THEFT PUNISHMENT
-
if the thief repents and reforms , he will not be punished .
To reform = To return to a good state; to amend or correct one's own character or habits; as, a man of settled habits of vice will seldom reform.
How much time to you give to the thief to improve his behavior ? 1 week ? 1 month ? 1 year ?
Saladin, according to the law of equivalence, any evil act has to be punished.
And the chance to reform oneself occurs not (only) before, but after the punishment.the law of equivalence does not apply because the punishment for theft has already been prescribed in the koran .
I don't agree (and I don't agree to disagree).
The quran cannot contradict itself by stating the law of equivalence, and not implementing it.Peace
-
salam.
if the thief repents and reforms , he will not be punished .
To reform = To return to a good state; to amend or correct one's own character or habits; as, a man of settled habits of vice will seldom reform.
How much time to you give to the thief to improve his behavior ? 1 week ? 1 month ? 1 year ?
we will know whether he had reformed his conduct or not if he repeats his crime .
the law of equivalence does not apply because the punishment for theft has already been prescribed in the koran .
I don't agree (and I don't agree to disagree).
The quran cannot contradict itself by stating the law of equivalence, and not implementing it.it is not a contradiction , but an exception .
-
salam.
if the thief repents and reforms , he will not be punished .
To reform = To return to a good state; to amend or correct one's own character or habits; as, a man of settled habits of vice will seldom reform.
How much time to you give to the thief to improve his behavior ? 1 week ? 1 month ? 1 year ?
we will know whether he had reformed his conduct or not if he repeats his crime .
Someone who has stolen gold worth 1 billion dirham has to be requited for this evil act.
What you are stating is not conform to the law of equivalence, according to which each evil act have to be requited.the law of equivalence does not apply because the punishment for theft has already been prescribed in the koran .
I don't agree (and I don't agree to disagree).
The quran cannot contradict itself by stating the law of equivalence, and not implementing it.it is not a contradiction , but an exception .
Why would the law requiting steal would be an exception ???
When an interpretation such as yours makes so much difficulties to conform to the quran (not compatible with the law of equivalence, not compatible with the story of Joseph...), it has to be forsaken.
Your are not choosing the best explanation.Cf http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/study.htm
peace
-
the law of equivalence does not apply because the punishment for theft has already been prescribed in the koran .
I don't agree (and I don't agree to disagree).
The quran cannot contradict itself by stating the law of equivalence, and not implementing it.it is not a contradiction , but an exception .
Why would the law requiting steal would be an exception ???
because of 538 .
When an interpretation such as yours makes so much difficulties to conform to the quran (not compatible with the law of equivalence, not compatible with the story of Joseph...),
the story of joseph has nothing to do with 538
http//www.geocities.com/thewisekoran/theft.htm
peace.
-
Salam Fahad, all,
Your article is not complete then subjective. You will assume this responsibility in front of God.
<<The punishment is to cut off from the thieves resources and power. Here you are three reasons supporting this non-literal understanding.>>
No verse in the Koran says any such thing .
The Koran has clearly commanded the hands of the thieves to be cut off in 538 .
Since you don't hold the absolute truth, please, speak only about what you understand from the Reading. Let the readers judge by themselves in the light of the whole Reading.
You wrote
1274, "They said, "What is the punishment for the thief, if you are liars?"'
1275, "They said, "The punishment, if it is found in his bag, is that the thief belongs to you. We thus punish the guilty."'
the verse says that the thief belongs to owners . that is slavery . that was the punishment for theft in the homeland of Josephs brothersYou quote a wrong traditional translation, about your read text
Here is the arabic Text
jazaohu fahuwa jazaohu
Your translation The punishment is that the thief belongs to youJaza reward, compensation, penalty, punishment
"fahuwa" is translated as "is that", but it can refer to "the measuring bowl of the King"
The answer to the first "jazaohu" is the second word
"jazaohu" in the same verse, the whole can mean "his reward/penalty is to compensate for what he has stolen--->the measuring bowl of the King ".
You fail to get the difference between our physical hands and what we did with them. The penalty is about our deed.No answer is needed
Salam
-
salam marie .
can u translate the whole verse 1275 , so i can better understand what u r saying ?"fahuwa" is translated as "is that", but it can refer to "the measuring bowl of the King"
are u saying that fahuwa "can" or "does" refer to the bowl ?
salam.
fahad. -
You wrote
1274, "They said, "What is the punishment for the thief, if you are liars?"'
