Subject: Read ONLY, IF AND WHEN you have time and mood for:
“An Ayah of the Quran for 30 Days” -- February 2015
Choose the section you have time, in the next 30 days to read this ayah:-
Prelude: Recurrent Primary Message 1st. Page
Starting Dua, a note & The Ayah 2nd. Page
A Short Version: For the Busy Bee Two Pages
The Main Story: Recommended Four Pages
Footnotes: For the Perfectionist Six + Pages
PRELUDE
From the Pen and Perspective of a self-styled PPK Muslim (Proud, Practicing, Knowledgeable) with a humble submission that Islam totally rejects Blind Following BUT vigorously focusses on the Limitations of Pure Human Reasoning..............and clearly and comprehensively AlLAH knows best.
In the beginning of the seventh century C.E., the folks of Mecca and Medina had a fascinatingly unique window: they had direct access to the Heavens through one of their own. They were blessed with a regular stream of Divine counseling and guidelines. Question and answer sessions were part of the program. Even individual questioner was graced by an answer. In the short Introduction to this scheme they were assured that at the end of this twenty-two year project, Divine Directions and Admonitions will continue through the agency of the PEN. The whole discourse has been preserved and archived till eternity under the guarantee of our Lord and Creator. This record in known as the Quran.
It should sound unbelievable but factually appears to be true: Many of our prevalent, widespread and important concepts and opinions about religious matters do not have a basis in the Quran and sometimes even appear to be in obvious conflict with the teachings of the Quran. It would be very educative and helpful to discuss an Ayah once a month to see if it supports or rejects our views and actions in our daily life. I wish and hope this email generates a fruitful interactive discussion.
In the name of Allah, we praise HIM, seek HIS help and ask for HIS forgiveness. Whosoever Allah guideth none can misguide; whosoever HE allows to fall astray, none can guide him right. We bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah alone and we bear witness that Mohammed, SAW is HIS slave-servant and the Seal of HIS Messengers.
Further, we recall that Allah Ta’aala has declared in HIS Book1 “He granteth wisdom to whom He pleaseth; and he to whom wisdom is granted receiveth indeed a benefit overflowing; but none will grasp the Message (or remember or receive admonition) but men of understanding (or intellect)” and we also recall that he has warned us about the day of judgement2 “Then on that day you shall most certainly be questioned about the boons (joy, pleasure).” We realise, that there cannot be a greater boon or blessing or benefit than wisdom and we wonder if this should be a timely reminder to very many of us sincere and practicing Muslims who use our critical thinking to enhance the mundane for ourselves and our families but resort to compulsory following -- taqleed, doctrine of classical Sunni Islamic Fiqh -- in matters religion.
(NOTE: I have filtered out the proofs and details into the Footnotes for those who have the time and interest for them. The main email will then be reasonable length, hopefully for the busy majority. What follows is not a sermon; I do not feel qualified to give one, anyhow. I wish, it may provide a food for thought. A caveat seems in order: If the ayah selected pertains to issues we face in our daily life with our family, friends, neighbours or peers it may affect us personally and lead to some self analysis and soul searching which in turn could be divisive and distressing. If taken in the right spirit, it can be a humble attempt towards finding the “straight path”.)
