Would You cut someones hand if they stole?
-
538 Wa al sariqu wa al sariqatu fa iqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan bimakasaba nakalan mina Allahi waAllahuAAazeezun hakeemun
Aydiya - plural
huma - third person masculine dualGod mentions both the male and female thief here for a reason. We have 2 people here and we have "aydiyahuma" meaning "each of their (dual) resources (plural)." Even if you want to translate it as "hands" then it would be "cut each of their 3 or more hands" which makes no sense. Therefore it has to mean resources/power. The word choices thougout this verse has a purpose.
538 As for the male thief and the female thief, you shall cut/cut off/disable/put an end to their means/resources/power for either of them as a recompense/reparation/penalty for what they did/for their doing/crime. This is to serve as a deterrent/an example from God. God is powerful/mighty, wise/judicious/authoritative.
539 Whoever turns/repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, then God will accept his repentance. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
Does this sound just to you? You get both hands cut off and then you can repent without your hands and it's all good?
1270 When he furnished them with their provisions, he placed the measuring bowl in his brother's bag. Then a caller cried out "O you in the caravan, you are thieves!"
1271 They said, turning towards them "What is it you are missing?"
1272 He said, "We are missing the measuring bowl of the King, and whoever finds it shall receive a camel-load; I guarantee this."
1273 They said, "By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!"
1274 He said, "What shall be the punishment, if you are not truthful?"
1275 They said, "The punishment is that the person who has it in his bag shall himself be held as penalty. It is such that we punish the wrongdoers."
-
The verbal sentence has prefixed conjunction particle which shows cause and effect, and initiates an apodosis clause. Thus this sentence is a subordinate clause. Verb is imperative, second person, plural, masculine, of base form made from - verbal noun. This form of verb does not include in its semantic ambit the act of amputation to cut off some appendage/part of the body. This fact is also evident from its direct object a possessive phrase, first noun is plural which signifies three and more objects. Obviously a convicted thief does not have three or more hands which could be imputed.
Allah the Exalted has laid down retributive justice system wherein the punishment is proportionate in response to crime.Its Form-II can have the signification of amputation, and of splitting
refer 7124; 7160 -
So all you Qur'an alone community fans, once again, who will execute lashings and cutting of hands provided that you somehow organize your welfare under the same roof so to speak? I asked the fascist Gerrans this question, he removed the comment. Don't remove mine. Answer honestly.
-
Don't fall for Makavelli's weak traps.
Rather ask him, where in the Quran it states one should sever the hand of a thief?
The grammar, syntax, morphology of the verse are a clear indication that it is not referring to literal hands but MEANS, ability etc...
Agents nope
-
Don't fall for Makavelli's weak traps.
Rather ask him, where in the Quran it states one should sever the hand of a thief?
The grammar, syntax, morphology of the verse are a clear indication that it is not referring to literal hands but MEANS, ability etc...
Agents nope
Umm..nope. It means what it means, any attempt to disprove this can as well be attributed to the whole Qur'an. So if you take somethign as literal and the other what you prefer as methaprohical, which methodology do you use in order to understand the Qur'an? In case the language is associative/methaprohical, it means you understand the Qur'an in a wrong way, not just the verse about cutting off hands (literally). So what is your methodology? How many wives can you have in accordance with 351?
-
For my answer I just thought about if I were able to actually chop off a hand but its far too freaky for me. I'm glad that the Qur'an might be demonstrated as not telling people to do that, I thought that is very useful and interesting. I'd again also not like tgat law for fear of getting my hand chopped off. If anyone wanted to chop me though I'd want to end their life for sure. I have a very drastic self preservation policy and mechanism and animalistically hate anyone who wishes any level of harm upon me and generally wish immediate death upon such. I'd wish they would be killed outright by God if they wanted to poison my food or cause me a stomach ache or even some small distress of mine pleases them.
So to Makaveli I would admit that if he wishes harm upon me I wish infinite harm upon him, if he wishes me to falter or fall I wish he didn't even exist or live to have those wishes.
Exactly, you do follow animalistic instincts, and you are deluded if you think you have anything to protect. And you would be wrong, because your jugement is based on the idea of revenge.
Like Machiavelli said, better to be feared than loved.
That was the point of my question. How is the so-called qur'an alone community any different from narcissistic dictatorship, which is described in the Prince?
-
In comparing the Bible and the Qur'an, the Qur'an seems a kinder and more restrained book than the lunacy found in the Bible.
I would not say a book, due to the nature of the fabricated modern Arabic, contains NO and NOT in every other sentence and vows of retribution for those it defines as disbelievers to be anything else other than lunacy.
At the end of the day we are human beings, a kind of animal closely related to other animals, and we should be working on making our experience a more pleasant one and contributing to what we consider to be good and better and best of all.
Or you can try to be something higher than animal, like reducing your instinctive drive and emotions, for instance and judge the situation or events around you without excess of emotions.
-
I'm not sure that reduced emotionality is always better or safer, which is why I brought up those animal studies contrasting it with the enotionally handicapped psychopaths.
Rationality itself is a necessary absurdity. There is no sense for example in noses being on faces or faces existing as they do or flowers etc. Its all absurdity from nowhere and baseless. Of all these chaotic things though, ideas like care and justice have emerged. The Qur'an simply warns people with the suggestion that these things are fromna source that invents them and can change them and will judge and punish and reward the humans, notions it also is said to have invented baselessly without any real reference as is necessary for the Topmost or First and Ultimate, it makes things up ex nihilo or from and by itself.
So people are supposed to think a bit and carefully run on the strategy they think might best lead to their survival and increased sense of benefit, pleasure, and reward, like animals, even in a maze.
I do agree than justice is among one of the most abused definitions out there. So is logic, which itself is not absolute, of course not. This is why when people judge by executing the silly commandments like 100 lashes or even stoning to death, which appeared due to what I call in the other thread as 'materialistic monotheism', it looks pity, not just. But every action you do can be attributed to your animalistic motivation, something that the authors on this stuff would write, or something, which, in turn, resists your animalistic actions. You always have the choice but you are often confronted with emotions, such as when you pray for someone to 'be dealed with', this is so primitive I can't describe it in words. But if you try to make the person better or simply leave instead of being emotional and curse or impose your power upon someone, this is how you choose to go against the animal in you to become something higher.
-
That's logic and there's no room for emotion.
If you talk of logic as something absolute, which by definition it is, you can't be 100% unemotional as a human being unless of course you are a machine. You judge situations based on emotions even if you act like a coldblooded autistic.
Mandatory reading for you The Snow Queen, Andersen, H.C.
-
Umm..nope. It means what it means, any attempt to disprove this can as well be attributed to the whole Qur'an. So if you take somethign as literal and the other what you prefer as methaprohical, which methodology do you use in order to understand the Qur'an? In case the language is associative/methaprohical, it means you understand the Qur'an in a wrong way, not just the verse about cutting off hands (literally). So what is your methodology? How many wives can you have in accordance with 351?
All this yapping for nothing. Look past your own nose man.
It's not a matter of interpretation at all. The verse is literal.
If you had actually investigated what I had said instead of denying without evidence you would have sen for yourself that you're awfully wrong.
It is simply linguistically incorrect patna.
Step your Truther game up
& check the post in the thread linked below
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608169.msg382203#msg382203
-
It's not a matter of interpretation at all. The verse is literal.
What makes you believe the verse is literal when in fact you can translate it in a more associative way? Does it say ? Anyways, would you rather cut off somebody's hand or would you refer to authorities to carry out the punishment for you? It is a simple question.
-
What makes you believe the verse is literal when in fact you can translate it in a more associative way? Does it say ? Anyways, would you rather cut off somebody's hand or would you refer to authorities to carry out the punishment for you? It is a simple question.
If you bear some underlying cognitive issue then let me know so I don't have to waste my time repeating myself and wasting my breath
-
If you bear some underlying cognitive issue then let me know so I don't have to waste my time repeating myself and wasting my breath
So you are running like a cow? You just tried to gave your own interpretation to the verse about cutting of a hand, which you took not as literal. Well, this is merely your interpretation and a lot of people including those of Qur'an alone do not agree with you. So unless you take whole Qur'an as associative instead of literal you can tell your analysis was more or less plausible. Not in this case, however. You can't just make up a meaning of a word which you do not agree with.
-
So you are running like a cow? You just tried to gave your own interpretation to the verse about cutting of a hand, which you took not as literal.
OK since you're the ancient Arabic and pre-Islamic poetry expert who claims...
"the only no you could have in Ancient arabic is (mā - not. While Lam-Alif never means no"
This includes
not (809 occurrences)
and not (655 occurrences)
so not (155 occurrences) etc.?Likewise an anonymous poet proclaimed?
https//www.amazon.com/The-Quranic-Term-Kalala-Monograph/dp/074861916X
Surely, a father protects more wrathfully his offspring ?
wmawlan al-kalalati not gets angry
https//s1.postimg.org/5y4clks19b/kalala.jpg
Then also tell us meaning of "hands" in below verses?
295 in what have set forth hands theirs
2195 and not throw ye of with hands yours to the destruction
2224 and not thou make ye of the god liable for right hands yours
2255 knoweth what between hands theirs
3182 in what have set forth hands yours
43 or what control right hands yours
491 and restrained they of hands theirs
511 stretch they of to you hands theirs so cuffed hands theirs
564 tied hands theirs
7149 and when fell in hands theirs
870 O you the prophet say to whom in hands yours
912 and if renege they of right hands theirs
914 fight ye them punishes them the god with hands yours
967 and those closing hands theirs
1231 admired him and sever (f/p) hands theirs (f/p)
2424 day it witness upon them the tongues theirs and hands theirs and feet theirs in what be they of working
4230 so in what earned hands yours
4824 and he the one withheld hands theirs about you and hands yours about them in belly/mist makkata
592 destroying houses theirs with hands theirs
602 and extend they of to you hands theirs
-
So you are running like a cow? You just tried to gave your own interpretation to the verse about cutting of a hand, which you took not as literal. Well, this is merely your interpretation and a lot of people including those of Qur'an alone do not agree with you. So unless you take whole Qur'an as associative instead of literal you can tell your analysis was more or less plausible. Not in this case, however. You can't just make up a meaning of a word which you do not agree with.
What do you mean by literal? If I go to the dictionary right now I can find over 10 definitions of the word ?hand.? Those are all valid denotations. Regardless of the interpretation we decide on, in this case there still has to be something physically (if that?s what you mean by literal?) done to someone who steals amputation, imprisonment, etc., to prevent them from doing it again.
-
peace all,
I haven't read this thread but if anyone is advocating a physical cutting off hands in 538-39 for theft then please answer the following questions
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609391.msg403439#msg403439You can also ask any Traditional Muslim the above, to see if they can answer. Of course most will not as it may expose their view for what it is weak at best.
Background
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm -
Likewise an anonymous poet proclaimed?
You do realize this is a contemporary translation? -\ They put no there whether they see lam-alif, not convincing. It has nothing to do with what the poet meant initially, in case it really is of the pre-Islamic origin. Ma is there in all cases when it says negatively.
The rest of the verses you cited you have no clue about anyways. If you say hands are not literal then why you take defensive war or many other issue as literal? I can say Allah has hands, why not? There will never be conclusion among quran aloners and you will continue to argue over many issues which are free to interpret as you wish, due to flawed and ambiguous traditional translation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an, on the other hand, its initial innocent text is quite clear.
-
Regardless of the interpretation we decide on, in this case there still has to be something physically (if thats what you mean by literal?)
By literal I mean literally, taking one's hand and cutting it off. Will you be a bystander in the process, btw? Just curious. People try to apologize the verse in subject here and if we accept the Qur'an as straightforward and "clear" (which it is not), we cannot speculate on the verse, it says what it says.
In fact the word may mean as authority/ability but the language used in the verse is so primitive it is plain obvious those early interpreters or 'scholars' wanted their obedient sheep to follow a primitive medieval clerical herecy, which they call Islam, when in fact the text has a way deeper meaning and the word for 'thief' as well contains a number of meanings, and if you try to understand the whole verse in its associative fashion a way bigger picture will occur.
If it was anything other than hands in 538, there would be no two opinions on the subject. However, people interpret it as it seems fit to them, which proves how unclear and ambigious the Qur'an is . Those who are weaker believe it to be a barbaric way to punish someone for a crime he/she did, cutting of hands of an individual without even questioning the motives behind the crime. So they try to pull out the definition which appears less barbaric, when in fact a combination of a thief + hands should speak for itself. Others, who are straight fascistic like Mr.Gerrans, they write how they see fit, and they make up stories about war-time marauders/looters (see his note under 53, when in fact nothing like that is mentioned in the chapter let alone the verse itself, it says simply thief + hand. Therefore
-
The language is so primitive it is clear the one who started the tradition of interpetation of the Qur'an was a primitive person who was on a pay roll by a caliph, who practiced these form of punishments even before the Qur'an and regardless of what Qur'an really says;
-
The verse is so ambigious it says nothing about the motivation behind the theft, nor the personality of thieves, is he/she commiting a repeated offense or for the first time? Nothing, zero. Just cutt off his/her hands and begone. Hence my question is, whom will you trust to carry out this 'task'? Will you carry out it yourself, or trust your respective 'quran alone' authorities? I am sure there are people here who would get pleasure cutting of hands;
-
The language of the verse is so primitive it almost yells for a more enlightened individual to decipher it and see other meanings not just for the word 'hands' but to check every word in the verse. And if fact, if such an approach is undertaken the maning of 538 is far more deep than you think.
It is a shame but the so called quran alone 'free mind' community are no better if they do not seek to look beyond those primitive interpretations. Because you are primitive and barbaric, no offense, but like all fascists (nothing to do with specific political regime, see word fascio for reference) you want to dominate, you want to mock certain individuals of society because you want to think the Qur'an is as primtive as you think it is.
And of course like most Muslims you are deluded if you think the Qur'an authorizes government. There is nothing about the community or the state or the government in the book. So if you believe there has to be something 'physical' in condemnation/punsihment of criminals, you should refer to legal acts of your respective countries, not the book, which some might claim contains all the answers. It is actually a very deep guidance, but but it speaks nothing about the governance, in fact it portrays the world as delusion and the platform for a test for those who want to develop.
I suggest those who take Qur'anic text as literal divorce their spouses and marry orphans ONLY, two, three or four just like your book 'says'. But before that you should conclude on how many wings do malaikat have exactly in 351. So when you conclude, as I said, divorce your wives/husbands, and look for orphans only (43), otherwise ya'll are commiting sexual immorality. bravo bravo bravo
-
-
You do realize this is a contemporary translation? -\ They put no there whether they see lam-alif, not convincing.
I do my own translation; why l/not translate it for us?
wmawl l-kalalati l yghaaba
4711 mawl
22 l (likewise provide meaning 809 occurrences in context?)
4176 l-kalalati
249 ghaaba (when written with "ya" becomes yghaaba/angered/gets angry)The rest of the verses you cited you have no clue about anyways.
then why l/not translate those verses and these?
538 and the male thief and the female thief fa-iqau aydiyahuma/hands (i.e. actions) theirs dual recompense in what earn dual nakalan/shackle of from the god and the god mighty wise 539 so who turned from after wrong his (i.e. said person) and reconciles so indeed the god turns in forgiveness on him/said person indeed the god forgiver merciful
1275 said they of recompense its who found in bag his so he recompense its like such we recompense the wrongdoers
