Chop off their hands
klei...@astound.net
twenty-first century is 5:38 "The thief and the female thief, chop off
their hands ... ". The problem is that this ayat is quite clear and
definite, but the command it gives is not only repugnant but
counter-productive.
Amputating the limbs of a thief may make the thief miserable (in terms
of the ayat it is "an exemplary punishment"), but it also reduces the
thief to a welfare case and a burden on the charity system. It would
obviously be better, in an economic way, to keep the thief whole and
productive.
There must be an immense literature already about this ayat and its
meaning. I would expect whole books to have been written about it. But
I have not been able to locate those books. We know that Islamic law
(the Shariah) is perfectly capable of rejecting the guidance of the
Qur'an (as witness the non-existent "verse about stoning"), but
generally the fiqh has tried to give at least lip service to this
command. I understand that amputation is currently being practiced in
several Muslim countries.
Nevertheless Islamic scholars have, generally speaking, been just as
upset about this command as any non-Mulsim. It is worth noting that Ibn
Ishaq (the earliest historian of Islam) tells a story about a
pre-Islamic theft in which the thief's hand was cut off. At least in
Madina in 135 AH they believed that cutting off the hands of thiefs was
a pre-Islamic law that had been carried over into Islam (like the
hajj).
One can find almost every possible reaction to this verse among the
commentators. The easiest way out is to interpret "chop off their
hands" to mean "restrain their hands". This, of course, has all the
usual problems that come up with metaphorical readings.
If we seek a more literal reading we must look at the Arabic. In my
transliteration it is W-AL-SARQ W-AL-SARQEh F-A-QXO-WA AYDY-EMA. Word
for word that is "and-the-thief and-the-thief(female)
so-you(imperative)-chop(off)-plural hands-theirs". There is no
alternative reading for AYDY - it must mean "hands". The verb QXO is
much less precise. The root SRQ, when used as a verb, means "steal" (it
is used several times in the story of Yusuf where we know it must mean
that). The noun SARQ (and its feminine form SARQEh) only occur in 5.38,
but it is a very ordinary noun formed from a verbal root.
One of the ways to avoid the most obvious meaning of the ayat is to
examine the possible nuances of SARQ. One commentator translates it "
the person addicted to stealing". Another points out that, in Arabic,
SRQ covers fewer kinds of criminal activities that "steal" does in
English. For example, it appears that armed robbery is not SRQ. In
fact, the explanation given would make it seems that "shop-lifter"
might be a better translation than "thief", however the examples make
it look like "burglar" might be intended. Settling this would require
knowing the nuances of the meaning of SRQ in the Hijaz in the time of
Muhammad. This is impossible to do.
But one solution to the dilemma of this ayat would be to declare SARQ
and SARQEh categories of people that are now non-existent (like
slaves).
Another popular solution is to look at the next ayat 5:39 which says
"but whoever repents his wrong-doing and reforms, Allah will turn to
him" to mean that if a thief repents and reforms then he should be
treated mercifully (because Allah has forgiven him). This could have
the effect of preventing any amputations because, of course, any sane
thief will repent and, of course, we should not mutilate an insane
person.
Finally there is possibility of literally reading QXO as something
other than "chop off". I mentioned this as the metaphorical way to
handle the verse. It is also a literal possibility. QXO has a large
number of usages. It is not easy to guess what its core meaning is. I
would venture that the core meaning is (was?) "block the passage of
something". One of the usages is "to close a road off in order to
prevent travel". Connected to this is the meaning "commit highway
robbery" (ironic when used in this ayat). From this it is easy to see
how the meaning "chop off" could evolve. But it is not obvious that
"chop off" is meant in this ayat. Once again we are faced with the
unsolvable problem of what the nuances of the root QXO were in the
Hijaz in Muhammad's day.
I am not going to reach a neat conclusion. I am pragmatic. I don't care
how the ayat is interpreted so long as nobody is mutilated. (An old
joke from the days during World War I before the United States entered
it - I'm neutral, I don't care who kills the Kaiser.)
But this exemplifies a serious problem with reading the Qur'an. We
simply do not know the nuances of many of the words. Many of the words
in the Qur'an are still in everyday use. But how do we know that their
meanings have not evolved over the last fourteen hundred years? As a
matter of fact, we can be quite sure the meanings of all the words in
the Qur'an have evolved. Language is constantly changing. The problem
is: have they evolved significantly? I believe we have no way to answer
that question.
Of course, we have the same problem with any old text. But none of the
others are read as closely as the Qur'an is read.
Altway
<klei...@astound.net> wrote:-
> Possibly the most difficult ayat in the Qur'an to cope with in the
twenty-first century is 5:38 "The thief and the female thief, chop off
their hands ... ". The problem is that this ayat is quite clear and
definite, but the command it gives is not only repugnant but
counter-productive.
Comment:-
It is difficult to cope with by some people who have certain attitudes.
In general the rule applies to persistent offenders.
The first offence or one that has extuanating circumstances such as someone
in dire need (say of food or medicine, or a person of low intelligence or in
confusion) is not punished in this way - It is the duty of the community
through Zakat to see that basic needs are satisfied.
As I see it, the severity of punishment reflects the disapproal with which
the community looks upon a deed. This has educational effects as well as a
deterrent effect.
If it has a deterrent effect then the punishment abolishes itself.
On the other hand, if owing to weak consequences, the offence proliferats
then the harm and suffering it causes multiplies
and that is a greater evil than that done to the thief.
The compassion that prevents the punishment becomes self-contradictory and
negates its aim.
>From the broader point of view, the person who opposes the punishment on
compassionate grounds turns out not to be compassionate at all.
It has been noticed that in many Western Laws it is the miscreant that is
protected against the victims and that is why there is so much crime.
The thief knows what the punishment is and undertakes to risk the
consequences.
One could argue that depriving a person of his liberty in a prison is even
more barbaric specially as this requires prison officers who are trained to
keep people in prison where the inmates are further brutalised or
criminalised. In fact the effect on the whole society is to habituate people
mentally to a culture of control.
However, it is to be noted that the Quran also teaches compassion and
forgiveness so that it is not necessarily the case that the punishment
should always be administrated in its severest form. The conditions of life
dictate what is appropriate.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
klei...@astound.net wrote:
> Possibly the most difficult ayat in the Qur'an to cope with in the
twenty-first century is 5:38 "The thief and the female thief, chop off
their hands ... ". The problem is that this ayat is quite clear and
definite, but the command it gives is not only repugnant but
counter-productive.
Comment (on behalf of "anonymous"):-
The verse has been interpreted by some people in a symbolic way - to
cut off the hand implies depriving a person of the instruments by which
he does things. It is similar to the exhortation by Jesus:- "If your
eye offends you cut it out" (Matthew 18:9)
Abdalla Alothman
The punishments in Islam that are called Hudood are preventive. The
intent is not to have people with no hands, but:
1. Scare thieves from the crime.
2. Make the society hate the crime.
The punishment was applied 4 times throughout the 6 centuries after
the death of the Messenger (s).
It is reported that 'Umar (r) appointed a new governor for some
area. He told him, "... and what will you do to the thief?" The new
governor said: "I will apply Allah's law and chop his hands." 'Umar
said, "But if he comes to me and tells me that he was trying to feed
his family, I will chop off your head."
Such preventive punishments work very well with people who have a
criminal psychology. Make one example out of one thief, and others
thieves will think ten times before stealing.
The true burden on society is when the thief spends time in jail. In
this period, society or the government will be paying for the thief's
accommodation, food, and so on. If jailing is part of the system, then
large structures must facilitate hosting criminals who will spend
sometime in a 1 star hotel. If the criminal, the thief exclusively,
knows that he will only spend a couple of months in jail, and then he
will go out and enjoy what he has stolen, we should expect a lot of
people to become thieves. New theft techniques have become an art by
many people. Modern thieves do not seek wealth only, but admiration to
their skills to defeat security or banking systems.
The problem with theft in this age, especially in some Muslim
countries that do not apply the Islamic law, is that it's difficult to
punish the embezzlers, but it's easy to cease a shoplifter. Islamic
law guarantees that the embezzler and the fraudster who steals credit
card PINs is punished just like any other thief.
We have here in Kuwait a popular embezzler who stole billions from
international government investments and who also happens to be from
the ruling family. Once he was taken to court, his lawyers (many of
them) didn't really try to clear him out, they only showed that the
lawsuit uses flawed procedures, and the guy was out and back to his
newspaper business. This is a flaw in modern laws that wouldn't be
seen in Islamic laws. In modern laws, if this person was successfully
charged, he would spend some years in a 5 star cell for many years;
the government will pay for it. However, a thieve who steals a wallet
will pulled from his head and thrown in a -1 star cell. The point is
that even in jailing, the system shows unfairness. And this is
worldwide of course (I would except China).
Wishing you and your family peace and good health.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
Gman
klei...@astound.net wrote:
> Possibly the most difficult ayat in the Qur'an to cope with in the
> twenty-first century is 5:38 "The thief and the female thief, chop off
> their hands ... ". The problem is that this ayat is quite clear and
> definite, but the command it gives is not only repugnant but
> counter-productive.
New religions almost always require the adoption of existing cultural
mores in order to be accepted by societies. Yes, it is certainly true
that in the "old Islamic world" little has changed. Now we find that a
new "breed" of progressives is making headway in the West. The results
will be seen after two generations or so depending upon the country
studied.
Too few of us are aware of this aspect of the Human condition.
Christians might wonder if they knew that their concepts of virgin
birth, death and redemption/salvation were known before the time of
Jesus in at least one previous religion.
I hate to mention politics but the new branch of Islam about to emerge
is the "progressive", known to us as "liberal" as opposed to the older
and more conventional "conservative" versions. It is always this way
no matter the area of experience. Religion or politics the newer
methods are always scorned by the adherents of the older.
Sigh...
capsaicin
Reply to Kleinek
I don't think that QXO in this context means other than chopping! Also
I think that the verse 5:39 only applies to those that confess BEFORE
their theft is proven. Whats the point in confession after you are
proven to be guilty?
I have my own comments on this verse however.
1. There are many limits to what type of theft this law applies to. For
example the thief in question should not be needy and the theft should
have been done from the privacy of a house or a shop or a locked chest
or so. The thief also must have been fully conscious at the time of
theft among many more limits.
2. In most cases the guilty confesses for his/her guilt before it is
fully proven.
3. This law that kind of law that can be changed according to time or
situation. For example in Iran they don't practice it because they
believe that it is not appropriate for this era (and perhaps it is a
little late to start practicing it because there will be too many that
deserve to be hand chopped!!!).
4. I am not an arab nor a resident of arabia but from what I have heard
from tourists or Hajis (those who travel to arabia for hajj) there is
an unbelievable safety there as the shops hardly have a secure lock
system in most market places and close to no theft is commited. They
even say that they have seen luggage or money left in the public with
nobody daring to touch them (even though public theft is not considered
part of this law). This has been practiced for centuries in Arabia.
I believe that the primary aim of this law is to prevent theft not to
chop hands as in the islamic countries in which there are already a lot
of theft and this law can not solve anything, it is not executed.
Imran Razi
> Amputating the limbs of a thief may make the thief miserable (in terms
> of the ayat it is "an exemplary punishment"), but it also reduces the
> thief to a welfare case and a burden on the charity system. It would
> obviously be better, in an economic way, to keep the thief whole and
> productive.
The point of the extreme punishment is as a deterrent, aimed at a whole
community. In historical fact, it worked well, and even up until
recently theft was exceedingly rare in S. Arabia, for example.
Economically, the community was far better off with this threat than
without it.
Also, the Sunnah interprets this verse in the standard, straightforward
way, which carries - or should carry - significant normative weight
with Muslims. I find this point underemphasized in many of your
comments. (A friendly observation).
Imran Razi
klei...@astound.net
Abdalla Alothman wrote:
> The punishment was applied 4 times throughout the 6 centuries after
> the death of the Messenger (s).
This number, 4 times in 6 centuries, has been mentioned before. Might
you please give me a reference for it?
I know of one hadith about Muhammad ordering it done. The punch line
is, roughly, "even it were my daughter Fatima I would order
amputation".
I just checked the Muwatta and found that Malik ibn Anas has at least
three different hadiths ending up with a thief's hand being cut off
from the times of the first three caliphs.
I am beginning to wonder about that number 4.
klei...@astound.net
Imran Razi wrote:
> The point of the extreme punishment is as a deterrent, aimed at a whole
> community. In historical fact, it worked well, and even up until
> recently theft was exceedingly rare in S. Arabia, for example.
> Economically, the community was far better off with this threat than
> without it.
Interesting point I have heard before. Is there anything resembling
documentation to back it up? The statistics released by the Saudi's
are, of course, not to be trusted, but it would be interesting to see
what they claim. Especially if they are willing to admit how many
amputations were preformed.
Anecdotically (and I stress anecdote, too often from hostile source) we
are told that Saudi Arabia is quite corrupt. Perhaps they feel
corruption is not theft.
As usual it remains very hard to get good data about what is going on
there.
A long time ago when Richard Burton visited Makka and Madina things
were very different.
> Also, the Sunnah interprets this verse in the standard, straightforward
> way, which carries - or should carry - significant normative weight
> with Muslims. I find this point underemphasized in many of your
> comments. (A friendly observation).
You caught the point. I was not discussing 5:38 in a vacuum, but I
didn't make that clear. This is part of an investigation of exactly
what part the Qur'an plays in the Shariah as opposed to the part played
by the Sunna. I was consciously ignoring the Sunna except where I felt
it had to be recognized.
Abdalla Alothman
klei...@astound.net wrote:> This number, 4 times in 6 centuries, has been mentioned before. Might> you please give me a reference for it?
There are many. The one that I remember written in shaikhmuhammad alghazali's (this is not abu Hamid) book: dhalaalmin algharb. If you just want simple source to verify what Igave you, an online reference is a shee'i source of tafseer forsurat aal 'imraan:
http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tfsir/amsal3/am300027.htm
Look at the short paragraph before the last, you should see somethinglike:
والامـر الـملفت للنظر هو ان هذا الحكمالاسلامي وعلى الرغم من تطبيقه لعدةقرون , حيث كان المسلمون ومنذ عصر صدرالاسلام يعيشون آمنين مطمئنين في ظله ,فهو لم ينفذ طيلة تلك الفترة الا بحق عددقليل من الافراد.
Also, instead of wasting your time on the 6 and the 4, I would assumea person like yourself would look into the application of the penalty.
Comparing the theft penalty with adultery, one will notice that thewitness requirement in adultery is very complicated and that's whythe application of the penalty is next to impossible unless a clearchallenge to the system was made.