THE AYAH
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS
Surah An-Nisa No. 4, Ayah 89
A SHORT VERSION
“I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.” — Imam Shafa’i
We have been discussing in the last two sessions some ayahs of the Quran which apparently sound harsh and violent to the modern mind. I get the shivers on reading some of them. How can that be? I feel like asking my Lord and Creator. I intend to discuss a few more of this class to do full justice to this burning and dangerously intriguing topic:3
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter”
I will discuss only this ayah. However, I have quoted a few more as additional examples.4
Before I start, let me describe an incident in our history of an overzealous implementation of this ayah. Al Hussain Ibn Mansoori Al Hallaj was a well known Soofi Philosopher of the tenth century. He was in jail for nine years for his extravagant views. He was then tried and convicted for blasphemy and self deification. The sentence was endorsed by he Caliph. As per his interpretation of this ayah, the wazeer Ibn al-Faraat had him whipped, mutilated, crucified, decapitated, incinerated and the ashes scattered over the Tigris River. (Majid Fakhry in his Book Islamic Philosophy; Balinda Beginners Guide)
Let us clearly highlight the problem. What are we discussing? Are we challenging or repudiating the ayah? That would be obvious Kufr! (though it does not make the individual a Kafir) Are we suggesting that we will accept the ayah only if it meets our reasoning? Are we rejecting the ayah because it sounds anachronistic if not brutal and barbaric to our children growing up in a multicultural and pluralistic society of the twenty first century. Are we overreacting because such ayahs are being misused by radical Muslims or the Islamophobes. Actually, none of the above. We are just using the “PEN” which Allah Ta’aala revealed to us in HIS VERY FIRST WAHEE. We are analyzing and trying to understand this ayah not only with the teachings of our Four Great Imams and distinguished Sahaabaa — whom we value and venerate immensely because of their first hand knowledge, great proximity and absolute loyalty to our Hero, the Holy Prophet — but also by the knowledge and wisdom, ideas and thoughts which God Almighty has bestowed on us over the centuries through this PEN. We are not traveling back to the seventh century to consult them. Instead we are projecting them to our century to find out, to best of our ability how they would act and advise today. It will be unwise if not naive to think that our idol and exemplar, Umer ibn Khattab — who had the sagacity, confidence and courage to suspend the Hudood penalty for theft during a prevailing famine at a time when Islam was still learning to walk — will not acknowledge and apply in his governance the modern writings and movements if he was to be our Ameer-ul-Momineen today. Is it possible that our Deen will prescribe a punishment which sounds hideous to almost all of humanity based on the knowledge, perception and insight which our Lord and Creator has bestowed on mankind over the centuries since the dawn of Islam? We were the vehicle for this transformation in the initial five centuries of our history. Unfortunately for the past millennium we have descended into an intellectual stagnation and our cousins have completely taken over. We are witnessing an explosion of knowledge in every field of human endeavor far beyond the wildest dreams of our Great Imams and honorable Sahaabaa. They continue to remain great and venerable personalities all the same just as Newton is still a great scientist even though a seventh grader todays has more scientific knowledge that him. Owing to teachings and conduct of our great Caliphs and Imams we are positive that they are expecting us to take full cognizance of the modern scholarship, erudition and enlightenment bestowed on mankind by our Lord Creator through the “PEN”. Hence the statement by Dr. Mohammed Asad during his commentary on this ayah “In short, the attempt of the commentators to interpret the above verse as a "legal injunction" must be categorically rejected, however great the names of the persons responsible for it.” (emphasis mine). Having clarified what we are discussing, let us start.
Maulana Mufti Mohammed Shafi interprets this ayah literally as a legal injunction.”8
Referring to the ayah immediately following9 “O you who have believed, fear Allah and seek the means [of nearness] to Him and strive in His cause that you may succeed” he reminds us of an important fundamental principle of our Deen: the realisation that Taqwaa is the main, if not the only sanction for enforcement of Shariah —the Islamic law.
These penalties, as pointed out by Yousuf Ali “were features of the Criminal Law in those days and for centuries afterwards…” We should not be surprised therefore to find them in our Text. However, more horrendous acts prevalent in those days were banned by Shariah: “tortures such as “hanging, drawing, and quartering” in English Law, and piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun, which was practiced in Arabia, and all such tortures were abolished.” Fifteen hundred years down the line, Shariah perhaps expects us once again to revise these punishments using the Quranic “PEN”.
