Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iceberger)
    "It's always best to read a whole paragraph or chapter to understand what the author is saying"


    'And recite to them the story of the two sons of Adam truthfully. When they both offered a sacrifice, then it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other. He said, '1 will kill you!' He said, "Allah accepts only from the God-fearing. [27] If you stretch your hand towards me to kill me, I am not going to stretch my hand towards you to kill you. Of course, I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds. [28] I would rather have you earn my sin and your sin and then become one of the people of the Fire. And that is the punishment of the unjust!' [29] His self, however, prompted him to kill his brother, so he killed him and became one of the losers. [30] Then, Allah sent a crow who was scratching the earth to show him how he should hide the corpse of his brother. He said, "Alas! Was I not even able to be like this crow so that I could hide the corpse of my brother? So, he stood regretful. [31] For this reason, We prescribed for the children of Isra'il that whoever kills a person not (to retaliate) for a person killed nor (to punish) for spreading disorder in the earth, is as if he has killed the whole mankind, and whoever saves the life of a person is as if he has saved the life of the whole mankind. And certainly, Our messengers have come to them with clear signs. Then, after all that, many of them are there to commit excesses on the earth.'[32]
    (5: 27-32)

    The previous verses (5: 20-26) describe how the israelites turned out to be cowardly and evasive when they disobeyed a divine command, so they were made to wander the valley for 40 yrs as punishment. In contrast the above verses narrate the story of abel and cain to condemn unjust killing and the destruction it brings in its wake. "We prescribed for the children of Isra'il that whoever kills a person not (to retaliate) for a person killed nor (to punish) for spreading disorder in the earth" - you mentioned 'mischief' or 'spreading disorder' is vague but this point is clarified in the next verses.

    'Those who fight against Allah and His Messenger and run about trying to spread disorder in the earth, their punishment is nothing but that they shall be killed off or be crucified or their hands and legs be cut apart from different sides or they be kept away from the land (they live in). That is a humiliation for them in this world, and for them in the Hereafter there is a great punishment; [33] except those who repent before you overpower them. Then, be sure that Allah is Most- Forgiving, Very-Merciful.' [34] (5: 33-34)

    To understand the context of the verses you have to read an authentic commentary written by scholars who have dedicated their lives to understanding the quran. In the above verses are mentioned the legal punishments for killing, plundering, robbery and theft.

    1. What does 'fighting' (Muharubah) against Allah and His Messenger and spreading disorder in the earth mean, and to whom does this apply? The word, Muhzrabah is derived from Harb and intrinsically means to wrest or snatch away. In Arabic usage, it is used against Salrn which means peace aid security. Thus, we can see that, the sense of Harb (fight) is the spreading of disorder. It is obvious that rare incidents of theft or killing and plundering do not cause public Peace to be disturbed. In fact, this happens only when a powerful group stands up to carry out acts of robbery, killing and plundering. Therefore, according to Muslim jurists, the punishment in this verse is meant for a group or an individual who robs people and breaks the law of the land by the force of arms. This will not include those who indulge in common individual crimes such as thieves and pick-pockets. (Tafsir Mazhari)

    2. The second point worth noticing in this verse is that Muharabah' (fighting) of the criminals is said to be against Allah and His Messenger, though the confrontation or fighting waged by robbers and rebels is apparently against human beings. The reason is that a powerful group when it elects to break the Law given by Allah and His blessed Messenger with force, it is really at war with the government, even though they are obviously carrying out their aggression against common human beings. But, when the government itself is Islamic, a government which subscribes to and enforces the Law of Allah and His Messenger, this act of 'fighting' (Muhgrabah) will invariably be regarded as being 'against' Allah and His Messenger.

    Furthermore the whole commentary that details on the punishments is very lengthy and explains in detail why they are such. I do not wish to post here because it will turn the post into an article but if you are interested read an authentic commentary such as 'ibn kathir's' or 'maariful quran'.

    So in reply 'whoever preserves a life' is not nullified.
    I Googled fasad (the word for mischief or corruption) and found this http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...sk=view&id=436 It is from a scholar called Ibn Kathir. "The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir is of the most respected and accepted explanations for the Quran and is the most widely used explanations in Arabic used today." You said that to understant it you must refer to a proper scholar. The most respected scholar says fasad means "mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth." I then looked at his explanation for the other verses and he says that wage warr against Allah and his Messengers means "`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherub012)
    How do you know the definition of "perfect" constitutes to not being open to interpretation?

