In The Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful

Why The Death Penalty Is un-Islamic?

The Qur’an Speaks Against Capital Punishment

By Kashif Shahzada

 

Introduction

Capital punishment, or the death penalty is defined as the killing or execution of a person by a judicial process as a punishment for an offence. Capital crimes or capital offences are those that can result in a death penalty. The practice has been prevailing in numerous jurisdictions, countries and cultures and has both proponents as well as opponents. A number of religious texts also endorse and advocate capital punishment for certain religious and secular offences.

But is this penalty an Islamic one? This article gives the answer in negative due to a number of reasons based on Qur’anic proof and evidence. Capital punishment is un-Islamic because it is un-Qur’anic. The Qur’an occupies the absolute authority for Islamic legislation, hence its verdict on the matter is final and above all other opinions. Not only has the Qur’an mentioned cognizable offences and their penalties, it has not mentioned any offence which is liable to carry a capital punishment. Moreover the Qur’an does not maintain silence on the matter but also offers a crystal clear refutation to the proponents of capital punishment.

In particular, it is suggested within traditional circles that Irtidad (apostasy), Zina (adultery), homosexuality, blasphemy, and Qatal (murder and manslaughter) are capital offences, and those who commit them qualify for the death penalty. However here it is demonstrated what are the Qur’anic directives concerning these offences. Not only can we see that such are not capital crimes but by its own inflection the Qur’an has refuted the death penalty from numerous angles.

 

Approaching the Qur’an Without Bias

The Qur’an is the supreme authoritative text for Islam and its verdict on any matter supersedes all other sources. Before considering the Qur’anic narrations as well as directives pertaining to the subject under discussion, it is vital that we must appreciate the position and authority that the Qur’an occupies for Islamic law.

The reason why some people fail to appreciate Qur’anic guidelines is because they read and interpret its verses in the light of external material. The verses are not analysed in pure form and commentaries and traditions mar the true and pure essence. People read about capital punishment in tribal folklore, or some other book and in the prism of such make commentaries on Qur’anic verses. Their conclusions are in fact not from the Book of Allah but from external literature, which then are errantly considered as authoritative, even though they oppose the Qur’an. What is important is to see whether the original Arabic text in its pure form justifies our beliefs.

Upon exploring the original text it is apparent that there is no capital punishment prescribed for any offence whatsoever. Mind you, when we say the Qur’an we do not mean its commentaries, but emphasise the original Arabic text.

What people have been reading and commenting upon, and even forming opinions on concerning capital punishment in Islamic nomenclature is not the Qur’an, but translations of the Qur’an – translations which at times may be accurate, but in some instances they are not accurate or true to the original.

 

Linguistic Accuracy

It is extremely important that linguistic accuracy and honesty be maintained whilst rendering Qur’anic statements into any other language, otherwise the sense can be changed, and result in causing misunderstandings.

It is also important that Qur’anic statements are amplified and expanded by themes discussed elsewhere within its own text. The Qur’an should be understood by the Qur’an itself, in its own light. If it is God’s word, then God’s word is its own best commentary – a fact even mentioned within the Qur’an:

“And no example do they bring to you but We bring to you the truth and the BEST TAFSEER (EXEGESIS).” 25:33

The best commentary of the Qur’an is the Qur’an itself, according to the above and many other verses. So if there is any ambiguity about any Qur’anic theme or word, its occurrence should be checked in other passages, and the sense of words should be confirmed holistically in all occurrences, by the Qur’an itself, and not from outside sources – this fact is not only suggested and acknowledged by the Qur’an itself, but also suggested by numerous Muslim Scholars.

E.g. Mufti Muhammad Abduh, the Grand Mufti of Al Azhar stated that:

Al Qur’an yufassar badahahu bada. “Quranic passages act as their own exegesis”. (Al Manar)

Muhammad Asad, and Yusuf Ali also maintain the same view, and most importantly the Prophetic explanation was on the same basis, as is evident by numerous internal Qur’anic evidences as well as traditions.

To read external literature, and then to approach and interpret the book in its bias, and then to say concerning one’s own resulting view that ‘this is what the Book says’ without citing any textual or linguistic evidence falls short of intellectual conversation or scholarship.

Those who attempt to justify wrong concepts display poor knowledge of Qur’anic contents and it seems that they haven’t even bothered to carefully analyse its text. Their appraisal is not a genuine linguistic one, but based on what they read superficially or are fed from third party sources or from opinions formed through selective study of translations.

