Messages

1726

Posts on Other Forums - The Salaat Forum / Re: Reward and Punishment

« on: November 16, 2011, 11:28:51 PM »

LINK THE ORIGINAL THREAD
http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=296#p306

by Joseph Islam  , On God's Earth, Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 21:45 (10 hours, 42 minutes ago) @ Quasim Hamdani


That is good answer in my humble, personal opinion.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Joseph.

--
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act'
George Orwell

http://www.quransmessage.com
Copyright © 2010 Quransmessage.com

1727

Women / Re: Women to stay at home

« on: November 16, 2011, 11:33:24 AM »

Peace brother Saleh,

Yes indeed, the Quran is a teaching for all. I have tackled these aggressive (mis)translations in an article which I firmly believe are influenced from later theology sourced from Islamic secondary sources.

Here is the article:

AGGRESSIVE (MIS)TRANSLATIONS OF THE QURAN TO ENSLAVE WOMEN
http://quransmessage.com/articles/aggressive%20(mis)translations%20of%20the%20quran%20to%20enslave%20women%20FM3.htm


Please note below a relevant excerpt from my article above:


STAY FIXED IN YOUR HOME?

Another aggressive rendering and supported by later traditions and theology is the rendering of the following Quranic verse:
 
033.033
"Stay (Arabic: Qarna) in your homes and do not display your finery as women used to do in the days of ignorance (pre-Islamic days); establish Prayer, pay Zakah, and obey God and His Messenger. O People of the House, God only intends to remove uncleanliness from you and to purify you completely"
 
Firstly, the above passage is a reference particular to the Prophet's wives. If this is the case, a general reading of the above translation would cause conflict with the above word 'Sahitun' used in verse 66.5, where righteous movement is clearly permissible. [Please see main article for context]
 
 
Is it plausible to accept that the Prophet's wives were confined to their homes and did not travel or spread the word of Islam or for any other purpose? Does this aggressive rendering of the verse then conflict with 66.5? [Please see main article for context]
 
The Arabic word used is 'Qarna'

So what does the word 'Qarna' mean?
 
The word is made of the Root Q-R-R
 
Qaf-Ra-Ra = To remain quiet, be steadfast, be firm, refresh, be stable, affirm, agree, settle, last. Qarar - stability, a fixed or secure place, depository, place ahead
 
This sense of stability and safe lodging is clear from a reading of the lexicons and its uses in the Quran. Let us see how this root Q-R-R is used in other Quranic passages:
 
023:013                 Safe lodging of sperm
023:050                 Safety and shelter for Mary and Prophet Jesus (pbut)
027:061                 The earth as a place of residence
040.039                 The hereafter as an enduring home
040.064                 The earth as a resting place
 
Many commentators thus see this word not in its restrictive aggressive form to restrict complete movement but as one to settle down, live peacefully, sit with dignity, cause to rest and remain in a secure lodging. The aggressive rendering to restrict women completely and subject them to their homes completely is not warranted by the Quran.

Please do read the main article as it tackles some other aggressive renderings against women.

I hope that helps,
Joseph.

1728

General Discussions / Re: First life in the Heavens,Second life in Earth

« on: November 16, 2011, 10:07:40 AM »

Dear brother Saleh,

Salamun Alaikum.

Welcome to the board and thanks your question.

I do understand the essence of your assertion and do resonate it to some degree. However, please let me share with you my personal understanding on this matter.

Yes, we had an existence at some location (or in some state) prior to our 'physical' birth. (Our physiological state is different from our spiritual state (nafs)). We took a primordial covenant with God at some point before our physical birth (7:172, see also 33:72). This is where our 'innate' belief of some kind of Creator comes from (our 'fitrah'). We also find a reminder of this in verse 57:8. Then we were put to sleep (1st death). We were then given life in our physical state (1st life). We will then be tested in our lives where God will show us His signs in multifaceted forms. We will not be left without purpose (75:36). We will then pass away, 29:57 (2nd death). On the day of resurrection (on the second 'calling' 39:68, 79:6-7) we will be brought back to life (2nd life).