One unique feature of our Shariah stands out as far as punishments are concerned. Severe and harsh punishments are prescribed mainly to emphasize the gravity of the crime and act as a deterrent. On the other hand all attempts are made to put off or cancel the enforcement of the punishment. This is clearly and often seen in the Sunnah of our Holy Prophet. Time again he would find excuses to waive a punishment. In the first century of Islam, hardly a couple of cases cutting of hand have been reported. It is well known that Caliph Umer had suspended the punishment for stealing during famine. The Shari’ah on adultery is a good example to bring the point I am trying to make. The verse we are discussing also provides a good example. The apparently “brutal” punishments are offered an open chance of pardon in the very next ayah10 “Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” Express repentance before you are overpowered and apprehended; this is the only stipulation demanded for pardon. Does not this greatly mitigate the apparent harshness of the law?
As stated earlier most of the scholars and exegesis have regarded this ayah as one of the sources to build the Islamic Criminal Code quoting some prominent Sahaabaa and famous jurists.11 The great Islamic scholar and exegist Dr. Mohammed Asad has a distinct explanation for the language of the Ayah and comes to entirely different conclusions which appear fair and logical, consistent with the general spirit and message of our Deen. Discussing at length and giving reasons, Dr. Asad concludes “In short, the attempt of the commentators to interpret the above verse as a "legal injunction" must be categorically rejected, however great the names of the persons responsible for it.”12 He points out that the Qur'an has used exactly the same expressions for mass-crucifixion and mass-mutilation to narrate the words of Pharaoh when he is warning his people of dire consequences.13 14 15 and concludes that this ayah refers to the inescapable retribution that comes to those who rebel against God and HIS laws.”16
Syed Qutb in his monumental exegesis of thirty volumes, Fi Zilal al-Quran (In the Shade of the Qur'an) has adopted the orthodox opinion on this verse and labels it as a “legislative statement.” Seeing through the eyes of a famous political activist, he states “The crime to which this legislative statement refers involves rebellion against a Muslim ruler who implements the laws of Islam.” Author of 24 books, including novels, literary arts critique and works on education, he is a product of the twentieth century. Yet he has taken the language of this verse literally and writes “Scholars have widely different views on whether a Muslim ruler may choose any of these punishments or whether each punishment is implemented in a particular case……………We are more inclined to support Imām Malik’s views, especially the latter part which makes the punishment enforceable even in the case of mere rebellion and of spreading fear. This gives a Muslim ruler the right to take pre-emptive action to forestall any rebellion.” I am confused and bewildered when a twentieth century scholar of his stature carries such opinions. It is a real tragedy for my lovely and peaceful Deen and helps to justify the fairly widespread misconception and misinterpretation of Islam as “wild, violent and bloodthirsty.” Right or wrong apart, three fourth of humanity regards such punishments as uncivilized and unacceptable. A large section of Muslims, if not the majority are against/equivocal/noncommittal about literal interpretations of such punishments. The proponents of this type of retribution therefore should not be surprised if they are sustaining and enforcing a very negative impression and opinion about a peaceful, balanced and beautiful religion known as Islam.
........and Allah knows best.
May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding--“fahm”--of our Deen, Aameen.
ALLAH HAFIZ
Dr. Khalid Mitha
THE MAIN STORY
“I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.” — Imam Shafa’i
We have been discussing in the last two sessions some ayahs of the Quran which apparently sound harsh and violent to the modern mind. I get the shivers on reading some of them. How can that be? I feel like asking my Lord and Creator. I intend to discuss a few more of this class to do full justice to this burning and dangerously intriguing topic.3
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter”
I will discuss only this ayah. However, I have quoted hereunder a few more as additional examples.4
“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them)………”
This sounds harsh until you read rest of the ayah:5
“…….thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.”
An ayah which orders to "seize and kill”: 6
“…… But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.”
Another one ordering to "smite the necks and fingertips”7
“……..I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike at their necks and strike at every pore and tip.”