    What if I say the opposite?
    Perfect means that it cant be any better for its purpose. If a guide leads to two people arguing about where it is directing you then it could be made better.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guided1)
    The Quran is Allah's final and perfect guide for mankind. If it has stories that only apply to something that happened 1000 years ago then it is flawed.

    It says that crucifixion is a punishment for spreading mischief. Either you think that it still applies which is a flaw because it is a barbaric punishment for a minor crime, or you think that it doesnt apply any more which is a flaw becuase it means that it isnt perfect.

    The verse after states that certain people should be killed so it is contradictory so it is flawed.

    So is the author saying that people guilty of spreading mischief can be crucified or not? You claim it is perfect so you must be able to give me a definite answer.
    1. If a similar scenario and context applies today to what happened then, then things becomes applicable.

    2. It isn't a flaw - you are placing your subjective morals defined by the your Western 21st Century upbringing above the absolute morality of God which doesn't change. Therefore calling it "barbaric" as an emotive argument is worthless.

    3. In a caliphate, crucifixion is a valid punishment. The context of the verse was when people came to the Prophet (SAW) as Muslims, they were given provisions and looked after till they were cured from sickness, but then they abandoned Islam, tortured and blinded and killed a shephard, and drove away his flock - these were the mischevious ones who waged war against God and His messenger who the verse was revealed about. Punishments can only be carried out by a representative of the court, not anyone.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guided1)
    Perfect means that it cant be any better for its purpose. If a guide leads to two people arguing about where it is directing you then it could be made better.
    I agree with that definition.

    What if it is meant for people to have differing interpretations? The word "guide" is vague. One can follow a guide in their own unique way. You see it in religion, influential people in the past etc.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    1. If a similar scenario and context applies today to what happened then, then things becomes applicable.

    2. It isn't a flaw - you are placing your subjective morals defined by the your Western 21st Century upbringing above the absolute morality of God which doesn't change. Therefore calling it "barbaric" as an emotive argument is worthless.

    3. In a caliphate, crucifixion is a valid punishment. The context of the verse was when people came to the Prophet (SAW) as Muslims, they were given provisions and looked after till they were cured from sickness, but then they abandoned Islam, tortured and blinded and killed a shephard, and drove away his flock - these were the mischevious ones who waged war against God and His messenger who the verse was revealed about. Punishments can only be carried out by a representative of the court, not anyone.
    what would you say is a similar scenario and context today then?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cupcakes87)
    what would you say is a similar scenario and context today then?
    The first we must note is that this is a punishment reserved for brigands, cut throats, and highwaymen. In other words those who kill pillage and murder.
    Then we must also realise that these are options including banishment from the lands. Thirdly that the final say/choice of option would be down to the wali/emir.
    A smilar scenario today would be the fighters of isis when caught and tried under shariah.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherub012)
    I agree with that definition.

    What if it is meant for people to have differing interpretations? The word "guide" is vague. One can follow a guide in their own unique way. You see it in religion, influential people in the past etc.
    This doesn't make sense. Kind of by definition, if God is sending down an instruction manual on how to live life then there must be one sole way he wants you to live it, otherwise the very concept of a manual and divine rules completely lose their meaning.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    This doesn't make sense. Kind of by definition, if God is sending down an instruction manual on how to live life then there must be one sole way he wants you to live it, otherwise the very concept of a manual and divine rules completely lose their meaning.
    Why one sole way? Why not variations of it? As long as you somehow follow it I don't see how it stops acting as a guide; it's actually still following its purpose.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherub012)
    Why one sole way? Why not variations of it? As long as you somehow follow it I don't see how it stops acting as a guide; it's actually still following its purpose.
    If they're variations of it then by definition, there are no set rules, so therefore it isn't an instruction manual. If God wanted variations of ways to be followed then the differences would have been clearly outlined, and they're not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    1. If a similar scenario and context applies today to what happened then, then things becomes applicable.

    2. It isn't a flaw - you are placing your subjective morals defined by the your Western 21st Century upbringing above the absolute morality of God which doesn't change. Therefore calling it "barbaric" as an emotive argument is worthless.

