Which punishment do you feel is worse to have?
-
Thanks for the responses so far.
I will give my reason for the poll shortly.
I'm guessing it is to compare the Quranic punishments vs. the Hadithist punishments.
-
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).
peace.
-
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).
peace.
Peace,
Nice observation!
I think 538 refers to "cut/mark" not "cut off". Remember that you need the 7 limbs for prostration.
Read this http//submission.org/satan/theft.html
-
Looking at this again, I think it becomes obvious that the verse does not imply "cutting off" the hand, else a clause on pity would have been appropriate, granted there is one for lashes for rapists (ie. ones who commit "zina".
-
The hands meant are not that kind of hands, it is the same kind of hands as when it talks about ma malakat aymanu... That is the hands from the point of view of the capacity, that is, the legal or material ability or the means.
That is nto fantasy, yhat is perfect Arabic as we see, without havin to look very far with the ma malakat. What? the ma malakat must be 24 hours 365 days a year being held in the hand? Obviously it is the authority, the capacity the legal title what is being dealt with, not a flesh hand.I thin it is plain and obvious. The punishment must always be proportionate to the crime. Where is the proportion between cutting a hand and not doing anything to the thief. All or nothing? What kind of justice is that? It takes away form the community all possibility of meeting a punishment proportionate to the crime, foring it to cripple the culprit forever or letting him or her get scotfree... wherever you set the limit for the sentencing.
If it is marking the hands, what you steal a hen at a givent time, may be out of obfuscation, and you are going to be branded forever?
Salaam
-
Salaam,
538
538 And the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.1250
1250 And the king said Bring him to me. So when the messenger came to him, he said Go back to your lord and ask him, what is the case of the women who cut their hands; surely my Lord knows their guile.hmm hmm hmm
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
The simple point brought up in this thread is actually a good one to raise if ever in a discussion with someone advocating a physical "cutting-off the hand" interpretation, i.e. begin by saying...
- which is a worse punishment in your view having your hand cut-off or 100 lashes? (most/all tend to say cutting-off hand is worse)
then say...
- when the Quran mentions the punishment of lashes it says immediately after to not let pity prevent you from administering such a punishment, but it says no such thing for the alleged cutting-off the hand even though you say this is worse - why?
Most do not have an explanation.
-
Salaam,
538
538 And the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.1250
1250 And the king said Bring him to me. So when the messenger came to him, he said Go back to your lord and ask him, what is the case of the women who cut their hands; surely my Lord knows their guile.hmm hmm hmm
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhanWhat are you trying to say or point out?
Salaam
-
The simple point brought up in this thread is actually a good one to raise if ever in a discussion with someone advocating a physical "cutting-off the hand" interpretation, i.e. begin by saying...
- which is a worse punishment in your view having your hand cut-off or 100 lashes? (most/all tend to say cutting-off hand is worse)
then say...
- when the Quran mentions the punishment of lashes it says immediately after to not let pity prevent you from administering such a punishment, but it says no such thing for the alleged cutting-off the hand even though you say this is worse - why?
Most do not have an explanation.
Yes, I get your point and you are right and I should not have detracted from the specific highlight you are trying to throw on this, but I think I got a bit impatient with the mere notion that the expression should be taken as amputating flesh hands.
Your point is indeed an addition to the evidence against amputation. Thank you.
Salaam
-
Peace Family,
The thief, male or female, you shall mark their hands as a punishment for their
crime, and to serve as an example from GOD. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.If one repents after committing this crime, and reforms, GOD redeems him.
GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.If you mark the hands, the community would know that this person is a thief
that would be sufficient. In addition, by only marking the hand, the perpetrator
has a chance to repent and live a normal life.peace
-
What are you trying to say or point out?
Salaam
Salaam huruf,
I was thinking that in many aayaat Qa-Ta-A3 is used in not physical/literal way, such as in 227, 3127, 87, 9121, 1325, 2215, etc. And IF we are taking Qa-Ta-A3 in 538 in literal sense ONLY because of the word hands used in it, then why not to take the same in 1250?
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Looking at this again, I think it becomes obvious that the verse does not imply "cutting off" the hand, else a clause on pity would have been appropriate, granted there is one for lashes for rapists (ie. ones who commit "zina".
In fact, marking/cutting the hand would also be quite implausible considering this.
-
May be the question to be asked is who would you have pity for?