As you can see there are two 'deaths' and two 'lifes'. This understanding also finds some support from the following verse:

040:011
"They say: Our Lord! Twice have You made us die, and twice have You made us live. Now we confess our sins. Is there any way to go out?"

With regards the 'Heavenly feud' which you mention, I find this better linked to a period before 'man's' creation in which the ('mala-i-l-ala' (37:08) exalted assemblies) possibly contended with regards the creation of man. This can be read in the following verses:  38:71-85. This dispute can also be read in verse 2:30-34, 7:11-18, 15:28-43, 17:61-65 and 18:50. However, God enforces His will repeatedly and without fail as supreme authority (38:66).

I hope this helps.

Joseph.



UPDATE BY QM FORUM MODERATOR

12th March 2013

This thread is now closed and a direct link to this post is now available at the dedicated Q&A page.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/q&as%20FM3.htm

Thanks.

1729

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Requirement of at Least Two Witnesses (2:282). What about the Ahad Hadith?

« on: November 16, 2011, 07:14:55 AM »

Salamun Alaikum.


The argument is that even for a basic transaction one requires at least two witnesses on the basis of verse 2:282. What the Prophet may have said or done is far more important than a business transaction!
 
So Hadith which often only has only 1 person witnessing what the Prophet may have said (ahad hadith), in 'light' of 2:282 where even for a simple business transaction you need a minimum 2 witnesses, leaves the Hadith in a difficult situation.
 
Don't think about the 'subject' (transaction) in 2:282, look at it from the point of view of the 'principle' in 2:282.
 
Ahadith (What the Prophet may have said) are far more important than transactions as I'm sure you will agree.
 
I hope that helps.

1730

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Messengers will continue to come?

« on: November 16, 2011, 06:15:02 AM »

I think the Quranic messenger in its basic definition is anyone who passes on a message. This even applies to normal people that may pass on a message of truth. If what you utter is truth, then who does truth come from?

I think that the premise that we may need to 'look out' for a messenger has been incorrectly assumed by some from a contextual misreading of the proclamations of 'messengership' made by certain messengers in the Quran.

These proclamations in the Quran such as in 26:107, 26:125, 26:143, 26:162 and 26:178 etc has often been understood by some to mean that 'messengership' needs to be proclaimed and that they are in some way Divinely chosen and exclusively. (a possible valid criticism even against individuals like RK, Mirza Ghulam etc).

God can make use of anyone to pass on a 'message' of truth (16:2, 40:15). I have said this to you before, that can also mean you too. He may choose to make use of you to pass a convincing message to a disbeliever who may in turn accept your arguments and convert. In this capacity, you have only passed on a 'message'. Only god knows best.

Now today scripture is complete, no one can add or take anything away from it. Today's messengers can only pass on the 'truth' of the message. Please note the following verse.

023:051
"O Messengers! (Arabic: rusulu - plural). Eat of the good things and do right. Indeed, I am aware of what ye do"
 
Here it is clear that those who were around Prophet Muhammad were also being called 'messengers'. If we assume for a second that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali are real personalities (I have no reason to deny it - but we are outside scripture for now) and were active in spreading the message, then they would have been possibly included into this address.

Also messengers are not perfect clones. There were three messengers in Surah Yaseen together (36:14). Who is to say that they all agreed perfectly on every fine theological point? Humans are humans, they disagree. Are we to assume that the three messengers in this case were perfect clones of one another and agreed with everything they said to each other? Did Prophet Moses and Aaron agree with everything? (20:94) “ Clutch not my beard nor my head!). However a man operating in the capacity of a PROPHET in terms of scriptural revelation is different. In the case of Prophet Muhammad, his revelation was protected (53:3-4). However, 'Prophethood' has now ceased (33:40) and there will be no more 'Divine' scriptures or Prophets.

