Amputations and the Law of Eye for an Eye and Qisas (retaliation)
-
They are forced to set a minimum, because of their interpretation.
Background
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htmBut you did not answer my question. Should not any form of punishment be proportional? You seem to indicate that there are various possible meaning including amputation. But is not amputation against the laws of the Koran? Unless of course somebody steals someone's hand. Lol! Then he can have his hand taken from him.
-
AFAIK, Quranic principle in justice is equivalence or less.
So for someone who is to be amputated his crime of theft should be a equivalent to the value or loss of a hand. Thats quite a value. very human being I know values his hand very highly. He would rather lose his home than his hand. So amputation can not be correct.
I was looking at the verses regarding Joseph and his brothers. I noticed that the opening page of this website had the following
In 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...
I think this is spot on. Notice that it ends with disablity. The punishment DOES not fit the crime but indeed this handicapped person now probably has to steal even more now that he is handicapped. Certainly the above interpretation seems more like Qisas to me. A person should be held or made to work untill he returns the value stolen. But I am not sure if thats how we can interpret verse 12.76.
012.073
YUSUFALI (The brothers) said "By Allah! well ye know that we came not to make mischief in the land, and we are no thieves!"
PICKTHAL They said By Allah, well ye know we came not to do evil in the land, and are no thieves.
SHAKIR They said By Allah! you know for certain that we have not come to make mischief in the land, and we are not thieves.012.074
YUSUFALI (The Egyptians) said "What then shall be the penalty of this, if ye are (proved) to have lied?"
PICKTHAL They said And what shall be the penalty for it, if ye prove liars?
SHAKIR They said But what shall be the requital of this, if you are liars?012.075
YUSUFALI 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!"
PICKTHAL They said The penalty for it! He in whose bag (the cup) is found, he is the penalty for it. Thus we requite wrong-doers.
SHAKIR They said The requital of this is that the person in whose bag it is found shall himself be (held for) the satisfaction thereof; thus do we punish the wrongdoers.012.076
YUSUFALI 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.
PICKTHAL Then he (Joseph) began the search with their bags before his brother's bag, then he produced it from his brother's bag. Thus did We contrive for Joseph. He could not have taken his brother according to the king's law unless Allah willed. We raise by grades (of mercy) whom We will, and over every lord of knowledge there is one more knowing.
SHAKIR So he began with their sacks before the sack of his brother, then he brought it out from his brother's sack. Thus did We plan for the sake of Yusuf; it was not (lawful) that he should take his brother under the king's law unless Allah pleased; We raise the degrees of whomsoever We please, and above every one possessed of knowledge is the All-knowing one.012.077
YUSUFALI They said "If he steals, there was a brother of his who did steal before (him)." But these things did Joseph keep locked in his heart, revealing not the secrets to them. He (simply) said (to himself) "Ye are the worse situated; and Allah knoweth best the truth of what ye assert!"
PICKTHAL They said If he stealeth, a brother of his stole before. But Joseph kept it secret in his soul and revealed it not unto them. He said (within himself) Ye are in worse case, and Allah knoweth best (the truth of) that which ye allege.
SHAKIR They said If he steal, a brother of his did indeed steal before; but Yusuf kept it secret in his heart and did not disclose it to them. He said You are in an evil condition and Allah knows best what you state.012.078
YUSUFALI They said "O exalted one! Behold! he has a father, aged and venerable, (who will grieve for him); so take one of us in his place; for we see that thou art (gracious) in doing good."
PICKTHAL They said O ruler of the land! Lo! he hath a very aged father, so take one of us instead of him. Lo! we behold thee of those who do kindness.
SHAKIR They said O chief! he has a father, a very old man, therefore retain one of us in his stead; surely we see you to be of the doers of good.012.079
YUSUFALI He said "Allah forbid that we take other than him with whom we found our property indeed (if we did so), we should be acting wrongfully.
PICKTHAL He said Allah forbid that we should seize save him with whom we found our property; then truly we should be wrong-doers.
SHAKIR He said Allah protect us that we should seize other than him with whom we found our property, for then most surely we would be unjust. -
You seem to have misunderstood what I have said.
Also, you seem to think/assume theft cannot result in physical harm of others.
I guess what I meant was in what situation can amputation of a hand be considered a justifiable punishment when we take the Law of Qisas as dictated and ordered by the Koran. The whole justice system of the Koran is built on Qisas.
Or rather what is the "value" of a hand. hmm
But I do not see how amputation can be justified except in the case where a person steals something form someone and creates a loss and a burden on someone equivalent to that person losing his hand. Most humans regard a price of a hand as invaluable. Most would chose to keep their hand than their homes, cars and all the gold and jewelry they own and in fact all the businesses they own and would give millions of their own money to keep their hand. Its after all considered a handicap for someone to lose their hand. Its not like lashing or something. Every human I know would gladly take 100 lashes and even more to keep his hand. Wouldn't you? Which means that this form of punishment has now elevated itself above even adultery. well according to the ten comandments adultery is more severe than stealing. All humans stole something in their life but not all commited adultery. So I do not see how amputation can be justified as a punishment except in someone forces someone to live a life of poverty and wiped out his livelihood or something. Humans would not starve to keep their hand. But they would do almost anything else to keep their hand. Its invaluable.