An abused woman in unhappy arranged loveless marriage to an arrogant vile abusive man who financially or for reasons cannot leave her husband finding comfort and love in the arms of another man who treats her like a human being.
Or
A professional thief who breaks into your house, ransacks your places, takes all that you have worked hard for and were given to you by family and friends. In this economy you are barely making ends meet living paycheck to paycheck, putting food on the table and not much savings in left in the bank account. The thief basically cleaned you out.
-
Peace,
May be the question to be asked is who would you have pity for?
An abused woman in unhappy arranged loveless marriage to an arrogant vile abusive man who financially or for reasons cannot leave her husband finding comfort and love in the arms of another man who treats her like a human being.
Or
A professional thief who breaks into your house, ransacks your places, takes all that you have worked hard for and were given to you by family and friends. In this economy you are barely making ends meet living paycheck to paycheck, putting food on the table and not much savings in left in the bank account. The thief basically cleaned you out.
"Zina" is rape (thus the harsh earthly, physical punishment as well as punishment in the hereafter, except if pardoned). "FaHaSha" and it's derivatives refers to adultery. The punishment for adultery, the crime that you mentioned above, is in detailed in 415. There is no pity clause, by the way.
Also, if the thief is found, usually many of the stolen items can be recovered. If not, you cut from their means.
-
Salaam huruf,
I was thinking that in many aayaat Qa-Ta-A3 is used in not physical/literal way, such as in 227, 3127, 87, 9121, 1325, 2215, etc. And IF we are taking Qa-Ta-A3 in 538 in literal sense ONLY because of the word hands used in it, then why not to take the same in 1250?
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhanIt is not the same verb in both ayas. At any rate it seems that in 12.50 women did not amputate their own hands.
On the other hand, if as you say by itself q-t-3 is used many times in the Qur'an not in the material sense and hands also are used in a non material sense repeatedly in the Qur'an, not much is left for the imagination. The material meaning lacks everything to be meaningul as a legal measure.
Murder is murder and is always taking a life, however theft can go from stealing a loaf of bread to stealing a whole country, both would be punished cutting a hand? It is a no brainer and a difficult way for the culprit to refund the victim, having to make more money with fewer hands.Salaam
-
Salaam huruf,
I was thinking that in many aayaat Qa-Ta-A3 is used in not physical/literal way, such as in 227, 3127, 87, 9121, 1325, 2215, etc. And IF we are taking Qa-Ta-A3 in 538 in literal sense ONLY because of the word hands used in it, then why not to take the same in 1250?
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhanSalaamun alayka,
Well tafsirs say actually that they cutted their hands yes
But ofcourse in different way. In 538 it means chopping but in 1250 is means only cutting.Anyways I think the first problem is the correct definition of "aydiyahuma".
How does the blue/green Hand(s) look like if they are hands?
564 "... "
4810 "... ""Salaam,
Bender -
Peace,
"Zina" is rape (thus the harsh earthly, physical punishment as well as punishment in the hereafter, except if pardoned). "FaHaSha" and it's derivatives refers to adultery. The punishment for adultery, the crime that you mentioned above, is in detailed in 415. There is no pity clause, by the way.
Also, if the thief is found, usually many of the stolen items can be recovered. If not, you cut from their means.
I have also been troubled by the translation of 415.
If zina is rape then why would God also say punish the victim in 242? Says alzaniyatu walzani? And "bihama" is translated as pity for them. Also if zina is rape, why would anyone have pity for a rapist?
I feel so overwhelmed.
-
It is not the same verb in both ayas. At any rate it seems that in 12.50 women did not amputate their own hands.
On the other hand, if as you say by itself q-t-3 is used many times in the Qur'an not in the material sense and hands also are used in a non material sense repeatedly in the Qur'an, not much is left for the imagination. The material meaning lacks everything to be meaningul as a legal measure.
Murder is murder and is always taking a life, however theft can go from stealing a loaf of bread to stealing a whole country, both would be punished cutting a hand? It is a no brainer and a difficult way for the culprit to refund the victim, having to make more money with fewer hands.Salaam
Salaam huruf,
I did not mean that way... sorry for not able to explain it well.
I mean, in many of the aayaat Qa-Ta-A3 is used in non physical sense. BUT when it comes with Yad in 538 people take it in literal sense, if so, then why don't they take 1250 also in literal sense.
We may need to look at point raised by brother Bender, the usage of Yad is different. Lets see if this fix this problem, inshaAllah.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan
