THEFT PUNISHMENT
-
yes it is ok now .
btw what is L1bis ?peace.
L1bis (Saladin's law) The 2 hands of the thief shall be cut off physically, only if the thief is a repeat offender. Tis punishement shall not be applied if poverty, hunger etc force people to steal.
-
C7 The thief has stolen gold (worth 1 billion dirhams) (for the first time)
Under L1, the 2 hands of the thief shall be cut off.
Under L2, the right hand of the thief shall be cut off.
Under L3, the thief shall be requited accordingly to the circumstances.
Under L1bis, nothing shall be done to the thief.C8 The thief which has stolen the date in C2 has stolen a date again.
Under L1, nothing shall be done to the thief.
Under L2, nothing shall be done to the thief.
Under L3, the thief shall be requited accordingly to the circumstances.
Under L1bis, since he is a repeat offender, the 2 hands of the thief shall be cut off.Still agreed ?
-
C7 The thief has stolen gold (worth 1 billion dirhams) (for the first time)
Under L1, the 2 hands of the thief shall be cut off.
Under L2, the right hand of the thief shall be cut off.
Under L3, the thief shall be requited accordingly to the circumstances.
Under L1bis, nothing shall be done to the thief.if the thief repents and reforms , he will not be punished .
C8 The thief which has stolen the date in C2 has stolen a date again.
Under L1, nothing shall be done to the thief.
Under L2, nothing shall be done to the thief.
Under L3, the thief shall be requited accordingly to the circumstances.
Under L1bis, since he is a repeat offender, the 2 hands of the thief shall be cut off.Still agreed ?
i agree .
looking forward to C9 and C10 .
peace.
-
So, according to you, to mutilate the hands of someone who has only stolen 2 dates, and to do nothing to someone who has stolen 1 billion dirhams gold, is fair / conform to the law of equivalence ???
-
SaLaM Saladin
My dear brother, remember when i presented you a scenario, and how you didnt know how you would feed your family just becoz stole something twice? Do you think God wants that to happen to everyone? Brother, i used to steal a lot of things. Including gold. If you chopped my hand off, i wouldnt have been able to work for my family and bring home an earning. Dont you think that there might be another way of dealing with it without being unfair to the family of the theif?
-
So, according to you, to mutilate the hands of someone who has only stolen 2 dates, and to do nothing to someone who has stolen 1 billion dirhams gold, is fair / conform to the law of equivalence ???
peace.
the theif is forgiven because he repents and reforms his conduct .the law of equivalence does not apply because the punishment for theft has already been prescribed in the koran .
peace.
-
if the thief repents and reforms , he will not be punished .
To reform = To return to a good state; to amend or correct one's own character or habits; as, a man of settled habits of vice will seldom reform.
How much time to you give to the thief to improve his behavior ? 1 week ? 1 month ? 1 year ?
Saladin, according to the law of equivalence, any evil act has to be punished.
And the chance to reform oneself occurs not (only) before, but after the punishment.the law of equivalence does not apply because the punishment for theft has already been prescribed in the koran .
I don't agree (and I don't agree to disagree).
The quran cannot contradict itself by stating the law of equivalence, and not implementing it.Peace
-
salam.
if the thief repents and reforms , he will not be punished .
To reform = To return to a good state; to amend or correct one's own character or habits; as, a man of settled habits of vice will seldom reform.
How much time to you give to the thief to improve his behavior ? 1 week ? 1 month ? 1 year ?
we will know whether he had reformed his conduct or not if he repeats his crime .
the law of equivalence does not apply because the punishment for theft has already been prescribed in the koran .
I don't agree (and I don't agree to disagree).
The quran cannot contradict itself by stating the law of equivalence, and not implementing it.it is not a contradiction , but an exception .
-
salam.
if the thief repents and reforms , he will not be punished .
To reform = To return to a good state; to amend or correct one's own character or habits; as, a man of settled habits of vice will seldom reform.
How much time to you give to the thief to improve his behavior ? 1 week ? 1 month ? 1 year ?
we will know whether he had reformed his conduct or not if he repeats his crime .
Someone who has stolen gold worth 1 billion dirham has to be requited for this evil act.
What you are stating is not conform to the law of equivalence, according to which each evil act have to be requited.the law of equivalence does not apply because the punishment for theft has already been prescribed in the koran .
I don't agree (and I don't agree to disagree).
The quran cannot contradict itself by stating the law of equivalence, and not implementing it.it is not a contradiction , but an exception .
Why would the law requiting steal would be an exception ???
When an interpretation such as yours makes so much difficulties to conform to the quran (not compatible with the law of equivalence, not compatible with the story of Joseph...), it has to be forsaken.
Your are not choosing the best explanation.Cf http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/study.htm
peace
-
the law of equivalence does not apply because the punishment for theft has already been prescribed in the koran .
I don't agree (and I don't agree to disagree).
The quran cannot contradict itself by stating the law of equivalence, and not implementing it.it is not a contradiction , but an exception .
Why would the law requiting steal would be an exception ???
because of 538 .
When an interpretation such as yours makes so much difficulties to conform to the quran (not compatible with the law of equivalence, not compatible with the story of Joseph...),
the story of joseph has nothing to do with 538
http//www.geocities.com/thewisekoran/theft.htm
peace.
-
Salam Fahad, all,
Your article is not complete then subjective. You will assume this responsibility in front of God.
<<The punishment is to cut off from the thieves resources and power. Here you are three reasons supporting this non-literal understanding.>>
No verse in the Koran says any such thing .
The Koran has clearly commanded the hands of the thieves to be cut off in 538 .
Since you don't hold the absolute truth, please, speak only about what you understand from the Reading. Let the readers judge by themselves in the light of the whole Reading.