In this article we treat the subject purely with reference to the Qur’anic text and do not impose our own bias. We should allow the Qur’an to speak to us and listen carefully to what it says with an open mind.

 

[1.0] Apostasy

Apostasy is the formal disaffiliation, or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. One who commits apostasy is an apostate. The Qur’an mentions that deserting the true religion of God is a sin, but it is for God to judge the individual, and not only is there no imperative issued to believers in the Qur’an to take punitive action against apostates, but we also find clear-cut evidence that capital punishment is not possible for this sin. Following is proof to this effect:

 

[1.1] Qur’an shows that a person cannot be killed because of apostasy because Allah has given the individual an opportunity to repent and become a believer again.

“Surely (as for) those WHO BELIEVE THEN DISBELIEVE, AGAIN BELIEVE AND AGAIN DISBELIEVE, then increase in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path.” 4.137

If for apostasy capital punishment were prescribed, then the above verse would not have mentioned the states of believing in Islam, then leaving it, then AGAIN believing in it, as after disbelieving in the first instance, the culprit would have incurred the punishment, but as we see there is room for repentance, it is clear in showing that in Islam, apostates are not to be killed.

 

[1.2] In 3:85-89 apostates are reminded that if they return to the true religion they will be forgiven. If capital punishment were invoked, then how will the apostates be able to return to the true religion and gain forgiveness for their past actions?

“Except those WHO REPENT AFTER THAT AND AMEND, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” 3.89

This is clear evidence that they are not to be condemned to death, as otherwise it is meaningless to say that their repentance will be accepted and have a chance to amend.

 

[1.3] The Prophet (p) of Islam was ordered not to compel people to join the religion.

The Prophet (p) of Islam is commanded in numerous verses that he is not to use force to win converts:

“And if your Sustainer had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; WILL YOU (O MUHAMMED) THEN FORCE MEN TILL THEY BECOME BELIEVERS?” 10.99

As the Prophet (p) followed and practised the Qur’an all his life, he never did such a thing. Forcing people to remain in one’s own belief system (religious or non religious) and killing of apostates means compelling people to be believers.

 

[1.4] Threatening to kill apostates is a trait of unbelievers, and not believers, hence law of rejectors of Islam does not become an Islamic law.

Qur’an shows that killing those who desert your beliefs is the behaviour of those who reject God, and not of Muslims and true believers in God. About a tyrant, it is said:

“Said he: You believe in him BEFORE I GIVE YOU PERMISSION; most surely he is the chief of you who taught you the magic, so you shall know: CERTAINLY I WILL CUT OFF YOUR HANDS AND YOUR FEET ON OPPOSITE SIDES, AND CERTAINLY I WILL CRUCIFY YOU ALL.” 26.49

As it is a behaviour trait of rejectors of Islam, it is inconceivable to think that death for apostates will be an Islamic law itself.

 

[2.0] Blasphemy

Blasphemy is the use of offensive, and derogatory language and visual representations against personalities revered and held in high esteem in a religion.

The Qur’an narrates that Prophets and believers were mocked, derided and subjected to abuse and persecution, but in face of all this, they were commanded to show restraint and be patient. There is no command to inflict the death penalty on those who hurl abuses. Indeed their act is heinous and sinful, and for which Allah will punish them in this world as well as the hereafter, but the believers are not called to exact revenge from them. Believers are enjoined not to utter words of contempt for anyone, even for the objects of worship of other religions

 

[2.1] It is Allah and not the believers who will punish those who hurt the Prophet (p) in this world as well as the next.

“Those who hurt God and His Messenger — them God has cursed in the present world and the world to come, and has prepared for them a humbling chastisement.” 33:57

As those who hurt the Prophet (p) will be punished by Allah in their own lifetime unless they repent, therefore believers exacting revenge and vengeance from them or invoking the death penalty for their offence does not arise. The matter is in Allah’s hands.

 

[2.2] The Qur’an has cited many instances where the unbelievers mocked, scoffed and used hurtful and annoying words towards the Prophet (p) (p.b.u.h). But the Prophet (p) (saw) did not penalise such offenders but exercised restraint as Allah commanded him to do so:

“And have patience over what they say, and leave them with noble (dignity).” (73:10)

The Prophet (p) acted on Allah’s command “..have patience over what they say..” and practised restraint on the hurtful words of unbelievers. In his life, the Prophet (p) was subjected to verbal and physical humiliation. There were attempts made on his life (8:30), he was accused of forgery (21:5), he was stigmatised as a man ‘possessed’ (23:70) and a ‘madman’ (68:2). But his personal reaction was adherence to the Quranic teachings of patience and restraint. As the Prophet (p) did not invoke the capital punishment for such offenders but used patience and restraint against the invectives and persecution, therefore this is proof that blasphemy although a grave sin, and which qualifies one for a divine curse, and punishment from Allah, is not a capital offence.

 

[2.3] Muslims are ordered to react with restraint when their faith is being abused and ridiculed and not exact revenge from the culprits.

“You shall surely be tried in your possessions and your selves, and you shall hear from those who were given the Book before you, and from those who are idolaters, much hurt; but if you are patient and godfearing — surely that is true constancy.” (3:186)

We are told that Muslims “..shall hear … much hurt..” but in face of this, they are not to exact vengeance or retribution but are ordered to have sabr (patience) and taqwa (righteousness). Similarly, in 4:140 Muslims are told that when their beliefs are ridiculed how they are to react:

“When ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme.” (4:140)

As the Qur’an prescribes to Muslims restraint, and distancing from the blasphemous persons, and has not advocated exacting vengeance, punishment or revenge, therefore this shows that blasphemy, although a grave sin, is not a capital offence mandating the death penalty.

 

[2.4] Those who commit blasphemy and even plot sedition are given an opportunity by Allah to repent. If capital punishment were invoked and they were to face the death penalty then they would not be able to avail the opportunity for repentance that Allah mentions in 9:74.

“They swear by God that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which God and His Apostle had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), God will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help them.” (9:74)

The expression in above verse: “..If they repent, it will be best for them…” is clear evidence in demonstrating that those guilty of blasphemy, apostasy and sedition are not to face the death penalty as Allah has given them a chance for repentance and amendment of their conduct.

 

[3.0] Sexual Offences

The Quran does not prescribe the death penalty for sexual crimes. Particularly, there is no mention of lapidation or stoning to death for those guilty of fornication, adultery and homosexuality. The practice of lapidation, where ever it is mentioned in the Qur’an is always as a trait of unbelievers, and never prescribed for believers. E.g. 11:91, 18:20, 19:46, 36:18, 44:20, 26:116.

The Qur’an considers Zina (fornication and adultery) and Fahisha (obscenity) as major sins. While giving worldly punishments prescribing flogging for Zina, it also refutes the notion that capital punishment was ever advocated for such. Proponents of capital punishment maintain that in cases of fornication, i.e. where the parties are both unmarried, flogging should be carried out while for married persons committing Zina, the punishment of lapidation is prescribed. However it should be understood that the Arabic word Zina refers to both adultery as well as fornication and there is no distinction between married or unmarried persons. Allama Abdullah Yusuf Ali defines Zina as:

“Zina includes sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not married to each other. It therefore applies both to adultery (which implies that one or both of the parties are married to a person or persons other than the ones concerned) and to fornication, which, in its strict signification, implies that both parties are unmarried. .”(An English Interpretation of The Holy Qur’an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)

Another Islamic scholar, Abdul Majid Daryabadi defines Zina as:

“… sexual intercourse between any man and woman, whether married or not, who do not stand to each other in the relation of husband and wife…..It includes both adultery (i.e. illicit sexual intercourse of two persons either of whom is married to a third person) and fornication (i.e. illicit sexual intercourse of unmarried persons).” (Tafsir-ul-Quran’ volume III, the commentary written by Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi)

In his monumental work The Message of the Qur’an, renown Muslim scholar, Muhammad Asad described Zina as:

“The term zina signifies voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not married to one another, irrespective of whether one or both of them are married to other persons or not: hence, it does not — in contrast with the usage prevalent in most Western languages — differentiate between the concepts of “adultery” (i.e., sexual intercourse of a married man with a woman other than his wife, or of a married woman with a man other than her husband) and “fornication” (i.e., sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons).” (Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur’an)

Following are some proofs that for sexual offences there is no capital punishment in Islam:

 

[3.1] For those guilty of Zina, the prescribed Qur’anic punishment is flogging, and not capital punishment:

“The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, – flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.” 24:2

If indeed Zina incurred capital punishment, then the above verse stipulating flogging would not have been revealed for those guilty of the offence.

 

[3.2] The Qur’an speaks of marital relations between adulterers and adulteresses

“Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry any but a woman similarly guilty or an Unbeliever nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.” 24:3

The Qur’an forbids believers from entering into a marital relationship with those guilty of Zina. The guilty parties are allowed to marry each other and live. Clearly proves that their sinful act is not a capital crime.