    3. In a caliphate, crucifixion is a valid punishment. The context of the verse was when people came to the Prophet (SAW) as Muslims, they were given provisions and looked after till they were cured from sickness, but then they abandoned Islam, tortured and blinded and killed a shephard, and drove away his flock - these were the mischevious ones who waged war against God and His messenger who the verse was revealed about. Punishments can only be carried out by a representative of the court, not anyone.
    1. So Muslim leaders can crucify people who commit fasad and you are happy with that.
    2. You only think crucifixion isnt barbaric because the Quran allows it and it cant be barbaric if it is in the Quran because the Quran in perfect. Thats called circular logic. The whole point of crucifixion is that it is terrifying and painful so by saying that it isnt
    barbaric defeats the object of using it.
    3. The Quran says that crucifixion is a punishment for waging war on Allah and for fasad. It doesn't say that it is a punishment for sheep stealing and murder.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    The first we must note is that this is a punishment reserved for brigands, cut throats, and highwaymen. In other words those who kill pillage and murder.
    Where does it say this? The Quran says it is a punishment for spreading mischief. Famous scholars say that spreading mischief means disobeying Gods laws.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guided1)
    Where does it say this
    -Known as ''hadd al'hirabaah'' by unanimous agreement of all shcolars across all schools
    - If you have a look at 'asbaab al nuzuul'' reason of revelation was about brigands who killed unarmed muslims.
    -throughout the 1400 years of islamic scholars all know this as had al hirabah
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guided1)
    1. So Muslim leaders can crucify people who commit fasad and you are happy with that.
    2. You only think crucifixion isnt barbaric because the Quran allows it and it cant be barbaric if it is in the Quran because the Quran in perfect. Thats called circular logic. The whole point of crucifixion is that it is terrifying and painful so by saying that it isnt
    barbaric defeats the object of using it.
    3. The Quran says that crucifixion is a punishment for waging war on Allah and for fasad. It doesn't say that it is a punishment for sheep stealing and murder.
    1. I have never been against capital punishment even as a non-Muslim, so I am fine with whatever Islam teaches.

    2. You are making assumptions based upon a misunderstanding of what I said - you suggest that harsh punishments are a flaw based upon emotional and subjective reasoning by implying that the fact it is harsh negates divinity. I do not deny they are harsh punishments, but I was criticising your presumption that this was inherently a problem, which it isn't.

    3. It should be clear and I shouldn't even have to explain this, but for your benefit: leaving the Muslim community and then committing torture murder and theft constitutes Fasad and waging war against God and His messenger, therefore it doesn't have to mention sheep and murder in the Quran.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    -Known as ''hadd al'hirabaah'' by unanimous agreement of all shcolars across all schools
    - If you have a look at 'asbaab al nuzuul'' reason of revelation was about brigands who killed unarmed muslims.
    -throughout the 1400 years of islamic scholars all know this as had al hirabah
    Well that obviously isnt true because I have found the most famous Islamic scholar and he says that it is a punishment for people who disobey Gods laws. The Quran doesn't even say it is a punishment for hirabah it says it is a punishment for fasad. Why would Allah say fasad if he meant hirabah? If top scholars cant agree on what the Quran means then it proves that it isnt perfect.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guided1)
    Well that obviously isnt true because I have found the most famous Islamic scholar and he says that it is a punishment for people who disobey Gods laws. The Quran doesn't even say it is a punishment for hirabah it says it is a punishment for fasad. Why would Allah say fasad if he meant hirabah? If top scholars cant agree on what the Quran means then it proves that it isnt perfect.
    1-Well we can't all follow your whims and desires.
    2- Even if one scholar veers with their opinion from the consensus weight and reliance is always placed on the consensus also known as ijma'a. And as mentioned to you before almost all scholars past and present, old and modern (including heavy weights of islam) agree and accept this to be hadd of hirabah.
    Hirabah is fasaad.
    3-And as also mentioned to you earlier one of the ways to understand quran is to see the reasons of revelation and how the prophet and companions applied the quran. And clearly the verse was revealed as a result of hirabah and the punishments carried out were due to hirabah.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    1. I have never been against capital punishment even as a non-Muslim, so I am fine with whatever Islam teaches.

