THEFT PUNISHMENT
-
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.
-
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.
some people are crazy, they translated AYDIYA to hands
what about IDIYA in the mind ? does the mind has hands?
what about AYDIYA that are opposed to Behind, are they hands?How about AYADA ? with rouh al qudduss, are there hands of Rouh Quddus ?
notice in the quran , there is the word AYDEE , and AYDIYA , there has to be a difference, grammar pronociation has nothing to do because they're unsed in a similar sentences, with different meanings
AYDEE used for hands, possessions, etc..
AYDIYA used for IDEAS of the MIND. always about the quran, proof, thinking etc...
AYADA used for Aid , help, support etc.. -
peace all,
I cant recall if this has been discussed before, but...
I just noticed in 538 it says it is a "jaza/recompense" (the same word used in the story of Joseph and the theft of the cup) not "a-th-b" (suffering/punishment) which is used in The Quran to refer to a physical pain.
-
There are better systems than cutting off limbs today. Instead of relying on ancient texts why not use your own knowledge, logic and reasoning to develop better ways to punish those who steal. ;D
-
There are better systems than cutting off limbs today. Instead of relying on ancient texts why not use your own knowledge, logic and reasoning to develop better ways to punish those who steal. ;D
Nice try.
-
Your post implies that ancient texts don't have a better system in place than us.
-
In todays day and age the taxpayers pay to keep/charge those who have stolen something in jail like an animal. Is this the better system in todays day and age your talking about?? Why should my money be used to keep someone in a cell like an animal??
-
This isn't art where each one of us can create something in an abstract world. A justice system isn't personal to each and everyone of us. It is implemented in an area so each one of us don't have a say in how it is implemented.
We need divine guidance as well as applying our own knowledge, logic and reasoning. You missed the former while relying solely on the latter. We need both peace
PEACE
-
-
Nice try.
-
Your post implies that ancient texts don't have a better system in place than us.
-
In todays day and age the taxpayers pay to keep/charge those who have stolen something in jail like an animal. Is this the better system in todays day and age your talking about?? Why should my money be used to keep someone in a cell like an animal??
-
This isn't art where each one of us can create something in an abstract world. A justice system isn't personal to each and everyone of us. It is implemented in an area so each one of us don't have a say in how it is implemented.
We need divine guidance as well as applying our own knowledge, logic and reasoning. You missed the former while relying solely on the latter. We need both peace
PEACE
Keeping a person in a cell is better than mutilating the persons hands. It's not modern at all. However if you want to inflict pain use this
http//news.oneindia.in/2008/12/25/soon-weapons-that-can-inflict-pain-beams-on-criminals.html
Also, 'divine guidance' is very hard to understand these days. One claims that "this is divine" while the other claims "no! that is divine"
Muslims vs christians vs jews vs hindus vs other religions.
-
-
Try natural behaviour. About theft punishment, if you were a believer among many thieves, maybe cutting off the hand and killing the person, would be the best way to go about with it. However in modern times, we are talking about rich men, who run convenience stores. Hardly cutting off the hand doesn`t suit the crime anymore.
-
Keeping a person in a cell is better than mutilating the persons hands. It's not modern at all. However if you want to inflict pain use this
http//news.oneindia.in/2008/12/25/soon-weapons-that-can-inflict-pain-beams-on-criminals.html
Also, 'divine guidance' is very hard to understand these days. One claims that "this is divine" while the other claims "no! that is divine"
Muslims vs christians vs jews vs hindus vs other religions.
My stance on the topic isn't actually for mutilating someones hands as the quran never says to mutilate someones hands for theft.
My point was that the quran gives us the RIGHT punishments for crimes against people. Those that don't believe in the quran can keep trying to get it right but I believe quran shows results in action so any religion can CLAIM anything...it comes down to which one works and I KNOW the quran works
PEACE
-
Salaam all,
I don't know if this has been presented within this thread previously as it's such a big thread I have not read the whole thing, but I have written an explanation of theft based upon the Qur'an, which demonstrates it is written from a modern perspective, but has been hijacked by the Christian dogma of punishment instead of the Islamic concept of remedy, anyway for anyone interested here is the link
http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/72/102/
-
You first!
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-novelty.html
Okay I take that "modern" back.
-
Salaam,
I am writing a contract of natural law, and this is what the natural law says about theft
Theft is the fraudulent handling of another?s property, with an intention of stealing, against the will of the proprietor, whose property it had been. The remedy is firstly, the item must be returned without damage, if damaged must be recompensed, if lost must be paid as a minimum of its value, and further to compensate the victim in time and trouble suffered from their actions, if they have no resource to do so they must labour until the debt is paid, secondly they can hold no position of authority or guardianship within the community, and cannot stand attestant, nor verify any contract for another, as they have proved themselves dishonest, this prohibition would remain until the consensus of the local community granted forgiveness through a prolonged change in conduct. Finally the friends and family of the thief must systematically confront the thief throughout a day, with every good thing they have ever done, relating how proud they have been of them in their good conduct within the community, however small that maybe, and demonstrate to the thief how valued and essentially good they truly are, so shaming them through the positive not the negative, showing them how they have let themselves down, this final method of reform can be applied to any wrong that would have reasonable benefits.
Surety of the peace, as remedy, preserves justice and consists in obligating those men/women whom there is probable ground to suspect of future misbehaviour, to stipulate with, and to give full assurance to, the community that such an offence as is apprehended shall not take place, by finding pledges or securities for keeping the peace, or for their good lawful behaviour.
Justice that truly prevents a crime is better than any which severely punishes it, in natural law, punishment is not recognised in and of itself, only remedy for the victim and protection for the community.
Religion punishes, the natural law finds remedy, religion imposes, the natural law protects, religion is used to justify the atrocities of man, the natural law is used to prevent them.
-
I just thought of something...maybe someone mentioned it already but here goes...
Ok, when someone says "give them a free hand" does it mean grow a hand in a laboratory and give it to them for free, literally a free hand? No, right, it means give them freedom right...so in that context...cut off their hand...means take away their freedom til they work to pay you back or return what they've stolen amirite?
-
I just thought of something...maybe someone mentioned it already but here goes...
Ok, when someone says "give them a free hand" does it mean grow a hand in a laboratory and give it to them for free, literally a free hand? No, right, it means give them freedom right...so in that context...cut off their hand...means take away their freedom til they work to pay you back or return what they've stolen amirite?
The law of the Quran is the proportionality law. The eye for ane eye and tooth for a tooth. The punsihment should always fit the crime. The hand for a hand. Its not meant to emphasize equity and proportionality rather than deterence as the Sects do which means harsh punishment to create a deterence. The Quran orders us to establish justice and not ever asked us to apply laws based on deterence.
Proportionality is a principle in law which covers two distinct (although related) concepts. Within municipal (domestic) law it is used to convey the idea that the punishment of an offender should fit the crime. Under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, proportionality and distinction are important factors in assessing military necessity.
History
The proportionality test was first developed in the High State Administrative Courts (Oberlandesgericht) in Germany in the late 19th century, to review actions by the police.
The proportionality test originated systematically with the jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht.
European Union
In European Union law there generally acknowledged to be four stages to a proportionality test, namely,
there must be a legitimate aim for a measure
the measure must be suitable to achieve the aim (potentially with a requirement of evidence to show it will have that effect)
the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it
the measure must be reasonable, considering the competing interests of different groups at hand
It is, however, often seen that the third and fourth criterion are often merged into one by the European Court of Justice, depending on the margin of discretion that the Court sees as being afforded to the member state. Examples are found in R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment, where the ECJ points out that a member state has some discretion in the policies it pursues, surrounding unfair dismissal, in reducing unemployment. Further examples of the proportionality test are seen in Mangold v Helm and K?c?kdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG.Municipal law
Within law, the principle of proportional justice is used to describe the idea that the punishment of a certain crime should be in proportion to the severity of the crime itself. In practice, systems of law differ greatly on the application of this principle. In some systems, this was interpreted as lex talionis, (an eye for an eye). In others, it has led to a more restrictive manner of sentencing. For example, all European Union countries have accepted as a treaty obligation that no crime warrants the death penalty, whereas some other countries in the world do use it.
In self defense cases, the amount of force employed by the defender must be proportionate to the threatened aggressive force. If deadly force is used to defend against non-deadly force, the harm inflicted by the actor (death or serious bodily harm) will be greater than the harm avoided (less than serious bodily harm). Even if deadly force is proportionate, its use must be necessary. Otherwise, unlawful conduct will only be justified when it involves the lesser harm of two harmful choices. If countering with non-deadly force or with no force at all avoids the threatened harm, defensive use of deadly force is no longer the lesser evil of only two choices. Alternatives involving still less societal harm are available.
In United States Law, the United States Supreme Court proposed the Proportionality Doctrine in three cases during the 1980?s, namely Enmund v. Florida (1982), Solem v. Helm (1983) and Tison v. Arizona (1987), to clarify this key principle of proportionality within the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The fundamental principle behind proportionality is that the punishment should fit the crime. In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that courts must do three things to decide whether a sentence is proportional to a specific crime
1.Compare the nature and gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty,
2.Compare the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; i.e., whether more serious crimes are subject to the same penalty or to less serious penalties, and
3.Compare the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
International humanitarian lawThe harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective.Luis Moreno-Ocampo was the Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court who investigated allegations of War Crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He published an open letter containing his findings; in a section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes", he elucidates this use of proportionality
Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)
The Quran calls it "qist and adl". Justice and equity. They go hand in hand. The punishment should always fit the crime and must be administered on the specific individual (la taziru wazirutu wizr ukhra). No one should bear trhe burden of another and no one should bear a burden greater than he beared on another person.
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.
2.178-179 O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. In the Law of Equality there is (saving of) Life to you, o ye men of understanding; that ye may restrain yourselves
?If you punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, indeed it is better for the patient. Endure you patiently. Your patience is not except through the help of Allah." (16126-127)