 

[3.3] The Qur’an halves the punishment for sexual offences for those from a less protected environment

“Any one of you who has not the affluence to be able to marry believing freewomen in wedlock, let him take believing handmaids that your right hands own…But when they are in wedlock, if they commit indecency, they shall be liable to half the chastisement of freewomen. That provision is for those of you who fear fornication; yet it is better for you to be patient. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. “ 4:25

The statement “…But when they are in wedlock, if they commit indecency, they shall be liable to half the chastisement of free women…” clearly shows that adultery is not a capital offence as half ‘of death is not possible, while half of a certain number of lashes is practical.

 

[3.4] Homosexuals are to be pardoned after receiving their sentence.

“If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for God is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.” 4:16

The statement: “..If they repent and amend, Leave them alone..” is open proof that in Islam those guilty of homosexuality are allowed to live, and do not get capital punishment.

 

[4.0] Qatal (Homicide and murder)

It has been said that murder and homicide are capital offences. Traditionally some Qur’anic verses are alluded to in order to justify this e.g. 2:178, and 5:33. Here an analysis of these from an Arabic grammar perspective is given and reasons are cited to negate the justification of capital punishment.

2:178, Asad’s translation is given below:

“O YOU who have attained to faith! Just retribution is ordained for you in cases of killing: the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the woman for the woman. And if something [of his guilt] is remitted to a guilty person by his brother, this [remission] shall be adhered to with fairness, and restitution to his fellow-man shall be made in a goodly manner. This is an alleviation from your Sustainer, and an act of His grace. And for him who, none the less, wilfully transgresses the bounds of what is right, there is grievous suffering in store: (2:178)

If people are thinking by looking at the above that Qur’an calls for taking vengeance and revenge for murder, then they are grossly mistaken. That if (A) commits murder, then catch him or someone from his tribe and put him to death – is not certainly the intention of the text. Such an understanding is wrong and is against the spirit of the Qur’an. Following reasons are submitted to demonstrate that Sura 2:178 does not justify capital punishment.

 

[4.1] The Arabic word Qisas does not mean “Retaliation”

E.g. the word “Qisaas” in 2:178 which is derived from “Qasasa” and which carries the basic meaning of “to relate” and which has also occurred in numerous other Qur’anic passages in exactly the same sense is wrongly translated by numerous translators as “Retaliate”, creating the (wrong) impression as if believers should retaliate in cases of murder.

We can see through Qur’anic inflection that the basic meaning inherent in the triliteral root qaf sad sad from which Qisas is formed is to “relate”, and not “retaliate”. Interestingly the translators who render Qisas as “retaliate” in 2:178 translate its derivatives using the correct sense, elsewhere in their own translations. Following inflection is from the translation by Saheeh International:

qaṣaṣnā

(16:118) … We related …

(40:78) … We have related …

yaquṣṣu (يَقُصُّ )

(6:57) … He relates …

(27:76) … relates …

yaquṣṣūna (يَقُصُّونَ )

(6:130) … relating …

(7:35) … relating …

naquṣṣu (نَقُصُّ )

(7:101) … We relate …

(11:120) … We relate …

(12:3) … relate …

(18:13) … narrate …

(20:99) … We relate …

The above inflection makes it abundantly clear that “retaliate” is not a correct meaning of the term. Asad also clarifies that it is wrong to translate Qisas as “Retaliation”:

As for the term qisas occurring at the beginning of the above passage, it must be pointed out that – according to all the classical commentators – it is almost synonymous with musawah, i.e., “making a thing equal [to another thing]“: in this instance, making the punishment equal (or appropriate) to the crime – a meaning which is best rendered as “just retribution” and not (as has been often, and erroneously, done) as “retaliation”.

Seeing that the Qur’an speaks here of “cases of killing” (fi’l-qatla, lit., “in the matter of the killed”) in general, and taking into account that this expression covers all possible cases of homicide – premeditated murder, murder under extreme provocation, culpable homicide, accidental manslaughter, and so forth – it is obvious that the taking of a life for a life (implied in the term “retaliation”) would not in every case correspond to the demands of equity. (This has been made clear, for instance, in 4:92, where legal restitution for unintentional homicide is dealt with.)

Read in conjunction with the term “just retribution” which introduces this passage, it is clear that the stipulation “the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman” cannot – and has not been intended to – be taken in its literal, restrictive sense: for this would preclude its application to many cases of homicide, e.g., the killing of a free man by a slave, or of a woman by a man, or vice-versa.

Thus, the above stipulation must be regarded as an example of the elliptical mode of expression (ijaz) so frequently employed in the Qur’an, and can have but one meaning, namely: “if a free man has committed the crime, the free man must be punished; if a slave has commited the crime…”, etc.- in other words, whatever the status of the guilty person, he or she (and he or she alone) is to be punished in a manner appropriate to the crime.

 

[4.2] We can see that verse 2:178 speaks of remission, pardon and compensation and not retaliation

“..And if something is remitted to a guilty person by his brother, this [remission] shall be adhered to with fairness, and restitution to his fellow-man shall be made in a goodly manner…” (2:178)

Hence taking human life is against the spirit of the verse.

 

[4.3] To kill a murderer would go against numerous other Quranic injunctions e.g. 2:84 where blood shed is forbidden:

“And lo! We accepted your solemn pledge that you would not shed one another’s blood..” (2:84)

As the Qur’an says that it has no internal inconsistencies (4:82), to advocate blood shed would be to create a contradiction. Hence to maintain that capital punishment can be justified in 2:178 is an invalid interpretation.

 

[4.4] In 2:178 Qisas is termed as Takhfeef (an alleviation) and Rahmah (an act of mercy and grace) from Allah.

“…This is an alleviation from your Sustainer, and an act of His grace…” (2:178)

Qisas could never be an invocation of the death penalty, as such would not be a concession and mercy from Allah!

 

[4.5] Similarly we read that Allah warns of punishment those who exceed after the concession and mercy.

“..And for him who, none the less,  wilfully transgresses the bounds of what is right, there is grievous suffering in store..” (2:178)

His warning shows that one must not take human life but either pardon or demand just compensation.

 

[4.6] Allah says that in Qisas there is life, while in capital punishment there is no life, but death!

“For, in ‘Qisas’, O you who are endowed with insight, there is life for you, so that you might remain conscious of God.” (2:179)

If one were to invoke the death penalty by citing Qisas, then they would not be giving life but taking it, hence this would go against what Allah says: “in Qisas …there is life for you..”

 

[4.7] According to 4:92. for manslaughter, among the prescribed penalties is paying compensation – and this is specified for “Qatal” or killing which is unintentional:

Similarly, 2:178 also prescribes compensation, thereby indicating its relationship with 4:92.

“And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a covenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.” (4:92)

Thus we can see that in the original Arabic of 2:178 there is no clear cut imperative given to believers to kill murderers, and the verse should be read in conjunction with 4:92-93 which talk about killing and its expiation in the form of compensation to the family of the deceased.

According to the Qur’an, if somebody kills a believer, then the family can only demand compensation, and nothing more. The “killed” or “slain” in 2:178 relates to compensation. It is obvious that 2:178 DOES NOT say that you should KILL a free person for a free person, or a slave in exchange for a slave or hang a woman if someone kills your girl – such a nonsense suggestion is NOT AT ALL there.

It simply says that it is written over believers i.e. prescribed for them that they relate compensation on the deceased according to his or her status – rich according to the rich, poor according to the poor, gender according to gender. If somebody kills my brother, then I should not go about killing him, but demand compensation – and even in that matter I shouldn’t exceed bounds, but demand only what is just and according to status and circumstances.

Makes perfect sense and is perfectly applicable even today. That this verse is giving an order to retaliate, or is an instruction for capital punishment is a fantastic notion, only those who are ignorant of the original Arabic could accept. It is simply saying relate the status of the person killed, and compensate accordingly.

 

[4.8] Sura 5:33 is often cited as an injunction for capital punishment, while it is in fact a statement of behaviour, a narration of the consequences of warring against Allah and His messenger i.e. of opposing the values and precepts Allah has revealed through the agency of His messenger.

Upon studying the Qur’anic text, it is obvious that whenever God commands believers to do or not to do something, grammatically it is ALWAYS in the imperative. The Qur’an has imperatives, i.e. commands and injunctions to do or not to do something, and at the same time, it has narratives or descriptions of behaviour of individuals, phenomena, hereafter etc. When explicit orders and commands are issued to believers they are always in the imperative E.g.

‘And establish Salah (Prayer),…’

‘And complete the Hajj and the Umrah (pilgrimage)..’

‘And fast (during ramadhan)’..’

‘And give Zakah (obligatory charity)..’

‘And do good to parents..’

‘And do not waste…’

‘And do not go near obscenity…’

Etc.

We can see that the above are Qur’anic orders, or commands issued to believers and their grammatical construction is ALWAYS in the imperative (Fi’l Al Amr i.e. the imperative verb). However, in the Qur’an, there is no imperative directed to believers to kill murderers. Not a single statement, where it says: “’..And kill those who murder’…”

It is a fact visible in the original Arabic grammar of Sura 5:33 that it is not in F’il Al Amr i.e. the imperative mood but in F’il Muzarai i.e present tense. Muhammad Asad translated 5:33 accurately as follows:

“It is but a just recompense for those who make war on God and His apostle, and endeavour to spread corruption on earth, that they are being slain in great numbers, or crucified in great numbers, or have, in result of their perverseness, their hands and feet cut off in great numbers, or are being [entirely] banished from [the face of] the earth: such is their ignominy in this world But in the life to come [yet more] awesome suffering awaits them.” (5:33)

Commenting on the above, Asad gives four solid reasons as to why the verse in question is not a legal injunction for capital punishment. He states:

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:

(a) 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.

(b) 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?

(c) 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”!

(d) 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.

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”. The Message of The Qur’an. Translated by Muhammad Asad

Hence due to the above reasons it will be obvious that grammatically Sura 5:33 is not an imperative giving an order or injunction to kill those who wage war against Allah and His messenger, but is a description or narrative of those who commit this sinful act as to what is happening to them. We see the verse in practice in the world today. People are defying the values of the Qur’an and as a result are engaged in violent acts, and are as a result getting killed, and banished from the face of the earth!

 

[5.0] A Call To Action To Return To The Qur’an

We have seen through Qur’anic evidence and its linguistic and logical analysis that apostasy, adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, and murder are not capital offences, and those who commit them do not qualify for the death penalty. The Qur’anic directives concerning these offences amplify the punishments and we see how these are refuted to be capital crimes.

But if capital punishment is indeed non existent and refuted in the Qur’an, then why do we see its implementation in numerous Muslim jurisdictions? When people speak of Muslim countries, they mix up Muslim in the technical sense with Muslim in the cultural sense. Muslim in the context of the Qur’an means a person who submits to the Qur’an, accepts it wholeheartedly. While the former may be merely carrying the ‘label’ of a Muslim, and not necessarily the traits of one.

If people make distorted laws in the name of God, then such should be checked against the Qur’an. For true Muslims all laws or statements that go against the clear-cut textual evidence of the Qur’an can never ever be accepted as Islamic. In Islam the decisive text is the Qur’an which has final authority and the absolute verdict on all matters. A tradition attributed to the Prophet (p) states:

“Above every truth there is a reality, and above every rightness there is a light. Therefore accept what conforms to the Book of Allah, and leave what does not conform to it.” Usul Al Kafi, Vol I, Kitab Fadl il ilm. p 69

For Muslims, to accept what conforms to the Book of Allah, and leave what does not conform to it is the crux of the matter. The need therefore is to subject all laws prevailing in Muslim societies to the Qur’an. Those that conform to it should be retained, while those that do not should be out-rightly rejected and the Qur’anic verdict given precedence over them.

The great Muslim Jurist Imam Jafar As-Sadiq makes it clear that the final authority for Islam rests with the Qur’an, which is the criterion to judge right from wrong:

“Everything should be referred to the Book of Allah…..Every tradition which is not in agreement with the Book of Allah is [but] a forgery.” Usul Al Kafi, Vol I, Kitab Fadl il ilm. p 69

It was the Prophetic mission to implement the Qur’an in the life of Muslims, and he (p.b.u.h) wants us to make the Book of Allah as the guide and judge for all our matters, whether individual or collective. That is why on the day of judgement he will complain:

AND (on that Day] the Apostle will say: “0 my Sustainer! Behold, my people have come to regard this Qur’an as something [that ought to be] discarded !” (25:30)

We should not discard the Qur’an. A true Muslim keeps the Qur’an ABOVE all other opinions, and equates no other text to the Qur’an. Whatever the Qur’an endorses is Islamic, what it refutes is not.

To uphold the Qur’an on every matter, including the issue of capital punishment should be the duty of every Muslim Jurist, Legislator and Government. The necessary reform needed in Islamic societies implies going back to the Qur’an, and accepting its verdict as final. The day Muslims leave other opinions that are considered as supreme in matters of religion, and embrace the Qur’an, accepting its say as final, then that day will mark the beginning of Islamic Renaissance.