    2. You are making assumptions based upon a misunderstanding of what I said - you suggest that harsh punishments are a flaw based upon emotional and subjective reasoning by implying that the fact it is harsh negates divinity. I do not deny they are harsh punishments, but I was criticising your presumption that this was inherently a problem, which it isn't.

    3. It should be clear and I shouldn't even have to explain this, but for your benefit: leaving the Muslim community and then committing torture murder and theft constitutes Fasad and waging war against God and His messenger, therefore it doesn't have to mention sheep and murder in the Quran.
    1. Is there anything that you wouldn't be fine with or is anything ok as long as it comes from Allah.
    2. Harshness has nothing to do with justness. Even if you agree with death by torture, it isnt just to use it to punish a parking fine.
    3. Look up the definition of fasad. You will see that it isn't just what you say it is there are other things as well like disobeying Gods laws. You don't have to steal anything or torture or kill anyone to disobey Gods laws.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    1-Well we can't all follow your whims and desires.
    2- Even if one scholar veers with their opinion from the consensus weight and reliance is always placed on the consensus also known as ijma'a. And as mentioned to you before almost all scholars past and present, old and modern (including heavy weights of islam) agree and accept this to be hadd of hirabah.
    Hirabah is fasaad.
    3-And as also mentioned to you earlier one of the ways to understand quran is to see the reasons of revelation and how the prophet and companions applied the quran. And clearly the verse was revealed as a result of hirabah and the punishments carried out were due to hirabah.
    If the most famous of all Islamic scholars says that fasad includes disobeying Gods laws then it isnt a consensus. Perhaps you are being selective and only saying part of the definition. Ibn Kathir mentions blocking roads and spreading fear but he also mentions disbelief and disobeying Gods law. Can you link to these scholars statements.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    whatever floats your boat

    personally, I consider crucifixion and cutting off limbs on opposite sides (or on the same side, for that) as an unacceptable form of punishment and torture,

    and this, for me,is more than enough : as I wrote, any religious text allowing such practices is terminally flawed

    best
    That's absolutely fine we all have free will and the choice to believe in what we want. Personally it's better to have guidelines on punishment, in certain non-islamic countries they will lynch a person to death and burn them for just stealing something minor, here in the west they send criminals to holiday camps (prisons) and they come out and continue to re-offend ruining peoples lives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by javedkid123)
    Plan to hide it.



    You sign a deal with the devil. Just joking, you deny one of the six pillars of iman.

    Belief in Allah
    His Angels
    His Books
    His messengers
    The hereafter
    And Qadr ( both good and bad)

    I deny his books and messengers. This nullifies my religion
    May Allah guide you and I wish you the best.

    I am Muslim and have homosexual friends. In Islam alcohol and pork is forbidden like homosexuality but Muslims are friends with non-Muslims who drink alcohol, eat pork and are homosexual. Islam has rules of course but Islam also teaches me that judgment should be left to God. It ain't my business what a person chooses to do in their life.

    This post is unnecessary and I agree with those who asked: "Do you want a medal?" because you're acting like you've done a good thing and Islam is a bad religion. You've done something that you think is good for you. There is no need to post it or make is public and please don't spread your ignorance about Islam.
    Islam is perfect, MUSLIMS are not.

    From a loving but ISIS hating Muslim xxx
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guided1)
    It has different interpretations that all claim to be right and and the others wrong. If it was perfect it would be impossible to interpret it any way except the way Allah meant it. This was one of the main things for me when I really started thinking about it. It so obviously isn't perfect. A team of good lawyers could rewrite it better so it meant exactly what Allah meant. If we knew what he meant but we dont we are just guessing because he didn't make it perfectly clear.
    The quran has never changed for over a 1000 yrs so for you to question it's perfection is wrong. Secondly the Prophet (pbuh) is no longer alive so we do not have a direct narrator to explain to us the context which is why we have the chain of scholars. The scholars are the ambassadors of the holy prophet and their chain of teachers passes back to the Prophet, so this keeps the knowledge authentic. You say the interpretations vary but yet there is only one Islamic shariat which is accepted by all scholars. It is not variation but difference of opinion on certain matters between the scholars. If there was variation we would have more than 1 islamic shariats (laws).
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 11, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.