When it comes to theft penalty, witnesses are also required.However, it is very easy to find such witnesses, so the scholarshave compiled 45 conditions are required before applying thepenalty. Try to find out more about those conditions.
> I just checked the Muwatta and found that Malik ibn Anas has at least> three different hadiths ending up with a thief's hand being cut off> from the times of the first three caliphs.> I am beginning to wonder about that number 4.
Whether you wish to believe it or not, the Hudood in Islam arepreventive. That's why the thief's hand is chopped in public, andafter that he gets his hands hanged on his chest and walks amongthe people so the consequence of theft can be seen (by those peoplewho might also include future thieves). Set one or a few examples,and enjoy a theft-free society for a long time.
klei...@astound.net
thief's hand was only inflicted four times in six centuries.
A careful search of the Muwatta discloses four hadiths about thieves
losing their hands after the death of Muhammad. They are found in Book
41
23. A thief stole a citron in the time of 'Uthman. 'Uthman ibn 'Affan
ordered its value to be estimated and it was estimated at three dirhams
at the rate of exchange of twelve dirhams for the dinar, so 'Uthman cut
off his hand. These are clearly four different cases.
25 'A'isha went out to Makka with two girl mawlas of hers and a slave
belonging to the sons of 'Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr as-Siddiq. She sent a
figured cloak with the two mawlas which was sewn up in a piece of green
cloth. The slave took it and unstitched it and took out the cloak. In
its place he put some felt or skin and sewed it up again. When the
mawla girls came to Madina, they gave it to his people. When they
opened it they found felt in it and did not find the cloak. They spoke
to the two women and they spoke to 'A'isha or they wrote to her,
suspecting the slave. The slave was questioned about it and confessed.
'A'isha gave the order for his hand to be cut off. 'A'isha said, "A
thief's hand is cut off for a quarter of a dinar and upwards."
26 A slave of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar stole while he was a runaway.
'Abdullah ibn 'Umar sent him to Sa'id ibn al-'As, who was the amir of
Madina, to cut off his hand. Sa'id refused to cut off his hand. He
said, "The hand of a runaway slave is not cut off when he steals."
'Abdullah ibn 'Umar said to him, "In what Book of Allah did you find
this?" Then 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar gave the order and his hand was cut
off.
30 A man from Yemen who had his hand and foot cut off [which, one
supposes, happened in the days while Muhammad was still alive]
presented himself to Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and complained to him that the
governor of the Yemen had wronged him, and the man used to pray part of
the night. Abu Bakr said, "By your father, your night is not the night
of a thief!" Then they missed the necklace of Asma' bint 'Umays, the
wife of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq. The man came to go around with them looking
for it. He said, "O Allah, You are responsible for the one who invaded
the people of this good house by night!" They found the jewellery with
a goldsmith who claimed that the maimed man had brought it to him. The
maimed man confessed or there was testimony against him. Abu Bakr
as-Siddiq ordered that his left hand be cut off. Abu Bakr said, "By
Allah, his du'a' against himself is far more serious than his theft as
far as I am concerned."
Assuming one accepts Malik's testimony (I have omitted the isnads, but
they all look solid to me) it seems impossible to believe that there
were only 4 amputations in the days before alGhazzali (who seems, just
now, to be the source of this weird statistic).
Malik alone explicitly describes four and the Muwatta contains a great
deal more about general rules for when a hand is cut off.
I feel that the cause of Islam is not advanced by telling fantastic
tales as though they were true. Everybody will begin to suspect that
Muslims have trouble distinguishing between truth and falsehood.
Abdalla Alothman wrote:
> Whether you wish to believe it or not, the Hudood in Islam are preventive. That's why
> the thief's hand is chopped in public, and after that he gets his hands hanged on his
> chest and walks among the people so the consequence of theft can be seen.
This is a refinement of repulsive behavior that is not called for in
the Qur'an nor in the Muwatta. If the Maliki fiqh has been true to its
roots, it is not done in their fiqh.
So now I need a reference about the business of public amputation and
hanging the hand around the neck. Which fiqhs so require? What is
presently being done in those countries (including Saudi Arabia which
is being advanced as an example of the preventive nature of amputation)
that still amputate?
Surely this cannot be considered an essential part of Shariah Law.
Nor do I believe amputation has any preventive effect. Is there any
evidence, other than anecdotes and wishful thinking, to support such an
idea?
Abdalla Alothman
klei...@astound.net wrote:
> Assuming one accepts Malik's testimony (I have omitted the isnads, but
> they all look solid to me)
Sorry to disappoint you, but those hadeeths do have problems.
Assuming you have the expertise to evaluate the sanad, I assume
you will be delighted to discover the "conflicts" in some of those
hadeeths as mentioned by al-raafi'i:
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/library/BooksCategory.php?idfrom=1471&idto=1492&bk_no=11&ID=149
You will notice that a few of the ahadeeth are narrated in a different
way,
usually with a word (like "laysa") that negates the entire tradition.
> it seems impossible to believe that there
> were only 4 amputations in the days before alGhazzali (who seems, just
> now, to be the source of this weird statistic).
Alghazali died a few years ago, we clearly said that we were not
talking about abu Hamid alghazali. Alghazali lived in an time where
Islamic criminal penalties were not applied. But he is a notable
scholars and I would take his word over what *you* consider "solid
isanad..."
> This is a refinement of repulsive behavior that is not called for in
> the Qur'an nor in the Muwatta. If the Maliki fiqh has been true to its
> roots, it is not done in their fiqh.
The maaliki fiqh has nothing to do with historic counts. The maaliki
fiqh is a school of legistlation, but it is not the primary source of
legistlation.
> Nor do I believe amputation has any preventive effect.
"Coffee is delicious!" Imagine this coming from a person who
never tasted coffee in his life. Currently, your belief is as good
as that. You can't give any evaluation of a system that you have
never lively tested or experienced.
Yusuf B Gursey
klei...@astound.net wrote:
> Possibly the most difficult ayat in the Qur'an to cope with in the
> twenty-first century is 5:38 "The thief and the female thief, chop off
> their hands ... ".
see Enc. of Islam II "Liss" and "Sarika" (IIRC) for a discussion of
this. amputations were not performed in the central lands of the
Ottoman Empire, as there were rulings mitigating it, replacing it with
imperial decrees that were supposed to be consistent with Shariah. in
the words of one historian, "else - especiallly in certian periods -
there would be no one with a hand left". one popular 19th cent. ottoman
turkish fictional short story has a thief condemned to have his hand
amputated "in the old days", but he is spared because someone pays his
restitution. the story ends with the theif bneing made a servant of the
donor of this, and the thief gets fed up by chopping his own hand off!
cteas...@gmail.com
>>>>>> Comment:-
> It is difficult to cope with by some people who have certain attitudes.
> In general the rule applies to persistent offenders.<<<
Persistence or not, cutting off any man's hands does not produce a
better man, he can still thieve with his mouth, or even the stumps of
his hands, and his mind can still be inclined towards wickedness . All
this does is make a bitter man who teaches generations of his children
the bitterness and unforgiveness. It also suggests that a rich man is
somehow more moral than the poor, which is absurd and no one can know
what they might turn do in circumstances of poverty, even losing a hand
is preferable to seeing your children die of starvation. Better a man's
conscience and that of his neighbours, is turned towards goodness
through holy means, which has more power than the laws of men.
Theft is not nice, but not one of us can take anything material to our
grave. However, how does a man explain removing another man's hand to
the Lord when he could have given everything he owned ?
>>>> However, it is to be noted that the Quran also teaches compassion and
> forgiveness so that it is not necessarily the case that the punishment
> should always be administrated in its severest form. The conditions of life
> dictate what is appropriate.<<<<<<
But doesn't this require a teaching, understanding and wisdom akin to
that of the greatest holy man, as no one can hope to deliver a truly
holy judgement without knowing the presence of the Lord.
In Christ's love
Carol T
Altway
<cteas...@gmail.com> wrote
>> It is difficult to cope with by some people who have certain attitudes.
In general the rule applies to persistent offenders.<<<
> Persistence or not, cutting off any man's hands does not produce a
better man, he can still thieve with his mouth, or even the stumps of
his hands, and his mind can still be inclined towards wickedness .
Comment:-
Does Prison make them better?
The punishment is meant to deter and to teach people to abhor the crime.
It makes the society better.
If by mild punishment no deterrent effect takes place
then the compassion which you advocate destroys itself.
What about the compassion for the victims? Is there none?
Is the harm done to hundreds of victims really worth exchanging for the harm
to one miscreant?
Clearly wisdom is required not sentimentality, other wise we have false
compassion.
The punishment is not for those driven by dire need.
The thief knows the consequences and accepts them.
Hamid S. Aziz
drahcir
must say that I am stunned by it. I am stunned for a variety of
reasons.
1) In Exodus it is written, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot, This is sometimes interpreted as revenge, but in
fact it means ONLY an eye for an eye, no more. I don't understand why
Allah seems to have gotten much more severe in the Koran in 5.38.
2) We are created in God's image, we are horrified by 5.38, so
presumably God would be horrified by it too. Would he send a final
message to all men for all time that he was horrified by?
3) You propse various apologies for this verse. My question is, would
God write a final message to all men for all time that could leave some
ambiguity regarding something as catastrophic as imposing amputations?
If you were God, and you really didn't really want any amputations to
happen, or you wanted them only for incorrigible repeat offenders, or
for thefts involving terrible violence, etc., you certainly wouldn't
wirte a verse that could in any way be construed as requiring
amputations, especially for a crime referred to as "stealing" or being
a "thief" (depending on the translation you use). You would make sure
that every word regarding amputations would be crystal clear for fear
that your followers, attempting to be good Muslims, would go around
amputating limbs for thefts of all degrees. Potential punishment has
never even approached the elimination of crime - all you have to do to
prove that is to look at the murder rate in states with capital
punishment, so Mr. Aziz's idea, supported by Allah referring to the
punishment as "an example", that it would be a deterrent simply does
not justify the verse. No, unless there is something I am missing, this
verse is much better explained by fallible human authorship.
Robert
You say "The punishment is meant to deter..." Maybe, but the prime
purpose of punishment is to punish, and the question to be asked is:
does the criminal DESERVE the punishment, is it JUST?
Proportionality is a key factor in the justice of punishment: you
cannot impose just any amount of suffering on the miscreant. In this
respect Islamic punishment by amputation is unjust: for a crime against
property a man is permanently disabled and rendered incapable of
earning his living; thus he becomes a parasite on the community.
The punishment is unreasonable in other respects: amputation is only
imposed when there is the physical removal of property: embezzlement
and fraud, which equally involve theft, are not, I believe, so punished.
cteas...@gmail.com
>>>> If by mild punishment no deterrent effect takes place then the compassion which you advocate destroys itself.<<<<<<
What compassion have I advocated? I have pointed out that a man does
not change by cutting off his hands, he simply learns bitterness and
adds yet another sin to the mountain that buries him and his family.
It is not compassionate to society if it is swamped by children who
grow up embittered towards the society because of a parent's misdeeds.
Such an action also does great disservice to those who have lost hands
through accident, cancer, gangrene and so forth. The depths of the
undeserved disgrace which would be served up on a family would be
horrendous.
There is always the possibility that just one man may lose his hand
unjustly, and the loss of his hand cancels out all justice and wisdoms
that came before.
When a man turns his conscience freely towards God, then the change not
only happens in him, but also he changes society.
>>>> What about the compassion for the victims? Is there none?<<<<<<
What is a victim? Have you ever seen/read Les Miserable's ? Jean
Valjean is released on parole after 19 years on the chain gang. All he
knows is how to steal, even though it could lead him back to a pitiful
life in a chains, but an encounter with a man of God sets a change in
him that leads him to change the world around him.
>>>>> Clearly wisdom is required not sentimentality, other wise we have false
> compassion.<<<<<<
Patience to love until death, this is not sentiment because it takes a
great deal of strength, faith and courage, it's certainly not a soft
option.
Cutting off a man's hand deals with nothing but an innate desire for
revenge; and sometimes that is not revenge in some people's hands, but
an abuse of power.
All this aside, where is the sinless man who is justified to bring down
an axe on another man's hand?
Altway
<cteas...@gmail.com> wrote
> What compassion have I advocated? I have pointed out that a man does
not change by cutting off his hands, he simply learns bitterness and
adds yet another sin to the mountain that buries him and his family.
Comment:-
As they do in prison.
I have pointed out that the punishment abolishes itself when it has a
deterrent effect.
> There is always the possibility that just one man may lose his hand
unjustly, and the loss of his hand cancels out all justice and wisdoms
that came before.
Comment:-
The Law applies when there is no doubt that the theft has taken place.
A person is not a "thief" until this is known.
False accusations are punishable offences.
> When a man turns his conscience freely towards God, then the change not
only happens in him, but also he changes society.
Comment:-
You are mixing things up.
There is that which is good for a society and there is what is spiritually
good for the person.
We are speaking of unrepentent persistent thieves.
There is the social law and the spiritual law.
The Mosaic Law is a social law which Jesus did not abolish, but he added the
spiritual law of forgiveness.
Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I
am not
come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew
5:17 -18
The Quran tells us:-
"We have prescribed for you therein (in the OT) a life for a life, and an
eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth
for a tooth, and for wounds equal retaliation;' But whoever remits it, it is
an expiation for him. Whoever judges not by what Allah has revealed, these
are the wrong-doers (the unjust)." 5:45
"And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and
amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely He does not love the
unjust." 42:40
We follow the Quran.
What point is there is the argument?
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote
> 1) In Exodus it is written, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot, This is sometimes interpreted as revenge, but in
fact it means ONLY an eye for an eye, no more. I don't understand why
Allah seems to have gotten much more severe in the Koran in 5.38.
Comment:-
What makes you think that the OT has to be interpreted so literally.
What about stoning of the adulterers?
> 2) We are created in God's image, we are horrified by 5.38, so
presumably God would be horrified by it too. Would he send a final
message to all men for all time that he was horrified by?
Comment:-
Have not heard that man has fallen from Paradise owing to sin.
He does not function according to his inbuilt potentialities.
Have no learnt that he is to be punished for sins.
That is why he is on earth to learn.
> 3) You propse various apologies for this verse. My question is, would
God write a final message to all men for all time that could leave some
ambiguity regarding something as catastrophic as imposing amputations?
Comment:-
No apologies are proposed, only explanations.
Are you judging God by your own opinions?
We do not do so.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote
> You say "The punishment is meant to deter..." Maybe, but the prime
purpose of punishment is to punish, and the question to be asked is:
does the criminal DESERVE the punishment, is it JUST?
Comment:-
The Quran says it is just.
We believe the Quran and follow it, not you.