Before I start, let me describe an incident in our history of an overzealous implementation of this ayah. Al Hussain Ibn Mansoori Al Hallaj was a well known Soofi Philosopher of the tenth century. He was in jail for nine years for his extravagant views. He was then tried and convicted for blasphemy and self deification. The sentence was endorsed by he Caliph. As per his interpretation of this ayah, the wazeer Ibn al-Faraat had him whipped, mutilated, crucified, decapitated, incinerated and the ashes scattered over the Tigris River. (Majid Fakhry in his Book Islamic Philosophy; Balinda Beginners Guide)
Let us clearly highlight the problem. What are we discussing? Are we challenging or repudiating the ayah? That would be obvious Kufr! (though it does not make the individual a Kafir) Are we suggesting that we will accept the ayah only if it meets our reasoning? Are we rejecting the ayah because it sounds anachronistic if not brutal and barbaric to our children growing up in a multicultural and pluralistic society of the twenty first century. Are we overreacting because such ayahs are being misused by radical Muslims or the Islamophobes. Actually, none of the above. We are just using the “PEN” which Allah Ta’aala revealed to us in HIS VERY FIRST WAHEE. We are analyzing and trying to understand this ayah not only with the teachings of our Four Great Imams and distinguished Sahaabaa — whom we value and venerate immensely because of their first hand knowledge, great proximity and absolute loyalty to our Hero, the Holy Prophet — but also by the knowledge and wisdom, ideas and thoughts which God Almighty has bestowed on us over the centuries through this PEN. We are not traveling back to the seventh century to consult them. Instead we are projecting them to our century to find out, to best of our ability how they would act and advise today. It will be unwise if not naive to think that our idol and exemplar, Umer ibn Khattab — who had the sagacity, confidence and courage to suspend the Hudood penalty for theft during a prevailing famine at a time when Islam was still learning to walk — will not acknowledge and apply in his governance the modern writings and movements if he was to be our Ameer-ul-Momineen today. Is it possible that our Deen will prescribe a punishment which sounds hideous to almost all of humanity based on the knowledge, perception and insight which our Lord and Creator has bestowed on mankind over the centuries since the dawn of Islam? We were the vehicle for this transformation in the initial five centuries of our history. Unfortunately for the past millennium we have descended into an intellectual stagnation and our cousins have completely taken over. We are witnessing an explosion of knowledge in every field of human endeavor far beyond the wildest dreams of our Great Imams and honorable Sahaabaa. They continue to remain great and venerable personalities all the same just as Newton is still a great scientist even though a seventh grader todays has more scientific knowledge that him. Owing to teachings and conduct of our great Caliphs and Imams we are positive that they are expecting us to take full cognizance of the modern scholarship, erudition and enlightenment bestowed on mankind by our Lord Creator through the “PEN”. Hence the statement by Dr. Mohammed Asad during his commentary on this ayah “In short, the attempt of the commentators to interpret the above verse as a "legal injunction" must be categorically rejected, however great the names of the persons responsible for it.” (emphasis mine). Having clarified what we are discussing, let us start.
Maulana Mufti Mohammed Shafi, the celebrated traditional Islamic scholar and Mufassir has no comments on the language and tone of this ayah. As most of the classical commentators, he interprets it literally as a legal injunction to build the Islamic Criminal Code for crimes like “ killing, plundering, robbery and theft,”8
Referring to the ayah immediately following9
“O you who have believed, fear Allah and seek the means [of nearness] to Him and strive in His cause that you may succeed.”
he reminds us of an important fundamental principle of our Deen: the realisation that Taqwaa is the main, if not the only sanction for enforcement of Shariah —the Islamic law. He writes: “Prompted in between the description of the punishment for robbery and theft is the need to fear Allah and the desirability of seeking nearness to HIM through acts of obedience” He then adds “without the motivating factors of the fear of Allah and the apprehension of the Hereafter, no law or police or army of this world can guarantee that crimes can be eradicated from human societies. It is this wise and affectionate approach of the Holy Qur'an which ushered a revolution in the world when it created a society of human beings who, in their Godliness, were ahead of even angels.” Syed Qutb puts it as forcefully “No human soul and no society can remain good if it relies only on the law without adding to it the fear of a higher, Divine authority that works on human conscience.”