-
Its not like lashing or something. Every human I know would gladly take 100 lashes and even more to keep his hand. Wouldn't you?
I can only assume your question is rhetorical, since I have already pointed this out on the link you apparently read, or I assumed you had read.
Also see here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598206.0In any case, you answered my point and admitted there would be cases of theft leading to significant harm.
Not that 'hand cutting off' is necessarily my position. I just wanted to point out your flawed comments.
-
I can only assume your question is rhetorical, since I have already pointed this out on the link you apparently read, or I assumed you had read.
Also see here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598206.0In any case, you answered my point and admitted there would be cases of theft leading to significant harm.
Not that 'hand cutting off' is necessarily my position. I just wanted to point out your flawed comments.
Reading ur post in the thread you linked you said
"The reason behind the poll was...
In The Quran
after it states the punishment of 100 lashes it says "And let not compassion/pity with them keep you in carrying out God's law/system"
BUT
after it allegedly states to cut off the hand(s) it says no similar thing.
The observation being, if most find the latter a worse punishment to inflict or to have done, why does The Quran apparently have it the other way round?
One possibility is of course that in 538 it does not mean to cut off the hand(s)." End quote
This is a good logical reasoning but I was refering to a legal reasoning. That the foundation of Koranic justice is built on Qisas and proportional retaliation. Punishments or fines could be less than the harm done but never more. In the case of 100 lashes, it is much less than adultery as the pain caused by adultery and the subsequent problems it causes can actually exceed what 100 lashes can do. But I think i explained elsewhere that this punishment was made for slandering women and not adultery. I see it as somewhat of a symbolic punishment since the criteria established in Koran is very unrealistic as it requires four witness and even if the accusation is from a spouse it still states that oaths must be taken by both husband and wife. Its unlikely that someone is not going to lie to avoid 100 lashes. That takes a strong man or woman. 100 lashes is not the same as having someone cheat and betray you but its no chocalate cookies either, especially for a woman. But the slanderer can easily get lashed just by opening his mouth. He needs to bring forth 4 witnesses. Good luck for him. So I se that as a way to discourage the slandering habit as its 4 times much easier for a slanderer to get flogged than an adulterer. Slandering a women is a big thing in Arab societies and some tribal societies but carries no water in other societies. Due to the mentality of honor killings that exist in such societies I can see how slander of a women can be a huge fitna. Adultery is not a usual crime and it can have some relationship questions but its a universal issue. Lashing may not solve a problem if there is a break down in a relationship between husband and wife. It also a question of trust. Adultery can cause pain that last a long time and also create mistrust. Lashing is a one day event thats not going to solve the problem. Anyways I was looking at it from a legal point of view. That a person who steals should be penalized according to the value of what he stoled and the burden and harm he created for someone else. But amputating a person's hand I believe should not be done unless he has taken from someone else an equivalent value. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Thats pretty hard to find when you are dealing with a hand. The Koran says a soul for a soul, and it was also mentioned by Moses when he was travelling with Al Khidr. So why not a hand for a hand?
So we can see that we have a logical reasoning and alegal one at the same time. no surprise since no legal system can be just and equitable unless its logical at the same time. I am learning new things everyday. Something that never used to happen when I was following Sunni Islam. Sunnis try to explain away amputation because, knowing its too harsh to be just, they invoke hindrance. Meaning this is done to hinder anybody else from commiting such crimes. First of all stealing is part of human nature and can never be ended. Second hindrance by making an example of of someone is actually inflicting more than a person deserves to scare away other. The Koran never said anything about such thing but talked about equity and proportionality and not to go to excess as the Israelites did when they claimed that a Jewish soul for a 1000 gentile soul. Hindrance of this kind is not jutcie, its terror. The terror we see Gaddafi do to his enemies. The terror we see Saddam used to do to who dares challenge him. If you asked the Omar Al Bashir's and the Stalin's of the world they will tell you we show no mercy to our opponents so as to create a hindrance and an example for anybodyl esle to to do the same. Thats terror and not justice.
-
Salaam Bigmo
There was a similar discussion about this here
We discussed crucifixion and it turned into a discussion of qisas which I think is relevant to your discussion.
The problem lies in the fact that the verse talking about cutting of hands is mirrored with what Pharaoh says.
-
Salaam Bigmo
There was a similar discussion about this here
We discussed crucifixion and it turned into a discussion of qisas which I think is relevant to your discussion.
The problem lies in the fact that the verse talking about cutting of hands is mirrored with what Pharaoh says.
The Gospel confirms the crucifixion so I believe in it. The trinity is another matter. The Koran attacked the Trinity and not crucifixion. It countered the Judaic claim to Jesus' death and not the Gospel account. The Judaic account also accused Mary of sexual miscinduct. its that the Koran talked about in the crucifixion verse and not the Gospel account. As far as Pharoah and his use of crucifixion I think the verse says cutting the hands from opposite sides and I know there are different interpretations for that including wrapping the hands against each other from the back as some crucifixions used to do.
But the Koran is clear about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and a soul for a soul. So a hand for hand also.
My two cents.