Justice means that a Law is applied by which actions have consequences
and which affects all equally.
Hamid S. Aziz
DanDan
reinterpreted by giving them a symbolic meaning. For instance the limb
could be tatooed and cursed but the criminal allowed to keep it, but
all would know the criminality of the criminal by the tattoo.
cteas...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comment:-
> You are mixing things up.
> There is that which is good for a society and there is what is spiritually good for the person.<<<
It is not spiritually good for the individual, family, friends or
society to chop off a man's hand. Our purpose on this earth is not to
create situations which keep men from their Lord, but rather facilitate
the love that attracts them to Him. To bring them into a reverent
understanding, not through force, but through an awesome reverence and
realisation of who He is to each one of us.
>>>>> We are speaking of unrepentent persistent thieves.<<<<<<
And if it takes seventy thousand times to bring a man to God, then it
is the patients that must be applied, because this faith in God to
change a man's heart and turn it towards Him. Whilst there is a hand
there is hope, but the removal of a man's hand then requires that man
to be the forgiving party, but through the process he has been cut off
from the facilitation of fellowship and any chance of reconciliation
with The Lord.
Doing such a thing is not about deterrent, but the vengeance of
victims. If anyone needs to be avenged in anyway, it speaks volumes of
their own spiritual relationship. It is not a relationship of pure
holiness and spiritual wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is the social law and the spiritual law.
> The Mosaic Law is a social law which Jesus did not abolish, but he added the
> spiritual law of forgiveness.<<<<<<<<<
No, He came to 'fulfil' the law. His love and forgiveness is the
fulfilment of all laws. When men love one another they do not steal,
kill, maim and if a man wants something of theirs they will give even
more. When the material is undesirable to us, it becomes undesirable to
others too.
>>>>>>> "And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives and
> amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely He does not love the
> unjust." 42:40<<<<
Therefore chopping off the hand is creating a situation where
reconciliation and forgiveness can't be achieved. Such forgiveness
after the loss of a hand is almost insurmountable. The creation of such
a situation is the sin of those who judge and bring down the axe. It is
unjust because the administration of punishments require a wisdom such
as Solomon's, a wisdom of justice seeped in hope.
drahcir
Altway wrote:
> "Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote
>
> > You say "The punishment is meant to deter..." Maybe, but the prime
> purpose of punishment is to punish, and the question to be asked is:
> does the criminal DESERVE the punishment, is it JUST?
>
> Comment:-
> The Quran says it is just.
> We believe the Quran and follow it, not you.
It is blind faith you are advocating. That is a sin against any God who
gave you a brain with which to consider and a heart with which to
empathize. Shame on you.
>
> Justice means that a Law is applied by which actions have consequences
> and which affects all equally.
You need a new dictionary, Mr. Aziz. Here is the primary definition,
from merriam webster (the asterisks are mine in order to make it clear
to you why your definition is inadequate)::
1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by
the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or ****the assignment of
merited rewards or punishments****
So, part of justice is that of which you speak, however, the other,
equally important part of justice is whether a reward or punishment is
MERITED.
>
> Hamid S. Aziz
cteas...@gmail.com
>>>>>> It is blind faith you are advocating. That is a sin against any God who
> gave you a brain with which to consider and a heart with which to
> empathize. Shame on you.<<<<
God is Spirit and men are blind until they are cleansed and ready to
receive their lord's Spirit. If a man is not willing to be cleansed
from his sins, then what they receive/have received into their life is
not the Holy Lord God Almighty.
>>>> So, part of justice is that of which you speak, however, the other,
> equally important part of justice is whether a reward or punishment is
> MERITED.<<<
Which takes a wisdom and foresight to go beyond immediate revenge. A
Christian's way of looking at it is that if we are in an Islamic land
then we most obey our rulers (although not to the point of disbelieving
our own faith) but because we are Christian we should not steal anyway,
we have been given the power and tools to resist temptation, the Bible
is clear on this. However, we must also give the same hope we have been
afforded in our lives to those who cannot resist temptation. So, we
cannot be judgemental of others, as the measure of our own sins before
receiving Jesus were like a insurmountable mountain.
I do not doubt that every Muslim must believe that God is Spirit, but
if asked to describe what they perceive as 'pure holiness' would the
description of their lord match their description of pure holiness?
drahcir
With all due respect, are you joking? You want to see "chop off" as
"tattoo" just because it makes you more comfy? Who are you to
"interpret" the words of Allah so liberally? Is that the point of your
religion, to take the words that are plainly there for all to see and
read, and bend them and twist them until they make you comfortable? Why
not just write your own koran?
Hajj abujamal
cteas...@gmail.com wrote:
> I do not doubt that every Muslim must believe that God is Spirit,
No muslim believes that God is Spirit. God creates spirits. He
says to them "Be!" and they are. And NOTHING made is a likeness of
Him. He is not "spirit." He is ALLAH, The One, The Creator of
Spirit, and far beyond whatever people attribute to Him.
He said "We breathed into him of Our spirit" showing that spirit
is something He posseses, which He has imparted to us. That does not
make us Him, thus He is not "spirit."
> but if asked to describe what they perceive as 'pure holiness'
Everyone, faithful and denier alike, perceives the Ruh ul-Quddus,
which can be translated as "Spirit ["Ruh"] of Holiness ["Quddus"]" or
as "Holy Spirit." ALLAH is Al-Quddus, The Holy. The Ruh-ul-Quddus is
His creation, a creature of spirit. Wherever Jesus went, the
Ruh-ul-Quddus accompanied him, and everyone who saw him or was within
walking distance from him perceived the Ruh-ul-Quddus. That's why the
scribes and pharisees couldn't lay their hands on him, the people knew
he was the very embodiment of the Holy Spirit, in walking clay, and
they couldn't get near him unless they were totally helpless.
> would the description of their lord match their description of
> pure holiness?
He is Al-Quddus. He does not share His Attributes with anyone.
But He might cloak some people with some of them, "in His image" as it
were. That inspires a lot of pretension among those who worship
themselves.
> In Christ's love
> Carol T
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Altway
> The Quran says it is just.
We believe the Quran and follow it, not you.
> Justice means that a Law is applied by which actions have consequences and
> which affects all equally.
> >You need a new dictionary, Mr. Aziz. Here is the primary definition, from
> >merriam webster (the asterisks are mine in order to make it clear to you
> >why your definition is inadequate)::
1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by
the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or ****the assignment of
merited rewards or punishments****
So, part of justice is that of which you speak, however, the other,
equally important part of justice is whether a reward or punishment is
MERITED.
Comment:-
I think you need a clearer faculty for understanding.
We do not take Mirriams Dictionary as the authority.
But even so what do you understand by "merited".
When you put your finger in the fire and it burns you according to its law,
is the burning not merited by your action.
Thus the thief (a person is called a thief if he persistent in theft
intentionally) who steals knowing that it is wrong and that the consequence
is that his hand will be chopped off, merits the consequence.
We do not argue with the law. It is there.
In order to live we need facts as well as values and we regard both as
coming from Allah, though we must try to understand them. And as Muslims we
submit to Allah whether you like it or not, understand it or not -
we do NOT submit to your opinions based on prejudices and whims.
Do you comprehend?
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
<cteas...@gmail.com> wrote
>> You are mixing things up.
There is that which is good for a society and there is what is spiritually
good for the person.<<<
> It is not spiritually good for the individual, family, friends or
> society to chop off a man's hand.
Comment:-
It is good for society and good for the individual spiritually to obey God.
You should know this from your own scripture. Matthew 7:21-23
>>There is the social law and the spiritual law.
The Mosaic Law is a social law which Jesus did not abolish, but he added
the
spiritual law of forgiveness.<<<<<<<<<
> No, He came to 'fulfil' the law. His love and forgiveness is the
fulfilment of all laws. When men love one another they do not steal,
kill, maim and if a man wants something of theirs they will give even
more. When the material is undesirable to us, it becomes undesirable to
others too.
Comment:-
You are mistaken. Jesus did NOT abolish the Mosaic Law.
What you say is true that by love people will do what is right and avoid
what is wrong.
But the fact remains that there are thieves and murderers and other
miscreants.
The fact is that God will punish them and that He has prescribed punishment
for them.
And the fact is that a society that allows these things to go unpunished
will be over run
with crime and that this will be its punishment for disobedience.
And that such conditions will make the spiritual life very difficult if not
impossible.
I cannot possibly agree with you.
As I said, sentimentality destroys real love.
Have love for the victims and for the righteous and for God and His
commandments
rather than for self-opinions.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
"drahcir" <sue...@hotmail.com> wrote
Re: I believe some of the commands like amputation of the limbs can be
reinterpreted by giving them a symbolic meaning.
> With all due respect, are you joking? You want to see "chop off" as
"tattoo" just because it makes you more comfy? Who are you to
"interpret" the words of Allah so liberally? Is that the point of your
religion, to take the words that are plainly there for all to see and
read, and bend them and twist them until they make you comfortable? Why
not just write your own koran?
Comment:-
Yes, the verse has been interpreted as meaning that
the thief should be deprived of the "the means of bad actions"
Hamid S. Aziz
cteas...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> Comment:-
> You are mistaken. Jesus did NOT abolish the Mosaic Law.
> What you say is true that by love people will do what is right and avoid
> what is wrong.
> But the fact remains that there are thieves and murderers and other
> miscreants.
> The fact is that God will punish them and that He has prescribed punishment
> for them.
> And the fact is that a society that allows these things to go unpunished
> will be over run
> with crime and that this will be its punishment for disobedience.
> And that such conditions will make the spiritual life very difficult if not
> impossible.
>
> I cannot possibly agree with you.<<<<<<<<<<
It's such a shame that the moderators of this group don't post so many
of the replies, you can never quite know how many posts you have missed
because of this. If this is an example of what is Islamic, then how
does it serve anyone? In a sense it's a little like the practice of
cutting off a hand. At least a man is free to make a conscience
decision whether to steal or not and his thoughts are governed by
freedom and his fear of God, or not.
You see, unless you see this in others, that they are judged by
conscience towards God, then you can never truly know who you have
amongst you. Therefore you can never know which man has truly given his
life to God, even if you are in a more comfortable atmosphere for your
own worshipping of your god.
You see, cutting off the hand can be injust, and this injustice is
practiced here, The sin of it is no less before God.
In Christ's love
Carol T
>
Altway
<cteas...@gmail.com> wrote
> You see, cutting off the hand can be injust, and this injustice is
practiced here, The sin of it is no less before God.
Comment:-
Yes, it can be unjust as the application of any law can be.
There have certainly been miscarriages of justice.
It is necessary to ensure that the procedures to ensure justice are
perfected.
I did point out that the punishment of cutting off of hands is to applied
when there is
no doubt about guilt and it has not been applied very often because of doubt
and
because as a deterrent it abolished itself.
I also agree that some replies that are not allowed to get through
constitute an injustice. ( I have also suffered from this).
On the other hand much gets through that could escalate into nothing
but mutual abuse if similar replies were to be allowed to get through.
However, the point that you seemed to be unaware of,
namely that Jihad means striving for the sake of God and
that fighting is only for defence of Islam and not for conversion or
aggression,
has been stated several times on this site
and it should have been known by reading the Quran
by anyone that wishes to discuss Islam.
Those who insist on false representations cannot be other than mischief
makers.
Hamid S. Aziz
cteas...@gmail.com
>>>>> It is necessary to ensure that the procedures to ensure justice are
> perfected.<<<<<<<
It was already perfected over 2,000 years ago with love.
>>>>> I did point out that the punishment of cutting off of hands is to applied
> when there is no doubt about guilt and it has not been applied very often because of doubt and because as a deterrent it abolished itself.<<<<<<<
But, as I have pointed out, what is it within Islam that qualifies any
man to do such a thing to another? A classic example I have given you
is the cutting off of posts here. None of us like abuse of any form,
but when using the other newsgroups we assess the state of a man's
heart, mind and soul against God's greater glory. In the case of
cutting away what offends you physically you miss the opportunity to
give others hope in God, sometimes even unjustly cutting away what
might offend others, even if it turns out that they would not have been
offended by that individual. Hence, where is the justice in Islam if it
allows a man to judge what is and isn't right for another man's ears?
Just because such judgements seem extreme and miles away from one
another, in a spiritual sense they are not as sin is sin in any
measure.
In a Godly and holy atmosphere men are separated (sometimes called
circumcised) from others by their own holiness, not in what they
physically do to others, but what they reflect into the world from
within themselves. It is this that draws people near to them. When a
belief is enforced physically it will draw those with the sin of
unjustly judging other to it; i.e those who want others restrained by
force but not their own consciences. Inthe extreme form these people
are called dictators.
>>>>>>> I also agree that some replies that are not allowed to get through constitute an injustice. ( I have also suffered from this).
Yes.
> >>>>>On the other hand much gets through that could escalate into nothing but mutual abuse if similar replies were to be allowed to get through.<<<<<
It is what separates people and divides light from darkness, so that
others searching for hope can see light and reach for it. Abuse is
nothing to fear, in fact it baffles me why Muslims go into a spin when
a prophet is abused. In doing so they are in effect saying that the
word by which they live will not stand up to persecution, which would
be ridiculous if they are claiming it is the word of God.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the point that you seemed to be unaware of,
> namely that Jihad means striving for the sake of God and that fighting is only for defence of Islam <<<<<
How can anything that cuts away physically be in defence of Islam? We
have a spiritual journey to God, and so if a word is of God He will
defend Himself from the mouth, as a roar from a mightiest lion of all.
>>>>>>> Those who insist on false representations cannot be other than mischief
makers.<<<<,
Can you give me that verse in context from the Koran please.
There is a difference between mischief making and peace making, and God
knows the heart of both.
capsaicin
and compassion or about law and justice. Law is not on the same side as
love. Its not on the same side as merci either.
Amputation of the thief's hand is a LAW and is showing the CONSEQUENCES
of certain theft (e.i. in situations which have already been
discussed). Anyone who would want to say that this law is unjust must
compare it with other LAW approachs to this matter (such as
imprisonment) not with merci and other beautiful words that have
nothing to do with it. Yes merci is good but it does not fit in the
boundaries of this discussion. If the christians are so merciful then
why do they have imprisonment in their lands? Can't they just forgive
the guilty and let them loose?!! Quran provides laws and besides them
it also encourages forgiveness.
Altway
<cteas...@gmail.com> wrote
>> It is necessary to ensure that the procedures to ensure justice are
>> perfected.<<
> It was already perfected over 2,000 years ago with love.
Comment:-
Really!!
Why then are there so many crimes and also miscarriages of Justice?
> But, as I have pointed out, what is it within Islam that qualifies any
man to do such a thing to another?
