Sura IV-93

Btw since you like history I advice you study "Omar ibn il Khatab" the second caliph of the Muslim country. He is considered to be the best ruler in the entire history by Muslims. He said that if a goat tripes in Iraq he would be afraid that God would punish him for it on judgment day. He once saw a child crying so he cried. They asked him why so?He said that he's afraid God would ask him about her on judgment day. (In Islam we believe that the ruler is responsible of every single thing in front of God).

 

sgeorge5 wrote: The quote about "if a person saves someone, it is as he has saved all of humanity" is an old Jewish saying. Sura IV-93 talks about Believers, not about non-Belivers.  The Koran is very careful to distinguish between the two.  In fact, modern day Islamic courts have very different punishments for the murder of a Believer and for the murder of a non-Believer.  There is more, but I am running out of space.

 

In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

 

Thank you for your question and contribution to the forum. Your question is one that is worthy of an explanation, and although the topic is less than simple, I, a non-scholar and humble slave of the Lord and Sustainer of the Worlds, will try, insha�Allah, to relay my understanding to you.

 92. It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake, and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he must set free a believing slave and a compensation (blood money, i.e Diya) be given to the deceased's family, unless they remit it. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you and he was a believer; the freeing of a believing slave (is prescribed), and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation (blood money - Diya) must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this (the penance of freeing a slave) beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months in order to seek repentance from All�h. And All�h is Ever All­Knowing, All­Wise.

The scope of the verse covers the information that Allahu t�ala wanted people to know at the moment it was revealed. There are verses in the Quran that are general in nature but are particularized or explained by the Prophet (saw). When looking at the exact scope that the Shari�a grants to non-believers, like many other topics, one may not be able to find the definitive explanation from one verse. If a verses does not go further into a topic of our wishes, it does not imply that the verse is too short, it just implies that the topic covered by that particular verse was not an issue at that moment, nor did Allahu t�ala make it an issue.

The verse above breaks down into eight different scenerios, I combined them to make 4, for the sake of saving time:

1)      The intentional/accidental killing of a Muslim.

2)      The intentional/accidental killing of a Dhimmi.

3)      The intentional/accidental killing of a person with whom there was a pact with them or their nation.

4)      The intentional/accidental killing of a belligerent disbeliever.

Scenerio one is covered is covered in SUrah Al Baqarah (dealing with qisas in the case of intentional killing) with the context of even retaliation, and in verse 92 of Surah Al-Nisa. The second scenario is covered by a hadith narrated by Darqutni, who stated that the Prophet (saw) subjected a Muslim to even retaliation (qisas) for the compensation of a Dhimmi. The second scenario is further covered by verse 92 in Surah Al-Nisa, �..and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty��, in the context of diya (blood money). The third scenario is covered by Surah Al Nisa verse 90, �So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then All�h has opened no way for you against them.�, and the second part of scenario three is covered by the similar instant as the second scenario, dealing with people who are under a treaty. Scenario four is pretty obvious and even if an accidental death occurs, any diya will depend on the family of the belligerent non-believer and the context and condition of the accident.

In my opinion, nothing should be added to the verse, as it is not the primary texts that are at fault, but the imperfect nature of man to try and perfectly interpret text without being influenced by culture and environment.

The Quran indicates the value of life, �5:32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by All�h by committing the major sins) in the land!.� This concept has not been abrogated and is a legitimate general axiom that applies to Muslims. The Talmud states something similar but it pertains to Jews only, and the context is saving the soul (from other faiths or disbelief, etc).

"Whoever destroys a soul from Israel, the Scripture considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life from Israel, the Scripture considers it as if he saved an entire world."(Babylonian Talmud)  Some Jews point out that the Jerusalem Talmud does not exclude gentiles, and is found as, �Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world." Given that the Jewish Talmud does not really care about gentile souls (which includes pagans and lesser races mentioned in the Torah), I find it plausible that the Jerusalem quote is a paraphrase of the Babylonian Talmud, and some Jews use the Jerusalem quote in the 20^th century when it is convenient due to its �implicit� nature. The Quran is rather explicit that all life is sacred and not just believers. As a side note, the Jerusalem Talmud is not as widely studied as the Babylonian Talmud, which is considered, in general, to be the authoritative work.

I hope I have been able to contribute material that has helped you. I am not a scholar, and may Allah forgive me for errors that I might have made. I have given you information as I have come to understand it through pious scholars whom Allah has blessed with sound mind and heart.

Allahu �alim

 

Great, a new voice has joined us.  I have to get to work, but, in the mean time, would Andelus please address the central question about Sura IV-93.  Would the Sura be better if it said : "If a man kills another man ... his recompense is Hell" than just killing a Believer?  Honor us with your opinion, please.  I want to get back to Sura 92 and other things, after work.  Your knowledge of the Talmud exceeds what mine will ever be.  I would not be surprised if that thought is found in several religions of the world.

sgeorge5 wrote: Ok, I am back.  Andalus, I do not agree that these questions are less than simple.  They are very simple. You do not need a degree in philosophy or a course in morality to answer my questions.  You have a brain, use it.  You brought up Sura IV-92 which mentions the use of slaves.  I know of 11 other passages in the Koran discussing the use of slaves: 4-3, 4-24, 4-25, 23-6, 24-31, 24-58, 20-28, 33-50, 33-52, 33-55, 70-30, and there may be more.  Would it not had been better to have required the abolishment of the institution of slavey rather than on how to use slaves? 1) Which has a higher moral standing - the abolishment of slavery or instructions on how to use slaves?  The only Muslim group that I known that has members that approve of the use of slavery are the Wahhabis, but I am assuming they do not represent main stream Islam.   You also mention Dhimmis.  2) Which has a higher moral standing - the equal treatment of all peoples, irreguardless of their race, religion or creed or the discriminatory regulations that would ensure that they would be constantly reminded of their subordinate position, 9-29? Now, don't forget the original question - 3)which is better; a man being punished for killing anyone or a man being punished for killing (just) a Believer? Sura 9-93. I repeat, these are not difficult questions.  They are not even questions on religion.  They are questions on morality.  Please, do not get bogged down in minute discussions of the Saria.  Answer from your head and heart.  I am interested in what you think.  I want to learn.  And please, anyone else - join in. Sid

Thank you for your reply. Let me start with case three: 3)�which is better; a man being punished for killing anyone or a man being punished for killing (just) a Believer? Sura 9-93.� This is called a �complex question� in logic, where you are using an assumption buried in the question, without first proving the assumption.

1)                             verse 92 is a part of verse 93, which describes the justice granted to non-Muslims.

2)                             Your question makes the assumption that a non-believer has no rights granted by the Shariah.

3)                             You are also trying to imply that because �non-believer� is not mentioned, or because a universal qualifier for �all humans� is not used in verse 92, that this implies that �all humans� or �non believers� are excluded from justice. This would be a non sequitur, as one thing (no punishment for the death of a nonbeliever or justice for a nonbeliever) does not necessarily follow from the other (the verse does not mention non-believer).

So what is best is that nonbelievers are given justice under the Shariah, but the fact that if one verse does not include any mention of nonbelievers in the case of �murder�, does not allow one to draw any conclusion either way (pro or con), which is why one does not rely on the absence of a thing in one verse to conclude that the absence is speaking for/against the thing unmentioned, and one looks to other verses and the Sunnah to derive a ruling. That it should have said this or that is opinion from conjecture, unless one can provide sound proof.

The Prophet (saw) gave examples that show it is a sin to intentionally harm or kill a nonbeliever, and the shariah gives guidelines about the well being and safety of non-believers. Scholars have deduced from the Quran and Sunnah that it is unlawful for a Muslim to intentionally harm a non-believer, and it is even on a list of grave enormities of the great scholar Ibn Hajar Haytami.

My use of verse 92 went beyond the use of slaves, and I am sorry that you somehow skipped over the evidence that I used from verse two giving proof of my claim concerning the safety and well being as established principles in the Shariah. Verse 92 goes into the release of slaves as expiation of sin, which I did not bring up, and is irrelevant to the topic. Verse 92 is not only connected to 93, but it is a proof that established my claim. I regard your question about slavery to be a distraction from the point, and you may bring up slavery as a separate topic.

As for your question 2, it is a complex question as well, as it assumes an idea of equality that does not actually exits, except in the theoretical, Utopian dream that western secularist conjure up. You are also making an assumption about �moral standing�. Could you please identity a particular example, and justify your objection through a demonstration of the �moral standing� that you will apply to it.

The questions you posed are less than simply because you have filled in your opinions and assumptions into the questions. Such assumptions are your views of how rulings in Islam work, and how they are derived, along with your assumption of �moral standing� and your conclusion that the absence of a thing in a statement must necessarily mean that it is against the thing, are a few items that demand clarification. Furthermore, I may not require a degree in philosophy to respond to your questions, but with all due respect, one requires some background in Islamic Jurisprudence and critical thinking to engage in any kind of critical investigating to minimize rampant assumptions in the process to investigate Islam. Discussion about the Shariah must be brought out, and cannot be avoided, as it is the principles used by the scholars that act as a lens to view the primary texts of Islam in the process of extracting information in the soundest way possible.

Kindest Regards