law from the story. I dont.
Honestly, Brother, don't you think that you are setting the bar for killing innocents really, really low when you say that all you need to do first is to claim knowledge from god?
I have a strong preference for individual accountability (which AQ also has), so if a person wants to claim knowledge from God and kills, not only would they have to prove it in a court of law (Quranic or otherwise), which of course would be impossible (hence saying earlier this story gives us an unrepeatable circumstance, making the case for extracting a law from this story extremely weak) but they will also face God for their actions. I'm happy with that.
And am I right in that some president went to war with another country, a pre-emptive strike, because he claimed god wanted him to?
A person can claim all they want, there is no escaping Judgement Day when we will all face the truth.
What would you have done if you met some guy claiming knowledge from god that was just about to kill someone? Would you stand idly by because he had claimed knowledge from god?
I would have a hundred questions. It is likely they would be unable to prove such a claim, thus if I could prevent such a killing I would. It seems Moses was not in a position to prevent it, thus if I knew God's law, which I assume Moses did, then my reaction would be the same as Moses.
You suggest that there is another way of looking at this. What way?
As a parable, or at the very least a story that happened with the servant being a messenger of God sent to teach Moses a lesson, one that we cannot extract laws from, but extract the lesson. In fact, it is obvious the servant was not sent to teach Moses law, as he never corrected him, nor stated any law but told him the interpretation of the events. That's a very roundabout way of inserting a law!
The lesson is as soof basically said. We have incomplete knowledge, thus in such a situation, have patience.
It is a bit like the story of the boy who cried wolf......... I bet after being told this story some asked "what was the boy's name?". It's a story with a message, it may or may not have actually taken place.
-
An Islamophobe pointed out to me that Quran 1874 promotes honor killing and to be honest it seems kinda true. So is it?
Salaams,
Wern't we all blind following the blind at one time.
Qatal isn?t always death of a person but can be death of badness-put someone down, putting end to something- like in other languages.
634,854
Should bullying be allowed until it causes an injury or stopped even before that?
kill
? verb 1 cause the death of. 2 put an end to. 3 informal overwhelm with an emotion. 4 informal cause pain or anguish to. 5 pass (time). 6 stop (a computing process). 7 (in sport) make (the ball) stop.
? noun 1 an act of killing, especially of one animal by another. 2 an animal or animals killed by a hunter or another animal. 3 informal an act of destroying an enemy aircraft or vessel.
? PHRASES be in at the kill be present at or benefit from the successful conclusion of an enterprise. kill two birds with one stone proverb achieve two aims at once. kill with kindness spoil (someone) with overindulgence.- And Moussa said to his people "O my people, you have wronged your souls by taking the calf, so repent to your Maker, and kill yourselves. That is better for you with your Maker, so He would forgive you. He is the Forgiving, the Merciful."
So is killing here physical?
And in the following
?O you who believe, do not consume your money between you unjustly, except through a trade which is mutually agreed by you. And do not kill yourselves; God is Merciful towards you. And whoever does so out of animosity and transgression, We will cast him to a Fire; and this for God is very easy.? (Quran 429-30)
God Bless Us All.
-
Let's say one feels there is a contradiction, the contradiction is only for those who wish to take such a law from the story. I dont.
I would like to add to the above as it is not fully correct. A case could aslo be made for it being a contradiction even if one doesn't take law from it, e.g. AQ condones it in one example yet condems it in another. Of course, a solid case would involve the exact same situation with only the condemnation/condoning of it being different, when in this case there are more differences.