1275, "They said, "The punishment, if it is found in his bag, is that the thief belongs to you. We thus punish the guilty."'
the verse says that the thief belongs to owners . that is slavery . that was the punishment for theft in the homeland of Joseph?s brothersYou quote a wrong traditional translation, about your read text
Here is the arabic Text
jazaohu fahuwa jazaohu
Your translation The punishment is that the thief belongs to youJaza reward, compensation, penalty, punishment
"fahuwa" is translated as "is that", but it can refer to "the measuring bowl of the King"
The answer to the first "jazaohu" is the second word
"jazaohu" in the same verse, the whole can mean "his reward/penalty is to compensate for what he has stolen--->the measuring bowl of the King ".peace marie .
fahuwa is about the thief .1274 (The Egyptians) said "What then shall be his compensation/penalty, if ye were liars
1275 They said (the brothers)his compensation/penalty, in whose saddle bag was found, therefore he is his compensation/penalty. That is how we compensate/penalise the transgressors
so 1275 says , in whose bag the cup would be found , he himself would be the penalty .
u r saying that fahuwa is about the beaker , which is wrong , which u can see if u read the verses 1278-79 . fahuwa is about the the thief . 1275 is talking about seizing the thief , not the beaker
1278
They said O ruler of the land! Lo! he hath an aged father, so take one
of us instead of him. Lo ! we behold thee of those who do kindness.1279
He said Allah forbid that we should seize save him with whom we
found our property; then truly we should be wrongdoers.do u understand now ?
the above verses also show us that 1275 does not say that the thief will 'work to repay for the stolen beaker' as a penalty . 1278-79 show us that the thief will be seized even after the beaker is found .
so he will not 'work to repay for the beaker' (since the beaker has already been found) . he will be enslaved . he will be the penalty .
not the beaker.
peace.
-
Salam fahad,
We read O you in the caravan, you are thieves! (1270)
They are all concerned by this charge and they answer
1273.They said By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!
You quote this translation
1274 (The Egyptians) said "What then shall be his compensation/penalty, if ye were liars
The translation of Shabir seems more accurate, imho
1274 The callers asked, "What shall be the penalty for it if you prove liars?"
In your translation "What then shall be his compensation/penalty" doesn't make sence because they are all concerned by the charge, then we should read "What then shall be your compensation/penalty, if ye were liars.
I understand "What shall be the penalty for it" as the penalty for stealing the cup.
1275 The brothers replied, "The penalty for it! He in whose bag "the cup" is found it shall be its compensation. Thus we requite the doers of such wrong (in our land)."
"Fahuwa" can refer to the penalty for the the cup.
Indeed 1278-79 show that the thief will be seized but in order to be judged and to decide how he should compensate for his theft/doing.
The cup was restored to his owner (the king) but the robber must pay for his act, for example to pay the equivalent of the value of this cup if it was a gold or silver cup.so he will not 'work to repay for the beaker' (since the beaker has already been found) . he will be enslaved . he will be the penalty .
"he will be enslaved" is only an interpretation based on a wrong reading of 1278-79.
This is my understanding and the God knows best
Salam
-
peace marie .
Salam fahad,
We read ?O you in the caravan, you are thieves!? (1270)
They are all concerned by this charge and they answer
1273.They said ?By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!?
You quote this translation
1274 (The Egyptians) said "What then shall be his compensation/penalty, if ye were liars
The translation of Shabir seems more accurate, imho
1274 The callers asked, "What shall be the penalty for it if you prove liars?"
In your translation "What then shall be his compensation/penalty" doesn't make sence because they are all concerned by the charge, then we should read "What then shall be your compensation/penalty, if ye were liars.
I understand "What shall be the penalty for it" as the penalty for stealing the cup.
1275 The brothers replied, "The penalty for it! He in whose bag "the cup" is found it shall be its compensation. Thus we requite the doers of such wrong (in our land)."
"Fahuwa" can refer to the penalty for the the cup.
the one who shouted ?O you in the caravan, you are thieves!? , called all of those in the caravan because he pretended like he didnt know which one of them was the theif . the brothers were all concerned because they didnt know who among them was the thief . but they said that if one of them is the thief then the missing beaker would (and could only) be found with one of them ( and he himself would be the penalty )
1275 They said (the brothers)his compensation/penalty, in whose saddle bag was found, therefore he is his compensation/penalty. That is how we compensate/penalise the transgressors
Indeed 1278-79 show that the thief will be seized but in order to be judged and to decide how he should compensate for his theft/doing.
The cup was restored to his owner (the king) but the robber must pay for his act, for example to pay the equivalent of the value of this cup if it was a gold or silver cup.how he should compensate was already decided in 1275 . ( and he doesnt need to pay for the beaker that has been restored to its owner )
thats what i understand .
peace .
-
Think and reflect (or contrast with other verses) as the Qu'ran orders you to do.
Personally I agree with the point stated that unlike the punishment for adulterers, the punishment described for theft does not indicate that we should not feel mercy/compassion for the person committing theft.
I personally am of the view that we should make the person work for what they have stolen if they have already spent it/it cannot be recovered. If they stole out of hunger, yes it is better that they could have simply asked, but sometimes desperation gets the best of us, man is born weak, and we should forgive.
As the other person states you will have to answer to God for your interpretation, please do not rush to understand the Qu'ran (as God orders) without careful consideration and examining all different views.
Know, then, that Sublimely Exalted is Allah, the Ultimate Sovereign, the Ultimate Truth. (O Prophet) Hasten not in the learning and implementation of the Message of the Qur'an before a particular revelation to you is completed. These Messages given to you shall be established in stages, but always say, "My Lord! Increase me in knowledge." (7516)
-
Think and reflect (or contrast with other verses) as the Qu'ran orders you to do.
I personally am of the view that we should make the person work for what they have stolen if they have already spent it/it cannot be recovered. If they stole out of hunger, yes it is better that they could have simply asked, but sometimes desperation gets the best of us, man is born weak, and we should forgive.
As the other person states you will have to answer to God for your interpretation, please do not rush to understand the Qu'ran (as God orders) without careful consideration and examining all different views.
Peace,
Those who believe in Allah and trust Him, would know that there is no hunger in Allah?s system on earth.
2080 - O Children of Israel, we delivered you from your enemy, summoned you to the right side of Mount Sinai, and we sent down to you manna and quails.
566 - If only they would uphold the Torah and the Gospel, and what is sent down to them herein from their Lord, they would be showered with blessings from above them and from beneath their feet. Some of them are righteous, but many of them are evildoers.
There is no thief in the story of Joseph; therefore, there can be no punishment for theft in that story.
Commonsense would say fictitious thieve = fictitious punishment.
Just like imaginary money which means nothing.
-
Actually Joseph asks them what is the punishment for theft from the other brothers, and they agree on the stated punishment as being standard. It is an example, and not a special case of fictitious punishment.
Quran guides us to follow the best meaning, and i for one think the best meaning is one of prudence and mercy, and equity. You may think amputation is best, but i think to come to that conclusion you would have to ignore the evidence against that interpretation, and therefore make it not the best.
-
You may think amputation is best, but i think to come to that conclusion you would have to ignore the evidence against that interpretation, and therefore make it not the best.
Peace zenshark,
I don?t make law, I don?t give new law. I simply follow the Quran. And 538 is what my Lord teaches me about the theft. I know some people wish to be kind to the thief/wrongdoer against the God?s judgment, that?s their problem.
538 - 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.
We are debating this subject on this thread http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600505.45
If you wish to contribute then click the link, read the thread and contribute. Thanks.
-
This reasoning makes sense to me, although may not be sufficient for you. but i think by referring to the quran it self the best translation can be made, not by looking at the opinions of scholars.
- First, the Arabic word <yad> (in dual plural in 538 above) or "hand" is used in Quran in its literal and figurative meanings. For instance, 2712 uses it in its literal meaning while 564 uses it in its figurative one to refer to wealth and resources.
2712, "Put your hand <yad> (O Moses) in your pocket; it will come out white, without a blemish. These are among nine signs <ayat> to Pharaoh and his people, for they are wicked people."
564, "The Jews even said, "God's <yad> hand is tied down!" It is their <yad> hands that are tied down. They are condemned for uttering such a blasphemy. Instead, His both <yad> hands are wide open, spending as He wills..."
Another example for the non-literal meaning is 3845. It uses <yad> in plural (three or more) form. It conveys the meaning of power and possession of resources.
3845, "Remember also our servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were resourceful <ulu al-aydee> (with many hands), and possessed vision/They possessed power and vision."
<yad> is also used to infer someone's actions and doings (2195, 2210). It is used to0 to mean possession of a responsibility or a contract (2237).
Therefore, <eqta?u aydiyahuma> in the above aya 538 means to cut off from the thieves? resources and power.
-
salam all.
?It goes as follow. Chance should be given to the thieves to come forward, acknowledge their crime, and give back what they have stolen to the victims. They might even get a reward. If they do not come forward, prove should be found who are the thieves. Thieves should then work to pay the fees involved for the whole thing. What was stolen, if found, should be restituted to their owners. Otherwise, thieves should work for them until what they have stolen is repaid.?http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/theft.htm
According to the interpretation of the article at http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/theft.htm , if the thief has stolen an object worth 1000 dollars , he will work to repay the 1000 dollars to the owners.
