crucifixion as punishment

format_quote Originally Posted by Frida

Why is this a punishment in the quran?

format_quote Originally Posted by Frida

And to which people does it refer to?
People who does bad things on the earth, but what kind of things, because its a very harsh punishment? Especially with cutting of hands and feet (very barbaric)
Is it really suitable for this modern age?

I think the death penalty is wrong

Sorry if its hard to understand me but english isnt my first language

Most likely you are referring to verse 5:33. Let's read that verse with its context. Let's start with verse 27 of the same Surah:

Quran 5:27 - 5:31
Interpretation of the meaning:

And recite to them the story of Adam's two sons, in truth, when they both offered a sacrifice [to Allah ], and it was accepted from one of them but was not accepted from the other. Said [the latter], "I will surely kill you." Said [the former], "Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him]. If you should raise your hand against me to kill me - I shall not raise my hand against you to kill you. Indeed, I fear Allah, Lord of the worlds. Indeed I want you to obtain [thereby] my sin and your sin so you will be among the companions of the Fire. And that is the recompense of wrongdoers." And his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.

Then Allah sent a crow searching in the ground to show him how to hide the disgrace of his brother. He said, "O woe to me! Have I failed to be like this crow and hide the body of my brother?" And he became of the regretful.

In above verses, Allah Subhanahu Wa Taa'la has described the story of first murder in human history.

Allah describes the evil end and consequence of transgression, envy and injustice in the story of two sons of Adam, Habil (Abel)and Qabil (Cane).
One of them fought against the other and killed him out of envy and transgression, because of the bounty that Allah gave his brother and the sacrifice that he sincerely offered to Allah was accepted. The murdered brother earned forgiveness for his sins and was admitted into Paradise, while the murderer failed and earned a losing deal in both the lives.

Quran 5:32

Interpretation of the meanings:

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

Often time People who try to misrepresent Islam, will NOT quote 5:32 but they will directly quote verses 5:33 and say Islam is barbaric. Verse 5:32, clearly says that the general principal is that a general principal is that killing of any human being(Muslim or non-Muslim) is a major sin in Islam. However, there are two exception to this general rule - as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth.

With this background, now let's look at the verse you have questioned:

Quran 5:33

Interpretation of the meanings:

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.

We also know after reading interpretation of above mentioned verses, that this was the law given to Jews before Prophet (peace be upon him) and we also know that Allah criticized Jews for not following this law in verses 2:84-85.

Quran 2:84-85

Interpretation of the meaning:

And [recall] when We took your covenant, [saying], "Do not shed each other's blood or evict one another from your homes." Then you acknowledged [this] while you were witnessing.

Then, you are those [same ones who are] killing one another and evicting a party of your people from their homes, cooperating against them in sin and aggression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their eviction was forbidden to you. So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest of punishment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.

Let's also understand when & why verse 5:33was revealed?

Narrated Anas:
Some people from the tribe of `Ukl came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet (ﷺ) sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الأَوْزَاعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ أَبِي كَثِيرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو قِلاَبَةَ الْجَرْمِيُّ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ قَدِمَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَفَرٌ مِنْ عُكْلٍ، فَأَسْلَمُوا فَاجْتَوَوُا الْمَدِينَةَ، فَأَمَرَهُمْ أَنْ يَأْتُوا إِبِلَ الصَّدَقَةِ، فَيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَبْوَالِهَا وَأَلْبَانِهَا، فَفَعَلُوا فَصَحُّوا، فَارْتَدُّوا وَقَتَلُوا رُعَاتَهَا وَاسْتَاقُوا، فَبَعَثَ فِي آثَارِهِمْ فَأُتِيَ بِهِمْ، فَقَطَعَ أَيْدِيَهُمْ وَأَرْجُلَهُمْ وَسَمَلَ أَعْيُنَهُمْ، ثُمَّ لَمْ يَحْسِمْهُمْ حَتَّى مَاتُوا‏.‏

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6802

In-book reference: Book 86, Hadith 32
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 794
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/86/32

Clearly the people caused mischief in the land by apostatizing & killing Muslims and taken away their valuables. The punishment was carried out to serve the justice and prevent such incidents in future. Also remember that this rule is an exception to the general rule mentioned in verse 5:32 which is killing any human being without any justification is as if one kills entire humanity.

