The word "prison" in the qur'an
-
If it is not slavery what it is? It is even the same in the bible, from the same story. You could say its prison and not slavery. But you have no proof of that. In fact it is not even clear and you want to take that as a commandmant from allah while it is a story of the past.
Maybe this could answer it. Read onwards of 1279 to 12102, you will see in 12102, speaks about an revelation from the unseen news.
-
Also you said "It is even the same in the bible, from the same story" May i ask where in the bible does it speak about the story?
-
Peace Ju5.
I explained "Iktau Aydyahuma" the way it makes sense in the verse. Qoran set precedents and defines its own context.
Your explanation is not logical nor makes sense.
Here is a small example;
"cut the hand" can be from a small cut like a graze to completely severe the hand( I cut my hand shaving is also clear Arabic but it does not mean I severed my hand completely?). Which one is it in 538? Or are you going to use your common sense without given instruction? That will be your justice not Qoran s!!!!
You cannot and will not be able to explain how to do it according to 538, because it is an idiom.
If you still won t see it, then you are making up your own understanding and you know it.
Thank you and GOD bless you.
Peace.Then do we make small cuts like graze in 533? from opposites sides? or do we amputate ?Which one is it? or are you going to use your common sense without given instruction?
Now you didn't answer to these two questions so allow me to copy paste them
-
The qur'an is not a source to show that it is an idiom as it is not clear, and i am asking for an external source. Do you have any source else than the qur'an showing cut the hands can be used as an idiom in old arabic ?
-
why is it used with the same terms as real physical cutting in other verses if it is a known idiom ?
-
-
Maybe this could answer it. Read onwards of 1279 to 12102, you will see in 12102, speaks about an revelation from the unseen news.
when is say it is not clear, i meant that it wasn't a commandmant at all, it is a story plain and simple, like noah or tamud
bible joseph story https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_(Genesis)#The_silver_cup
-
when is say it is not clear, i meant that it wasn't a commandmant at all, it is a story plain and simple, like noah or tamud
Are you sure? Because in 12102 it says
12102
Thalika min anba-i alghaybinooheehi ilayka wama kunta ladayhim ithajmaAAoo amrahum wahum yamkuroona
That is from the news of the unseen that We inspire to you. You were not among them when they arranged their plan and were scheming.Don't think it's just a story, they mean something.
-
bible joseph story https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_(Genesis)#The_silver_cup
Also i don't remember anything about silver cup in Quran. Unless i missed it, please show the verses mentioning silver cup with Joseph in Quran.
-
Peace Ju5.
You are stuck with how to cut the hand/s aren t you?
You are looking for excuses if you keep insisting on your way.Also it is irrelevant what you are asking, it does not matter whether idioms like it exist or not. The verse makes sense only as an idiom.
Look here at 1231How did these ladies "cut their hands"? Did they make a small graze or severed their hands completely?
You are wasting your time arguing a clear case of "You do not know any details of how to cut the hand/s in 538".
No matter what you say, Qoran has not given any command of "cutting hands" otherwise it would have specified how and with what.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
You may say "this is the more intense verb form". "The first verb form is used in 538, and not the second." Well the first verb form is also used in 6946
Then We would have cut from him the aorta.
This is intense enough.
Actually in Quranix.org the word faiqtaAAoo (ا is in second person masculine plural imperative verb while in 6946 the word laqataAAna (ا is in first person plural perfect verb. I don't know if this is something different since my grammar knowledge is poor. Wakas, you have a good knowledge on Quranic Arabic grammar, could you tell us if there is a difference?
-
Actually in Quranix.org the word faiqtaAAoo (ا is in second person masculine plural imperative verb while in 6946 the word laqataAAna (ا is in first person plural perfect verb. I don't know if this is something different since my grammar knowledge is poor. Wakas, you have a good knowledge on Quranic Arabic grammar, could you tell us if there is a difference?
The verb is the first form in both cases, that is, it is non intensive. But this is turning to be a greater toy for the Qur'an hater that he could ever expect for. at is clearly becoming intensive is the quest for imbecility.
Apart form those things that have said on the lack of precision in 5.38 to be taken as to do something as concrete as to severe hands, there is the question that theft is a most gneeral term in any language, no proper legislation anywhere comes up with such a ludicruous penalty for a non described or defined crime. First they describe the crime properly and then fix the amounts that are unduly obtained and then and only then fix any penalty. And there go the superredeemer os lost dumb Qura'n followers and show as how to understand nonsense properly. It is clear that the Qur'an is not a penal code nor pretends to be. It gives general directions, which by the way it does not pretend that are new in the world, they are the directions which wisdom and common sense have been considered all along as appropriate in more or less all moral civilisations.