Furthermore, messengers also have grades (Darajatan) with God (2:253)  and they too will be judged and questioned (7:6). There is also a tacit indication in the Quran, that some individuals that God wanted to elevate (possibly as messengers) failed in their duty as they became a victim of their own lusts and earthly desires out of volition. 

Please read 7:175-6 very carefully in Arabic or with a good translation. When God talks about 'rafa' of a human, it usually means elevation into God's special grace. This term has been used for both Prophet Jesus 3:55 and Prophet Idris in 19:57.  So 'rafa' in this context has a very significant purport. Now the same word 'rafa' has been used for this unnamed individual (or possibly a reference to a generic type of person) in verse 7:176 (If it had been Our Will, We could have 'rafa'nahu' (raised / elevated / exalted) him ...). But instead he inclined to the earth and no matter how much one would warn him he will not see the error of his ways. The parable of a dog and his panting tongue is quite apt here in this verse.

Some would argue RK fell in that trap, some will argue that Mirza Ghulam did the same. Others may have the view that Shabbir Ahmed is another. Some may say I too have suffered the same fate. My point is not to comment on anyone or myself. Each one of these personalities have their supporters and defenders. There is nothing fantastic about that. God remains the final judge.

However, it is clear, that once one falls from God's grace due to their own desires, they are no longer 'God's helpers'. God does not make use of 'misleaders' to do his true work (18:51).

Our responsibility is simple. Today we must judge any person on our best understanding of the Quranic text and accept the best meaning (39:18). 'Messages' will come to us in different ways. We shouldn't get too hung up about 'searching' for a messenger. However we should be ready to accept a better message or information when it reaches us. If a person rehearses clear verses from the Quran and we are persuaded by their strength of argument, then we should accept and mend our ways.

007:035
"O ye Children of Adam! whenever there come to you messengers from among you, rehearsing My verses (Arabic: ayati) to you, those who are righteous and mend (their lives), on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve"

I hope that helps,

Peace.

1731

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Was the Prophet Illiterate?

« on: November 16, 2011, 05:53:03 AM »

Dear Sister.

Salamun Alaikum.

I have an article which I trust addresses your very question. Please let me know if it helps. If not, we can dissect it further.

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE WORD 'IKTATABAHA'
http://quransmessage.com/articles/iktatabaha%20FM3.htm

I look forward to your response.

Regards,
Joseph

1732

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Requirement of at Least Two Witnesses (2:282). What about the Ahad Hadith?

« on: November 16, 2011, 03:05:58 AM »

Salamun Alaikum.

Thank you for your email.

This has also been the crux of my argument when I do 'delve' in the area of authenticity. As you know even though the question of 'authority' is more pertinent to me from a Quran's perspective and as a 'believer', the question of 'authenticity' is just as relevant to me as an 'academic'.

Verse 2:282 clearly underscores the requirements for basic transactions. Also the claim of not having writing materials at the time of the Prophet is seriously debateable in my opinion given that previous scriptures were already being written down into parchments (6:91, 6:71 qaratisa) even by people of the Book at the time of the Prophet. Why could they just not borrow their materials? These claims of bones, skins, scraps etc are from Islamic secondary sources not the Quran. 'qirtas' means parchment, sheet of paper, skin, scroll of paper, writing, book, or what one writes upon.

I actually say in my following article that:

'The vast majority of the Ahadith corpus is based on 'khabar-e-wahid' which merely provides a single source of evidence. So in effect, what one originator narrates, no other narrator passes on the same hadith. It is argued whether there exist any 'Khabar-tawwatur' (multiple sources of hadith) and if so, what they actually are. This single source of evidence which qualifies the vast Ahadith reports which make up the corpus should be noted in the light of the Quran which even for basic debt transactions, demands for at least two witnesses (2:282).'

http://quransmessage.com/articles/hadith%20and%20sunna%20FM3.htm

The simple question remains. The Quranic 'golden standard' is at least two witnesses are required in a basic transaction (2:282). Most Ahadith are 'ahad' narrations. It is disputed even if any 'mutawattir' hadith actually exist. Against the Quranic standard, the majority of the Ahadith corpus fails.

