Look at All Episodes and Events in All Eras from A Humanistic Angle
By Sumit Paul, New Age
Islam
22 July
2024
"It is
crucial to highlight that instead of implementing the Qur'anic decree of 100
lashes for extramarital relations, the Prophet recommended stoning to death in
accordance with the Torah for the Jewish couple, as their punishment was
prescribed by the laws of the Torah. The Prophet's decision was guided by the
Quranic principle of "To you your
religion, and to me my religion– Qur‘an 109:6."
I'm
surprised, the erudite writer considers this to be Muhammad's 'sagacity' and
'latitudinarianism' in religious issues when Muhammad was in a position to
intervene and save the Jewish couple from Sangsaar.
Refer to this
statement in the article:
"Abul Qasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman;
so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Messenger of Allah
who sat on it and said...”
So, it's
clear from this line that Muhammad had a say. He had the power to pass a
comparatively more humane verdict. But he didn't do that. This shows Muhammad's
opportunistic behaviour. Commuting the capital punishment to 100 lashes was
within his rights. At the same time, it must be mentioned that though stoning
is not mentioned in the Quran, classical Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) imposed
stoning as a Hadd (sharia-prescribed)
punishment for certain forms of Zina
(illicit sexual intercourse) on the basis of Hadees (sayings and actions
attributed to Muhammad). This suggests that Muhammad himself was in favour of
this heinous punishment.
Mr T O Shanavas says, "the Prophet recommended
stoning to death in accordance with the Torah for the Jewish couple, as their
punishment was based on the laws outlined in the Torah." This is
unbecoming of a person who is called the Prophet.
When Islam
is considered as the 'culmination' of all revealed faiths, it was Muhammad's
moral duty to show compassion towards the unfortunate Jewish couple. Did any
'revered' character in the history of religions show this type of savagery?
Valmiki's
Ramayana clearly and categorically mentions that Ram beheaded Shambuk (who was
an untouchable) because Brahmins wanted Ram to kill a Dalit for secretly
listening to the hymns of Vedas. Ram is condemned for this despite the
apologists of Hinduism trying to defend him by saying that Ram just followed
'sacred' rules of that time laid down by Brahmins. Despite being the king, Ram
also didn't want to stir the religious status quo and did what rishis and sages
wanted him to do. The so-called Maryada Purushottam Ram could have pardoned
Shambuk. Instead, he put him to the sword. Ram is still panned for this
particular action. Shouldn't
Mard-e-Kaamil (Maryada Purushottam) Muhammad be also criticised for
recommending stoning to death for the Jewish couple? Forget Lakum Deenakum Waliya Deen (Surah -109- Al-Kafirun).
A mere
individual's life is far greater than all religions put together. Look at all
episodes and events in all eras from a humanistic angle without any prejudice
and varnish. Don't justify horrendous acts of indiscretion, just because
'revered' characters carried them out. Condemn what must be condemned.
-----
A regular columnist for New Age Islam, Sumit Paul is a researcher in
comparative religions, with special reference to Islam. He has contributed
articles to the world's premier publications in several languages including
Persian.
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/episodes-events-eras-humanistic-angle/d/132756
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism