How many of you agree with that ..?
-
-
peace
i agree,
mainly because i don't believe God wants domestic abuse or brutal barbaric violence.
we are intelegent civilised people, i'm sure husband and wife can work out their problems peacefully and not by beating each other up.
as for cutting off hands, that goes for theft, right? but why go that far, anything stolen can be returned, but you can't return a hand that's been cut off. -
peace,
In terms of weighing up the evidence on both sides, the evidence is significantly in favour of NOT "beat". The evidence is for "leave/separate/part". There are articles on this and it has been discussed in detail on the forum.
As for "cut", the evidence again is in favour of NOT "cut off". There are articles on this and it has been discussed in detail on the forum.
-
peace,
In terms of weighing up the evidence on both sides, the evidence is significantly in favour of NOT "beat". The evidence is for "leave/separate/part". There are articles on this and it has been discussed in detail on the forum.
As for "cut", the evidence again is in favour of NOT "cut off". There are articles on this and it has been discussed in detail on the forum.
The evsre says dharaba which means strike and not beat. As far as cut their hands, well it says for the stealing but does not say what type of stealing. It could be those who steal with their swords like bandits and highway robbers. The Koran also talks about stealing where Joseph installed a different ruling for simple theft
-
Now when they came into Joseph's presence, he received his (full) brother to stay with him. He said (to him) "Behold! I am thy (own) brother; so grieve not at aught of their doings."
-
At length when he had furnished them forth with provisions (suitable) for them, he put the drinking cup into his brother's saddle-bag. Then shouted out a crier "O ye (in) the caravan! behold! ye are thieves, without doubt!"
-
They said, turning towards them "What is it that ye miss?"
-
They said "We miss the great beaker of the king; for him who produces it, is (the reward of) a camel load; I will be bound by it."
-
(The brothers) said "By Allah. well ye know that we came not to make mischief in the land, and we are no thieves!"
-
(The Egyptians) said "What then shall be the penalty of this, if ye are (proved) to have lied?"
-
They said "The penalty should be that he in whose saddle-bag it is found, should be held (as bondman) to atone for the (crime). Thus it is we punish the wrong- doers!"
-
So he began (the search) with their baggage, before (he came to) the baggage of his brother at length he brought it out of his brother's baggage. Thus did We plan for Joseph. He could not take his brother by the law of the king except that Allah willed it (so). We raise to degrees (of wisdom) whom We please but over all endued with knowledge is one, the All-Knowing.
-
-
peace,
In terms of weighing up the evidence on both sides, the evidence is significantly in favour of NOT "beat". The evidence is for "leave/separate/part". There are articles on this and it has been discussed in detail on the forum.
As for "cut", the evidence again is in favour of NOT "cut off". There are articles on this and it has been discussed in detail on the forum.
Salam Wakas
Obviously everything was discussed and I'm the one who is late !
I agree that the evidence is significantly in favour of NOT "beat" but I feel that some Muslims are trying to find someway or another to avoid this word and find a solution for it , they wish to erase it so what they do is they just try to interpret it in their own nice way .
As for cutting the hands anyone who knows Arabic he will never understand it as mark the hands or anything else but to cut off the hands .
What evidence have you discussed ? The verse is saying to cut BOTH hands but in the sunna to cut one hand only . The verse never said how much stolen money for that punishment but the sunna determined it . If we go by the verse alone the hands of the thief should be cut even if he had stolen one dollar .But you seem to understand both words as it is .
-
Arabic overflows with idiomatic use of "handf" with the meaning of "power", "capacity" particularly in the legal sense to the point that for legal purposes many times it is this idiomatic use that is preferred, so why when one comes accross this aya one would think that it is speaking about actually cutting an actual hand with a saw or an ax or something and not of cutting the "power" to steal is beyond me. For me it is beyond obvious that it is the capacity of the thief to repeat his act that is being talked about and not his capacity to acquire honest earnings, for which a hand or two come in very handy.
As Wakas says, there have been many articles in the forum about this and detailed analysis of the wording of the truthful Quran showing how contradictory it comes out if the meaning is taken to be to hack a flesh and blood hand.
Regarding the "beat", again, if we are going to use our minds and not our predispositions to exact the best meaning, as the truthful Quran commands us to do, w may have different choices which allow insights into different aspects of what is being talked about. At any rate only a person of ill will, inmesurable stupidity and an iron determination not to use one's own intelligenc and goo jusgement would deduce that beating of the wife is being authorized or enjoined.
salaam
-
Salam Bigmo
I can't see any difference between strike them and beat them .
What I meant was the verse does not say how to strike them or what to strike as the word dharaba in the Koran is used in many examples always stating dharaba what except in the verse we are discussing. Such as dharaba mathalan meaning struck an example or dharabtum al ard meaning strike forth in the land or dharb al a'naq meaning to striking of the necks as in sword fighting.
As far as cut their hands, yes I agree it means some sort of cutting of the hand but i disagree with your saying that its for anything. Anyways the Koran did not elaborate and the koran is not a legal book as it has no legal framework but has guidance. A good example is the verse
.33. The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
5.34. Except for those who repent before they fall into your power in that case, know that God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Here the koran gives various recomendation even up to pardon. Also this verse
5.45. We ordained therein for them "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.
Here the koran talks about eye for an eye, which can also mean if you steal then an equal amount of property be taken from you that you stole, however it does encourage in cases also to pardon. So there is lots of latitude in the koran. Once again the Koran is not a legal book about human laws or civil affair. Its a book of guidance, both to us and the prophet and his followers during the times these verses were intially revealed. This attempt to turn that around by relying on the Sunnah as you say is a cop out and an attempt to create something from the Koran it was not designed for.
-
I have written an article on verse 434 of the Qur'an, a verse which has commonly been misinterpreted to justify violence against women. I have created a website to publish this article www.quranverse434.com