This in my view is a very powerful assertion from the light of the Quran and can only be 'challenged' from the Quran. The Quran clearly has to say that in case of 'reports' one transmission is allowable as an exception to the rule established firmly in 2:282.

Your thought during Isha prayer was no accident in my humble view. I hope you can see that.

Your brother,
Joseph.

1733

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Did Prophet Receive Revelations Outside the Quran?

« on: November 15, 2011, 01:32:46 PM »

Salamun Alaikum

Yes of course. Verse 66:3 is a clear verse that informs the reader that humans receive 'messages', 'information' or even 'inspirations' from God.

However, the Prophet received this 'inspiration' as a man, not in the capacity of a Prophet. If he received an inspiration for the purposes of religious guidance for the posterity of believers it would have appeared in the Quran. Please see verses 3:123-126 which were confirmed as arguably prophetic inspiration / information which has been preserved for posterity. Muhammad (pbuh) was a son, a man, a father, a husband, a leader, a spiritual leader and a PROPHET. He could make mistakes in the capacity as a man (66:1, 80:1), but never in the capacity as a Prophet with regards his 'wahi' for mankind. This was protected (53:3-4)

This 'inspiration', 'message' or 'manifestation of truth' in verse 66:3 would be no different in my opinion to the 'inspiration' acquired by the mother of Prophet Moses (pbuh) who was 'inspired' (Arabic: awhayna) to place her baby in the river. (28:7) She was not a Prophet, but received 'inspiration' in her capacity as a fearful mother.

In our own personal experiences, circumstances often reveal things to us where we may feel that we may have been 'shown' something or in some way 'aided'.

In a similar manner, all this verse confirms is that God does communicate and assist mankind in different ways, like the mother of Prophet Moses (pbuh).

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was no different and he too received such non Quranic 'assistance / wahi' to deal with his personal life.

I hope that helps.

Your brother in faith,
Joseph.

1734

Posts on Other Forums - The Salaat Forum / Re: Salaat = Follow the Quran

« on: November 15, 2011, 07:49:59 AM »

LINK TO THE ORIGINAL THREAD

http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=169#p303

by Joseph Islam  , On God's Earth, Monday, November 14, 2011, 15:53 (50 minutes ago) @ Quasim Hamdani

Dear brother Quasim,

Salamun alaikum.

I feel you have aptly captured and summarised the various positions taken by the contributors. You have also asked some pertinent questions.

I have often felt in some discussions that 'prayer', is at times generally understood in terms of 'asking' God for something when it also has the inherency of 'worshipping' where one praises and thanks their Lord for His bounties.

034:013 (part)
"...Give thanks, O House of David! Few of My bondmen are thankful'

This underscores the difference between 'salaat' as a form of 'formal worship / prayer', 'dua' as a form of 'asking' and 'dhikr' as a form of 'remembrance'.

However, responding to a very important question you asked:

"If Salaat only means prayer, then praying to Allah who is nearer to us than our Vena Cava (50:16), whose Divine Energy (Rooh) is part of each person's constitution of which we understand very little (17:85), Who is with us everywhere (58:7), and He knows what we conceal and what we reveal (2:77) exposes what to Him? Nothing that He is not already aware of"

I think this question accesses the core of understanding the relationship between 'Complete Divine knowledge' and 'human volition'.

For example, we note a dialogue between Prophet Moses and God in verse 20:17. God asks Prophet Moses with regards his staff "wa ma til'ka biyaminika ya-musa?'. This would approximately translate as "And what is that in your right hand O Moses?".