Comment:-
Like Jews and Christians are expected to do
Muslims obey the Word of God in their Scriptures.
>In the case of cutting away what offends you physically you miss the
>opportunity to
give others hope in God.
Comment:-
You want to give greater priority to your self-opinions over the instructios
of God.
Is that what you have been taught?
Others are given hope when the persistent criminals are removed, deterred or
disabled from their crime.
That is precisely why Nations have laws.
You are lucky that you live in a country where crime is not so rampant that
you can afford your views because of laws.
Jesus did not abolish the Law.
Did not Jesus say :-
"Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them
from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather
than
having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is
better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes
to
be cast into hell fire." Matthew 18:8-9
You might think that is metaphorical and only applies to spiritual defects
but it can apply to societies also.
> Abuse is nothing to fear, in fact it baffles me why Muslims go into a
> spin when
a prophet is abused. In doing so they are in effect saying that the
word by which they live will not stand up to persecution, which would
be ridiculous if they are claiming it is the word of God.
Comment:-
Some people love and care for their Prophet and Religion more than others
and are therefore hurt when
these are abused and react to that hurt.
Civilised people do not or should not insult each other or their faith but
respect each other.
Apart from this, a consequence of the continuing abuse is the erosion of
religion and respect for the spiritual leaders.
Abuse tends to proliferate when it has no consequences.
However, I agree that reaction to abuse can be counterproductive because it
encourages even more abuse on the part of perverse people.
>> However, the point that you seemed to be unaware of,
namely that Jihad means striving for the sake of God and that fighting is
only for defence of Islam
Those who insist on false representations cannot be other than mischief
makers.
> How can anything that cuts away physically be in defence of Islam?
Comment:-
This has already been explained several times.
It removes the disease as dos the surgeon.
> Can you give me that verse in context from the Koran please.
Comment:-
Are you telling me that you are making pronouncements about Islam without
having read the Quran?
And without reading the articles about it on this site?
For Jihad read all the verses where this word or its derivatives is used
e.g 5:35, 9:20, 22:78, 29:6, 53:39 and many more.
For fighting:-
"Fight in the Cause of Allah with those who fight you, but transgress not
the limits (or begin not hostilities); verily, Allah loves not the
aggressors)." 2:190
Also:-
"But fight them until there be no more oppression and that the Din
(religion) may be Allah's; but, if they desist, then let there be no
hostility save against the unjust oppressors." 2:193
The point to be made is that we do not think that life is sacred in itself,
but that it has a purpose and that is sacred.
Death is not the end of life.
Few Christians have this attitude.
Hamid S. Aziz
drahcir
Altway wrote:
> "drahcir" wrote
>
<tiny snip>
> > Justice means that a Law is applied by which actions have consequences and
> > which affects all equally.
>
> > >You need a new dictionary, Mr. Aziz. Here is the primary definition, from
> > >merriam webster (the asterisks are mine in order to make it clear to you
> > >why your definition is inadequate)::
>
> 1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by
> the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or ****the assignment of
> merited rewards or punishments****
>
> So, part of justice is that of which you speak, however, the other,
> equally important part of justice is whether a reward or punishment is
> MERITED.
>
> Comment:-
>
> I think you need a clearer faculty for understanding.
> We do not take Mirriams Dictionary as the authority.
> But even so what do you understand by "merited".
>
> When you put your finger in the fire and it burns you according to its law,
> is the burning not merited by your action.
Excuse me, I'd swear I replied to your post, but it must have vanished
into cyberspace.
If I put my hand in the fire, it gets burned. This is a natural outcome
and has nothing whatever to do with merit. Recently, there was a very
bad plane crash in Kansas City, I think. A policeman reached into the
burning wreckage to pull the copilot out, severely burning his arms in
the process and it turns out that the copilot was the only survivor.
Would you say the policeman's action "merited" burning? Likewise, would
you say that the burning of a finger put into the flame by a 3 year old
is merited? Your question is silly because the flame has no choice in
the matter. Amputators do.
>
> Thus the thief (a person is called a thief if he persistent in theft
> intentionally) who steals knowing that it is wrong and that the consequence
> is that his hand will be chopped off, merits the consequence.
Whos, hold on there. First of all, let's get out the old dictionary
again to see whether your definition of "thief" holds water:
thief: one that steals especially stealthily or secretly; also : one
who commits theft or larceny
In case you were wondering about theft, it is
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and
removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner
of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of
property
Nothing about "persistent". I think we had better dispense with your
definition of "thief" and stick to messrs Merriam and Webster.
Now, as far as knowing it is wrong, well, that is Aziz, not Allah
speaking. The circumstances of the theft in 5.38 are not described --
it could be a career criminal or it could be a 10 year old stealing a
toy -- Allah gives us nothing regarding the circumstances: And that is
precisely why the verse CANNOT have been written by a good God -- it is
just too liberal in its scope and is nearly certain to result in the
miscarriage of justice.
[5.38] And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut
off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary
punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Now, regarding the consequences, I have demonstrated elsewhere in this
thread that punishment is not and has never been a deterrent. All you
need to prove that is to look at the murder rate in states with capital
punishment vs. states without.
>
> We do not argue with the law. It is there.
>
> In order to live we need facts as well as values and we regard both as
> coming from Allah, though we must try to understand them. And as Muslims we
> submit to Allah whether you like it or not, understand it or not -
> we do NOT submit to your opinions based on prejudices and whims.
> Do you comprehend?
It is your job in this thread to defend against and answer my
questions. If you cannot do so or will not do so, one may assume that
you proceed, at least in this one aspect of your life, in an
unquestioning way. We were given brains to question, of that there can
be no doubt. Therefore, you are not using what you were given, plain
and simple.
> Hamid S. Aziz
cteas...@gmail.com
Physcologist have proved that when a child is left in a room, on their
own, with a plate of sweets that temptation will get the better of
them.
We are all children before God. Yet, your law would take their hands
off for giving into temptation.
We all give in to temptations, it is called sin, every single last one
of us does it. Reflect and be truly honest about yourself and you will
see what I mean.
To resit temptations you need to employ strength that is beyond human,
and you 'should' want this for your neighbours too.
Cutting off a man's hand is tant amount to cutting him, and his family,
off from forgiveness. You would only need to cut just one person's
hand off unjustly and such a sin would be greater than all the other
sins you have been judging in others.
In Christ's love
Carol T
wrote:
cteas...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>Why then are there so many crimes and also miscarriages of Justice? <<<<<<<<,
Not everyone chooses Islam for himself or herself, not everyone chooses
Christianity either for various reasons. Judges are not gods, they will
make mistakes, but the process is there to make it as fair as possible
for all men, including any non-believers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Comment:-
Like Jews and Christians are expected to do
Muslims obey the Word of God in their Scriptures. <<<<<<<
Are suggesting that anyone who takes the label of Muslim is
automatically going to be obedient and holy in their thinking? Note; I
said 'lable'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Comment:-
You want to give greater priority to your self-opinions over the
instructios
of God.
Is that what you have been taught? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No, we believe in God's power to work through us, even today. Do you
believe that Islam is dead, unable to work through others and reach
into their hearts, minds and souls, life giving where there is death?
>>>>>>>>>Others are given hope when the persistent criminals are removed, deterred or disabled from their crime. That is precisely why Nations have laws.
You are lucky that you live in a country where crime is not so rampant
that
you can afford your views because of laws. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Laws and the governments to refine law to the greater good of man that
came through the wisdom afforded through the Bible, not through Islam.
J>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>esus did not abolish the Law.
e." Matthew 18:8-9 <<<<<<<<<<<<,,
I would like to speak to you about this, but you are allowed to print
this verse, I am not, it is not Islamic and therefore my answer will be
moderated out, even though it is not offensive or intended to be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Comment:-
Some people love and care for their Prophet and Religion more than
others
and are therefore hurt when
these are abused and react to that hurt. <<>>>>>>>>><<
But it is not love to misunderstand why the hurting, uneduated,
violent, depressed, sad, wayward and so forth attack and persecute
prophets, the very people they might need, that Satan is holding them
back from.
It also doesn't matter how much people are hurting because their
prophet has been attacked, the fact is that they are making a judgement
on behalf of the particular prophet. It 'must' be un-Islamic, and an
insult to Mohammed, for others to decide who are led into Islam and who
is not. My Lord believes there is hope in all men to change their ways
through good conscience.
>>>>>>>>>>Civilised people do not or should not insult each other or their faith but
respect each other. <
I agree fully, but if I told you why our views differ on this my post
would not be put in this group as it would not be deemed Islamic.
>>>>>>>>>Apart from this, a consequence of the continuing abuse is the erosion of
religion and respect for the spiritual leaders. <<<<<<
No, on the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>Comment:-
This has already been explained several times.
It removes the disease as dos the surgeon. <<<<<<<
But setting oneself aside from others to glorify your faith (Islam) is
not a physical process if it is spiritually holy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Comment:-
Are you telling me that you are making pronouncements about Islam
without
having read the Quran? <<<<<<<<<
I asked you to give me the verse about false representations, not
Jihad. I appreciate that a holy way is not fought out physically. :o)
you know I do read the Quran probably more than some Muslims do, and I
also know what Jihad means. However, to have made a comment, as I
wanted, my post would not have been posted. Do your moderators trust
your intellect and strength of faith?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>For Jihad read all the verses where this word or its derivatives is used
e.g 5:35, 9:20, 22:78, 29:6, 53:39 and many more. <<<<<<<<<<
For fighting:-
"Fight in the Cause of Allah with those who fight you, but transgress
not
the limits (or begin not hostilities); verily, Allah loves not the
aggressors)." 2:190 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
An aggressor is not a true follower of Jesus, but it would be
aggressive to hurt others who insulted Jesus. This is why I know it is
wrong of Muslims to defend Islam with violence against others. Muslims
believe that Jesus is a man of God, and He taught unequivocally that a
man of God does not need violence for his protection. Therefore,
neither does any prophet need to be protected by the hand of man if he
is to be considered a holy man of God.
>>>>>>>>>>to be made is that we do not think that life is sacred in itself, but that it has a purpose and that is sacred. Death is not the end of life. Few Christians have this attitude. <<<<<
This is not strictly true at all, I'd like to explain why, but it would
mean my post is moderated out.
cteas...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A policeman reached into the
> burning wreckage to pull the copilot out, severely burning his arms in
> the process and it turns out that the copilot was the only survivor.<<<<<
The likely consequence of such heroism, if the arm is too badly burned,
is amputation. How would others distinguish this man from a thief in
an Islamic society that practices amputation?
We have a child in a local toddler group who was born without a hand.
When she is an adult, if in a Muslim ruled country, would passing
strangers or employers know of her plight, or would they adopt the
natural position of man and assume something wicked?
What is the Islamic explanation for the justification of miscarriage
of justice in such cases? Where is the provision for these people's
feelings ?
capsaicin
making a great mischief but it is also worth noting that law assumes
that every sentence is delivered justly. We cannot limit consequenses
of crimes just because we fear that someone might be unjustly punished.
Instead we should put our focus on preventing a verdict to be carried
out wrongfully.
If the consequenses of a crime is not severe enough, the temptation of
commiting that crime will be even greater.
As I had said before, the PURPOSE of the law of amputation is to
prevent theft and burglary (to make the streets and the houses a safer
place specifically for travellers) and the reason that in some
countries such as Iran this law is not practiced is because it can no
longer have preventive effect (for different reasons). Before anything
in islam is practiced, we must first look through its goal. If the goal
is not accomplishable in a certain situation with this law, it will be
abrogated for that situation. This is a very important aspect which if
neglected can be misleading.
cteas...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is also worth noting that law assumes
> that every sentence is delivered justly. We cannot limit consequenses
> of crimes just because we fear that someone might be unjustly punished.
> Instead we should put our focus on preventing a verdict to be carried
> out wrongfully.<<<<
Yes but on one hand you admit to our humanity, in that not every
judgement could be perfect, it only assumes perfection, and on another
hand you say that we should focus on perfecting the judgements.
Therefore by admitting an imperfect judgement can and will happen, even
with the best of intentions, we are going to cause considerable
distress to those who have been delivered the injustice, including
possibly generations of children to come. An embittered man will not
teach love and respect for a faith who has chopped of his hand. In fact
he is likely to want generations of his children distanced from it.
Yet, until that moment of injustice against him he may have been a God
fearing man, with the utmost respect for everything Islamic.
Turning consciences towards God in love, rather than fear of 'earthly'
retribution for wrong doings will always bring about the perfect law in
any man.
>>>>>>>>>> If the consequenses of a crime is not severe enough, the temptation of
> commiting that crime will be even greater.<<<<<<
You should not think like this. If the consequence of being unloved
leads to just one man unjustifiably losing his hand, then it is a far
greater sin that a million thefts.
Coveting (the desire to own another's things) is a human trait, not of
holiness, so is the action of theft. All anyone could ever own is only
ever of this world, and not of God. Therefore if someone takes your
things, give them all you own, even the clothes off your back if need
be. Their soul is worth more than all your earthly things, and your act
of sacrifice for their soul shows the world the power of God's Spirit
is above the things a man can own in this world, including children.
Remember that Abraham was prepared to learn this when he took his son
for sacrifice. Correction must come from example and wisdom, it takes
a judgement of Solomon.
>>>>>>> Before anything in islam is practiced, we must first look through its goal. If the goal is not accomplishable in a certain situation with this law, it will be abrogated for that situation. This is a very important aspect which if neglected can be misleading.<<<<<<<
The goal is always to change the man from within his soul by showing
him the power of the Lord's Holy Spirit, so the world is changed
because of him and his salvation. Maybe this will be a subtle change,
maybe a profound change.
The Lord knows what every soul earns.
Therefore as much as a man can earn condemnation from God for his evil,
so too can give great things to those who have strived in prayer,
devotion, holiness, goodness, wisdom, righteousness and so forth.
Surely it is Islamic to believe that ......
[14.51] That Allah may requite each soul (according to) what it has
earned; surely Allah is swift in reckoning.
If God already has the power of retribution in a spiritual realm, then
it is our duty to acknowledge this realm and consider the true worth of
earthly things that another man may covent.
Is it not Islamic to be challenged to think in a more holy way , which
is always multifaceted. Not seeing the back and white of the print, but
letting your heart, mind and soul reach into the spiritual where true
peace, love and truth lies?
Altway
<cteas...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A policeman reached into the
> > burning wreckage to pull the copilot out, severely burning his arms in
the process and it turns out that the copilot was the only survivor.<<<<<
> The likely consequence of such heroism, if the arm is too badly burned,
is amputation. How would others distinguish this man from a thief in
an Islamic society that practices amputation?