Before prescribing the retribution, the ayah starts with defining the type and range of the crimes it is discussing. These are really heinous and reprehensible crimes calling for harsh and severe punishment. The well known exegete Yousuf Ali calls it as “the double crime of treason against the State, combined with treason against God, as shown by overt crimes.” He reads the ayah literally as prescribing “four alternative punishments, any one of which is to be applied according to circumstances, viz., execution (cutting off of the head), crucifixion, maiming (the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides), or exile.” Like him, most of the scholars and exegists (but not all as I will shortly discuss) have taken these punishments literally and passed as acceptable even today. No Muslim can or even dare refuse these punishments if they are a Divine commandment. But, are they?
These penalties, as pointed out by Yousuf Ali “were features of the Criminal Law in those days and for centuries afterwards…” We should not be surprised therefore to find them in our Text. However, more horrendous acts prevalent in those days were banned by Shariah: “tortures such as “hanging, drawing, and quartering” in English Law, and piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun, which was practiced in Arabia, and all such tortures were abolished.” Fifteen hundred years down the line, Shariah perhaps expects us once again to revise these punishments using the Quranic “PEN”.
One unique feature of our Shariah stands out as far as punishments are concerned. Severe and harsh punishments are prescribed mainly to emphasize the gravity of the crime and act as a deterrent. On the other hand all attempts are made to put off or cancel the enforcement of the punishment. This is clearly and often seen in the Sunnah of our Holy Prophet. Time again he would find excuses to waive a punishment. In the first century of Islam, hardly a couple of cases cutting of hand have been reported. It is well known that Caliph Umer had suspended the punishment for stealing during famine.
The Shari’ah on adultery is a good example to bring the point I am trying to make. Hundred lashes is a very severe punishment, underscoring that Shariah regards adultery as a very grave crime. This completely rules out even the reference to a “single mother” in a Muslim society. But as the law is designed round it, categorizing adultery as a grave crime seems to the ONLY purpose of this penalty. To prove the guilt, Four eye witnesses are required who will testify to actually seeing the act of penetration! Impossible is the word that immediately comes to mind. Adultery can never be proved by these standards. Eighty lashes for one who cannot prove his allegation of adultery is another way of Shariah trying to avoid the need for this punishment. Hadith literature is replete with stories when our beloved Prophet had passively or actively avoided situations leading to the possibility of this penalty. Take home lesson: the harsh and severe punishments of Shari’ah signify the gravity of the crime, hopefully act as deterrent but provisions are built in the law to avoid their implementation.
The verse we are discussing provides a good example for what I have just stated. The apparently “brutal” punishments are offered an open chance of pardon in the very next ayah10 `
“Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
Express repentance before you are overpowered and apprehended; this is the only stipulation demanded for pardon. Does not this greatly mitigate the apparent harshness of the law?
As stated earlier most of the scholars and exegesis have regarded this ayah as one of the sources to build the Islamic Criminal Code quoting some prominent Sahaabaa and famous jurists.11 The great Islamic scholar and exegist Dr. Mohammed Asad has a distinct explanation for the language of the Ayah and comes to entirely different conclusions which appear fair and logical, consistent with the general spirit and message of our Deen. Allow me to point out that he was convinced that the correct commentary and understanding of our Holy Text requires a deep understanding not only of the Arabic language but a solid understanding of the dialect, idioms and jargon of the Bedouin who were the immediate recipients of the message of Allah Ta’aala. He therefore lived amidst them for several years before he embarked on his famous exegesis. He states “The term "apostle" is evidently generic in this context. By "making war on God and His apostle" is meant a hostile opposition to, and willful disregard of, the ethical precepts ordained by God and explained by all His apostles, combined with the conscious endeavour to destroy or undermine other people's belief in God as well.” He goes on to explain “In classical Arabic idiom, the "cutting off of one's hands and feet" is often synonymous with "destroying one's power", and it is possibly in this sense that the expression has been used here. Alternatively, it might denote "being mutilated", both physically and metaphorically - similar to the (metonymical) use of the expression "being crucified" in the sense of "being tortured". The phrase min khilaf - usually rendered as "from opposite sides"- is derived from the verb khalafahu, "he disagreed with him", or "opposed him", or "acted contrarily to him": consequently, the primary meaning of min khilaf is "in result of contrariness" or "of perverseness".
Discussing at length and giving reasons, Dr. Asad concludes “In short, the attempt of the commentators to interpret the above verse as a "legal injunction" must be categorically rejected, however great the names of the persons responsible for it”12 For the sake of brevity I will discuss here only the last reason he gives to support his objection to an interpretation of the above verse as a "legal injunction" — he also calls this as “the weightiest objection.”
The Qur'an has used exactly the same expressions for mass-crucifixion and mass-mutilation to narrate the words of Pharaoh when he is warning his people of dire consequences.13 14 15
“I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides; then I will surely crucify you all.”
“[Pharaoh] said, "You believed him before I gave you permission. Indeed, he is your leader who has taught you magic. So I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will crucify you on the trunks of palm trees, and you will surely know which of us is more severe in [giving] punishment and more enduring.”
“[Pharaoh] said, "You believed Moses before I gave you permission. Indeed, he is your leader who has taught you magic, but you are going to know. I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will surely crucify you all.”
“Since Pharaoh is invariably described in the Qur'an as the epitome of evil and godlessness, it is inconceivable that the same Qur'an would promulgate a divine law in precisely the terms which it attributes elsewhere to a figure characterized as an "enemy of God”. I certainly agree here with Dr. Asad. I hope you also do. He continues “It is therefore incorrect to regard this verse as a “legal injunction” despite the great names associated with it. Instead this ayah, taking full account of all the expressions occurring in this verse seems to a be a statement of facts; the inescapable retribution that comes to those who rebel against God and HIS laws.”16
Syed Qutb in his monumental exegesis of thirty volumes, Fi Zilal al-Quran (In the Shade of the Qur'an) has adopted the orthodox opinion on this verse and labels it as a “legislative statement.” Seeing through the eyes of a famous political activist, he states “The crime to which this legislative statement refers involves rebellion against a Muslim ruler who implements the laws of Islam.” Author of 24 books, including novels, literary arts critique and works on education, he is a product of the twentieth century. Yet he has taken the language of this verse literally and writes “Scholars have widely different views on whether a Muslim ruler may choose any of these punishments or whether each punishment is implemented in a particular case……………We are more inclined to support Imām Malik’s views, especially the latter part which makes the punishment enforceable even in the case of mere rebellion and of spreading fear. This gives a Muslim ruler the right to take pre-emptive action to forestall any rebellion.” I am confused and bewildered when a twentieth century scholar of his stature carries such opinions. It is a real tragedy for my lovely and peaceful Deen and helps to justify the fairly widespread misconception and misinterpretation of Islam as “wild, violent and bloodthirsty.” Right or wrong apart, three fourth of humanity regards such punishments as uncivilized and unacceptable. A large section of Muslims, if not the majority are against/equivocal/noncommittal about literal interpretations of such punishments. The proponents of this type of retribution therefore should not be surprised if they are sustaining and enforcing a very negative impression and opinion about a peaceful, balanced and beautiful religion known as Islam.
........and Allah knows best.
May Allah Ta’aala bless us with true understanding--“fahm”--of our Deen, Aameen.
ALLAH HAFIZ
Dr. Khalid Mitha
FOOTNOTES
(1) Surah 2/269
(2) Surah 102/8
(3) Surah 5/33
(4) Surah 47/4 (part of the ayah)
فَإِذا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ حَتَّى إِذَا أَثْخَنْتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ
(5) Surah 47/4 (the second part)
فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّى تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا ذَلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانْتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَ بَعْضَكُمْ بِبَعْضٍ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَنْ يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ ﴿
(6) Surah 4/89 (part of the ayah)
فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَلَا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ وَلِيًّا وَلَا نَصِيرًا
(7) Surah 8/12 (part of the ayah)
سَأُلْقِي فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا الرُّعْبَ فَاضْرِبُوا فَوْقَ الْأَعْنَاقِ وَاضْرِبُوا مِنْهُمْ كُلَّ بَنَانٍ
(8) Mufti
Mentioned in the previous verses was the event of killing of Habil (Abel) and its gravity as a crime. In the present verses, and in the verses which follow, there is a description of the punishment for killing, plundering, robbery and theft. The recompense of those who make war on God and His apostle and spread corruption on earth shall but be that they shall be slain, or crucified, or that their hands and feet be cut off on opposite sides, or that they shall be banished from the earth: such shall be their ignominy in this world.
In the Shari'ah of Islam, the punishments of crimes have been divided into three kinds. These are: Hudud (Islamic legal punishment delimited as Divine Statute; plural of Hadd), Qisas (even Retaliation) and Ta'zirat (Penalties;plural of Ta'zir).
| STILL MORE, ON QURANIC AYAHS MISCONSTRUED BY "ISLAMIC" TERRORISTS AS PROMOTING VIOLENCE |
It is also necessary to know that the Shar'ah of Islam has not determined any yardstick for crimes other than those which are special. Instead, it has left it to the discretion of the Qadi (the Judge of an Islamic Court) who could award and enforce the kind and amount of punishment deemed necessary to plug out the incidence of crime keeping in view the objective conditions prevailing in whatever time, place and circumstance it may be. It is also possible that the Islamic state of any time and any place may, with due consideration of Islamic legal percepts, restrict the rights of the Qadis in some manner and make them abide by a particular measure of punishment for ,crimes - as has been the practice in the later centuries of Islam, and as it nearly is the prevailing practice in most countries.
(9) Surah 5/35
[b] Asbab al Nuzool by Al-Wahidi: Abu Nasr Ahmad ibn ‘Ubayd Allah al-Makhladi informed us> Abu ‘Amr ibn Nujayd> Muslim> ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Hammad> Sa‘id ibn Abi ‘Arubah> Qatadah> Anas who related that a group of people from ‘Ukal and ‘Uraynah went to see the Messenger of Allah, Allah, bless him and give him peace. They said: “O Messenger of Allah, we were never people of agriculture, and before we settled around Medina we used to be people who looked after cattle”. The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, ordered that they be given a flock of camels, a shepherd and commanded them to set off with them, with a dispensation to drink their milk and urine. When they reached the region of al-Harrah, they killed the shepherd of the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, and took off with the camels. The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, sent after them and when they were captured and brought to him, he cut off their hands and feet and gouged their eyes. They were left in this state in Medina until they died. Said Qatadah: “It was mentioned to us that this verse was revealed about them (The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land…)”. Narrated by Muslim from Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna from ‘Abd al-A‘la from Sa‘id up to the quotation of Qatadah.
[c] Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir states that the verse was revealed about the people of Hilal Ibn 'Uwaymir who killed a group of people from the Banu Kinanah. This group wanted to emigrate to Medina to see Allah's Messenger (pbuh) and declare their Islam. However, they were all killed and their belongings taken as booty. Hence, Allah explained the punishment of the people of the Banu Hilal, who were idolaters, saying: (The only reward) requital (of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger) of those who disbelieve in Allah and His messenger (and strive after corruption in the land) and engage in sin in the land, i.e. by wrongfully killing others and taking their properties (will be that they will be killed) He says: the punishment of one who kills and does not take the victim's property is that he be killed (or crucified) He says: the punishment of one who kills a person and also takes his property is that he be crucified, (or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off) the right hand and the left leg. He says: the punishment of one who takes another's property but does not kill is that his hand and leg be cut off, (or will be expelled out of the land) or he will be put in prison until he displays righteousness and his repentance becomes apparent. Allah says: the punishment of someone who terrorises people as a highway robber but does not kill or take anyone's property is that he be imprisoned. (Such) that which I have mentioned (will be their degradation) their punishment (in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom) more severe than their punishment which they suffered in this world, that is, if the person does not repent.
