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