Finally, let's look at the verse 5:34

Quran 5:34

Interpretation of the meaning:

Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

And here you can see that Islam still keep an open door for those who truly repent. There are countless examples of people who fought against Muslims and tortured them during the Makkah period and fought against them in Medina period but once they repented and accepted Islam, no punishment was carried out. Can we see any such example in so-called peace maker of modern world?

If you are a new Muslim, you will also see there are clear-cut hudud established by the Quran & Sunnah with regard to retaliation, adultery, false accusation, highway robbery, theft, drinking wine, apostasy, etc. My advice is that don't question the verses of Quran. Quran is preserved and Sharia law is from Allah so that peace can be established in the society. Feel free to ask the question and we will try to explain the wisdom behind such punishments with proper context.

In this time and age, the problem with hudud in Islam is not their application in society but their misapplication — applying them without meeting the necessary conditions.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prepared his contemporary society before applying hudud. He established the pillars of Islam including the prayer and the collection of zakah from those who could afford it, and distributed it among the poor. He created all the necessary conditions for social stability and solidarity. He established Islam as the way of life so that the needy were provided for and no one was left destitute, without food or shelter or other necessities for survival. In that case, for example, the theft penalty could be applied. But how can hudud be applied when people are unemployed, hungry, sick, orphaned, or homeless? Islam must be established in all aspects first, and then if someone steals, such an act of theft is a result of corruption of the soul rather than out of necessity.

Umar ibn Al-Khattab suspended the theft penalty during the Starvation Year, as people were stealing because of need and hunger. When a rich man came to Umar complaining that his slaves were stealing, after pondering and investigating the matter and knowing that this master had not met the needs of his slaves, Umar told him, “Go meet their needs first, or I’ll cut your hands off.”

We can thus see that Islam is not keen on punishing people. Punishments are for wicked, corrupt, or sociopathic people, who constitute a small portion of society. However, if these people are not punished, corruption will prevail.
I hope you find that helpful. And Allah knows the best!
@farida Can you also please update the religion in your profile? It shows Christianity as your religion?

Assalam alaikum


The aim of the Sharī’ah with regard to the legislation of fixed penalties (Ḥudūd), just retribution (Qiṣāṣ), discretionary penalties (ta’zīr) and injury compensation (urūsh al-jināyāt) is to achieve the following three objectives:

1. To reform the criminal
2. To satisfy the victim
3. To deter the imitator of criminals

(1) The first objective, that is, reformation, refers to the highest objective of the Sharī’ah, which is bringing reform (iṣlāḥ) to every aspect of the daily lives of individuals comprising a society. This we discussed in chapter 12 on the all-purpose principle of Islamic legislation. Thus, God says: “Now as for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off the hand of each of them in requital for what they have done, as a deterrent ordained by God: for God is Almighty, Wise” (5:38). Punishing the criminal aims at removing from his soul the evil that incites him to commit crime. This evil mostly becomes more deeply rooted in the criminal when the idea of committing a crime is translated into practice. That is why God has followed the implementation of the ḥadd with the phrase: “But as for him who repents after having thus done wrong, and makes amends, behold, God will accept his repentance” (5:39).

Ḥudūd constitute the maximum possible sentences, for they have been instituted for the most serious crimes. By intensifying these prescribed penalties, the aim of the Sharī’ah is to deter people and remove evil from the offender. Accordingly, when it is proven that a crime has been committed by mistake, the ḥadd punishment is waived. Similarly, if there is the slightest doubt or uncertainty (shubuhah) that could be used in favor of the offender, then the matter is considered on the same level as a mistake, in the sense that Sharī’ah do not apply. Furthermore, if it is revealed that the unintentional offense has been committed owing to extreme negligence to take the necessary precautions, the negligent person shall receive the appropriate disciplinary treatment.

(2) When seeking satisfaction for the victim, we must remember that it is part of human nature to harbor rancor against aggressors and anger against those who wrong us in error. These feelings often push people to take vengeance against their aggressors in a way that always transgresses the bounds of justice. This is because vengeance bursts out of a passionate anger that usually affects people’s rational thinking and blinds them to the light of justice. Thus, when the victim or his relatives and defenders (awliyā’) are capable of retaliating, they will soon do so; otherwise, they will conceal their wrath, thus awaiting the first opportunity for revenge. It is against this that God has cautioned us by saying: “but even so, let him not exceed the bounds of equity in [retributive] killing” (17:33). Under these circumstances, revenge and crime will never end and the social order of the community will never settle on peace and stability. Therefore, it has been the purpose of the Sharī’ah to undertake the task of satisfying the victim and putting an end to the age-old practice of vengeance and counter-vengeance. Hence, the Prophet said during the Farewell Pilgrimage (Ḥajjat al-Wadā‘) “Abolished are also the blood-feuds of the period of pagan ignorance (Jāhiliyyah).”