And that is exactly what it does, fitting well in the context, in 5.38, he or she who appropriates unduly what is not theirs should be cut off the means or possibility of doing such a thing. In order for the means to be physical cutting what should be obviously severed should be the brains not the hands.
The title of the thread, by the way, continues to be very funny for a "progressive" one.
Prison is about the most infamous and corrupting means of correcting anybody. That some people get out corrected is a monument to human capacity to regenerate.Salaam
-
Salaam The Sardar
Both verbs are from the root . Any word derived from a root shows the meaning of the root. The word to focus on in 538 is (hand).
When we say
It is not in my hands, or
Give me a hand, or
How can I help you in this matter as you have cut your hands.we do not use the word "hand" in literal sense but idiomatically.
Every language has idioms and people using a language know the idioms of that language.
Like good logic said severing hands in 538 is not practicable and make no sense.
Novice
-
And that is exactly what it does, fitting well in the context, in 5.38, he or she who appropriates unduly what is not theirs should be cut off the means or possibility of doing such a thing. In order for the means to be physical cutting what should be obviously severed should be the brains not the hands.
(........37
.......and none but people of wisdom reflect.
-
Salaam The Sardar
Both verbs are from the root . Any word derived from a root shows the meaning of the root. The word to focus on in 538 is (hand).
When we say
It is not in my hands, or
Give me a hand, or
How can I help you in this matter as you have cut your hands.we do not use the word "hand" in literal sense but idiomatically.
Every language has idioms and people using a language know the idioms of that language.
Like good logic said severing hands in 538 is not practicable and make no sense.
Novice
Salam/Peace i check the root word of qataa and it's Qaf-Tay-Ayn ( ع = to cut/sever/disunite/separate/detach, to disable in prosecuting, unable to proceed in, withdrew, break down, perish/cease/finish/fail, cut short / stop, intercepted/interrupted, put an end/stop to, a piece/bit/part/portion cut off from a whole, herd, distinct portion.
qata'a vb. (1)
perf. act. 772, 595, 6946
impf. act. 227, 3127, 87, 9121, 1325, 2215, 2929
impv. 538
perf. pass. 645
pcple. act. 2732
pcple. pass. 1566, 5633qit n.m. 1181, 1565
qita n.f. (pl. of qitah) 1027, 134
qatta'a vb. (2)
perf. act. 7160, 7168, 1231, 1250, 4715
impf. act. 7124, 2071, 2649, 4722
perf. pass. 1331, 2219
impf. pass. 533taqatta'a vb. (5)
perf. act. 2166, 694, 2193, 2353
impf. act. 9110LL, V8 supplement, p 244 ## http//ejtaal.net/aa/#q=qTe
Yes in Project Root List it is in first verb from but i noticed in PRL 6946 the word laqataAAna (ا is in perfect (i.e. action done/completed) and active while in 538 faiqtaAAoo (ا is in imperative which is are verbs used to give orders, commands,warning or instructions, and (if you use "please" to make a request.
-
So what do you think of this Novice?
-
Salam/Peace i check the root word of qataa and it's Qaf-Tay-Ayn ( ع = to cut/sever/disunite/separate/detach, to disable in prosecuting, unable to proceed in, withdrew, break down, perish/cease/finish/fail, cut short / stop, intercepted/interrupted, put an end/stop to, a piece/bit/part/portion cut off from a whole, herd, distinct portion.
qata'a vb. (1)
perf. act. 772, 595, 6946
impf. act. 227, 3127, 87, 9121, 1325, 2215, 2929
impv. 538
perf. pass. 645
pcple. act. 2732
pcple. pass. 1566, 5633qit n.m. 1181, 1565
qita n.f. (pl. of qitah) 1027, 134
qatta'a vb. (2)
perf. act. 7160, 7168, 1231, 1250, 4715
impf. act. 7124, 2071, 2649, 4722
perf. pass. 1331, 2219
impf. pass. 533taqatta'a vb. (5)
perf. act. 2166, 694, 2193, 2353
impf. act. 9110LL, V8 supplement, p 244 ## http//ejtaal.net/aa/#q=qTe
Yes in Project Root List it is in first verb from but i noticed in PRL 6946 the word laqataAAna (ا is in perfect (i.e. action done/completed) and active while in 538 faiqtaAAoo (ا is in imperative which is are verbs used to give orders, commands,warning or instructions, and (if you use "please" to make a request.
