Monday, December 7, 2015

FYI: the Qur'an Surah Verses 5:32 and 5:33

The Religion of Peace is admonished to kill:
Qur'an 5:32
Qur'an 5:33
When a Muslim who claims to belong to the only "True Sect" of Islam also claims to belong to the Religion of Peace, how does he interpret these verses? And why is the ISIS interpretation not the True Interpretation? When ISIS grows to the point of having the most members around the world, would not that mean that the ISIS interpretation is correct, and other interpretations (non-violent), are in error? Are not the words of the Prophet True and Correct?

Of the separate interpretations given, the words "kill", "Slaughter", "executed", "murdered" stand out.

Is not the designation, "religion of peace", a reference only to members of the "Correct and True Sect" of Islam?

6 comments:

Robert Coble said...

The correct interpretation is the one belonging to the last group surviving; a simple process of elimination of all rivals.

So it was in the days of the Prophet (PBUH), so it shall be now.

Time will tell if ISIS is the one true religion of (eternal) peace.

Phoenix said...

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

Quran 5:32 is the most abused verse spouted by apologists for Islam. The above verse has nothing to do with muslims. It clearly says the decree is meant for the Children of Israel (Jews). However, the immediate succeeding verse is a clear instruction for muslims ONLY on how to butcher transgressors.

Quran 5:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

What's even more disturbing than surah 5:33 is the historical context which brought about this verse (ayat). And for that we have to turn to the Hadith.

Abu Dawud:book38,no.4357:
When the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) cut off (the hands and feet of) those who had stolen his camels and he had their eyes put out by fire (heated nails, Allah reprimanded him on that (action), and Allah, the Exalted, revealed: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution or crucifixion."

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/038-sat.php

No, your eyes are not deceiving you. The peaceful profit did indeed have the thieves' eyes cut out and had their limbs chopped off.

Dragon fang said...

When a Muslim who claims to belong to the only "True Sect" of Islam also claims to belong to the Religion of Peace, how does he interpret these verses?


And Allah invites to the Home of Peace and guides whom He wills to a straight path (Quran 10:25)

One can only find true peace in one's life by submitting to the Almighty God instead of submitting to mere creation. Someone who follows the teachings of Islam is at peace with the Creator and His decree and will eventually enter gardens of perpetual bliss in the next life.

You may have confused peace with pacifism. Due you support it despite not addressing the reality of war and the human instinct of survival?


Here "the land" refers to that country or. territory in which the maintenance of law and order is the responsibility of the Islamic State and "to wage war against Allah and His Messenger" is to wage war against the righteous system of government established by the Islamic State. As Allah likes that such a system of government should be established, He sent His Messenger to establish an equitable system of government, which should guarantee peace and justice to human beings, animals, trees, vegetation and everything in the earth, which may enable human beings to develop to -the fullest their natural capabilities; which should exploit natural resources of the earth for the true progress and improvement of humanity and not for its destruction. It is obvious that any attempt, big or small, to undermine or overthrow such an established system, is in reality a war against Allah and His Messenger. It does not make any difference whether that mischief is created by criminals and murderers who cause disorder in the settled and peaceful society, or by armed forces who attempt to overthrow the Islamic State and establish some corrupt un-lslamic system instead. And every sovereign treats such a violation directed against his authority or against any of his officials as war against himself.

An abstract of these alternative punishments has been given so That the judge or the ruler may exercise his discretion and award punishment according to the nature and extent of the crime. The real object is to show that any attempt by any person residing in the Islamic State, to overthrow its government is high treason and a most heinous crime, and that the offender is liable to be awarded any of these capital punishments according to the circumstance.

This implies that if they have refrained from creating mischief and from making any attempt at overthrowing the righteous system, and have shown by their conduct that they are peace-loving and law-abiding good citizens, none of the above mentioned punishments will be inflicted upon them, even if they might have committed any of the crimes before their repentance. They would, however, be liable to be called to account in a court of law for any offense against any individual, such as murder, theft, etc., but they will not be tried for any previous offense of treason or rebellion or war against Allah and His Messenger.



In short it refers to crime of violence, such as armed robbery, banditry, ruthless killing, mass murder, rape, terrorism etc. Verse 32 talks about the grievousness of unjustified killing (after the Cain and Abel story), and verse 34 talks about them not applying if the aggressors show signs of repentance and cease them before being apprehended.

Islam as a system doesn't just punish crimes, it also attacks the incentive for committing them in the first place whether it is poverty or not respecting human life. The punishments are obviously effective deterrents and work, for instance Imam Malik, one of the most well-known scholars, said that he never heard of crucifixion being applied in his life time.

Dragon fang said...

And why is the ISIS interpretation not the True Interpretation?