Likewise, the purpose of giving the victim fair satisfaction takes into account the inclination for revenge that is rooted in human nature. Accordingly, the Sharī’ah has given the relatives of a murder victim (qatīl) the right of guiding the convicted offender (qātil), under the supervision of the judge, by a rope in his hand to the place where just retribution will be inflicted on him, which is known as qawad (retaliation). This is meant to satisfy them to the same extent if they were to take justice into their own hands.

The satisfaction of the victim is more important in the Sharī’ah than the reformation of the offender. Therefore, it carries greater weight when it is not possible to achieve both at the same time. An example is qiṣāṣ, where the reformation of the criminal cannot be achieved, so priority is given to the satisfaction of the victim or his relatives. For this, there is no point in the well-known disagreement amongst the scholars over the question of consent by the heirs entitled to exact qiṣāṣ (awliyā’ al-dam) to a pardon and blood money instead of inflicting retaliation, if the offender’s wealth is sufficient for that. In this respect, Ashhab’s view that the murderer must be forced to pay the blood money is more tenable, contrary to Ibn al-Qāsim’s opinion. That is why they agreed that if some of the relatives of the victim forgive the offender, qiṣāṣ is then cancelled. These factors, of course, do not apply to killing in brigandage (ḥirābah) and assassination (ghīlah), as we shall point out shortly.

(3) The third purpose, deterring imitators, is implied by God’s saying in the Qur’an: “As for the adulteress and adulterer – flog each of them with a hundred stripes, and let not compassion for them keep you from [carrying out] this law of God, if you [truly] believe in God and the Last Day; and let a group of the believers witness their chastisement” (24:2). Thus, Ibn al-‘Arabī said in his book Aḥkām al-Qur’an: “The real interpretation of this is that the execution of the ḥadd deters the one on whom it is implemented, and those who attend and witness it will learn a lesson from it and be deterred by it. Its story will then be on everybody’s lips, thus warning those who come after.”

It thus reverts to the purpose of reforming the community as a whole. This is because the execution of punishment according to established rules discourages perverse people and criminals from satisfying their devilish desires by committing crimes. Likewise, anything that acts as a deterrent constitutes a punishment. However, deterring the general public [other than the offender] must not transgress the limits of justice. Therefore, it has been an aspect of the wisdom of the Sharī’ahthat has laid down the punishment of the offender as a deterrent to others without violating justice. Hence, the Sharī’ah policy in instituting ḥudūd, qiṣāṣ and other types of penalties is meant to deter people from taking criminals as models.

Nevertheless, a pardon (‘afw) by the victim under certain circumstances does not defeat the purpose of deterrence, for it only rarely happens, and therefore it cannot be taken as the main reason for the offender to commit a crime. Consequently, we find that the Sharī’ah does not take into consideration forgiveness in the crimes that do not affect the right of a specific party, such as theft, the consumption of intoxicants, and adultery, because these offences are a violation of the very essence of legislation itself, and so too is brigandage (ḥirābah). As for assassination, no pardon by the relatives of the victim is accepted, owing to its hideousness. However, the repentance of the brigand (muḥārib) before his arrest has been accepted out of concern for peace and security and as a means of encouraging his companions to follow his good example.

Translated from Ibn Ashoor book

----------
By Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi


The punishments required in Islam for certain crimes are often considered "barbaric" by non-Muslims and liberal Muslims alike. However, I believe this is due primarily to a misunderstanding of what the punishments entail and what exactly is being punished.

For example, many consider the punishments for adultery to be extremely harsh (i.e. lashing and stoning), but what many people don't understand is that adultery is not the thing that is actually punished -- rather it's the public display of adultery. This is why four witnesses are required; especially since Islam prohibits entering someone's private property without permission.
In other words, for such a punishment to be enacted, you'd literally have to have illegal sexual intercourse in a public place (enough so that you'd be noticed in full detail by four people).

Now, there are those who will argue that even with such a clarification, the punishments are still "too harsh". Why lash an unmarried couple for public displays of fornication? Why stone a married person for the same? Why not just fine them or jail them for a short amount of time?

But these questions display a lack of moral integrity and virtue when it comes to the issue of public displays of adultery. We are not just talking about the act of illegal intercourse here, but two people having the audacity to make it public -- an open rebellion against the very foundations of society itself (i.e. the family). It is not some innocuous performance done out of ignorance, but a willing protest against all moral decency.

And it's far worse when a married person does it. Not only are they spitting on the institution of marriage itself, but spitting in the face of their own family and children. Adultery is already such a heinous crime that one wonders why someone would have the gall to advertise it to the world. Even murderers and thieves try not to be as conspicuous.
Hence why the punishments are so harsh, because the very act that is being punished is so extreme -- almost inconceivable.

Thus, I think there is a no more fitting statement than "they were asking for it", because when you don't even bother to hide such an indecency then you are literally asking for whatever punishment exist -- no matter whether you perceive it as lenient or harsh.
At that point, neither of these categories matter, because you have agreed to the punishment by virtue of your behavior.

------------
Ansar Al-Adl explained :

5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter

The context of this verse itself will clear any negative perceptions against Islam. One cannot quote verse 5:33 without quoting verse 5:32 (prohibition of murder) and verse 5:34 (command to forgive). Let us examine the verse in its proper context:

5:32-34 ...If any one slew a person - unless it be as punishment for murder or for spreading corruption in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

There are several points to note here. The first is the gravity of the offense. This is punishment for WAGING WAR against the Prophet of God and spreading evil and destruction. In modern terminology this would be considered "terrorism". This is a punishment for such a severe offense, hence the severity of the punishment. As Muhammad Asad writes on this verse:

The present participle la-musrifun indicates their "continuously committing excesses" (i.e., crimes), and is best rendered as "they go on committing" them. In view of the preceding passages, these "excesses" obviously refer to crimes of violence and, in particular, to the ruthless killing of human beings. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an)

It is quite shocking to see how many Islam-haters will place this verse under the heading of "inciting Muslims to kill and wage war", whereas the verse commands nothing of this sort! In fact, it comes directly after a verse prohibiting murder and likening the unjust murder of a single individual to the slaughter of humanity. The Qur'an purposefully describes the gravity of the sin before describing the punishment. The crime of murder and committing terrorist activities is regarded as such a severe violation in Islam, that a severe retribution has been prescribed. Waging war against God's prophet is tantamount to waging war against Our Creator Himself. It is ironic that Islam-haters will present this verse to justify their claim that Islam supports terrorism, whereas Muslim scholars have always presented this verse as proof that Islam is vehemently opposed to terrorism. For example, the Islamic Fiqh Council of Saudi Arabia writes about this verse:

Obviously, in view of the enormity of such acts of aggression, which are viewed by the Shari'ah (Islamic law) as an act of war against the laws and the creatures of God, there is no stricter punishment anywhere in the manmade laws. (Islamic Fiqh Council of Saudi Arabia, Terrorism – Islam’s viewpoint, Muslim World League Journal, Jumad al-Ula 1423/July 2002 CE)

Is it logical to inform someone about a certain punishment without telling them about the crime? Yet, this is exactly what the enemies of Islam have done to deceive people into thinking Islam is a violent religion. They cite only verse 5:33 without verse 5:32 or verse 5:34, which brings us to our next point. God has prescribed multiple punishments in this verse using the word "or" between them, indicating various alternatives. The punishment depends on the circumstances and severity of the offence. As Muhammad F. Malik writes in his translation of this verse:

The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Rasool and strive to create mischief in the land is death or crucifixion or the cutting off their hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land (based on the gravity of their offence)... (Malik, Al-Qur'an: Guidance for Mankind)

Likewise, Abdullah Yusuf Ali comments:

For the double crime of treason against State, combined with treason against God, as shown by overt crimes, four alternative punishments are mentioned, any one of which is to be applied according to circumstances...except that tortures such as "hanging, drawing, and quartering" in English Law, and piercing of eyes and leaving the unfortunate victim exposed to a tropical sun, which was practiced in Arabia, and all such tortures were abolished. In any case sincere repentance before it was too late was recognized as grounds for mercy. (Yusuf Ali, The English Translation of the Holy Qur’an, emphasis added)

Indeed, the subsequent verse immediately states that this punishment is not for those who repent. For verily, God is Oft-Forgiving and Most Merciful. God's infinite Mercy is truly clear when one considers that God is willing to forgive these ruthless acts of terror that deserve such harsh punishments, so long as the offender sincerely repents to Allah, seeking His Pardon and True Guidance. The Muslim scholars have mentioned that whenever Allah warns us of a punishment, He always shows us a way out, a way to avoid the punishment. Many Muslim jurists also cite this verse in the case of punishment for Hirabah (armed robbery/highway robbery). In such instances, depending on the severity of the offence, the punishment is prescribed. When murder has been committed, then execution is prescribed as the punishment. Depending on the circumstances, the judge may choose a lesser punishment. The banishment mentioned in the verse has been interpreted by some schools of thought as imprisonment. The punishment of crucifixion has been mentioned in the verse, but many Muslim scholars have mentioned that they never have even heard of such punishment ever being prescribed. In fact, Imam Malik, the founder of the Maliki school of thought, when as ked about crucifixion, replied that he had never even heard of a single case in which crucifixion was prescribed as punishment for armed robbery. (see Al-Mudawwanah, vol. XV, p. 99). In light of this fact, Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa has said:

This observation of Malik's gives me the impression that this punishment was prescribed solely to deter the potential criminal. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 11, emphasis added)

Concerning the argument that such punishments are barbaric, Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa writes:

Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahra, in his previously mentioned book [Al-Jarima wal-'Uqba, pp. 6-11], explains the aim of both Islamic law, as well as the sacred Jewish law contained in the Torah, is to achieve public security and peace for the community as well as the retribution for the criminal minority; accordingly, the necessary means for the attainment of this latter end were prescribed both in the Torah and the Qur'an. The second question concerns the law of pardon for offenders who repent and whether the punishment for Hirabah should be considered a dead letter because of this law. To answer this question, one should again bear in mind that this punishment, and indeed all the hudud punishments in the Islamic penal system, are prescribed mainly to protect society from crime. In order to achieve this purpose, Islamic law, while prescribing punishment for criminals, makes it possible for them to be pardoned when they realize the evil of their conduct and desire to mend their ways. This does not contradict the earlier quotation from Abu Zahra. While punishment may be withheld, provision must be made for all the injuries and harm resulting from the criminal's act. In this way, society does not lose anything. On the contrary, it gains a new member who, if he had not been given the chance to repent, forever would have been considered an outlaw. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 13, emphasis added)

For further information on the Islamic Criminal Law, the reader may refer to the excellent article, Crime and Punishment in Islam. Other scholars explain the Islamic punishments by comparative means. Shaykh Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes the following on verse 5:33:

Lest some of these penalties may appear 'barbarous' to some hypersensitive Western reader, let him cast a glance on 'drawing and quartering', a penalty of the English Criminal Code maintained as late as the 18th century, inflicted on those found guilty of high treason touching the king's person or government. The person committed was usually drawn on a sledge to the place of execution; there he was hung by the neck from a scaffold, being cut down and disemboweled, while still alive, his head was cut from his body and his corpse divided into four quarters. With the profession of their faith declared as high treason by law many Catholics of England and Ireland suffered this death. 'In this reign of Henry III and Edward I there is abundant evidence that death was the common punishment of felony; and this continued to be the law of the land as to treason and as to all felonies, except petty larceny, down to the year 1826' (Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, I. p. 458). In contemporary English law, robbery is larceny with violence; and the guilty is liable to penal servitude for life, and in addition, if a male, to be once privately whipped. The elements of the offence are essentially the same under American law (EBr. XIX. p. 346). (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an, emphasis added)

In light of the above mentioned points, we can clearly reject any claims of this verse supporting "violence and warfare" as baseless. The textual context, historical context, legal context, and comparative analysis of this verse all demonstrate that this verse merely enjoins justice in return for grave offences, and by no means can support the lies of the Islam-haters.

---

Similar Narration

Bukhari: Some people from `Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them, so Allah's Apostle (pbuh) allowed them to go to the herd of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine (as medicine) but they killed the shepherd and drove away all the camels. So Allah's Apostle sent (men) in their pursuit to catch them, and they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron and they were left in the Harra (a stony place at Medina) biting the stones. (Volume 2, Book 24, Number 577)

This narration is often quoted in order to present the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as someone who delivered exceedingly cruel and barbaric punishments. Let us examine the narration more closely along with other narrations of the same event. The narration states the following:

-Some people from Urayna (or Ukil) tribe came to Madinah after accepting Islam -They acquired an illness due to the climate, for which the arabs used to drink milk and urine of camels as medicine -The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) allowed them to go to the herds of camels for their medicine -After recovering from their illness, they killed the sheperd and drove away the camels -The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ordered their hands and feet cut off, their eyes branded with heated pieces of iron, and they were left in the desert

It is clear that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prescribed the hands and feet to be cut off in accordance with the Islamic laws concerning hiraabah (armed robbery). What doesn't appear in this narration is the reason for branding their eyes with heated pieces of iron. This is explained in other narrations where it states that this was the punishment because they had done the same thing to the sheperd whom they killed. As Shaykh Abdul Khaliq Hasan Ash-Shareef states about this narration:

It should be made clear that those people who came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were Muslims and they were sick. The Prophet advised them to go to the herd of camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). When they became healthy, they killed the herder of the Prophet and drove away all the camels that were allocated for sadaqah (charity). When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came to know about this, he applied the punishment for Hirabah on them. Hiraba means killing people, robbing their money or raping women by an armed group of people. The punishment for Hirabah is mentioned in the Qur’an. Allah says: “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom” (Al-Ma’idah: 33).
As for branding their eyes, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) branded the eyes of the people of `Ukl or `Uraina with iron because they killed the herder and branded his eyes with iron. Imam Ibn Hajar stated the differences of opinions among scholars and he said, “The killing that took place (that is, in reference to the above hadith) was in retaliation and Allah Almighty says,
‘And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you’ (Al-Baqarah: 194).”
All in all, using this story as evidence in favor of the permissibility of torturing people in Islam is refuted by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) applied the punishment for Hirabah on them and that he did not do so for personal vengeance. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

Likwise, Moiz Amjad writes:

There is only one part of the referred narrative, which raises a question-mark in one's mind. It apparently seems strange that after having implemented the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an for crimes committed against the society, in general, why did the Prophet (pbuh) ordered their eyes to be branded. Most of the narratives do not provide an answer to this question. However, in one of the narratives reported in Ibn Al-Jarood's Al-Muntaqaa, Anas (ra) is reported to have explained the reason for this punishment as well. The companion of the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: The Prophet (pbuh) branded their eyes because they had branded the eyes of the herdsmen. (volume 1, Pg. 216)
This explanation adequately clarifies the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered the branding the eyes of the culprits, in compliance with the Qur'anic directive of Qisaas (Al-Baqarah 2: 178, Al-Maaidah 5: 45) for the punishment of murder and inflicting physical injury on someone. In view of the foregoing explanation, I find no reason to consider the incident narrated in the referred narrative to be unauthentic. (SOURCE)

Therefore, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not punish them any more than the harm they inflicted upon the sheperd and the Muslim community. He also sent a strong message to other desert tribes who were accustomed to raiding and attacking nearby villages and tribes. This punishment was done for the security of the Muslim community, living in a very dangerous time with no formal legal system governing the arabian tribes. The situation is incomparable to modern times where governments have strong control over their territories - in arabia there existed a tribalistic anarchy. As Shaykh Muhammad 'Ata Al Sid Sid Ahmad writes:

When the criminals of 'Urainah betrayed the community of Madinah which had met them with all love and respect -- by torturing and killing the herder of their camels and escaping with the Muslim's camels as their booty -- the Prophet quickly marshalled all his powers, arrested and dealt with them in the severest manner as the law allowed him. (Al-Sid, Islamic Criminal Law: The Hudud; Malaysia, Eagle Trading Sdn. Bhd., 1995, p. 132)

It should also be noted that many critics of the punishments in Islam are themselves believers in an afterlife in which people will be punished for their crimes, often with eternal torment in Hell. Eternal torment is far more servere than any temporary punishment delivered in this life. The punishments prescribed in Islam are intended to purify the offender of their sin in order that they may be saved from a far greater punishment in the next life. It seems that when one defers a punishment to the afterlife, there is a subconcious belief that such a punishment is not as "real" and consequently it is not as bothering to sentence someone to eternal torture in Hell as it is to prescribe a painful punishment here and now. Such thinking is inherently flawed. Some writers have also claimed that the punishment delivered to the Ukil/Urayna tribe was prescribed for their apostasy. This is clearly rejected by the text of the hadith as well as the consensus of all Muslim jurists. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa explains this as well:

On the other hand, the prevalent view among Muslim jurists is that the case of this group of 'Ukal and 'Urayna was a case of hiraba (armed robbery) and it was for this crime that they were punished (fn. See Tabari, Tafsir, vol. VI, pp. 132-146; Ibn al-Qayyim, Zad al-Ma'ad, vol. III, p. 78; Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bari, where he criticises Bukhari's view). The text itself demonstrates this very clearly. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51)

To conclude, this narration refers to an event of Hiraabah (armed robbery), where the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) implemented the law of Qisas (retribution), and the offendors were punished exactly as they had punished the sheperd. The Prophet did not exceed this limit at all in his prescribed punishment, but rather purified the offenders so that the punishment in the next life would be averted.(Source:https://web.archive.org/web/20051113.../Misquoted/#17)

---

Have a look here:
https://abuaminaelias.com/crucifixio...n-islamic-law/

https://islamic-life-forum.blogspot....h/label/hudood

Related thread
Lashing, stoning, mutilating: Islamic law is barbaric and outdated. Defend the case

Lashing, stoning, mutilating: Islamic law is barbaric and outdated. Defend the case Salam Thanks for the article....

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abdullah

Most likely you are referring to verse 5:33. Let's read that verse with its context. Let's start with verse 27 of the same Surah:

Quran 5:27 - 5:31
Interpretation of the meaning:

And recite to them the story of Adam's two sons, in truth, when they both offered a sacrifice [to Allah ], and it was accepted from one of them but was not accepted from the other. Said [the latter], "I will surely kill you." Said [the former], "Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous [who fear Him]. If you should raise your hand against me to kill me - I shall not raise my hand against you to kill you. Indeed, I fear Allah, Lord of the worlds. Indeed I want you to obtain [thereby] my sin and your sin so you will be among the companions of the Fire. And that is the recompense of wrongdoers." And his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.

Then Allah sent a crow searching in the ground to show him how to hide the disgrace of his brother. He said, "O woe to me! Have I failed to be like this crow and hide the body of my brother?" And he became of the regretful.

In above verses, Allah Subhanahu Wa Taa'la has described the story of first murder in human history.

Allah describes the evil end and consequence of transgression, envy and injustice in the story of two sons of Adam, Habil (Abel)and Qabil (Cane).
One of them fought against the other and killed him out of envy and transgression, because of the bounty that Allah gave his brother and the sacrifice that he sincerely offered to Allah was accepted. The murdered brother earned forgiveness for his sins and was admitted into Paradise, while the murderer failed and earned a losing deal in both the lives.

Quran 5:32

Interpretation of the meanings:

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

Often time People who try to misrepresent Islam, will NOT quote 5:32 but they will directly quote verses 5:33 and say Islam is barbaric. Verse 5:32, clearly says that the general principal is that a general principal is that killing of any human being(Muslim or non-Muslim) is a major sin in Islam. However, there are two exception to this general rule - as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth.

With this background, now let's look at the verse you have questioned:

Quran 5:33

Interpretation of the meanings:

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.

We also know after reading interpretation of above mentioned verses, that this was the law given to Jews before Prophet (peace be upon him) and we also know that Allah criticized Jews for not following this law in verses 2:84-85.

Quran 2:84-85

Interpretation of the meaning:

And [recall] when We took your covenant, [saying], "Do not shed each other's blood or evict one another from your homes." Then you acknowledged [this] while you were witnessing.

Then, you are those [same ones who are] killing one another and evicting a party of your people from their homes, cooperating against them in sin and aggression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their eviction was forbidden to you. So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest of punishment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.

Let's also understand when & why verse 5:33was revealed?

Narrated Anas:
Some people from the tribe of `Ukl came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet (ﷺ) sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الأَوْزَاعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ أَبِي كَثِيرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو قِلاَبَةَ الْجَرْمِيُّ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ قَدِمَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَفَرٌ مِنْ عُكْلٍ، فَأَسْلَمُوا فَاجْتَوَوُا الْمَدِينَةَ، فَأَمَرَهُمْ أَنْ يَأْتُوا إِبِلَ الصَّدَقَةِ، فَيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَبْوَالِهَا وَأَلْبَانِهَا، فَفَعَلُوا فَصَحُّوا، فَارْتَدُّوا وَقَتَلُوا رُعَاتَهَا وَاسْتَاقُوا، فَبَعَثَ فِي آثَارِهِمْ فَأُتِيَ بِهِمْ، فَقَطَعَ أَيْدِيَهُمْ وَأَرْجُلَهُمْ وَسَمَلَ أَعْيُنَهُمْ، ثُمَّ لَمْ يَحْسِمْهُمْ حَتَّى مَاتُوا‏.‏

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6802

In-book reference: Book 86, Hadith 32
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 794
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/86/32

Clearly the people caused mischief in the land by apostatizing & killing Muslims and taken away their valuables. The punishment was carried out to serve the justice and prevent such incidents in future. Also remember that this rule is an exception to the general rule mentioned in verse 5:32 which is killing any human being without any justification is as if one kills entire humanity.

Finally, let's look at the verse 5:34

Quran 5:34

Interpretation of the meaning:

Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

And here you can see that Islam still keep an open door for those who truly repent. There are countless examples of people who fought against Muslims and tortured them during the Makkah period and fought against them in Medina period but once they repented and accepted Islam, no punishment was carried out. Can we see any such example in so-called peace maker of modern world?

If you are a new Muslim, you will also see there are clear-cut hudud established by the Quran & Sunnah with regard to retaliation, adultery, false accusation, highway robbery, theft, drinking wine, apostasy, etc. My advice is that don't question the verses of Quran. Quran is preserved and Sharia law is from Allah so that peace can be established in the society. Feel free to ask the question and we will try to explain the wisdom behind such punishments with proper context.

In this time and age, the problem with hudud in Islam is not their application in society but their misapplication — applying them without meeting the necessary conditions.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prepared his contemporary society before applying hudud. He established the pillars of Islam including the prayer and the collection of zakah from those who could afford it, and distributed it among the poor. He created all the necessary conditions for social stability and solidarity. He established Islam as the way of life so that the needy were provided for and no one was left destitute, without food or shelter or other necessities for survival. In that case, for example, the theft penalty could be applied. But how can hudud be applied when people are unemployed, hungry, sick, orphaned, or homeless? Islam must be established in all aspects first, and then if someone steals, such an act of theft is a result of corruption of the soul rather than out of necessity.

Umar ibn Al-Khattab suspended the theft penalty during the Starvation Year, as people were stealing because of need and hunger. When a rich man came to Umar complaining that his slaves were stealing, after pondering and investigating the matter and knowing that this master had not met the needs of his slaves, Umar told him, “Go meet their needs first, or I’ll cut your hands off.”

We can thus see that Islam is not keen on punishing people. Punishments are for wicked, corrupt, or sociopathic people, who constitute a small portion of society. However, if these people are not punished, corruption will prevail.
I hope you find that helpful. And Allah knows the best!
@farida Can you also please update the religion in your profile? It shows Christianity as your religion?

Actually thought of this, so iv quoted from somewhere that does the writing for me in the most part.. Totally clever to have made the connection myself..

Although not the only one to do so.

https://www.quranicpath.com/finerpoi...ands_feet.html

Excerpts from link..

The Qur'an has to be interpreted as a whole. A believer must use his or her Quranic wisdom and knowledge when reading a particular verse. This requires him to have read the Qur'an before-hand and be able to use wisdom in applying his knowledge of other verses.

The expression in verse 5:33 is very specifically defined. For example, "hands and feet be cut off from alternate sides." i.e. left foot and right hand. Elsewhere in the Qur'an, we find that one of the greatest tyrants on the earth, 'the pharaoh' threatens the few true believers who had joined the Prophet Moses in the same manner.

He (Pharoah) said: 'Have you believed in him before taking my permission? He is surely your great one who has taught you magic. So, I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, and I will crucify you on the trunks of the palm trees, and you will come to know which of us is greater in retribution and more lasting!' " (Qur'an 20:71)

The point to ponder over is, why is the specific threat pharaoh made repeated in the same manner by Allah in verse 5:33 (i.e. cutting alternate hands and feet and crucifixion)?