I think the tense, the mood are all clear, problem there, but the translations are a mess.
It has already been said by some poster I don't know whether in this thread or another, the verb in Arabic that would properly mean AMPUTATE is b-t-r, that would clinch it.
As it is, is it traslated as cut off, which can be anything in english can be amputate or can be simply cut access, so there can come to you the anti Qur'an cursaders pretending that if a hand is mentionned the only thing you can do with it is amputate it. And the fact that they have no shame in their crusading seems to make tham believe that they have become doctors in Arabic language and in the mind that drafted the Qur'an.
I understand that people want to make sure of things so they are not mislead by or made to shut up by troublemakers, and in fact some of them do participate here and of course are welcome or should be at any rate, but the lack of interest and the insistence on making the Qur'an the champion of nonsense, give away the ill will and need to spite on the Qur'an METAPHORICALLY.
-
Salam/Peace i check the root word of qataa and it's Qaf-Tay-Ayn ( ع = to cut/sever/disunite/separate/detach, to disable in prosecuting, unable to proceed in, withdrew, break down, perish/cease/finish/fail, cut short / stop, intercepted/interrupted, put an end/stop to, a piece/bit/part/portion cut off from a whole, herd, distinct portion.
Salaam The Sardar
The root can be used in many ways eg 227
Red part of the verse is "and cut what Allah has commanded to join"...does not mean to physically cut relations.
"Qata'a as-sabeel means to commit dacoity...does not mean to physically cut the way.
"Qata'a Lisaanuhu means to shut somebody off by giving him a favour...does not mean to physically cut a tongue.
These usages are given as examples in reputed Arabic dictionaries.
Yes in Project Root List it is in first verb from but i noticed in PRL 6946 the word laqataAAna (ا is in perfect (i.e. action done/completed) and active while in 538 faiqtaAAoo (ا is in imperative which is are verbs used to give orders, commands,warning or instructions, and (if you use "please" to make a request.
Any word derived from a root reflects the meanings of the root. Verbs have different forms and their meanings depend upon the usage.
How can you cut hands physically for every stealing/theft? In Quran punishment is equal to the crime. Can you cut 10% of hand for a little theft and 80% for a bigger theft?
Such interpretations make no justification.
Novice
-
Salaam The Sardar
The root can be used in many ways eg 227
Red part of the verse is "and cut what Allah has commanded to join"...does not mean to physically cut relations.
"Qata'a as-sabeel means to commit dacoity...does not mean to physically cut the way.
"Qata'a Lisaanuhu means to shut somebody off by giving him a favour...does not mean to physically cut a tongue.
These usages are given as examples in reputed Arabic dictionaries.
Any word derived from a root reflects the meanings of the root. Verbs have different forms and their meanings depend upon the usage.
How can you cut hands physically for every stealing/theft? In Quran punishment is equal to the crime. Can you cut 10% of hand for a little theft and 80% for a bigger theft?
Such interpretations make no justification.
Novice
That i agree dear brother of Mankind.
-
How can you cut hands physically for every stealing/theft?
Peace,
of course not amputate 538 aydiyahum/hands theirs dual (4 hands) at shoulders.
56 so washes ye of faces yours and hands yours to the elbow
http//corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/5/vers/38?handschrift=163
https//s9.postimg.org/oqqhiwhmn/Ahlwardt_305_ch5v31-41.jpg
-
@Noon waalqalami
4 hands=hands of male and female thief= correct grammar=all hands=you are a liar, and you purposefully omit this
from hand to elbow= nothing unclear in this, hand means hand, elbow means elbow, from hand to elbow, but you people who do not know arabic know better than all people who have arabic knowledge, put doubt in what is clear, and this is all a vast conspiracy from all people who studied arabic in the 14 last centuries ( elektro ). But if all is a conspiracy, why believe in the quran or anything else is the first place?
in 5.38, he or she who appropriates unduly what is not theirs should be cut off the means or possibility of doing such a thing. In order for the means to be physical cutting what should be obviously severed should be the brains not the hands.
The title of the thread, by the way, continues to be very funny for a "progressive" one.
Prison is about the most infamous and corrupting means of correcting anybody. That some people get out corrected is a monument to human capacity to regenerate.Salaam
If you do not cut the hands nor put in prison, how the heck do you cut the means to steal ? you cut the brain? you give psychotherapy? you make the thief "understand"? Well it is nice that you are writing you own qur'an. but. You are idealist and in denial. The quran says "cut the hands" .
If for you "cut the hands" means "do what you can in order to prevent the thief from stealing again according to justice truth and wisdom" you are in a grand, terrible denial.
DARE say to people who lost their hands" they were wrong it meant cutting the means!" or "there is no record of such hand cuttings" !Why do you make of reality your wish?
from free-minds.org the punishment in yusuf story is "1275, "They said, "The punishment, if it is found in his bag, is that the thief belongs to you. We thus punish the guilty."'
slavery must be a lot better ! but of course it isnt slavery because deniers will say "where it is written the word "slave"?" such fools, when reality will catch up to you it will hit you very hard ! i lost too much of my time trying to help you, reality will be sufficient to teach you humility ! i could come in the playground with you and say " where in 538 is written "means to steal"? ignore
BUT this verse does not give instruction at all on how to deal with thieves as it is just a story, but yet again, you deniers will say "this example shows how to behave because yusuf was a prophet!" liars !
here is how the PROPHET Musa deals with shirk
254 And when Moses said to his people, "O my people, indeed you have wronged yourselves by your taking of the calf . So repent to your Creator and kill yourselves. That is best for you in the sight of your Creator." Then He accepted your repentance; indeed, He is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.
SO NOW YOU KNOW HOW TO DO ACCORDING TO YOUR PROPHET bravo , or maybe its only your reasoning being foolish?
of course deniers will write their own quran and invent things like "god ordered him to say this so it doesn't count" no, no such thing is mentioned. I could give other example but not worth the time. Because deniers will deny anything. I don't even know if it is possible or a man to reason someone else who s in denial. But maybe i can bring my brick to the wall which will contribute to your "salvation" pr
Why do you deny cut the hands? because hands can be figurative ? because cut can be figurative? in the figurative verses, context show OBVIOUSLY that is it figurative. NOT in 5 38.
What is obviously figurative in "cut the hands of thieves"? =nothing .
you say it is figurative because it is barbaric and doesn't make sense! because of 21 th century morals ! and this is exactly why people didn't bother that much like you before, because without these morals, they didn't question this CLEAR verse. there is no detail on how to carry the punishment WHATEVER IS THE INTERPRETATION. "There is no details" IS NOT a valid argument."the hands of god are tied down" is OBVIOUSLY figurative.
like other figratives verses. 538=nothing obvious, you say it can't be because of your own reasoning, not because of the qur'anhttps//www.free-minds.org/theft-punishment
Therefore why should someone use 1231 and 1250 to convey the meaning "to mark" and not 533, 7124, 2071, 2649 to convey the meaning "to cut off/amputate"?
you could say the same thing for pretty much every word in the qur'an=utter nonsense
babbling about pluralalready explained several times
Second, what will benefit the one who lost their stolen goods in case they would not recovered them?
irrelevant, stick to the verse
And what would happen if someone were accused mistakenly or maliciously of theft and their hands were cut off? What if someone does not have hands and uses only his brain to plan thefts for their accomplices? This is not a fiction; it happened.
-you are making of the quran writers a lot smarter than they are even if they were probably very smart
- you quranists say YOURSELVES that the quran is general and doesn't go into all details, then protest when something doesn't speak about all possible situations = hypocrites
when no details are given about a simple thing as hand cutting "It can't reasonably be !"
when no details about ramadan, time of the year or how to do it if you live in the north pole "NO PROBLEMS! people will just do their own thing !"infact now that i can read free-minds.org articles from a non brainwashed perspective, i can actually see how they are no better than any christian bull**** article about how the end of the world is going to happen in the next few months or any other crap article in the same vein full of lies in order to persuade naive people suffering from wanttobelievitis; The symptoms from this sickness believe information without checking, and double standards.
example of double standards if someone makes the qur'an false, then examine his claims meticulously, each word, each claim, and if a single argument could save the qur'an, even if this argument is without basis, farfetched or exagerrated, then surely the qur'an is true ! BUT god forbid that they check meticulously interpretations for claims that put the qur'an in good light of the 21th century western world ! no need to check for all translations, all roots, question the meaning, it is clear, even if the qur'an doesn't even say this. You can see it a lot with people believing qur'an has scientifics miracles by dozens. The common denominator of these people is arrogance, they believe our ancestors were retarded people who could not observe or experience life in any way, because they are young and ignorants of things like grzat morals which existed before islam and even before christianity, or the knowledge of ancient greeks about the body space etc..