Now was God not aware of what was in Prophet Moses's right hand? or that it was a staff? or that it was possibly constructed from an off-shoot of a strong branch of a tree or that he even possibly found it somewhere? Was God not aware of any of these possibilities? It is in the response given that we note that Prophet Moses knew exactly what was being asked of him which were his 'choices'.

God also knew his choices but it was for Prophet Moses to advance them which introduces the concept of 'answerability'. "He said: This is my staff / rod (asaya) I lean upon it, and with which I bring down leaves / beat down fodder for my sheep, and wherein I find other uses" (20:18)

In the same way, God knows everything and as you say He is 'nearer to us than our Vena Cava (50:16)' yet we remain responsible for our 'choices' and our 'actions'. Knowledge of what we may ask or appreciate is already with Him, yet we are responsible for these choices.

Our prayer, what we ask, how we praise and acknowledge was known to our Lord before He created mankind. Many of us locate God in our understanding of space and time. He is simply not subject to His creation.I have already advanced this theological understanding which can be noted in this thread.

This is even a concept that I feel is supported in the previous scriptures. Before the Lord's prayer is mentioned in Matthew 6:9 ff, we note the statement "...for your father knows what you need before you ask him" (Matt 6:8-). But this did not undermine the need for prayer.

He didn't force our choices, we made our choices. He just knew of them and took account of them.

It is absolutely clear from the Quran in my mind that God does respond to prayer.

Response to Zakariyya's prayer in 19:7, God's response to a women that pleaded with the Prophet about her husband (58:1), God's response to Moses's prayer in 20:36 are all explicit statements.

It is from this point that we need to reconcile our understanding and concept of the Universe and not, with respect, attempt to change the scripture which I feel some do and which I have already publicly asserted.

Thanks for your well positioned and respectful post.

Joseph.

--
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act'
George Orwell

http://www.quransmessage.com
Copyright © 2010 Quransmessage.com

1735

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Who Frowned Away in Surah Abasa (80.1)?

« on: November 14, 2011, 02:33:00 PM »

Peace brother,

The usage of the 2nd person singular masculine 'anta' in 80:6 and 80:10 almost certainly frames the context as this being directed to the Prophet. No other would have been spoken to this way directly apart from the person the scripture was inspired. It is also interesting to note that given the veneration, miraculous and infallible portrayals that many traditionalists advance with regards the Prophet, they were unable (majority) to interpret this narrative in any other way. The direct terms that have been used, in my humble view have stabilised the interpretation of the text.


Your brother,
Joseph.

1736

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: The Tree and Iblis

« on: November 14, 2011, 02:30:02 PM »

Walaikum salaam,

While upholding the interpretation used for the relevance of the theme of the article, I don't disagree with your deeper rationale. I think it is quite plausible given that the root of Shajara is well understood as a matter of controversy / disputation. Also, I do not disagree with nouns developing from verbal roots.

I also keep at the helm (as I have argued before) that Quranic terms must be first appreciated in the context they have been narrated and how the primary audience would have most likely understood them. As you know, Arab Jews and Christians would have already had an understanding of this narrative and what the 'shajrah' meant given their interpretations of their scriptures for over a 'millennia'. So is the Quran attempting to offer a newer, better, more corrective explanation? or is it, as the Quran often says it is 'musaddiqan' (confirming e.g. 5:48) an aspect / aspects of an existing one? Personally, I might lean to the latter on this particular case.

However, while staying conscious of the advice in 3:7, I absolutely believe there are many deeper meanings to terms and I am fully cognizant so as to appreciate them given their merits. Therefore, as mentioned before, I don't disagree with your opinion (very plausible) while upholding the relevance of the literal rendering for the purposes of the article.

Your brother,
Joseph.

1737

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Virgin / Miraculous Birth of Prophet Jesus

« on: November 14, 2011, 02:24:13 PM »

Wa Alaikum Salaam.
 
I personally find that the 'miracles/events' (including the one you refer to) narrated in the Quran are not mentioned so as to convince us or the Pagan Arabs in the first instance. Rather primarily, it served as a reminder to the listeners from the people of the previous scriptures of 7th century Arabia who must have been familiar with these narratives, so that they didn't end up being the first to reject the Quran.
 