Comment:-
How do you distinguish a thief
or one who abuses chidren from others when they are in the community?
Hamid S. Aziz
capsaicin
>From your responses I assume you believe that amputation of the thief
involves chopping a hand completely. Through amputation, the four
fingers of the less significant hand is cut. This is to make the
punishment severe not to render someone completely useless. Also
amputation of the thief in islam (I have to put the word islam here for
my post to be approved!) is not as straightforward as some people
think and is applied as the final consequence for theft. This is for a
thief who's job is theft and does not repent for his/her thefts. This
kind of a person has the title of a thief. And still he/she will be
forgiven in case of repentance (read the next verse).
Besides, how can you differenciate between two people being in jail,
one being framed and one being a true criminal? After they come out of
jail, both are looked at as being a criminal and both of them will have
difficaulties regaining trust. To solve this, you must redeem the
society. There is no surprise that the same thing applies to amputation
as well. If some people prefer to assume that the cause of losing a
hand is theft, it is the problem of the society and must be solved in
another way.
Altway
Surely it is Islamic to believe that ......
[14.51] That Allah may requite each soul (according to) what it has
earned; surely Allah is swift in reckoning.
Comment:-
Yes the final judgement is Allah's
On earth, it is the Muslim duty to submit to the instructions of Allah who
is wise.
Allah will judge their actions also.
There is no point in opposing this through personal whims, sentimentality or
prejudices, prefering these above the word of God.
But yes as has been pointed out Allah instructs both Justice and Compassion,
and also Wisdom.
The compassion that allows the proliferation of evil that causes suffering
is not real compassion but folly.
Hamid S. Aziz
drahcir
capsaicin wrote:
> Reply to cteasd:
> >From your responses I assume you believe that amputation of the thief
> involves chopping a hand completely. Through amputation, the four
> fingers of the less significant hand is cut.
Hmmm, you must have a different Koran than that from which I read.
Precisely where do you find these "mercifullly explicit" directions?
This is to make the
> punishment severe not to render someone completely useless. Also
> amputation of the thief in islam (I have to put the word islam here for
> my post to be approved!) is not as straightforward as some people
> think and is applied as the final consequence for theft. This is for a
> thief who's job is theft and does not repent for his/her thefts.
More stuff I simply have never read. My Koran says to amputate the
hand of a thief, period. Please do cite these instrucitons from
whatever Koran you are reading from.
This
> kind of a person has the title of a thief. And still he/she will be
> forgiven in case of repentance (read the next verse).
The next verse says that
whoever repents after his iniquity and reforms (himself), then surely
Allah will turn to him (mercifully); surely Allah is Forgiving,
Merciful.
The implication is that forgiveness will be given after the iniquity,
and presumably after the punishment, IF the thief repents.
> Besides, how can you differenciate between two people being in jail,
> one being framed and one being a true criminal? After they come out of
> jail, both are looked at as being a criminal and both of them will have
> difficaulties regaining trust. To solve this, you must redeem the
> society. There is no surprise that the same thing applies to amputation
> as well. If some people prefer to assume that the cause of losing a
> hand is theft, it is the problem of the society and must be solved in
> another way.
The difference is that when one has been in jail, it may not be evident
unless one chooses to reveal it. However, there is no way to hide an
amputated hand.
Nima Rezai
> The punishments in Islam that are called Hudood are preventive. The
> intent is not to have people with no hands, but:
>
> 1. Scare thieves from the crime.
>
> 2. Make the society hate the crime.
>
> The punishment was applied 4 times throughout the 6 centuries after
> the death of the Messenger (s).
Salam alaikum,
your last sentence, even if it should be a proven fact, is no argument.
The question is whether you seriously believe that in 600 years only 4
thieves stealing something worth a 1/4 dinar were caught. Or whether you
think the sentence was not carried out, for whatever reason.
The problem with this harsh punishment is that it violates theislamic
principle of non-transgression. Chopping off a hand is far too harsh and
unjustified if carried out for simple theft. In my opinion the verse
following this verse implies that the punishment is meant for repeat
offenders. I would consider such "irreparable" punishment only half-way
legimitimate if there has been some kind of armed robbery or organized
robbery.
Imagine some "funny" guy steals some apples and a loaf of bread and gets his
hand chopped off.
Another reason why I consider the application of the punishment problematic
is that the Quran leaves room for a murderer to be forgiven while islamic
jurists up to now think that any robbery is to dealt with hand-chopping.
Some scholars have come up with restrictions like setting up a minimum value
for the stolen object or distinguishing between openly accessible objects
and "hidden" objects, but there is no such restriction in the Quran itself.
N.
capsaicin
>Hmmm, you must have a different Koran than that from which I read.
>Precisely where do you find these "mercifullly explicit" directions?
>More stuff I simply have never read. My Koran says to amputate the
>hand of a thief, period. Please do cite these instrucitons from
>whatever Koran you are reading from.
I am representing the details of the law of amputation in the countries
practicing it (As far as I know, Saudi Arabia is the only one
practicing it at the moment) and from the Islamic history. Quran says
to amputate the hand of a thief. It doesn't say who it considers a
thief and still how much of the hand should be amputated. It is like
saying "For more details refer to ..." or better yet "For more details,
do more research".
Someone who only wishes to find errors in the book would take it as he
wants without any further research but quran is for those who read it
with the right reading.
>The implication is that forgiveness will be given after the iniquity,
>and presumably after the punishment, IF the thief repents.
It is obvious that it is given after the crime (as forgiveness applies
to those who commit a crime not the innocent). This doesn't mean After
the punishment. You are just presuming it. And certainly IF the thief
repents. Again, forgiveness is for those who repent, not for those who
insist on their mistake.
>The difference is that when one has been in jail, it may not be evident
>unless one chooses to reveal it. However, there is no way to hide an
>amputated hand.
You haven't taken my point correctly. I am pointing at the society.
When a society prefers to assume the cause of a missing hand is theft,
then this society must be taught.
Plus, I don't agree that being in jail can be hidden as easily as you
imply.
drahcir
capsaicin wrote:
> Reply to drahcir:
> >Hmmm, you must have a different Koran than that from which I read.
> >Precisely where do you find these "mercifullly explicit" directions?
> ...
> >More stuff I simply have never read. My Koran says to amputate the
> >hand of a thief, period. Please do cite these instrucitons from
> >whatever Koran you are reading from.
>
> I am representing the details of the law of amputation in the countries
> practicing it (As far as I know, Saudi Arabia is the only one
> practicing it at the moment) and from the Islamic history. Quran says
> to amputate the hand
No, it doesn't. I says to amputate the handS of a thief.
of a thief. It doesn't say who it considers a
> thief
It uses the word "thief" without qualification. It assumes everyone
knows what a thief is -- it's a person who steals. PERIOD.
and still how much of the hand should be amputated.
The hand is the hand. Again, it assumes everyone knows what a hand is
-- it is the organic matter below the wrist.
It is like
> saying "For more details refer to ..." or better yet "For more details,
> do more research".
Huh?? It is not "like" saying anything. This is supposed to be the
final word of God to all men for all time. God is saying that until the
sun supernovas or global warming kills us all, we should chop off the
hands of a thief - it's that simple. Let us remember, the verse says
And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their
hands as a punishment....
Notice "hands", not "hand", and "hands", not "fingers". Anyone who
chops off a few fingers of only one hand is disobeying the word of God.
Either that, or it's not really the word of God. There is no third
option.
> Someone who only wishes to find errors in the book would take it as he
> wants without any further research
How much clearer can it be? There is no research necessary, UNLESS one
feels uncomfortable with what it says, which of course anyone ought to.
Why does one feel uncomfortable? Well, it is because one's innate sense
of right and wrong contradicts what is written. Why it is not clear to
all Muslims from that single fact that the Koran CANNOT be from a Good
God is beyond me. Why a Muslim concludes more "research" is necessary
instead of asking himself whether a good god would leave such a tragic
thing as amputation up to inidividual judgement just does not make
sense to me.
but quran is for those who read it
> with the right reading.
By "the right reading", of course you mean bending and twisting what it
says until you are comfortable. Ridiculous.
cteas...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Again, forgiveness is for those who repent, not for those who
insist on their mistake. <<<<<<<<<<<<
And this is the problem as it leaves judgement dependant on men who
have yet to truly examine themselves against the greater glory of God.
It is not a judgement system born out of a humbling love of God, but
one born out of contempt and despising for neighbours who have sin. It
is one that self qualifies a man to be blind to his own sins and the
true magnitude of their effect against the world and God.
You see, God loves His creation, but not the sin. Even Judas sat at
God's table until the revelation of his 'own' soul condemned him and
all men were shown the nature of themselves, which is their capability
of condemning and punishing the innocent.
I am sorry Capsaicin, but encompassing true holiness requires a man to
know the inherent condition of man and to deal with it spiritually.
Does the Koran not allow a man scope for knowing his own measure of sin
in this world? If so, then surely such a man would know that he can
never be qualified to chop off a man's hand. Therefore, ultimately the
punishment lies in the realms of the truly holy and this deals directly
with the man's soul. Condemnation of the soul is the greatest
punishment of all, but until a man receives this punishment he still
has time for repentance.
So, if a man steals/ wants from you give to him. The material belongs
to this world and has absolutely no value in heaven, but a man's soul
is worth more than the entire precious silver, gold or jewels you could
ever own.
capsaicin
> No, it doesn't. I says to amputate the handS of a thief.
It says "And the male thief and the female thief, cut off THEIR HANDS
...".
You take it as a command to cut both hands only because you see the
plural noun here. But the noun is mentioned as plural because it is
refering to plural objects (the thieves). When someone says for
instance "take their tickets" does it mean to take every single ticket
they possess or a ticket from each? This is the limits of words that
can't specify things clear enough. Thats why we need research. And only
the fingers (or half the palm) are cut because it is forbidden to cut
the parts of the limbs which are required for praying but since I don't
have a reference for this right now, I cannot prove it to you. Even
though I don't see too much difference between cutting only the fingers
and cutting from the wrists.
> It assumes everyone knows what a thief is -- it's a person who steals. PERIOD.
One single theft doesn't necessarily turn someone into a thief. By the
word thief there can be two meanings:
1. The literal: One who steals, doesn't matter how much or how many
times.
2. The moral: One whos job has become theft and burglary. If someone
steals something once out of temptation, excessive hunger or lack of
knowledge he/she won't be placed in this group.
> Huh?? It is not "like" saying anything. This is supposed to be the
> final word of God to all men for all time. God is saying that until the
> sun supernovas or global warming kills us all, we should chop off the
> hands of a thief - it's that simple.
Quran IS the final word of god to all men of all times, and I would
add, with different teachings in different situations. It is very
important to know WHY and in what situation a commandment is given and
what is its goal.
Questioning, thinking and research has always been promoted in the
quran. We can see in several places specially at the endings of verses
the words "for those who consider" and the likes of it. And quran says
that it can be misleading for many (pay attention to this).
> By "the right reading", of course you mean bending and twisting what it
> says until you are comfortable. Ridiculous.
There is no reason for us not to be comfortable with this verse since
we would never consider theft. Actually no true muslim would. And if we
do we will stand by the punishment. This is how islam would create such
hatred toward a matter such as theft. And the theft done out of hunger,
being under pressure, lack of knowledge and so on are out of this
command. Plus, we consider all of the commandments of god altogether. A
society who can't provide the basic needs of the poor for instance and
is ready to amputate a hand is certainly not following the word of god.
It appears that you take the worst of things to make yourself more
comfortable in your offence against islam.
I would also want to mention a little more about the verse:
"And the male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands as a
RECOMPENSE FOR WHAT THEY HAVE EARNED, and an exemplary punishment from
God; God is all mighty, all wise."
I am not saying this with certainty but this (again if thought about
carefully) can show what they have earned must be somehow worth the
hand chopped not just anything (as the hand is a recompense for the
earning). Maybe thats how there has been so few hand choppings
(probably not 4 in 6 centuries but certainly only a fraction of the
number of people thrown in jail for theft).
klei...@astound.net
capsaicin wrote:
> Quran IS the final word of god to all men of all times, and I would
> add, with different teachings in different situations. It is very
> important to know WHY and in what situation a commandment is given and
> what is its goal.
> Questioning, thinking and research has always been promoted in the
> quran. We can see in several places specially at the endings of verses
> the words "for those who consider" and the likes of it. And quran says
> that it can be misleading for many (pay attention to this).
Your arguments are not doing Islam much good.
Back in August, in this thread, we had a Muslim explanation that both
hands were cut off and hung around the neck of the thief in public.
Whom are we non-Muslims supposed to believe?
It is beyond human imagination that we ever learn how many hands were
actually cut off because of this verse in the Qur'an. We cannot even
learn how many amputations (of hands or fingers) have been performed in
Saudi Arabia in recent years.
We have had it argued in this thread that amputation is a good thing. I
believe that that is a minority opinion. Certainly no non-Muslim
appears to support amputation.
BUT
Consider the proposition that "Quran IS the final word of god to all
men of all times". You are not going to convince many people that this
is even a close approximation to the truth by arguments such as you
present. It seems to me that the kind of "research" you advocate can
easily lead from the Qur'an to any proposition you favor. In
Christianity this is the kind of thing associated, by hostile critics,
with Jesuit theology.
The Qur'an says what it says. I believe it is better to admit that.
I, myself, as a non-Muslim, am under no obligation to solve this
problem. Personally I believe that the Qur'an contains numerous
passges, such as this one, which do not stem from the revelation that
Muhammad recieved.
drahcir
capsaicin wrote:
> Reply to drahcir:
> > No, it doesn't. I says to amputate the handS of a thief.
>
> It says "And the male thief and the female thief, cut off THEIR HANDS
> ...".
> You take it as a command to cut both hands only because you see the
> plural noun here. But the noun is mentioned as plural because it is
> refering to plural objects (the thieves).
Ridiculous and laughable. You are a prime example of how a religious
person will bend and twist a document until it says what he wants it to
say. If God had wanted the punishment to be amputation of one hand, He
would have said. And the male thief and the female thief, cut off one
of their hands. This is OBVIOUS to all but those who are blinded by
faith.
When someone says for
> instance "take their tickets" does it mean to take every single ticket
> they possess or a ticket from each?
I pity you, truly. When someone says "take their tickets" it is usually
for an event for which one ticket is required, such as a movie or
concert. Under these circumstances the vast majority of people will
have only one ticket. However, in the case of a raffle, a person may
have many tickets, and here, yes, it means take every single ticket
they possess. You analogy is so pathetic I don't know whether to laugh
or cry.
BTW, for your reading pleasure, here is Mr. Yusufali's translation:
YUSUFALI: As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a
punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is
Exalted in power.