"barrier between seawater and freshwater" "rain falls from clouds" =incredible allah akbar !
"sun sets in a muddy spring" = this is wrong ! false translation ! (even if it was translated like this for centuries, and the only reason you contest is not linguistics and translation, but only modern science)ask yourself this questions each time a quranists convinces you with his explanation, did you check the facts, or did you swallow it like a good obedient peasant? I can guarantee 100% that you didnt check. Check for real. Or study arabic. You have no right to contradict arabic speakers if you don't study arabic yourselves ! you are only believing one group instead of the other, without ever doing your homework.
Wonder this, are you having double standards? I can guarantee that your reasoning is FULL of it, i am seeing it in almost all your posts ! people would be a lot more civilized when arguing with you if you wern't SO, so, so hypocrite, dishonest and biased. You will probably deny this. in truth did you check the informations? were you not biased towards the qur'an? were not a lot of explanations farfetched? don't imagine my evil voice in your head asking these questions, ask these questions YOURSELF, WONDER, start the truth engine !
i think i won't lose my time anymore on this forum
in the end i will not tell you the quran is wrong
you came here because you refused to swallow something and wanted to be true to yourself, you refused to believe in these barbaric things(Sunna)
Now bear responsibility and free yourself from what other tell you, start your own journey, check the facts of yourself, LEARN for yourself, make your OWN judgement, but still learn from others, AND QUESTION THINGS before believing what others tell you, this is a great lesson from life, even from the qur'an "don't spread rumors!". From now if you don't learn arabic, question things? interpretations etc ... EVEN WHEN THEY FIT YOUR BELIEF, you will NEVER be able to say in front of God " i was truthful while i was on earth".?And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. Verily, the hearing, and the sight, and the heart of each of those ones will be questioned ?
good bye
-
@Noon waalqalami
4 hands=hands of male and female thief= correct grammar=all hands=you are a liar, and you purposefully omit this
from hand to elbow= nothing unclear in this, hand means hand, elbow means elbow, from hand to elbow, but you people who do not know arabic know better than all people who have arabic knowledge, put doubt in what is clear, and this is all a vast conspiracy from all people who studied arabic in the 14 last centuries ( elektro ). But if all is a conspiracy, why believe in the quran or anything else is the first place?
Uh Noon never mentioned anything about a conspiracy.
Edit I decieded it's best i show this
The traditional understanding of 538 is that the penalty for theft is amputation of the hand.
In this post I present arguments that take a different view.
I have categorised my arguments into two categories semantics and pragmatics.
Semantics concerns the grammatical and lexical implications of the text of the verse.
Pragmatics concerns the interpretational and cultural implications of the verse.
Finally, for the sake of a balanced assessment, I give a couple of counter-arguments to my view at the end.
Semantics
(1) The key to a firm understanding of 538 is to deconstruct the word their hands and its place in the verse, for this word reveals more than we would initially suspect. Let us first look at the traditional translation of 538 ?The male thief and the female thief, cut their hands as a reprimand from God. God is mighty, wise.? In Arabic, there are 5 different 3rd person pronouns depending on the number of objects and their gender. The following table gives all 5 pronouns
http//1drv.ms/1QllyAO (Click on link to see table)
As can be seen from the table, Arabic does not distinguish the gender of pronouns in the dual number. These pronouns are suffixed to nouns and verbs. As an example, let us now suffix these pronouns to the noun book
http//1drv.ms/1KwUmdE (Click on link to see table)
In 538, the word in question ( their hands) has the noun in the plural and the pronoun in the dual. That is to say, the word hand is used in the plural to signify 3 or more hands and the pronoun signifies 2 people. Therefore, according to the traditional understanding, we are instructed by God in this verse to cut off 3 or more hands from 2 people. This is nonsensical because the supposed command to sever the hand should be applicable to a single individual, not to two individuals at the same time; that is to say, this command can only be applicable if a man AND a woman commit theft at the same time, and is therefore not applicable if two men commit theft or if two women commit theft etc. As such, in this verse cannot be referring to hands.