But verse 1275 says no such thing
1274, "They said, "What is the punishment for the thief, if you are liars?"'
1275, "They said, "The punishment, if it is found in his bag, is that the thief belongs to you. We thus punish the guilty."'Malik They replied "The punishment of he in whose pack you find the royal cup will be to make him your bondsman, that's how we punish wrongdoers."
Pickthal They said The penalty for it! He in whose bag (the cup) is found, he is the penalty for it. Thus we requite wrongdoers.
Yusuf Ali 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 wrongdoers!"
the verse says that the thief belongs to owners . it doesn?t say that the thief works to repay them . and It does not say that the thief will be returned after he repays . it says that the thief belongs to the owners . period .
The article says ?What was stolen, if found, should be restituted to their owners. Otherwise, thieves should work for them until what they have stolen is repaid.?
But according to the verses EVEN IF THE STOLEN OBJECT IS FOUND , the thief belongs to the owners .
1275, "They said, "The punishment, IF IT IS FOUND IN HIS BAG, is that the thief belongs to you??
these are some big flaws and contradictions in the article . the arguments carry no weight . the moderators should remove the article from the website .
salam.
Peace upon you,
Although the Book of Exodus was revealed after the time of Joseph, there is some parallelism between the judgment the brothers gave, "1275, "They said, "The punishment, IF IT IS FOUND IN HIS BAG, is that the thief belongs to you.", and the Law of Moses.
Exodus 221-4 King James Version
Whoever steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed. Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft. If the stolen animal is found alive in their possession?whether ox or donkey or sheep?they must pay back double.
If this statue is applied to all chattel and not just livestock, it can then also be applied to the case of the stolen cup. I would assume that the king's drinking cup was an object of high value, much higher than the restitution (double according to Mosaic Law) the thief could have paid. Because restitution was not possible, the only option was to be sold to pay for the theft.
-
5-38 As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands a punishment by way of example, from God, for their crime and God is Exalted in power
The punishment is more of a setting of an example. A severe punishment is not the only way of setting an example.
Word "Nakkal" meaning in lane is ,
Any punishensnt serving to give warning
to others than the sufferer (M, S, TA) or
that restraints the offender from repeating the
offence. (Bl, ii. 6.)In light of the above definition, cut marks on the hands of the thief can serve as a warning to others, as well as a restraint for the thief , because he can easily be recognised making it difficult for him to repeat his offence.
siki
-
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm
You're All wrong
is two words Iqt = cut , Aydi = Aid them
it is an english word that originated from the arab tongue
Cut = Ikt
Aydi = Aid
Houma = ThemExemple
We aided him with Rouh Qudus 287
We did Aid Those who are seccure on their appearance and they became apparent ( ssaf 14)
Until they be given reward for aiding 929
-
Therefore, <eqta?u aydiyahuma> in the above aya 538 means to cut off from the thieves? resources and power.
Of course, we have to understand what sorts of hands are being talked about and even the washing of hands is symbolic cleansing, humbling, ridding oneself of ideas of power, or having the means, wealth, cleansing the attitude, knowing all those things are a favor.
56 ...so wash your faces and your hands/wa-aydiyakum till the elbows...
511 ...when determined a people that they stretch towards you their hands/aydiyahum
so He restrained their hands/aydiyahum from you.967 The hypocrite men and the hypocrite women, some of them of others.
They enjoin the wrong and forbid what the right, and they close their hands/aydiyahum4824 And He the One Who withheld their hands/aydiyahum from you and your hands/wa-aydiyakum from them...
602 If they gain dominance over you, they would be to you enemies
and extend against you their hands/aydiyahum and their tongues with evil...Their hands are their means/power therefore cut off their means to perpetrate theft by any means!
Peace
-
O you who believe, equivalence is the law decreed for you when dealing with murder - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female. If one is pardoned by the victim's kin, an appreciative response is in order, and an equitable compensation shall be paid. This is an alleviation from your Lord and mercy. Anyone who transgresses beyond this incurs a painful retribution.
005.045
YUSUFALI 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.16.126. And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient
2.194. The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality(Qisas). If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.
So for someone who is to be amputated his crime of theft should be a equivalent to the value of a loss of a hand. Thats quite a value. Every human being I know values his hand very highly. He would rather lose his home than his hand. So amputation can not be correct.
And eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and a soul for a soul.
A hand for a hand also or any equivalent value or retribution instead.