002.040-41
'O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfill your covenant with Me as I fulfill My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me. And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone.'
 
I suppose it is no different today. The Quran confirms the understanding of the People of the Book of the veracity of these narratives.
 
No one in 7th century Arabia actually witnessed these events, least the Pagan Arabs. To the believers (mu'mins) who accepted the veracity of the Quran, these narratives were simply ratifying the continuation of a message.
 
I accept the Quranic narratives in the manner they have been narrated and in the context of how primarily the 7th century (Christio-Judaic) audience would have first understood them. I simply keep it in that context.

There is no way of proving or disproving the occurrence of these miraculous events. They are either accepted or rejected based on one's overriding belief in the veracity of the scriptures that narrate them.

I share a related article:

MIRACLES OR MISUNDERSTOOD NATURAL PHENOMENON?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/miracles%20and%20laws%20FM3.htm

Joseph.

1738

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Cutting off the Hands

« on: November 14, 2011, 02:10:39 PM »

Salamun Alaikum,

Indeed, the Quran intends to provide clear guidance for practical purposes not only to govern the spiritual realm but also in a legal capacity where it lays down the 'hadh' (limits and scope) for societies to develop on. I suppose one can appeal to the strong directives governing the recommendation of 'shura' (42:38; 27:32) which even the prophet was asked to participate in (3:159) with how to implement the 'hadh' stipulated by the Quran and appreciating the wide berth given by the Quran to recognise the degrees of implementation. Unfortunately, as you know from a study of the development of early jurisprudence in Islam and to today, there has been much departure from the 'hadh' stipulated by the Quran and into a legal system which has been dependant on surmounting traditions which are clearly dichotomous with respect to the Quran. This approach has only served to narrow the interpretation and often completely divert from the essence of the Quranic laws and its wisdom.

With regards the recognition of a state, I wonder how one would interpret the narrative with regards Prophet Joseph (pbuh) and how he recognised the 'system' (deen) of his land which he didn't contravene, rather chose to manufacture a situation to reveal the truth. Clarification made, 'ka-dhalika kidna li-yusufa - ma kana liyakhuda akhahu fi dini-l-maliki' (Thus (did) we plan for Yusuf. He could not take his brother by the 'din' of the king).

[My interpretation of the Quranic use of 'deen']
http://quransmessage.com/articles/what%20is%20the%20true%20defintion%20of%20deen%20FM3.htm

I hope that helps,

Kind regards,
Joseph.

1739

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Cutting off the Hands

« on: November 14, 2011, 02:05:20 PM »

Peace my brother,

I guess you are absolutely correct brother, with all its arguments and counterarguments, the crux of the matter is whether to interpret 'fa-iq'ta'u aydiyahuma' literally or metaphorically. Personally, the somewhat difficulty I have with accepting 'waqatta'na aydahunna' (and cut their hands) in 12:31 with regards the women in the metaphorical sense is that I would then find the mention of a knife (sikinan) somewhat superfluous. I suppose my assertion is that  other phrases could have easily been mentioned which just informed one that they were either gobsmacked or stopped what they were doing. With no exact matching Biblical comparison of the scence, there is a powerful impact that the Quran is making with the charged scene of the narrative and its purpose.

I also try to compare the form of the verb as well the verbal root. So where qata'a in 5:38 would be an imperfect verb in form I, the 'qatta'a' verb in 12:31 and 12:50 is in form II of the perfect verb which is similar to 7:160, 7:168, 47:15 which all mean to either divide / cut into pieces  / sever.  So hence my difficulty accepting a metaphorical meaning purely from the Quran.

I hope that helps,

Your brother,
Joseph.