(2) Furthermore, the word in Arabic can refer to any part of the human arm; up to and including the shoulder joint. Therefore, it can refer to the hand from the fingertips up to the wrist, or up to the elbow, or up to the shoulder joint. Why do we not see a specification in the verse as to the point at which the thief?s hand should be severed?
(3) The word in Arabic can also refer to sustenance. But it only carries the meaning of sustenance when it is in the plural, not in the singular. As such, re-interpreting the word to mean sustenance instead of hands we re-read the verse as ?The male thief and the female thief, discontinue their sustenance as a reprimand from God. God is mighty, wise.? The sustenance to which I refer here is the sustenance provided by the state to its citizens. We read in several verses of the Quran that the giving of wealth to the needy is a paramount characteristic of the believers, and if the state were to administer this distribution, then it would be in the position to discontinue the sustenance of those who steal.
(4) The word used in 538 can mean in Arabic one of a number of things, of which are to cut, to cut off, and to disconnect. The first meaning is used in 1250 in which the women who were present at the gathering of Joseph?s master?s wife are reported to have cut their hands out of astonishment of Joseph?s beauty. It is reasonable to think that this cutting of theirs was not amputation, but an accidental cutting of their hands in the sense of slash or graze. The second meaning has traditionally been thought to be intended in 538. And finally the third meaning is expressed in 645 where the word is used in an expression to mean disconnected.
Pragmatics
(1) If 538 were meant to be interpreted as amputation of the hand, then it is anomalous in that it is the only verse in the Quran for which amputation is the punishment for a sin. Not even or have been given corporeal punishments as severe as theft; not to mention the greatest sin of them all , which receives absolutely no corporeal punishment whatsoever. I should mention here that although 533 does mention a severing of the hands and feet, it is stated in the impersonal 3rd person sense and is stated as a passive statement meant to be taken as a factitive declaration, not as a command that is to be implemented by the believers.
(2) As briefly mentioned above, there is a lack of provision of specifics of the execution of the command of amputation, namely, from what point of the anatomy should the hand be amputated? why are we given specifics in 56 for ablution but not in something as important as amputation? why is amputation the sole punishment of theft and not of more serious crimes?
(3) The after-effects of amputation will quite likely create more problems than it was meant to solve. The thief concerned will undoubtedly suffer emotional distress at the loss of his/her hand and this will give way to mental disorders such as depression and anxiety in view of their place in society. They will effectively be marked out among the population in which they live on account of being identified as a thief. And of course, not having a hand, their mobility will be affected. Are these factors that are deserving of theft? Furthermore, how is the thief to be redeemed in society with an amputated hand in light of the verse following 538 which states that God forgives those thieves who repent?
(4) Sunni Islam lays down conditional rules for the execution of the command of amputation in 538, as 1) people living in a community must not be living in a state of poverty which might increase their likelihood of theft, if this is not the case, then amputation cannot take place 2) the thief must be a repeating offender 3) the item stolen must be of a given value 4) the thief must be a sane adult with no history of insanity. All these conditional requirements are admirable, for they hinder the execution of amputation. However, we, as a people who use the Quran only as a guide in life, cannot rely on extra-Quranic sources for the implementation or interpretation of religious guidance. And it is the idea itself of having amputation as a punishment for theft that should be analysed for its merits and faults. I argue the latter to be prevailing.
Counter-arguments
(1) In Classical Arabic, it is permissible for the plural to be used in place of the dual when appended to a pronoun. Example, it is permissible to use the plural in reference to the dual as it is considered a liberality in usage. Another example is found in the Quran in 664 where we read where would have otherwise been used. This means that the argument given above about the incomprehension of the plurality of the noun being prefixed to a dual pronoun is invalid only on the grounds that the Author intended to be an instance of liberality in usage.
(2) A similar argument can be levelled against the interpretation of the word as sustenance as that levelled against its interpretation as hands in terms of the lack of the provision of specification of the duration during which the thief?s sustenance should be suspended.
-
slavery must be a lot better ! but of course it isnt slavery because deniers will say "where it is written the word "slave"?" such fools, when reality will catch up to you it will hit you very hard ! i lost too much of my time trying to help you, reality will be sufficient to teach you humility ! i could come in the playground with you and say " where in 538 is written "means to steal"? ignore
BUT this verse does not give instruction at all on how to deal with thieves as it is just a story, but yet again, you deniers will say "this example shows how to behave because yusuf was a prophet!" liars !
Where did you get the reason of Yusuf being a prophet of giving instruction? It's an inspiration from the unseen news if you keep reading to 12102.