(12) Asad
Most of the classical commentators regard this passage as a legal injunction, and interpret it, therefore, as follows: "The recompense of those who make war on God and His apostle and spread corruption on earth shall but be that they shall be slain, or crucified, or that their hands and feet be cut off on opposite sides, or that they shall be banished from the earth: such shall be their ignominy in this world." This interpretation is, however, in no way warranted by the text, and this for the following reasons:
- The four passive verbs occurring in this sentence - "slain", "crucified", "cut off" and "banished" - are in the present tense and do not, by themselves, indicate the future or, alternatively, the imperative mood.
- The form yuqattalu does not signify simply "they are being slain" or (as the commentators would have it) "they shall be slain", but denotes - in accordance with a fundamental rule of Arabic grammar - "they are being slain in great numbers"; and the same holds true of the verbal forms yusallabu ("they are being crucified in great numbers") and tuqatta'a ("cut off in great numbers"). Now if we are to believe that these are "ordained punishments", it would imply that great numbers - but not necessarily all - of "those who make war on God and His apostle" should be punished in this way: obviously an inadmissible assumption of arbitrariness on the part of the Divine Law-Giver. Moreover, if the party "waging war on God and His apostle" should happen to consist of one person only, or of a few, how could a command referring to "great numbers" be applied to them or to him?
- Furthermore, what would be the meaning of the phrase, "they shall be banished from the earth", if the above verse is to be taken as a legal injunction? This point has, indeed, perplexed the commentators considerably. Some of them assume that the transgressors should be "banished from the land [of Islam]": but there is no instance in the Qur'an of such a restricted use of the term "earth" (ard). Others, again, are of the opinion that the guilty ones should be imprisoned in a subterranean dungeon, which would constitute their "banishment from [the face of] the earth"!
- Finally - and this is the weightiest objection to an interpretation of the above verse as a "legal injunction" - the Qur'an places exactly the same expressions referring to mass-crucifixion and mass-mutilation (but this time with a definite intent relating to the future) in the mouth of Pharaoh, as a threat to believers (see 7:124, 20:71 and 26:49). Since Pharaoh is invariably described in the Qur'an as the epitome of evil and godlessness, it is inconceivable that the same Qur'an would promulgate a divine law in precisely the terms which it attributes elsewhere to a figure characterized as an "enemy of God". In short, the attempt of the commentators to interpret the above verse as a "legal injunction" must be categorically rejected, however great the names of the persons responsible for it. (Emphasis mine)
(13) Surah 7/124
(14) Surah 20/71
(15) Surah 26/49
On the other hand, a really convincing interpretation suggests itself to us at once as soon as we read the verse - as it ought to be read - in the present tense: for, read in this way, the verse reveals itself immediately as a statement of fact - a declaration of the inescapability of the retribution which "those who make war on God" bring upon themselves. Their hostility to ethical imperatives causes them to lose sight of all moral values; and their consequent mutual discord and "perverseness" gives rise to unending strife among themselves for the sake of worldly gain and power: they kill one another in great numbers, and torture and mutilate one another in great numbers, with the result that whole communities are wiped out or, as the Qur'an puts it, "banished from [the face of] the earth". It is this interpretation alone that takes full account of all the expressions occurring in this verse - the reference to "great numbers" in connection with deeds of extreme violence, the "banishment from the earth", and, lastly, the fact that these horrors are expressed in the terms used by Pharaoh, the "enemy of God".
