Scholarlink

<p>This article reinterprets Qur’anic discourses on crime and punishment as a moral-semiotic system oriented toward the restoration of balance (mizan), not as a self-sufficient penal code. In response to calls for stronger analytical transparency and broader interdisciplinary relevance, the study is framed explicitly as a theoretical-conceptual article supported by a focused close reading of selected verse clusters: Q 17:15, Q 39:53, Q 5:38, and Q 55:7–9. Methodologically, it combines Peircean sign theory, Greimasian structural oppositions, and maqasid al-shari‘a reasoning to show how warning, accountability, sanction, repentance, and mercy function within one ethical grammar. The core argument is that punishment in the Qur’an is intelligible only within a larger architecture of truth, proportionality, moral communication, and the possibility of return. Rather than claiming that the Qur’an simply replaces law with spirituality, the article argues that legal sanction is normatively embedded in a wider pedagogical and restorative horizon. The study makes four contributions. First, it clarifies the epistemological status of mizan as a principle linking ontology, ethics, and social order. Second, it demonstrates through close textual analysis how punishment is relational, temporally mediated, and communicatively framed. Third, it situates Qur’anic punitive discourse in dialogue with contemporary human-science concerns such as moral formation, meaning-making, social repair, and restorative responses to wrongdoing. Fourth, it addresses a central tension often ignored in apologetic or legalistic readings: how punitive severity and divine mercy can coexist without canceling one another. The article also clarifies its limits. It does not provide a comprehensive juristic reconstruction of hudud or ta‘zir doctrine, nor does it claim direct equivalence between Qur’anic categories and modern secular legal theory. Its aim is hermeneutic: to offer a disciplined way of reading punitive verses without severing them from mercy, repentance, communication, and the ethical purposes of revelation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Crime and Punishment in the Spirit of the Qur’an: A Maqāṣid-Based Structural Reading of Divine Justice

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月21日

查看全文
  • Abdelghni El Amoumri

摘要

This article reinterprets Qur’anic discourses on crime and punishment as a moral-semiotic system oriented toward the restoration of balance (mizan), not as a self-sufficient penal code. In response to calls for stronger analytical transparency and broader interdisciplinary relevance, the study is framed explicitly as a theoretical-conceptual article supported by a focused close reading of selected verse clusters: Q 17:15, Q 39:53, Q 5:38, and Q 55:7–9. Methodologically, it combines Peircean sign theory, Greimasian structural oppositions, and maqasid al-shari‘a reasoning to show how warning, accountability, sanction, repentance, and mercy function within one ethical grammar. The core argument is that punishment in the Qur’an is intelligible only within a larger architecture of truth, proportionality, moral communication, and the possibility of return. Rather than claiming that the Qur’an simply replaces law with spirituality, the article argues that legal sanction is normatively embedded in a wider pedagogical and restorative horizon. The study makes four contributions. First, it clarifies the epistemological status of mizan as a principle linking ontology, ethics, and social order. Second, it demonstrates through close textual analysis how punishment is relational, temporally mediated, and communicatively framed. Third, it situates Qur’anic punitive discourse in dialogue with contemporary human-science concerns such as moral formation, meaning-making, social repair, and restorative responses to wrongdoing. Fourth, it addresses a central tension often ignored in apologetic or legalistic readings: how punitive severity and divine mercy can coexist without canceling one another. The article also clarifies its limits. It does not provide a comprehensive juristic reconstruction of hudud or ta‘zir doctrine, nor does it claim direct equivalence between Qur’anic categories and modern secular legal theory. Its aim is hermeneutic: to offer a disciplined way of reading punitive verses without severing them from mercy, repentance, communication, and the ethical purposes of revelation.