Koran 5:32

Ahanu

Ahanu

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,246
Reaction score
550
Points
108
Does Koran 5.32 apply to Muslims or Jews? Here's a Christian apologist's critique of Muslims taking the verse out of context:


What are some possible Muslim responses? I read a possible Muslim response online that goes something like this: "even though it's in past tense the decree was to the Jews when they were Muslims; therefore, it applies to all Muslims." Do you agree? I'd appreciate any Muslim commentaries on this verse too.
 
Last edited:
First response... David Wood is a *#$& (Fill in with your favorite 4 letter expletive)

Second... here is a brief Tafsiir (explanation) https://versebyversequranstudycircle.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/tafseer-surah-al-maidah-ayah-32/

Third... I think it is more accentuating that this is not a new law... But rather one that was already in place, and would be maintained. His statement that the whole verse is not usually quoted is accurate. what he got wrong was everything else. It is not saying that everyone who supports the murderer in any way should be subject to the same penalty. It is saying that the person who murders (or other death penalty offense) should be brought to justice which can include killing, or maiming the person (In specified ways). Aya 33 specifies this, but what David Wood in his infinite wisdom left out was aya 34
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,

34)
Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Click to expand...
He also seems to mis interpret war against Allah as meaning a military strike against a Muslim country. To which isn't entirely accurate. The war against Allah and His Messenger was in Mecca. Mouhammed (PBUH) isn't in Syria, so how would his messenger be having war against him. I am no scholar, so I will end that with this is my interpretation.

and Finally... David wood is a $*#& (again use your vocabulary)
 
BigJoeNobody said:
First response... David Wood is a *#$& (Fill in with your favorite 4 letter expletive)

Second... here is a brief Tafsiir (explanation) https://versebyversequranstudycircle.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/tafseer-surah-al-maidah-ayah-32/
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response. I'll check it out soon.

I do have an immediate reaction to one comment you made:

His statement that the whole verse is not usually quoted is accurate.​

David Wood went so far as to say no one quotes the entire ayah. This is not true. He should download the Letter to Baghdadi at lettertobaghdadi.com. Hundreds of Muslim scholars signed this letter that condemns ISIS, and in it these Muslim scholars quoted 5.32 in its entirety. Why do some people quote 5.32 and omit part of it? He claims people are trying to hide something. He implies it's deceitful.

World leaders, ordinary people, and everybody else in the media have been attacked before for this. That is, attacked for quoting the ayah as follows: ". . . whoever kills a soul is like one who has killed the whole of mankind; and whoever saves a life is like one who saves the life of mankind." Consider Obama when he quoted 5.32 and left out “not in retaliation for a soul or corruption of the land” in his speech in Cairo. Was it to mislead? I don’t think so. It was to lead his listeners to the main point: homicide is wrong. The omission only modifies the main theme without changing it. Wood wants to argue an omission of "the Children of Israel" and 5.33 change the meaning of 5.32.
 
Last edited:
Ahanu said:
Wood wants to argue an omission of "the Children of Israel" and 5.33 change the meaning of 5.32.
Click to expand...
and yet he left out 34... I wonder what agenda he has :D... I agree it shouldn't be left out in Quranic discussion, as the rest expounds on the importance and background and even limits and mercy that can be afforded (Expelling someone over cutting off a foot and arm or killing them which now that I think about it, kinda proves his analysis wrong in the first place, how would you expel someone in a land that is not yours?).

I'm going to go on and apologize for the blocked profanity, I've not been in a great mood tonight and I hope Allah, and you all, can forgive me.
 
LOL I must have skipped the verse of the Quran which says you must be punished if you've become too westernised.

I'm also quite impressed that he knows which parts of the Talmud were popular among Jews 1400 years ago in Arabia.

Stupid propaganda.
 
These three Muslim commentators say Koran 5.32 is a moral principle that applies to Muslims too: Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Qurtubi, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, and Imad al-Din Abu’l-Fida Isma’il ibn Umar ibn Kathir. Anybody have their tafsir? I'd be interesting in knowing what argument al-Tabari uses in his work called Jami al-bayan 'an ta'wil ay al-Quran, but I bet there aren't any English translations . . .
 