1740

Q&As with Joseph Islam - Information Only / Re: Cutting off the Hands

« on: November 14, 2011, 02:00:41 PM »

Peace,
 
You do make a very plausible argument with regards 5:38, however 'ceteris paribus', I incline to read the context of the punishment as within the ambit of 'fasad fil ard' as following on from its previous verses and hence the use of the word "Nakalan' in 5:38 as exemplary. The appeal to Pharaoh's context is only with a view to  understand terminology of 'nakalan' in the context of 'fasad fil ard' and not an appeal to synonymity with Pharaoh's personal transgressions. I am strongly swayed by two conditions: 'Nakalan' as a term used in 5:38 and the context of 'fasad fil ard' in the previous verses which I humbly feel should not be overlooked. These are no ordinary 'thief's' in my humble opinion given the conditions just cited, but those whose repeated transgressions are so indiscriminate and a serious deprivation to others which amount to clear 'fitna' in the land.  This would be no different from the kind of highway indecent robbery which was possibly commonplace amongst the people of Lot for which along with other lewd acts, were taken for severe retribution by God (29:29).
 
I will deal with brother Asad's most 'weightiest' objection (as he has put it) (d) first. I am a great fan of our late brother Muhammad Asad and his beautiful work, however, I humbly cannot concur with the premise of brother Asad's argument in which he seems to argue, as you say, that "this "legal punishment" is the same as that implemented by Pharaoh/Fir'awn (7:124, 20:71, 26:49) who The Qur'an identifies as guilty of taghaa (tyranny/excess)"   
 
Whereas Pharaoh's punishment was meted out without just cause or due right but amounted to pure and utter tyranny, this is not the case with God's punishment. The two conditions are not equal. Conversely then, it can then be argued if we accept 5:33 as not literal, then why should we assume 7:124, 20:71 and 26:49 are literal in Pharaoh's case? This only increases the difficulty. I suppose we need to find an honest way to remain consistent and harmonious with all the verses in which the terms are utilised as I'm sure you agree.
 
Moving on to brother Muhammad Asad's other points,
 
(a) Though I agree with Muhammad Asad that that the four imperfect verbs to be passive (slain, crucified, cut off and banished), they clearly indicate an action that has not yet occurred and a possibility for the future as they are clearly in the subjunctive mood.
 
(b) I am not sure how Muhammad Asad is using the verb form II which is the same verb form II (albeit in the 1st person singular imperfect verb due to Pharaoh's direct speech context) in 20:71 to conclude 'great numbers' in 5:33 as the only viable translation. Clearly, the verbs in 5:33 are in 3rd person masculine plural but that is only to identify the correct grammar which exists between the speaker (God) and the 3rd person subjects in question. They are all in the subjunctive mood and can easily denote future occurrences even if they are used in the present tense. This is quite common in other languages too.
 
Secondly, I am not sure I accept the connection between the punishments suggested with the 'expectation' that 'all should be punished in this way'. That is the reason why various options of punishments are given to capture the various extent of the involvement of the individuals concerned and to ascertain what specific punishments would be suitable for particular individuals who are convicted of the crime. I suppose a lose analogy would be if the justice system has to its avail a list of prescribed punishments for rioters, does one expect to give one blanket punishment to all rioters? Certainly not as I'm sure you will agree.
 
(c) 'yunfaw minal-ardi' simply means to exile from the land. 'Ard' clearly in the Quran is not simply used for planet 'Earth' but also denotes land, a place where one alights or abides or the ground as meaning the surface of the earth which we tread. It also implies the area or remit in which one's power is exercised 13:41; 21:44. One can of course banish one from the land one occupies, but to take it possibly in the literal sense as banishing one  from the face of the Earth is quite an unnecessary literal extrapolation, certainly not warranted by context as I'm sure you will agree. Furthermore, by the mere fact that other opinions may have seen it in a literal sense (almost nonsensically) should not interfere with our own opportunity to decline this view for a more plausible one.
 
Just my humble thoughts and nice to hear your thoughts on this matter as well.

Regards,
Joseph.