(June 6, 2013 at 10:54 pm)Zarith Wrote: OK, well, I'm going to take you up on this, because I'm actually interested to hear the opinion of someone who has studied this a lot.No problem.
So here are my questions, and I would be very interested to know what is the prevailing Islamic view and/or differences of opinion.
1) 5:32 makes an (often redacted) exception, saying it is OK to kill people for both manslaughter and something variously translated as 'mischief' or 'corruption in the land'. What is 'corruption in the land'? If somebody were to argue that any action taken against Allah constituted 'corruption in the land', how would you respond? You said that lawful killings are permitted. Yet if the law comes from Allah, isn't this verse basically saying, it's not OK to kill people, except when Allah says it's OK? Wouldn't this mean that understanding the scope of the exceptions is critical to whether or not 5:32 is actually a verse of tolerance or not?
2) Is it not the case that some Muslim scholars (eg ibn Kathir) believe that 5:32's injunction applies only to the killing of Muslims? How would you respond to this?
3) 5:33 states that people who spread 'corruption in the land' should be killed, crucified, or hands and feet on opposite sides amputated. Do you believe that these are the appropriate punishments for 'corruption in the land' today?
4) Do you consider 2:256 to be abrogated or not? If so, by which verses, if not, what do you understand it to mean?
5) Is rejection of Islam by itself ever sufficient grounds for engaging in violence against a person or group of people? On what basis can you say yes or no? Is it true or not that the first leaders of the Islamic community (7th and 8th centuries CE) engaged in wars of conquest on this basis?
6) What do you believe is the specific directive being given by 9:29 (and context), and to whom? Do you believe that it is still in force today?
Thanks I'm looking forward to hearing your point of view.
1) Yes, it means “corruption in the land” and can also be translated as “mischief”. What this means according to the vast majority of the scholars is any grievous act of violence which is deemed to be worthy of the death penalty (such as rape, armed robbery etc.) or waging war against the State or any act intended to undermine the law of the land (incitement to wage war against the State for example). If you look at the Hanbali school of thought for example, as exemplified by some of the laws of Saudi Arabia, you can see this in action because Saudi Arabia considers drug trafficking/human trafficking/armed robbery/rape all to be part of “mischief” and so all of these have the death penalty. It has also been primarily used to mean rebels waging war on the State.
2) I don’t know the opinion of Ibn Kathir, but he did report from Ibn Abbas and others that the verse only applies to Muslims yes. But he also reported from Ibn Abbas’ students that it applies generally all of mankind, which is also the majority opinion as far as I’m aware. There’s a principle in interpreting the Qur’an that verses are always interpreted generally unless there are specific evidences which qualifies them and makes them exclusive. In this case, I have no idea what the evidence is exactly which makes the verse only applicable to Muslims, so the safer opinion is that it is a general verse.
3) 5:33 does not state that. 5:33 states that those who wage war on Allah and His Messenger and also spread corruption in the land, the only punishment that is befitting for them is that they are executed or crucified or have their limbs cut from the opposite sides or that they are expelled from the country. This is similar to verse 8:67 when Allah rebuked the Prophet for taking the prisoners alive from the battle of Badr, when in fact they deserved to be executed for waging war against Allah and His Messenger and spreading corruption in the land.
4) No, and I know of no scholar that has ever said this, with the exception of possibly Ibn Hazm al Andalusi, the great Spanish scholar. He was a war hawk, there’s no question about that, and his interpretation of fighting for Islam is the most far-reaching, he declared all of the verses that call for peace with Non-Muslims abrogated (he also declared the most number of verses abrogated out of any scholar of Islam, over 200 verses abrogated according to Ibn Hazm). Ibn Hazm, was of course entitled to his own opinion, even though the overwhelming majority of the scholars disagreed with him, he was also a product of his own civilization, and there’s no doubt that his opinion was influenced by the violence between the Christians and Muslims in Spain. So, the clear-cut majority all say that it has not been abrogated, and I’m not aware of any scholar of the modern era ever say this.
5) Never. It can be said on the basis of 2:256. The early Muslim conquests were fought for a variety of reasons, such as the fact of a lack of peace treaty between states, cross-border incursions resulting in all-out war, saving the oppressed, pre-emptive strikes etc. etc. That’s really a matter for the historians to deal with, this isn’t really a theological point.
6) It was revealed to Muhammad to fight those who still opposed him. It clearly is not meant to be in force today lol, I’ve not heard of any scholar who said this.
