Thread by @DrJavadTHashmi

These are not difficult questions to answer. As many modern hermeneuts have argued, we need to first determine what is essential & what is accidental to the Qur'anic discourse. You can well understand this from a verse you yourself would be keen on citing in regard to war. 1/

https://twitter.com/XGONDALX/status/1387139340472655882

The Qur'an says to prepare against the enemy "steeds of war." The question arises: do we understand the "steeds" (i.e. horses) as essential or accidental to the Qur'anic discourse? It seems obvious to say that this is accidental, related to the contingent historical context. 2/

What is essential, meanwhile, is the overall message: be prepared against your enemies so that they don't attack you. This is what is transhistorical & universal in the Qur'anic discourse, not the specificity of "steeds of war." 3/

Similarly, when it comes to the punishment of hand amputation, modern hermeneuts have argued that the actual mode of punishment is accidental & historically contingent. The Qur'an decrees it, as it did the horses, but this is based on contingent historical circumstances. 4/

There was, at that time, no prison system nor even the capability for this. However, had imprisonment been one of the main punishments for this at the time, it is quite possible the Qur'an would have selected this, just as if it has been that elephants were the main war animal 5/

then the Qur'an might have used that instead of horses. What the essential, universal, & transhistorical import of this Qur'anic passage is, however, is the idea of deterrence & rule of law, as well as forgiveness, mercy, & rehabilitation. 6/

Similarly, the institution of slavery existed at the time & we take the liberatory ethic as what the essential, universal, & transhistorical import of the Qur'an is. Keep in mind that I am here speaking as a Muslim interpreter of the divine text... 7/

since MEANING is in the realm of the (sometimes secular) textual scholar but here we are talking about SIGNIFICANCE, i.e. how do we apply the meaning today in the here & now. 8/

Finally, to come directly to your question, "Is hand chopping... deserved to be mentioned by God?" Well, yes, for the obvious fact that it was the accepted punishment of the time, & what was in place, as with concubinage. This is why it makes all the sense in the world... 9/

to be mentioned in & by the Qur'an. This is a different question than the next one you asked, which is about morality. I do not consider hand amputations in the pre-modern period to necessarily be "immoral" or to warrant moral outrage. 10/

It seems to me that this is context & society-dependent. In the future, it is quite possible that people will look back at our present moment & think prison seems barbaric. But, I do not think it would be right to warrant moral outrage & judgment on all people everywhere...11/

of that society, especially those who tried to reform aspects of it. On the other hand, I consider slavery to be immoral, but here again, the Qur'anic ethical trajectory is emancipatory. 12/

If you are judging the book as a historical text, then I think our judgment of it from this aspect must be a positive one, given that it is emancipatory in ethic. It is only if we view it as a divine religious scripture, which you don't, that we then face the question... 13/

of why it doesn't abolish slavery altogether. But, then in this case, you should also accept the religious thinking of the believer, who understands an accidental & essential element to the text, & an ethical trajectory. 14/

What you want to do, on the other hand, is make a secular judgment of the text based on a religious premise (i.e. its transhistoricity). Either you take a purely secular historical perspective, in which case the Qur'an on the topic of slavery fairs well. Or... 15/

alternatively, you can take a religious perspective, in which case you have to then take seriously the religious approaches to the text itself, which include the very sensible hermeneutical method I outlined above. 16/