For history of Islamic scholarship condemnation of their ideology: http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/?nercnev

As for your question:

It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding. (Quran 3:7)

There are verses that can take more than one meaning, however their meaning is fixed by specific texts. Heretics ignore the specific texts and go for the former verses.

Imam al-Shatibi said: You will not find an innovator, who is attributed to this religion, except that he endeavors to validate his heresy with a divine text, so he applies it according to his logic and ulterior desires.

Your objection is merely channeling your Lutheran cultural biases (taken by maybe 5% of Muslims including the likes of ISIS). A text doesn't create a religion; it just occupies a prominent place in its core. The interpretive tradition and authority are as important as the text itself, especially as more time passes from its historical tradition. Dr. Jonathan A.C. Brown wrote:

Until the collision with the modern West, no Muslim scholar of any consequence ever advocated that the Qur’an be read alone. They might dispute on all else, but the varied sects of Islam all agreed that Muslims should under no circumstances read the Qur’an in a vacuum. Islam’s sects shared two foundational principles: that the Sunna of the Prophet rules over and interprets the Qur’an, and that the Prophet’s interpretive authority had been passed on to those authorities who were to lead the community after his death. Where sects diverged was over how and by whom this Sunna was known and who had the authority to speak in the Prophet’s name. For Sunnis it was transmitted and known by the Muslim community as a whole, borne via the twin routes of the Hadiths, which recorded the Prophet’s words, and the inherited teachings of the early Muslim generations, spoken for by the community’s often cacophonous body of ulama. Taken together, this was the Sunni tradition, in which the authority of God and His Prophet could coalesce from the riot of stentorian voices and express itself fully in instances of consensus (ijma‘). Shiites believed that the Prophet’s teachings were inherited by particular lines of his descendants. The esoteric knowledge of the religion and the ability to interpret infallibly the Qur’an’s layers of hidden meaning passed from father to designated son like bloodlines. Those descendants designated in succession as Imams spoke with the authority of the Prophet. Further sectarian splintering into Imami (Twelver) and Ismaili (Sevener) schools followed disagreements over which line transmitted this hidden ‘ilm.

While much of Islamic political authority devolved into a dynastic fashion, it was locked in a balance of power with religious authority, which is the academic community of Islamic scholars (ulama) who are seen as inheritors of the Prophet's knowledge. The religious authority granted legitimacy to the Caliph and the Caliph backed the ruling of the ulama with executive power while safeguarding the Muslim lands and looking after their practical needs.

Dragon fang said...

When ISIS grows to the point of having the most members around the world, would not that mean that the ISIS interpretation is correct, and other interpretations (non-violent), are in error?

Unlikely (and the possibility is falsified by the hadiths), but nope; they have no legal scholars, and thus neither religious nor political authority.

Daesh come from a socio-political situation (Iraq in the last 30 years), instability, political revolutions, chaos, economical sanctions, bombing, invasion. They are claiming to be fighting in behalf of the oppressed, to fight an invading army and protect innocent people from third parties, along with a romantic notion of reestablishing the caliphate; all taken with ignorance at face value, and fitting the Prophet's (saw) prediction (young people with foolish dreams).

http://qz.com/562128/isil-is-a-revolt-by-young-disaffected-muslims-against-their-parents-generation/


Are not the words of the Prophet True and Correct?

When it comes to revelation, absolutely.


---

So anyways, Islam only has two creeds with no third addition:
1- There is no God but Allah.
2- Muhammad (saw) is the messenger of Allah.

All other beliefs, commandments, morals, etc. is a branch from the second testimony, and the second testimony is a branch from the first testimony.

So what problem do you perceive within the religion of Islam? 1- Do you believe that the testimony of Islam is incorrect because there is more than one god while Islam states that there is one god? 2- Do you believe that there is one god but it is not Allah? 3- Do you believe that the one god is Allah but not with some of the names and attributes found in Islam? 4- Do you believe that there is no god in the first place, let alone the god being monotheistic, let alone the god being Allah?

If you hold a contrary view of God, then we'll discuss that because Islamic monotheism is the only coherent concept of God. If not, then do you have a problem with Muhammad's (saw) prophethood?

---

Quran 5:32 is the most abused verse spouted by apologists for Islam. The above verse has nothing to do with muslims. It clearly says the decree is meant for the Children of Israel (Jews). However, the immediate succeeding verse is a clear instruction for muslims ONLY on how to butcher transgressors.

Can you support the claim that the moral of the Cain and Abel story has nothing to do with Muslims although the Children of Israel were supposed to be Muslims?


No, your eyes are not deceiving you. The peaceful profit did indeed have the thieves' eyes cut out and had their limbs chopped off.

True, and the thieves were guided to camels whose milk can be taken as charity, and then tortured and killed its Shepard by having his eyes cut out before stealing the camels.

Stan said...

My reply is too long, and will become a new post