The whole of Quran is applicable to muslims, not just 32, but 33 and 34 too. The point is what exactly do you want to infer from it. Quran is supposed to be read as a whole, not just a few verses of one's liking or what suits his agenda. There are a lot of people who talk about this verse here and that verse there and come up with a theory about Islam, that they then "sell" to phobia-philiac masses and make money. But whatever these peolpe think, brag, or use as a sales pitch, Islam doesnt work like that.

Tabari is a huge book (14 volumes AFAIK), only read by "extreme scholars", for their phd level work, so its only in english. Qurtabi is usually studied by people doing specialization in jurisprudence, so that too isnt available in english AFAIK. The usual basic tafsirs are Ibn kathir, Jalalain and Baidawi

This is Ibn Kathir http://www.qtafsir.com/

Here you will find jalalain and a few others http://www.altafsir.com/tafasir.asp...&tsorano=1&tayahno=1&tdisplay=no&languageid=2
 
farhan said:
This is Ibn Kathir http://www.qtafsir.com/

Here you will find jalalain and a few others http://www.altafsir.com/tafasir.asp...&tsorano=1&tayahno=1&tdisplay=no&languageid=2
Click to expand...

These are useful resources!

I found al-Qurtubi's reasoning here:

"Imam Nasafi stated, 'They [s: the Children of Israel] were specified with mention even though this applies equally to all because the Torah was the first book within which there were legal rulings stipulated.' [Madarik al-Tanzil] Imam Qurtubi also mentions the same reason in his commentary."​

Muhammad Asad, an influential 20th century Muslim, also had a similar commentary on 5.32:

"The expression 'We have ordained unto the children of Israel' does not, of course, detract from the universal validity of this moral: it refers merely to its earliest enunciation."​
 
Ahanu, it applies to Muslims too. Muslims must believe Bible as revealed Word of God as it is one of the conditions to be called a Muslim to believe that there was Biblical Revelation from God. If you do a bit more research and study some of the information available on the Sharia Law, a lot of the practices do come from the Bible and NOT the Noble Qur'an. For example, some Muslim majority nations have strict interpretations of the Sharia where hadiths (written sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad pbuh and his companions) are used to justify certain punishments that are not prescribed by the Qur'an, such as punishment for apostasy and adultery. The Old Testament we currently have prescribes capital punishment for both offenses (and yes, I know, Jews have long abandoned those laws). Yet, the Qur'an specifies lashes and/or house imprisonment for adulterers, as well as them only marrying other adulterers, and for apostasy Qur'an just promises afterlife punishment, not the human one on Earth.

Some Muslims would keep saying that the Torah is corrupt, yet they use hadiths for Sharia laws that directly support the Old Testament. As you can imagine, average Muslim person who lives under the strict rules cannot point out this discrepancy. But it is the truth. No scholar or religous leader can find capital punishment for adultery, for example, in the Qur'an. At least I have yet to read about the supposed Qur'anic verses.

Regarding what applies to Jews or Muslims from the Qur'an: even if the verse you cite (5:32) applies only to Jews, there are numerous other verses where Qur'an instructs Muslims not to commit murder such as in the following Qur'an verses:
6:151 "and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully." (Lawfully as in self defense or as state sanctioned punishment for a horrible crime like terrorist act)
5:53 "...whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”
2:190 "...begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

And even Sunni Muslim hadiths mention this: "‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)
 
This is about people committing treason. The religion is the law of the land, so it's about treason. Treason by people that want to ruin the land, it's no trifling matter. As such, if anything it's a condemnation of what the extremists did in Paris or wherever. They were so-called Muslims that committed treason against their host nation. It is certainly not a justification for extremism.

Btw, until recently most nations had the death penalty for treason. Even nations with officially no death penalty still had hanging for treason.

Please OP read around a topic, earnestly. Don't meme your way to a conclusion, life is nuanced.
 
By the way, look at the man in the OP's video. He doesn't look scared, worried, bothered. He's glowing to himself. He loves it. That still frame tells me what l will find in that video. A smug hatchet job on our beliefs.
 
SufiPhilosophy said:
Please OP read around a topic, earnestly. Don't meme your way to a conclusion, life is nuanced.
Click to expand...
Did you read the original post fully, including this:
Ahanu said:
Here's a Christian apologist's critique of Muslims taking the verse out of context
Click to expand...

BTW, you can tag participants with an @ sign followed by their name.
 
Right then l don't get why OP didn't explain why they thought it was out of context, that would have been a natural addition to the OP. Just seems like more agitprop. Do you agree with my previous post that the man in the video has a smug aspect which belies that he's absolutely enjoying this and isn't at all scared even whilst he is projecting fear of Muslims to others?
 
"OP" has a name on these forums. Do you agree that it would be polite to address your question directly?
 
Cino said:
"OP" has a name on these forums. Do you agree that it would be polite to address your question directly?
Click to expand...
Sure, l missed the full message of the OP, which means opening / original post. However it is still feels like harmful agitprop seeing as it's dished out without an actual refutation.

OK this is embarrassing: there was a mini refutation under the actual video window but still, it's hateful content to me, and l personally would go the whole nine yards when pitching something like this to a Christian forum to give them the benefit of the doubt in the first instance, then let things take their own course.


OK even more ebmarrassing: the original poster, Ahanu, did make a more full defence against tthe video in subsequent posts, and so was providing us a framework to defend against these harmful accusations. Thanks Ahanu.



I'll admit this verse was one major sticking point for me, it felt jarring when l first encountered it in my own studies. But i now see it's about people intent on binning an entire state. A state has a right to defend itself and the nature of the crime is head and shoulders above any other crimes on the material plane as it seeks to destroy the entire state. High treason.
 
Last edited:
We're a pretty small, friendly bunch around here. Best to assume good intentions from any of us by default.

That does not mean we don't get into heated arguments ;)
 
Cino said:
We're a pretty small, friendly bunch around here. Best to assume good intentions from any of us by default.

That does not mean we don't get into heated arguments ;)
Click to expand...

You're right. Thank you for the reminder! :)
I've just added a bit extra to my previous post by the way: to say it even felt jarring to me when i first read it.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
First response... David Wood is a *#$& (Fill in with your favorite 4 letter expletive)

Second... here is a brief Tafsiir (explanation) https://versebyversequranstudycircle.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/tafseer-surah-al-maidah-ayah-32/

Third... I think it is more accentuating that this is not a new law... But rather one that was already in place, and would be maintained. His statement that the whole verse is not usually quoted is accurate. what he got wrong was everything else. It is not saying that everyone who supports the murderer in any way should be subject to the same penalty. It is saying that the person who murders (or other death penalty offense) should be brought to justice which can include killing, or maiming the person (In specified ways). Aya 33 specifies this, but what David Wood in his infinite wisdom left out was aya 34
He also seems to mis interpret war against Allah as meaning a military strike against a Muslim country. To which isn't entirely accurate. The war against Allah and His Messenger was in Mecca. Mouhammed (PBUH) isn't in Syria, so how would his messenger be having war against him. I am no scholar, so I will end that with this is my interpretation.

and Finally... David wood is a $*#& (again use your vocabulary)
Click to expand...
Jesus the so called prince of peace in bible ' go buy swords kill my deniers ' Jesus attacked rabbis in temple with a whip made of chord ' this dude no prince of peace
 
BigJoeNobody said:
and yet he left out 34... I wonder what agenda he has :D... I agree it shouldn't be left out in Quranic discussion, as the rest expounds on the importance and background and even limits and mercy that can be afforded (Expelling someone over cutting off a foot and arm or killing them which now that I think about it, kinda proves his analysis wrong in the first place, how would you expel someone in a land that is not yours?).

I'm going to go on and apologize for the blocked profanity, I've not been in a great mood tonight and I hope Allah, and you all, can forgive me.
Click to expand...
bible calls for stoning adultery. apostates and gays. not the quran
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top