Hands -- how odd.....
This is the limits of words that
> can't specify things clear enough. Thats why we need research.
NO YOU ARE WRONG. God is speaking to all men for all time. In a matter
as serious as amputation, no Good God would leave anything to your
silly human "research", which is fallible because humans are fallible.
Again, this is obvious to all but those who are blinded by faith.
And only
> the fingers (or half the palm) are cut because it is forbidden to cut
> the parts of the limbs which are required for praying
Really? Please show specifically where IN THE KORAN God says that at
least one half of the palm is required for praying, and then show where
"it is forbidden". I think you are making stuff up. Prove me wrong.
but since I don't
> have a reference for this right now, I cannot prove it to you.
I didn't read this before I wrote the above, sorry. Until you have a
reference, I consider it simply your conjecture. My opinion is that
your conjecture is wrong. That is how it will sit until you prove
otherwise.
Even
> though I don't see too much difference between cutting only the fingers
> and cutting from the wrists.
YOU are the one who started with the precise interpretation of what God
meant by "hand" when he commanded it be cut off, not me. The normal
definition of "hand" is known even to babies. If you are contending
that God meant something other than "hand" when He said "hand", it is
your job to prove it.
>
> > It assumes everyone knows what a thief is -- it's a person who steals. PERIOD.
> One single theft doesn't necessarily turn someone into a thief.
You want to say that God did not mean, by "thief", a person who steals
only once. How do you know? Did God whisper something in your ear that
He forgot to tell Muhammad? What did He say about someone who steals
twice? Thrice? Don't you see how completely absurd your argument is?
By the
> word thief there can be two meanings:
> 1. The literal: One who steals, doesn't matter how much or how many
> times.
> 2. The moral: One whos job has become theft and burglary. If someone
> steals something once out of temptation, excessive hunger or lack of
> knowledge he/she won't be placed in this group.
Soiunds to me like you need to write your own Koran that conforms to
your own moral sense. One thing is for sure -- God did not write any of
that. So if Taliban or whoever comes to power and wants to enforce
Sharia, all they have to go on is that they should cut off the hands of
a thief. That is all God said. All the rest is you, or Taliban, or
whoever. Do you think a Good God would leave the decision of a person
who wants to be a good Muslim to amputate another's hands to chance? It
is ABSURD, do you hear?
>
> > Huh?? It is not "like" saying anything. This is supposed to be the
> > final word of God to all men for all time. God is saying that until the
> > sun supernovas or global warming kills us all, we should chop off the
> > hands of a thief - it's that simple.
> Quran IS the final word of god to all men of all times, and I would
> add, with different teachings in different situations. It is very
> important to know WHY and in what situation a commandment is given and
> what is its goal.
NO IT IS NOT. The words of the Koran are all that is needed -- anything
else is subject to human error. What situation a commandment is given
in is IRRELEVANT -- the commandments of the Koran are UNIVERSAL and
apply to ALL SITUATIONS. If they were contingent on a particular
situation, GOD WOULD SO INDICATE.
> Questioning, thinking and research has always been promoted in the
> quran. We can see in several places specially at the endings of verses
> the words "for those who consider" and the likes of it. And quran says
> that it can be misleading for many (pay attention to this).
>
> > By "the right reading", of course you mean bending and twisting what it
> > says until you are comfortable. Ridiculous.
> There is no reason for us not to be comfortable with this verse since
> we would never consider theft.
WHAT??????? Do you hear yourself? Are you so devoid of compassion, so
incapable of empathy, that you can say with SUCH CERTAINTY that you
would never consider theft? What if your child were dying of cancer and
the only way you could think of to afford the treatments were to
REPEATEDLY steal? I have no patience for someone as hollow and empty,
not to mention unimaginative, as you.
Actually no true muslim would.
Ah, I see. So since no true muslim would commit theft, the punishment
is fine, since it could only be applied to non-muslims. Who cares about
non-mulim hands?
And if we
> do we will stand by the punishment. This is how islam would create such
> hatred toward a matter such as theft. And the theft done out of hunger,
> being under pressure, lack of knowledge and so on are out of this
> command.
According to YOU, not according to God.
Plus, we consider all of the commandments of god altogether. A
> society who can't provide the basic needs of the poor for instance and
> is ready to amputate a hand is certainly not following the word of god.
> It appears that you take the worst of things to make yourself more
> comfortable in your offence against islam.
What are you babbling about? All of the above is nonsense, the purpose
of which is to obfuscate your dilemma. Too bad you cannot be honest
with yourself about it.
>
> I would also want to mention a little more about the verse:
> "And the male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands as a
> RECOMPENSE FOR WHAT THEY HAVE EARNED, and an exemplary punishment from
> God; God is all mighty, all wise."
> I am not saying this with certainty but this (again if thought about
> carefully) can show what they have earned must be somehow worth the
> hand chopped not just anything (as the hand is a recompense for the
> earning). Maybe thats how there has been so few hand choppings
> (probably not 4 in 6 centuries but certainly only a fraction of the
> number of people thrown in jail for theft).
If what you say is true, all that means is that in most cases of theft,
Muslims have disobeyed Allah's commandment
Here is the truth: I can look at the verse and see its problems
honestly because I don't have to see it as the words of God. You can't
because you must.
drahcir
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> drahcir wrote:
>
> > Here is the truth: I can look at the verse and see its problems
> > honestly because I don't have to see it as the words of God. You can't
> > because you must.
>
> Muhammad as God's Messenger (peace be upon him), the Muslims have a
> huge responsibility to correctly interpret and apply the various laws
> given in the Qur`an.
Of course they do. I don't see how the correct interpretation of "chop
off their hands" can be "don't chop off their hands", but I will read
further for your explanation.
> You are not burdened with this responsibility, so it's a fair game for
> you to interpret it at its face value, with a few translations, and not
> examine the true nature of the Qur`an in the Islamic Law and
> Jurisprudence and its place in it.
Mr. Anjum, I find this demeaning. We are here to discuss Islam. In this
case debate is irrelevant to the debaters -- I have made a point. It is
not made with antipathy or hate but with doubt. When I probe, it makes
no sense. If you are saying that your faith is not subject to probing
by non-believers, I would ask you why you believe in something that
cannot stand inquiry from an outsider. I am asking you to debate
objectively with me as an equal in the sense that we are both human and
must both adhere to logical exposition of ideas.
> Other than a few small sects, I'd say over 98% of the Muslims
> throughout history have not considered the Qur`an as the only source of
> Islamic Law, and look to other sources for details and to see how the
> various injunctions in the Qur`an were interpreted and applied by the
> Prophet himself and followed by his rightly guided caliphs and the
> subsequent generations of Muslims.
>
> It is generally understood that the Qur`an provides a framework, a set
> of parameters, if you will. Consequently, it provides an outline, and
> therefore boundaries, within which the Muslims are to remain in matters
> of law and personal practices, while other sources, especially the
> practical example of the Prophet (his Sunnah, which is different from
> Hadith),
I asked how it is different in this group some weeks ago, and almost no
one replied, so I am still in the dark. I am presuming that the Sunnah
is a subset of the Hadith, but that is just a presumption.
are an integral part and provide the details necessary to put
> things into practice.
I accept your analysis, but missing is a concrete example from the
Sunnah of a thief being excused from having his or her hands chopped
off. Can you provide one?
>
> As a result, the penalties given in the Qur`an for the various crimes
> and immoral conduct are considered to be the MAXIMUM penalties and NOT
> the ABSOLUTE, that is, they are to be handed out under EVERY
> circumstance and situation.
How do we know they are the maximum? Is there anything to suggest that
they are the maximum IN THE KORAN? In this case, wouldn't you expect
God to say something like, "and in the case of the male and female
thief, when all else fails, chop off their hands", or something,
anything to indicate that this is only to be done in the worst cases?
As it is, for all we know, this penalty is the minimum. Maybe God
thinks that in the case of a particularly incorrigible thief, he should
be killed or have his feet chopped off as well as his hands. How do we
know? And since you are suggesting that the Koran is not absolute, but
simply provides guidelines, one must assume that that applies to all
aspects of the Koran.
And here I will relate a funny story. I was here going to suggest that
using your logic, one must assume that praying five times per day is
simply a guideline, and a Muslim is free to pray less if he chooses.
After searching the internet for the source of the five-times-per-day
law, I was hopelessly entangled in gobbledigook. I will show you just
one example of it, which you may find humorous:
Question
Why do Muslims pray five times a day? Why do they not pray eight times
a day?
:Answer
The only suitable and proper reference for commanding or making a law
(in religion) is Allah (SWT), for He is our creator and free of need
from all others. He is therefore aware of what is good or bad for us.
All commands issued by Allah (SWT) are based on wisdom. On the other
hand, humans come to this understanding that many of their capabilities
and affairs are out of their control and dependant on the grace and
blessing of Allah (SWT). Without His grace and blessing, life will be
impossible to continue. Therefore it is logical that man tries to obey
the orders of Allah (SWT) submissively (even if he does not understand
the underlying purpose of the orders.)
As we explained earlier, there are definitely deep underlying purposes
for every command Allah (SWT) has ordained upon us; many of which we
may not be able to understand. So the answer to the question of why
Muslims pray five times a day lies in obeying Allah's (SWT) command. It
should be noted that according to wisdom, submissive obedience is only
towards Allah (SWT), and such obedience has shown to have many useful
effects on man.
Stating life examples may further explain this issue:
1- We have all one time or another seen a doctor to cure an illness. To
cure us, the doctor prescribes certain medicines. However, have we
usually taken the time to ask the doctor the theories and exact reasons
behind each single medicine? Certainly not! This is simply because we
trust the doctor; we know that understanding the reason(s) behind a
medication requires medical knowledge, which we may not have. Thus we
accept the doctor's prescription without hesitation. (Of course it may
happen that the doctor simply explains the reasons for prescribing a
certain medication for us.)
2- Assume that we are given a treasure map. The map says that in order
to find the treasure, you must start from point X, take five steps to
the North, and then 6 steps toward the East. If we do not follow the
path exactly, we will not be able to find the treasure. In the same
manner, if we do not follow what Allah (SWT) has ordered us to do, then
we are definitely not going to reach the sacred destination that can
make us successful in both worlds.
So, the answerer in fact spends hundreds of words without answering.
Anyway, you get my drift, I am sure.
>
> Which is why, certain penalties stated in the Qur`an are either
> lessened or not given at all under certain situations and
> circumstances.
I prefer to speak only about the punishment that is the topic of this
thread - otherwise we will have to get into piles of Sunnah quotes,
etc. For now, please just refer me to the relevant Sunnah verses that
suggest that chopping off of hands is the maximum penalty that a thief
can incur, and therefore should be prescribed in only the worst cases.
>
> As an example, if a person steals to feed himself, he is not penalized
> and the underlying reasons that caused him to steel food are examined
> and remedied.
That's very humane, but I need to see evidence from the Muslim sources
that this is what God wants. Because if it's just centuries of
scholarship that has produced this result, withoout reference to
Islamic source materials direcrtly concerned with this issue, then the
law is just a function of innate human moral code and exists perfectly
well without Islamic source materials, and therefore without Islam.
> Or, if a society is suffering from femine and other social injustices,
> these harsh penalties are not to be given.
Again, please cite Koran or Sunnah justification for this approach. At
present, all I have to go on is God saying to chop off their hands.
>
> But, as a non-believer in the Qur`an, you are free to examine the
> translations of the Qur`an and ignore the volumes after volumes that
> have been written about the Islamic Law over the past 1400 years, even
> the Prophet's Sunnah, and interpret the various injunctions in it the
> way you feel like. You have got nothing to prove or lose.
The volumes after volumes were written by men, not God.
>
> What you are essentially doing is that you are looking at the "raw
> data" and ignoring the "processed data".
The essential question, Mr. Anjum, which you have ignored, is whether a
good and omnipotent God would write in his Koran that good Muslims
should chop off the hands of a thief, and leave the rest to humans.
Predictably, some humans, like you, will suggest that the punishment is
almost never to be applied, although this would seem to contradict the
word of God, some will apply it in severe cases, and still others, like
the Taliban, will see it for what it is, a simple statement by God, and
follow it to the letter. Would a good and omnipotent God leave such
stuff as amputation to human judgement? If He is good, why do humans
feel compelled to mollify His prescribed punishment? Certainly humans
cannot be more good than God. If he is omnipotent and good, certainly
He could find a way to transmit to humans in a more precise way where
He meant this punishment to be applied and where not.
Finally, just as a favor to me, and since we are old chums, could you
please refrain from telling me what I am free to do? You never used to
do this in our discussions, and I find it somewhat insulting, as if I
am not worthy of this type of discussion.
capsaicin
> Back in August, in this thread, we had a Muslim explanation that both
> hands were cut off and hung around the neck of the thief in public.
> Whom are we non-Muslims supposed to believe?
Here is the actual quote:
Abdalla Alothman wrote on August 27: "... Whether you wish to believe
it or not, the Hudood in Islam arepreventive. That's why the thief's
hand is chopped in public, andafter that he gets his hands hanged on
his chest and walks amongthe people so the consequence of theft can be
seen (by those peoplewho might also include future thieves). Set one or
a few examples,and enjoy a theft-free society for a long time. ..."
He never says in his post to cut BOTH hands, he says one hand but he
also adds that the hand should be hung in front of his chest to set an
example. This is not in contrast to my claim about a single or both
hands. However I am in a country in which this law is not applied (for
several reasons) and I haven't heard of this to be done in other places
so I can't say for sure whether this is realy executed or not (maybe in
some instances) and I am not going to condemn or approve it either for
now. My claim is that the details of this command are secondary and
time and situation specific and so it must be decided upon other rules
of islam by the judges and people in charge. About what the non-muslims
are going to believe, let me assure you that for most of them, it
doesn't matter what we say, they keep believing what they want to
believe. And what we say is not for you to believe immediately but to
also consider them. I personally, sometimes reject some of my past
ideas and never claim that my words are absolute truth, I believe no
body would say that he is absolutely true.
> We have had it argued in this thread that amputation is a good thing. I
> believe that that is a minority opinion. Certainly no non-Muslim
> appears to support amputation.
The majority doesn't always indicate the correctness of something as
people generally speak in moral standards their current culture
provides. These standards change from time to time and from location to
location so if you could ask this from people in different ages you
could come up with different results. Currently non-muslims prefer to
reject amputation because on the firts sight it seems cruel and unjust.
And as you say they are not obliged to look through it further. Muslims
would have to see it in more depth because they feel themselves obliged
to know why their religion is commanding so and this is quite natural.
What we say is that the general psychological rule applies: If the
punishment of an act is not severe enough, it cannot have its deterrent
effect.
> It seems to me that the kind of "research" you advocate can
> easily lead from the Qur'an to any proposition you favor. In
> Christianity this is the kind of thing associated, by hostile critics,
> with Jesuit theology.
I didn't direct you to specific sources of belief, what I have actually
done was to represent the limits and situations applied to this rule in
places where it is being executed or from historical accounts. In
respose to this I heard that this verse is clearly sentencing ANY type
of theft. This is the thing that I don't accept and I provided reasons
for this using the very verse with consideration of historical accounts
that are eligible to me (this is done by both sides). If I wanted to
create a shortcut to propositions that I favor I would have defended
the idea which says that "cut their hands" means to put a scar on them.
This idea uses the verses 10:31 (which I represented in my other post
in response to drahsir), 10:50 and 9:110 as their reason for their
claim. They say that the verse in question can simply mean put a scar
on their hands so that they would remember their punishment and would
forget about repeating it, exemplary punishment. Any more comforting
(in your eyes) proposition than this? Now, these are the historical
accounts (and some psychological facts) that make me reject it. As you
see there ARE different views, and thats why we need research. There
are different views in every single fact you can every find. If
research is not to be done and everything is to be taken as they first
appear, then how are we going to find our place among the forest of
religions and beliefs?
Know this that staying in islam is no more beneficient to me than
leaving it and I am not going to be blamed for leaving islam anymore
than I am being blamed for being a muslim. So there is no reason to
provide propositions to make myself comfortable and I won't hesitate to
become an atheist once the falsity of Islam is proven to me.
capsaicin
In regard of Alothman's quote I missed to compare the two parts which I
am capitalizing now: "That's why the THIEF'S HAND is chopped in public,
andafter that he gets HIS HANDS hanged on his chest ..."
This is probabely a typo, you should verify from the author whether he
truely means a single hand or both hands. At the time this message was
posted the number of hands was not a matter of discussion or else he
would have paid more attention not to make this mistake.
drahcir
Ok, my understanding from the fact that you snipped away most of my
post is that you would prefer to end the discussion. I am disappointed,
but I accept. I just wish you had simply said so.
Abdalla Alothman
> capsaicin wrote:
> > Reply to drahcir:
> > > No, it doesn't. I says to amputate the handS of a thief.
> >
> > It says "And the male thief and the female thief, cut off THEIR HANDS
> > ...".
> > You take it as a command to cut both hands only because you see the
> > plural noun here. But the noun is mentioned as plural because it is
> > refering to plural objects (the thieves).
>
> Ridiculous and laughable. You are a prime example of how a religious
> person will bend and twist a document until it says what he wants it to
> say.
What you say can only come from an idiotic source.
What you were given is 100% true. The command is to cut one
hand only, provided that a list of conditions are met (i.e., cracking
a safe in someone's house to retain a property certificate that belongs
to the suspect, for example, is not theft; claiming that the stolen
object
was given as a present is not theft; etc.).
> If God had wanted the punishment to be amputation of one hand, He
> would have said. And the male thief and the female thief, cut off one
> of their hands.
That's what is said. The aaya says "aydeeyahumaa" (in a reference
to theives) not yadayyhim (in reference to hands). We didn't
explain this part when we posted to this thread because we thought
we are dealing with intelligent people not a bunch of ignorant people,
like yourself.
Again, you don't know the language in order to argue about such
issues. And when you argue about what you have no knowledge
of, you appear ... you know like what...
[k&h - 5:38] Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the
thief,
male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a
punishment by way of example from Allâh. And Allâh is AllPowerful,
AllWise.
This translation is based from the first commentary by aTTabary
who explained in more details here:
Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 38, Number 4396:
<Start>
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill
him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then
he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was
brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has
committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot.
So his (left) foot was cut off.
He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)
He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.
He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him.
So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him
and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.
<End>
Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 38, Number 4397:
<Start>
Narrated Fadalah ibn Ubayd:
A thief was brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him)
and his hand was cut off. Thereafter he commanded for it, and it
was hung on his neck.
<End>
The penalty is applied in Saudi Arabia, and they cut one hand, not
both hands. It's not worth it that someone might read your nonsense,
and then travel to Saudi Arabia to find out that what you have been
saying is false. What could they say but, "Ahh!! That guy (you) lied
to us!"
But if you have no shame, do whatever you like.
> BTW, for your reading pleasure, here is Mr. Yusufali's translation:
>
> YUSUFALI: As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a
> punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is
> Exalted in power.
You should read his commentary before spitting nonsense all over the
place; He does describe the penalty.
In addition to aTTabari above, here is Al-Qurtubi (one of the judges of
the Maalikiyya) said:
http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KORTOBY&nType=1&nSora=5&nAya=38
And here is what ibn katheer said:
http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KATHEER&nType=1&nSora=5&nAya=38
And here is what a non-Muslim source says:
From: http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/sau-summary-eng
"At least seven people, all foreign nationals, had their right hand
amputated,
and one man had two of his teeth extracted under qisas (retribution)
punishment."
What you say is nonsense -- all the way.
> Here is the truth: I can look at the verse and see its problems
> honestly because I don't have to see it as the words of God. You can't
> because you must.
You also can't, because you don't know Arabic. You can only see
the translation of the "verse." If you knew how to "see the verse" as
you are fooling yourself, you would have known the difference
between aydeeyahumaa and yadayyhim, but you don't know the
language, and the only weapon you have is a feather, I mean
translation of the Quran.
You made a silly move trying to teach us our religion. We hope you
wont do a sillier move and teach us our language.
Abdalla Alothman
rezai...@yahoo.de
> Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 38, Number 4396:
> <Start>
> Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
> A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill
> him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then
> he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was
> brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has
> committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot.
> So his (left) foot was cut off.
>
> He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him.
> The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
> So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)
> He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him.
> The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
> So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.
> He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him.
> So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him
> and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.
> <End>
one more reason to reject Hadith. How can you folks consider yourselves
pious muslims and ridicule your own prophet? Dont you see how
embarassing this Hadith is?
It is an insult to the Prophet that he allegedly did not know "his" own
religion and had to be "corrected" by ordinary people multiple times.
I pray to God that this is at least not considered "sahih"...
The person described in the above Hadith is not a prophet, at least not
"the" prophet a thinking muslim loves.
I just ask myself "how" the thief committed theft a fifth time, when
both his hands and feet were already cut off!?!
If the man used his teeth to steal he must have been very needy or
mentally deranged. In both cases what the prophet is accused of having
done to him would be irrational and criminal.
Nima
capsaicin
> Ridiculous and laughable. You are a prime example of how a religious
> person will bend and twist a document until it says what he wants it to
> say. If God had wanted the punishment to be amputation of one hand, He
> would have said. And the male thief and the female thief, cut off one
> of their hands. This is OBVIOUS to all but those who are blinded by
> faith.
...
> I pity you, truly. When someone says "take their tickets" it is usually
> for an event for which one ticket is required, such as a movie or
> concert. Under these circumstances the vast majority of people will
> have only one ticket. However, in the case of a raffle, a person may
> have many tickets, and here, yes, it means take every single ticket
> they possess. You analogy is so pathetic I don't know whether to laugh
> or cry.
About the ticket thing, suppose you are the assistant of the driver and
he tells you "take their tickets", the passengers usually have more
than one ticket (for further trips), so would it mean to take all of
their tickets? If this analogy seems so pathetic to you I can provide
you another one. Consider the phrase: "They waved their hands and left
the party", does it mean that they waved both of their hands?
But do I need these analogies? Lets take two more different approachs:
1. Consider the quran verse 12:31
"And when she heard of their sly talk, she sent to them and prepared
for them a cushioned couch (to lie on at the feast) and gave to every
one of them a knife and said (to Joseph): Come out unto them! And when
they saw him they exalted him and CUT THEIR HANDS, exclaiming: Allah
Blameless! This is not a human being. This is no other than some
gracious angel."
Does it mean in this verse that the girls cut both of their hands?
Clearly not.
Also pay attention that even here the word QTA (qatta'na) is used for
cutting which is also used in the verse in question (faqta'u). I have
made a reference to this in my post to kleinecke.
2. One approach is to analyse the actual arabic text. This is going to
be a little long. In arabic there are two forms of plurals. When
pointing to two objects or people, in arabic a different formula
applies than when pointing to more than two (lets call them plural of 2
and 2+). Now lets take a look at the word 'aidiahoma' used in this
verse. This word has two plurals in it, one of them ('homa' = of them)
is refering to the thieves (2) and is in the plural of 2 form. The
other being the hands is in the form of a plural of 2+ though the hands
are 2 and if both the hands were meant then the word 'yadaihoma' which
is plural of 2 must have been used. The question here is why the hand
is in the plural of 2+ form. The answer is because in arabic the
possession becomes plural when the owners are not singular as for the
word 'QOLUBehem' meaning "their hearts" in which the plural of 2+ form
of the word 'qalb' is used but you know that each person has only one
heart! (9:110 as a sample)
I provided the analogy because I didn't want to go into this much
detail. Maybe at that time I couldn't imagine you would call it
pathetic and pity me for it! I suggest that you take more
considerations before you start laughing.
> NO IT IS NOT. The words of the Koran are all that is needed -- anything
> else is subject to human error. What situation a commandment is given
> in is IRRELEVANT -- the commandments of the Koran are UNIVERSAL and
> apply to ALL SITUATIONS. If they were contingent on a particular
> situation, GOD WOULD SO INDICATE.
It is not you who would indicate the relevancy of OUR belief toward OUR
holy book. And it is OUR belief and the teaching of OUR religion that
quranic verses must be considered in the context of their revelation
and in a unity with ALL THE OTHER commandments of god. What you claim
is actually not islam and not OUR belief (maybe its talibanism).
You take the phrase "quran is for all men of all times" as if each
individual commandment of the quran must be taken out in all
situations. Suppose that this verse was going to indicate all the
limits and all the situations of this commandment, and said something
similar to: "As for the thieves if they rob equal to at least 10 dinars
from somewhere which is locked or is being kept safe and if the thief
is not doing this out of hunger or is not being forced so or is not
robbing from something that he has been trusted for keeping and ...(add
a dozens and more rules here)... then cut his/her right hand from the
exact joint of the wrist clean off with a sharp enough T shape blade
and not with a saw ... (also add the exact position from which the hand
should be cut for a millimeter more or less cutting can be a
transgression, after all god is just!)"
What would happen then? Could all of the commandments of god (which are
supposed to cover all situations in all times for all men in detail to
prevent someone making a mistake) then fit in one (or a hundred) tomes?
Would then anybody bother reading them? Whatever would happen to its
eloquence? But then the books won't become universal at all. What if a
different situation pops up that is not covered? God is infallible but
the language of mankind is, and quran must keep its infallability with
something that is fallible preserving its eloquence, covering the
entire timespan of human existence. So there must be a different
approach for reading this book than the others.
The message of this command is clear (for those who accept gods
commandments as a whole): Abhor theft. Let there be peace of mind for
someone who locks his properties and fear for those who would want to
increase their wealth at the expense of other's. If there is anyway to
prevent theft it is to make its punishment severe. The details (which
are subjective to the present culture and situations) are left for the
judges of the time: To decide through other commands of god who to
consider a thief and how much theft should be done to be put to
execution for as you know, situations can differ in different times.
Plus, Why do you always put yourself in the shoes of a thief? Try
putting yourself in the shoes of someone who is robbed from his hard
earned belongings for some time.
> WHAT??????? Do you hear yourself? Are you so devoid of compassion, so
> incapable of empathy, that you can say with SUCH CERTAINTY that you
> would never consider theft? What if your child were dying of cancer and
> the only way you could think of to afford the treatments were to
> REPEATEDLY steal? I have no patience for someone as hollow and empty,
> not to mention unimaginative, as you.
I repeatedly said that not all thefts fit in this punishement and for
this particular case it is then a matter worthy of consideration by the
islamic judges whether in such a situation, he is to be punished for
what he has done or not (pay attention that I only said worthy of
consideration). Moreover, the person who is stealing to save his child
from cancer, how is he sure the money he is stealing isn't going to
save ANOTHER person who is going to die out of lets say heart disease?
I'd rather call this SELF empathy. And you call me devoid of feelings
and hollow (don't worry, my mother also calls me that) though I must
say that if one day I am going to save my child even if it is with
theft (repeated or not), then I would risk my right hand for his life!
As I said before LAW is without sympathy.
Plus, again as I said before, if Islam is truly deployed in a land and
people in an islamic society pay their zakats and khomses (which goes
to the needy) and do other commandments of god then there will be no
reason for the man in question to steal money to save his child.
Islam is not a single commandment.
I have lost count of the number of times I have posted this message to
the group and not yet seeing it there nor receiving any feedback.
Abdalla Alothman
> On 6 Nov., 19:16, "Abdalla Alothman" <abdal...@myway.com> wrote:
>
> I just ask myself "how" the thief committed theft a fifth time, when
> both his hands and feet were already cut off!?!
It's easier than you think it is. Remember, it's only the palms and
the feet that are missing; Grab the purse (you can be creative and
tie two hooks to your wrists), hang it on your neck, and run with
your [no-feet] leg and two sticks tied to your wrists. That's one
way to do it.
Salam,
Abdalla Alothman
drahcir
capsaicin wrote:
> Reply to drahsir:
>
<snip>
>
> About the ticket thing, suppose you are the assistant of the driver and
> he tells you "take their tickets", the passengers usually have more
> than one ticket (for further trips),
Do you realize that this is getting absurd?
so would it mean to take all of
> their tickets? If this analogy seems so pathetic to you I can provide
> you another one. Consider the phrase: "They waved their hands and left
> the party", does it mean that they waved both of their hands?
I have never heard anyone say "they waved their hands". Perhaps you are
not a native english speaker. It is not necessary to say "their hands",
one says "they waved and left the party". What else would they wave,
their feet? Perhaps their tongues?
> But do I need these analogies?
Why use them if you don't need them? To entertain?
Lets take two more different approachs:
> 1. Consider the quran verse 12:31
> "And when she heard of their sly talk, she sent to them and prepared
> for them a cushioned couch (to lie on at the feast) and gave to every
> one of them a knife and said (to Joseph): Come out unto them! And when
> they saw him they exalted him and CUT THEIR HANDS, exclaiming: Allah
> Blameless! This is not a human being. This is no other than some
> gracious angel."
> Does it mean in this verse that the girls cut both of their hands?
> Clearly not.
It doesn't mean they cut OFF their hands, either. It means to make a
cut, a self-inflicted one, not to cut off. The verse is irrelevant to
the verse in question.
<snip pathetic attempt at using translation to bend and twist the verse
until this fellow is pleased with it>
Here, you want to make your arguments about translation, why don't you
contact Mr Yusufali? I am sure he will enjoy your convolutions even
more than I.
YUSUFALI: As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a
punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is
Exalted in power.
>
> I provided the analogy because I didn't want to go into this much
> detail. Maybe at that time I couldn't imagine you would call it
> pathetic and pity me for it! I suggest that you take more
> considerations before you start laughing.
I suggest you look for a job as a translator if you think you are
superior to Yusufali.
>
>
>
<snip typical Muslim justification for the unjustifiable. I apologize
for the snips, but I have had a few posts denied because the original
material was less than the quoted material. I ask the moderators to
please rethink this bylaw.>
It is so funny to see you first do the translation thing and then do
the context thing. It is so stereotypical, I don't know whether to
laugh or cry. Let's review. The verse says to chop off a thief's hands,
PERIOD. You don't like that, it offends your innate moral sense, so you
contort yourself in the most hilarious ways to try to bring "chop off
the hands of a thief" to "cut off a few fingers of one hand of an
incorrigitle thief". The process you go through is better placed on
Saturday Night LIve than in this forum. What amazes me is that you
refuse to see the obvious. A Good God would never just write "chop off
the hands of a thief" and leave it at that. The reason to which you are
apparently blind is that that would leave the particulars to men, and
men are not all good. The truth is that if you allow yourself to see
the obvious, it throws your entire life into chaos.. Let's just be
blunt -- a Good God would never write anything involving amputation,
because that would make many human-authored secular laws more humane
than this supposedly divine one. European law has never, to my
knowledge, involved anything as horrid as amputation, even in the
middle ages. It makes no sense, but if you want to waste your life
trying to make it make sense, be my guest. Just remember, life is a
precious thing not to be wasted.
klei...@astound.net
5.38. This seems to me to be a verse that cries out for an occasion
when it was revealed.
Does anybody know any hadiths about the circumstances under which 5.38
came down?
capsaicin
It is getting obvious to me that you don't read my complete post (and
probabely don't think about it at all) before begining to reply to it.
It doesn't matter if I am an english speaking native or not, since it
is not an english book we are discussing. I already told you why I had
to bring up analogies, and in english, since representing an analysis
of the main arabic text has no use for the likes of you just as I tried
and you mearly ignored the whole thing. You brought up the translation
of Yusuf Ali without consulting his commentaries. In his commentaries
he provides some of the different opinions about this verse. He even
acknowledges that MOST islamic scholars believe that only one hand
should be cut in in specific circumstances. Plus, it is his style to
translate the verses in the way he understands them but not in the same
format of the original text (thats why I don't like his translation at
all and never use it as a reference). Compare his translation to other
translations such as Shakir, Pickthall, Arbery, ...
> It doesn't mean they cut OFF their hands, either. It means to make a
> cut, a self-inflicted one, not to cut off. The verse is irrelevant to
> the verse in question.
Thats why I say you fail to read my whole post. Then you agree that in
verse 12:31 "qata'na" means to just make a cut. Have you considered the
similarity between the verb used here and "aqta'u" in verse 5:38? Why
do you take the meaning in 12:31 as to "make a cut on one hand" and you
take the meaning of the same word in another verse as "chop off both
hands"?
capsaicin
> A Good God would never just write "chop off
> the hands of a thief and leave it at that.
God doesn't JUST write (and I will correct it) "chop off the hand of a
thief" and leave it at that. Quran contains lots of other teachings.
One needs to consider quran and islam as a whole if he wants to judge
it correctly.
"And the recompense of evil is punishment like it, but whoever forgives
and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah; surely He does not
love the unjust." Quran 42:40
"And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for
eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that
there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an
expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed,
those are they that are the unjust." Quran 5:45
I believe that these verses have already been forwarded to you but
surely these verses among many others would give any bright minded
person an insight on how to approach other commandments of god such as
the one in 5:38. As I said before, Islam is not a single commandment.
> The reason to which you are apparently blind is that
> that would leave the particulars to men, and men are not all good.
If men are likely to make corrupted descisions then why fund of the
secular law which is totaly made by men. Do you think that in a
religion which doesn't include enough laws, god is making a severe
mistake by leaving the entire thing to the corruptable men? No matter
how clear a revelation is, still there will be debate on it. Isn't the
"no compultion" verse a clear enough revelation saying: Let there be no
compulsion in religion PERIOD? So why is there still so many compulsion
in religion? Why are there people trying to prove that this verse just
doesn't mean that, or is abrogated?
If you think that god could prevent misuse, misinterpretation and
atrocities by giving every details, then you are mistaken. However it
is not what god wishes. If he wished he could have made everyone
faithful, and totaly remove any cruelty.
Moreover, I already told you why the verse doesn't involve the details.
Despite that you keep calling this an attempt to bring sense to the
nonsense, I will still try to demonstrate it since my duty is to just
represent what I believe to be true. You can just skip it if you wish.
On different times and different cultures, different instances of theft
occures and with different IMPACTS ON THE SOCIETY. Even the methods
differ. Does it make sense if this verse explicitly speaks about the
methods which are involved, or about the amount being robbed? If the
verse says explicitly "Thefts from a locked place" then what about
corruption? What about fetching unauthorized money from an account? If
the verse explicitly said "The object stolen must be at least
(supposedly) 10 dinnars in value", then is 10 dinnars of the same value
in different times and places, given that one nation is rich and in
another 10 dinnars is worth a life, in one nation theft is very rare
and in another theft is just like a normal job, one nation is a utopia
and everyone has every mean of life and in another starvation is
rampant? It is the impact that matters, and it is the impact that will
become worthy of the hand chopped, and it must be worthy of it for the
hand to be chopped. This has to be decided (given the other
commandments of god) by MEN of the time and established as a law
(secondary law) proper to the time and culture.
> a Good God would never write anything involving amputation,
> because that would make many human-authored secular laws more humane
> than this supposedly divine one.
A more humane law is not always a better law. I can say that the most
humane law is to just forgive any criminal and let them roam free. Is
that to your understanding a better law or does it appear more divine?
We have a proverb which says: "Merci on the wolf is betrayal of the
sheep".
PS: You don't need to quote the entire text you are responding to. One
can simply scroll up and see the original text. But still if you insist
on quoting the entire text, you can just put them in double quotes
instead of using '>'.
drahcir
capsaicin wrote:
> Reply to drahsir (continued):
>
> > A Good God would never just write "chop off
> > the hands of a thief and leave it at that.
>
> God doesn't JUST write (and I will correct it) "chop off the hand of a
> thief"
I have already told you, you can discuss that with Mr. Yusufali as well
as all the other translators who use "hands". Anyway, even that is not
what you believe the verse ways. You think it says "chop off a few
fingers of one hand only of the incorrigible thief", in other words,
"chop off the hands of a thief" means "do NOT, under any circumstances,
chop off the hands of a thief". Believe me, this is not the first time
I have been engaged in discussion with a believer who tries to get me
to see that black means white. The Taliban and terrorists and all the
rest are not so self-deceiving -- they know black means black. They are
the true Muslims. So if you want to continue deceiving yourself, as I
have said, be my guest. One more wasted life is not a huge tragedy in
the grand scheme of things.
and leave it at that. Quran contains lots of other teachings.
> One needs to consider quran and islam as a whole if he wants to judge
> it correctly.
This is getting pointless. It doesn't matter what else you think the
Koran says about the issue, unless it says, "O ye who believe. Listen
folks, you know that part where I said to chop of the hands of a thief?
Well, on second thought, scratch that. I was just a bit grumpy that
day. Just chop off a few fingers of one hand of an incorrigible thief.
Sorry about any misunderstandings." If God says less than that, then he
is leaving the matter to men, and a good God would never leave the
question of amputation to men. Of course, I have already said this to
you, but you can't possibly get it because you are "in the fold", i.e.
INCAPABLE of any rational process that calls into question the basis of
that fold.
<snip for the sake of getting posted>
Listen, you seem like a very nice guy, truly. I have total respect for
your attempt to sway me -- I believe it is heartfelt. It's just that we
are going in circles. As my freind Mr. Anjum has said, I think at this
point we must agree to disagree. Perhaps we will meet in another
thread. I wish you the best.
drahcir
capsaicin wrote:
> Reply to drahsir:
>
> It is getting obvious to me that you don't read my complete post (and
> probabely don't think about it at all) before begining to reply to it.
> It doesn't matter if I am an english speaking native or not, since it
> is not an english book we are discussing. I already told you why I had
> to bring up analogies, and in english, since representing an analysis
> of the main arabic text has no use for the likes of you just as I tried
> and you mearly ignored the whole thing. You brought up the translation
> of Yusuf Ali without consulting his commentaries. In his commentaries
> he provides some of the different opinions about this verse. He even
> acknowledges that MOST islamic scholars believe that only one hand
> should be cut in in specific circumstances. Plus, it is his style to
> translate the verses in the way he understands them but not in the same
> format of the original text (thats why I don't like his translation at
> all and never use it as a reference). Compare his translation to other
> translations such as Shakir, Pickthall, Arbery, ...
I have posted in this thread Shakir and Pickthall. Here they are again:
YUSUFALI: As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a
punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is
Exalted in power.
PICKTHAL: As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands.
It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from
Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
SHAKIR: And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut
off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary
punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
"Cut off their hands" does not mean "cut off one hand of either". There
are so many ways to make your reading clearer, e.g. "cut off the left
or right hand". I am sorry, but you want to see it as "cut off a few
fingers of one hand" because you are blinded to the truth.
> > It doesn't mean they cut OFF their hands, either. It means to make a
> > cut, a self-inflicted one, not to cut off. The verse is irrelevant to
> > the verse in question.
>
> Thats why I say you fail to read my whole post. Then you agree that in
> verse 12:31 "qata'na" means to just make a cut. Have you considered the
> similarity between the verb used here and "aqta'u" in verse 5:38? Why
> do you take the meaning in 12:31 as to "make a cut on one hand" and you
> take the meaning of the same word in another verse as "chop off both
> hands"?
YUSUFALI: When she heard of their malicious talk, she sent for them and
prepared a banquet for them: she gave each of them a knife: and she
said (to Joseph), "Come out before them." When they saw him, they did
extol him, and (in their amazement) cut their hands: they said, "Allah
preserve us! no mortal is this! this is none other than a noble angel!"
PICKTHAL: And when she heard of their sly talk, she sent to them and
prepared for them a cushioned couch (to lie on at the feast) and gave
to every one of them a knife and said (to Joseph): Come out unto them!
And when they saw him they exalted him and cut their hands, exclaiming:
Allah Blameless! This is no a human being. This is not other than some
gracious angel.
SHAKIR: So when she heard of their sly talk she sent for them and
prepared for them a repast, and gave each of them a knife, and said (to
Yusuf): Come forth to them. So when they saw him, they deemed him
great, and cut their hands (in amazement), and said: Remote is Allah
(from inperfection); this is not a mortal; this is but a noble angel.
FIrst of all, my reading is that these are self-inflicted wounds, done
in awe. Shakir clearly says they cut their hands in amazement. NOWHERE
is the word "off" used. As far as whether they cut one or both hands,
it is irrelevant. I suppose it is possible that they took the knife in
the right hand, cut the left, then switched hands, but I doubt it. You
are trying to call this into question here against all common sense. I
was recently on a trip and I accidentally cut my hand. I did not cut
off my hand. I also did not cut off my hands. I am sorry, your
attempted analogy is nothing if not desperate.
capsaicin
> "Cut off their hands" does not mean "cut off one hand of either". There
> are so many ways to make your reading clearer, e.g. "cut off the left
> or right hand". I am sorry, but you want to see it as "cut off a few
> fingers of one hand" because you are blinded to the truth.
"Cut off their hands" might not directly mean "cut off one hand of
either", it still doesn't mean to "cut off both of their hands" in this
context bringing the original text into account. Yes, probabely it will
mean so if you cut this part of the TRANSLATIONS from the rest of the
verse not to mention from the rest of the entire book. For someone who
can understand the analyzation of the arabic text this won't be a
trouble. It won't be a trouble for someone who would bother considering
the rest of the quran, either. If you cannot be put in either group
then do YOURSELF a small favor and read the commentaries of those
translators. If quran was to rest on mere translations, then the
muslims wouldn't have bothered carrying the original arabic text
around. I have already given enough arguments on why to consider this
verse speaking of one hand, but you keep pushing the earlier 4 fingers
thing to my face, something I myself said that I am not sure about it,
and totaly removed it from my further responses.
Regardless of all of my points, if the Saudies themselves chop only one
hand (the right hand), then who are you to become the mouth of the
muslims and shout carelessly that BOTH HANDS SHOULD BE CHOPPED? Can you
bring me any account of amputation involving the cutting of both hands?
> FIrst of all, my reading is that these are self-inflicted wounds, done
> in awe. Shakir clearly says they cut their hands in amazement. NOWHERE
> is the word "off" used. As far as whether they cut one or both hands,
> it is irrelevant. I suppose it is possible that they took the knife in
> the right hand, cut the left, then switched hands, but I doubt it. You
> are trying to call this into question here against all common sense. I
> was recently on a trip and I accidentally cut my hand. I did not cut
> off my hand. I also did not cut off my hands. I am sorry, your
> attempted analogy is nothing if not desperate.
Did I say that this verse is saying they cut off their hands? It says
they CUT THEIR HANDS, and in the amputation verse it also says CUT
THEIR HANDS (verify the arabic text). In both it says QTA THEIR HANDS.
Why didn't it say "they cut their hand"? How is it that in the first
verse you consider it to mean BOTH HANDS? Yes, it is against your
common sense because the only thing you wish to check out is
TRANSLATION not to mention that you ignore my point entirely and stick
to your own arguments.
And this is not an analogy, this is the usage of the same set of words
in two different places. If you open Yusuf Ali's translation and
commentary of the quran you would see his introduction containing
information on how to read the arabic text. Do you think he is dumb for
writing all this while to your understanding the translation itself
could be enough? Your lack of interest in considering the arabic text
have caused you this problem.
If you think that my responses are to merely make you agree, then you
are in deep error. I don't have the slightest attempt nor interest to
make people like you agree with me, and as much as I can recall, I have
never been able to do so. I also haven't engaged in discussion with you
because of your request, to stop it by your priviledge. But I won't
consider continuing this since I feel I have represented enough already
not because of your discouraging (so you believe) words which do no
good but to distract from the main course of the discussion. People who
read our conversation can draw their conclusions, though I would
suggest that nobody should limit himself/herself to conversation of
casual discussers like me and perhaps you.