Free-Minds.org is another Sect...like Suni and Shia Sects.
-
1275 says
Are you running away from my questions BelH?Ask samia if there are two (2) Hwa in the "two red arabic words" or not? Further, ask her if one belongs to the Thief and one belongs to the Cup or not?
For your Question whither the Servants of Joseph knew about the Plot or No, and the punishment of Stealing, please read the following (http//www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen44.pdf)
(Gen 44-1 to 17) And he commanded the steward of his house, saying, Fill the men's sacks food, as much as they
can carry, and put every man's money in his sack's mouth.And put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack's mouth of the youngest, and his corn money. And he did
according to the word that Joseph had spoken.As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their asses.
when they were gone out of the city, not far off, Joseph said unto his steward, Up,
follow after the men; and when thou dost overtake them, say unto them, Wherefore have ye rewarded evil for good?not this in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth? ye have done evil in so doing.
And he overtook them, and he spake unto them these same words.
And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing
Behold, the money, which we found in our sacks' mouths, we brought again unto thee out of the land of Canaan how then should we steal out of thy
lord's house silver or gold?With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my lord's bondmen.
And he said, Now also it according unto your words he with whom it is found shall be my servant; and ye shall be blameless.
Then they speedily took down every man his sack to the ground, and opened every man his sack.
And he searched, began at the eldest, and left at the youngest and the cup was found in Benjamin's sack.
Then they rent their clothes, and laded every man his ass, and returned to the city
And Judah and his brethren came to Joseph's house; for he yet there and they fell before him on the ground.
And Joseph said unto them, What deed this that ye have done? wot ye not that such a man as I can certainly divine?
And Judah said, What shall we say unto my lord? what shall we speak? or how shall we clear ourselves? God hath found
out the iniquity of thy servants behold, we my lord's servants, both we, and also with whom the cup is foundAnd he said, God forbid that I should do so the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my servant; and as for you, get
you up in peace unto your father. -
Peace Brother
In this story of Hazrat Yousaf AH ,his brother was not a thief in any category. Rather whole technique was told by Allah to make join both brothers again. How this analogy is likely to be applied to Practical and well versed thieves.The very next verse
1276
All this technique was under Allah's guidance ,and it was not a case of theft.
2Seizing of anyperson in return of the so called "theft" was not a LAW in the PRophet Yousaf's Regime Rather it was some religional law which was prevalent in Yousaf's paternal area. What was its Divine punishment at that time ,quran is silent.Regards
-
Peace Brother
In this story of Hazrat Yousaf AH ,his brother was not a thief in any category. Rather whole technique was told by Allah to make join both brothers again. How this analogy is likely to be applied to Practical and well versed thieves.
RegardsPeace,
I know...and that is why I told Wakas that the article he mentioned (http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm) is wrong when using Yousuf's Brother punishment to cancel out the punishemnt in 5-38...Wakas did not believe me when I told him that "There is No Thief in the Story, but a Plot by Yousuf".
Anyway, I hope that Wakas and the readers, after reading Gen 1 to 17, can understand that the author of the Article is clueless about Yousuf's Story. (the punishment for thief was Death according to the Brothers, and take the thief as a Slave according to Yousuf)
Here is where the author is making a lie
Began Quote
It should be said however that the only working example given in The Quran of theft and its punishment is in the story of Joseph, in which option 3 is done by detaining the one guilty of theft, so that they can work to repay/compensate for the theft.They said, "By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!"
He said, "What shall be the punishment, if you are not truthful?"
They said, "The punishment is that the person who has it in his bag, he shall be the penalty for it. It is such that we punish the wicked."End Quote
The author Forgot that the Sliver Cup was Found, thus, why did the author think that the Thief, when there was no thief, would work to repay for the Cup, when there was no missing Cup?
Peace
-
Peace,
I know...and that is why I told Wakas that the article he mentioned (http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm) is wrong when using Yousuf's Brother punishment to cancel out the punishemnt in 5-38...Wakas did not believe me when I told him that "There is No Thief in the Story, but a Plot by Yousuf".
Anyway, I hope that Wakas and the readers, after reading Gen 1 to 17, can understand that the author of the Article is clueless about Yousuf's Story.
Peace
Peace Brother
Allah uses the wordsIt shows Allah revealed to him to adopt this technique.This is not a case of Theft At all.
-
is a NOUN and not a Verb...moreover, changed the meaning of the , and even changed the way we pronounce .
confused
is a verb. But when your thieves got caught red handed , and since we do not have a limit up to where the arm/hand ( ) has to be chopped off; and suppose one was sentenced by a judge who believes in chopping off the fingers, and the other unlucky thief got his hand completely chopped off, he is than the first one/ more amputated. Got the relation between the two words?
And why do you expect to find the verb in the qur'aan? Don't you get the message? God is not chopping anything from any body; and at the same time he wants to tell Belal that this word existed at the time of the revelation and with that meaning and that the people understood it, so don't be argumentative and stop chopping off hands -
Ask samia if there are two (2) Hwa in the "two red arabic words" or not? Further, ask her if one belongs to the Thief and one belongs to the Cup or not?
There are two pronouns, not two Hwa. The pronoun suffixed to is not pronounced hwa but hu, and it is not a subject, and cannot be a subject. It refers to the king's cup.
The "hwa/ ", which is isolated (not suffixed to any word) is the subject and refers to (/ whoever) as in whoever the cup is found in his bag, he ( )is its recompense -
confused
is a verb. But when your thieves got caught red handed , and since we do not have a limit up to where the arm/hand ( ) has to be chopped off; and suppose one was sentenced by a judge who believes in chopping off the fingers, and the other unlucky thief got his hand completely chopped off, he is than the first one/ more amputated. Got the relation between the two words?
And why do you expect to find the verb in the qur'aan? Don't you get the message? God is not chopping anything from any body; and at the same time he wants to tell Belal that this word existed at the time of the revelation and with that meaning and that the people understood it, so don't be argumentative and stop chopping off handsI do not disagree that means cut off, however the word " " has the same meaning and was used in the Quran, as in 5-33 (as free-minds.org translate it to "cut off" and as clearly means "Cut Off" in this verse
Progressive Muslims
I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, then I will crucify you all.
7124Why are you running away from answering my Question Why Free-minds.org are translating 5-33 different from 5-38?
Peace Brother
Allah uses the wordsIt shows Allah revealed to him to adopt this technique.This is not a case of Theft At all.
Agree
-
There are two pronouns, not two Hwa. The pronoun suffixed to is not pronounced hwa but hu, and it is not a subject, and cannot be a subject. It refers to the king's cup.
The "hwa/ ", which is isolated (not suffixed to any word) is the subject and refers to (/ whoever) as in whoever the cup is found in his bag, he ( )is its recompenseWell, One is for the Cub and one for the thief, as I said before.
However, Yousuf's Brother story is not and cannot be used to cancel out 5-38 as I showed the reasons before.
-
confused
is a verb. But when your thieves got caught red handed , and since we do not have a limit up to where the arm/hand ( ) has to be chopped off; and suppose one was sentenced by a judge who believes in chopping off the fingers, and the other unlucky thief got his hand completely chopped off, he is than the first one/ more amputated. Got the relation between the two words?
And why do you expect to find the verb in the qur'aan? Don't you get the message? God is not chopping anything from any body; and at the same time he wants to tell Belal that this word existed at the time of the revelation and with that meaning and that the people understood it, so don't be argumentative and stop chopping off handsPeace
Evidence PleaseRegards
-
Peace all,
As were showed, 1276 cannot be used to show the punishment of Theft.
Thus, Free-minds.org Is wrong when stating the following in their Welcome PageIn Islam, Thieves do not have their hands cut-off, but are made to work until they return that which is stolen (1276), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which brutally amputate the hands causing disability...
-
Peace Q_S
In many such rich arab countries, the leaders get away with massive plundering and theft, and they do not get their hands chopped off...
you are quoting a hypocritical system, and you know what the Quran says about those who lean with the hypocrites ;DPeace all
belH, I too am not fully satisfied with the translation of free-minds of 538. Cutting from their resources is a possibility, but a more general and open possibility would be stopping their hands or stopping them from doing it (as a common meaning for cut is stop or stop from).Now about 533, it is in fact well translated, and if you keep the 538 with cut-off but with the understanding that the cut-off of 538 is Stop and the Cut-off of 533 is amputate, then it is perfect, because those two ayahs are addressing several audiences at the same time for several reasons (this is Allah's deep and subtle wisdom that you do not understand).
therefore think a bit more...
-
peace BelH,
It seems you are deliberately being obtuse in your responses. I asked you very simple questions. So, let me provide a summary for you and the readers
Bel "I understand Arabic very well because it is my natural language (All my studies, except for graduate, were in Arabic)" H, has provided 5 versions of 1275 so far (replies 184, 205, 221, 225, 230, and still has NOT provided one that is acceptable to the Arabic.
Ask samia if there are two (2) Hwa in the "two red arabic words" or not? Further, ask her if one belongs to the Thief and one belongs to the Cup or not?
The "hwa/ ", which is isolated (not suffixed to any word) is the subject and refers to (/ whoever) as in whoever the cup is found in his bag, he ( )is its recompense.
Well, One is for the Cub and one for the thief, as I said before
After making basic errors that even I know, as a non-Arabic speaker, he fails to clarify what his 6th version of 1275 is. Let's hope he can get it right this time, so we can actually have an accurate discussion.
Tried to justify "JZY" meant "punishment" but when cornered for evidence, declined to answer several times. Then changed his mind and now thinks it means something else.
Tried to justify from The Quran others knew about the plot of Joseph (see his replies 215, 217, 234) but when cornered and asked for explanation of his evidence (see my replies 212, 227) he provides no explanation and apparently abandons what he said previously. It is hard to tell since he fails to answer directly.
When asked by me (I put it simply as I could)
Who knew about the plot (i.e. how Joseph was going to keep his brother)?
Joseph yes/no? (if you answer yes, please provide specific Quranic evidence)
Joseph's helpers yes/no? (if you answer yes, please provide specific Quranic evidence)
Joseph's brother yes/no? (if you answer yes, please provide specific Quranic evidence)
sons of Jacob yes/no? (if you answer yes, please provide specific Quranic evidence)
Jacob yes/no? (if you answer yes, please provide specific Quranic evidence)He responds by quoting Genesis! In other words, he has no Quranic evidence whatsoever for his view. We are still waiting for a clear answer from him as to who knew about the plot. Once we know this, then we can apply some logic to see if his view holds weight.
Fails to address the illogical switch from plural to singular to plural by Joseph's helpers- but this is related to who knew about the plot according to him, so we cant conclude anything until he clarifies.
###############################################
I think I have an idea as to why the problem, and since this discussion is about a cup, I thought this wisdom might be apt
A learned man once went to a Zen teacher to inquire about Zen. As the Zen teacher explained, the learned man would frequently interrupt him with remarks like, "Oh, yes, we have that too...." and so on.
Finally the Zen teacher stopped talking and began to serve tea to the learned man. He poured the cup full, and then kept pouring until the cup overflowed.
"Enough!" the learned man once more interrupted. "No more can go into the cup!"
"Indeed" answered the Zen teacher. "Like this cup, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. If you do not first empty your cup, how can you taste my cup of tea?""I'm out peace
-
Peace all,
I would like to add one more Misleading point by Free-minds.org
Began Quote
In Islam, Monogamy is the basis for normal relationships, while polygamy is only allowed in cases involving marrying the mothers of orphans under the man?s guardianship (43), Vs. Sunnis where a man may be a polygamist simply if he can afford to, and Shia which allow sex for pleasure (Mut?a)...
End QuoteDoes that Mean Prophet Abraham (PBUH) Was a Sunnis?
As we know Prophet Abraham was married to two Women, whom were not Mothers of Orphans.
-
Peace all,
I would like to add one more Misleading point by Free-minds.org
Began Quote
In Islam, Monogamy is the basis for normal relationships, while polygamy is only allowed in cases involving marrying the mothers of orphans under the man?s guardianship (43), Vs. Sunnis where a man may be a polygamist simply if he can afford to, and Shia which allow sex for pleasure (Mut?a)...
End QuoteDoes that Mean Prophet Abraham (PBUH) Was a Sunnis?
As we know Prophet Abraham was married to two Women, whom were not Mothers of Orphans.
How you know he was married to both at same time?
-
Do you believe that He Was married to Sarah; then, He divorced Sarah in order to marry Hajer; then, he divorced Hajer in order to remarry Sarah?
That's a traditional story, it's not supported in the Qur'aan. As far as we know, based on the Qur'aan, both Ishmael and Isaac were born of the same mother (i.e. Sarah).
-
Peace
We have a huge problem with uber feminists who tell you that if a man can have more than one wive, why not them have more than one husband, but tough luck for them, it is extremely rare for men to accept or admit that they are married to the same wife (or go and find a community that tolerate that). < ---- that was an acidic joke
but joke and polyandry aside...
it is probably OK that in a society where there are not enough males for one reason or another, it might be possible for controlled polygamy to be implemented. Some women even feminists argue that they would rather have their husbands with a second wive than him mocking about in hiding with a mistress...
In my reading of the Quran, polygamy per se is not forbidden, but is not actively encouraged either.
However the marrying of widows with orphans on the other hand is encouraged for those who can handle it (i.e. particularly dutifully).
If we were in a proper Muslim State, I do not think we could legislate against polygamy, however, it could work like this, for the first wife the state could help profusely from state funds, however anything extra, that will be a luxury for the claimant, meaning you can get a second wife, but there will be conditions, the first condition being that you can afford it, etc.
and God knows best...
I think that free-minds wants to address the usual audience that get exposed to its message in the west, and that is the first hurdle against communities such as muslim, mormon, etc are the issues of polygamy and underage sex, by saying that it is not the case, you at least do not put off the reader from going into the web-site, and learning better..., and there is some arguments against marrying more than one wife in these complicated societies we live in anyway, so it is not false, in my view...
as always it is a matter of context...