You wrote
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."'
the verse says that the thief belongs to owners . that is slavery . that was the punishment for theft in the homeland of Josephs brothersYou quote a wrong traditional translation, about your read text
Here is the arabic Text
jazaohu fahuwa jazaohu
Your translation The punishment is that the thief belongs to youJaza reward, compensation, penalty, punishment
"fahuwa" is translated as "is that", but it can refer to "the measuring bowl of the King"
The answer to the first "jazaohu" is the second word
"jazaohu" in the same verse, the whole can mean "his reward/penalty is to compensate for what he has stolen--->the measuring bowl of the King ".
You fail to get the difference between our physical hands and what we did with them. The penalty is about our deed.No answer is needed
Salam
-
salam marie .
can u translate the whole verse 1275 , so i can better understand what u r saying ?"fahuwa" is translated as "is that", but it can refer to "the measuring bowl of the King"
are u saying that fahuwa "can" or "does" refer to the bowl ?
salam.
fahad. -
You wrote
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."'
the verse says that the thief belongs to owners . that is slavery . that was the punishment for theft in the homeland of Joseph?s brothersYou quote a wrong traditional translation, about your read text
Here is the arabic Text
jazaohu fahuwa jazaohu
Your translation The punishment is that the thief belongs to youJaza reward, compensation, penalty, punishment
"fahuwa" is translated as "is that", but it can refer to "the measuring bowl of the King"
The answer to the first "jazaohu" is the second word
"jazaohu" in the same verse, the whole can mean "his reward/penalty is to compensate for what he has stolen--->the measuring bowl of the King ".peace marie .
fahuwa is about the thief .1274 (The Egyptians) said "What then shall be his compensation/penalty, if ye were liars
1275 They said (the brothers)his compensation/penalty, in whose saddle bag was found, therefore he is his compensation/penalty. That is how we compensate/penalise the transgressors
so 1275 says , in whose bag the cup would be found , he himself would be the penalty .
u r saying that fahuwa is about the beaker , which is wrong , which u can see if u read the verses 1278-79 . fahuwa is about the the thief . 1275 is talking about seizing the thief , not the beaker
1278
They said O ruler of the land! Lo! he hath an aged father, so take one
of us instead of him. Lo ! we behold thee of those who do kindness.1279
He said Allah forbid that we should seize save him with whom we
found our property; then truly we should be wrongdoers.do u understand now ?
the above verses also show us that 1275 does not say that the thief will 'work to repay for the stolen beaker' as a penalty . 1278-79 show us that the thief will be seized even after the beaker is found .
so he will not 'work to repay for the beaker' (since the beaker has already been found) . he will be enslaved . he will be the penalty .
not the beaker.
peace.
-
Salam fahad,
We read O you in the caravan, you are thieves! (1270)
They are all concerned by this charge and they answer
1273.They said By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!
You quote this translation
1274 (The Egyptians) said "What then shall be his compensation/penalty, if ye were liars
The translation of Shabir seems more accurate, imho
1274 The callers asked, "What shall be the penalty for it if you prove liars?"
In your translation "What then shall be his compensation/penalty" doesn't make sence because they are all concerned by the charge, then we should read "What then shall be your compensation/penalty, if ye were liars.
I understand "What shall be the penalty for it" as the penalty for stealing the cup.
1275 The brothers replied, "The penalty for it! He in whose bag "the cup" is found it shall be its compensation. Thus we requite the doers of such wrong (in our land)."
"Fahuwa" can refer to the penalty for the the cup.
Indeed 1278-79 show that the thief will be seized but in order to be judged and to decide how he should compensate for his theft/doing.
The cup was restored to his owner (the king) but the robber must pay for his act, for example to pay the equivalent of the value of this cup if it was a gold or silver cup.so he will not 'work to repay for the beaker' (since the beaker has already been found) . he will be enslaved . he will be the penalty .
"he will be enslaved" is only an interpretation based on a wrong reading of 1278-79.
This is my understanding and the God knows best
Salam
-
peace marie .
Salam fahad,
We read ?O you in the caravan, you are thieves!? (1270)
They are all concerned by this charge and they answer
1273.They said ?By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!?
You quote this translation
1274 (The Egyptians) said "What then shall be his compensation/penalty, if ye were liars
The translation of Shabir seems more accurate, imho
1274 The callers asked, "What shall be the penalty for it if you prove liars?"
In your translation "What then shall be his compensation/penalty" doesn't make sence because they are all concerned by the charge, then we should read "What then shall be your compensation/penalty, if ye were liars.
I understand "What shall be the penalty for it" as the penalty for stealing the cup.
1275 The brothers replied, "The penalty for it! He in whose bag "the cup" is found it shall be its compensation. Thus we requite the doers of such wrong (in our land)."
"Fahuwa" can refer to the penalty for the the cup.
the one who shouted ?O you in the caravan, you are thieves!? , called all of those in the caravan because he pretended like he didnt know which one of them was the theif . the brothers were all concerned because they didnt know who among them was the thief . but they said that if one of them is the thief then the missing beaker would (and could only) be found with one of them ( and he himself would be the penalty )
1275 They said (the brothers)his compensation/penalty, in whose saddle bag was found, therefore he is his compensation/penalty. That is how we compensate/penalise the transgressors
Indeed 1278-79 show that the thief will be seized but in order to be judged and to decide how he should compensate for his theft/doing.
The cup was restored to his owner (the king) but the robber must pay for his act, for example to pay the equivalent of the value of this cup if it was a gold or silver cup.how he should compensate was already decided in 1275 . ( and he doesnt need to pay for the beaker that has been restored to its owner )
thats what i understand .
peace .
-
Think and reflect (or contrast with other verses) as the Qu'ran orders you to do.
Personally I agree with the point stated that unlike the punishment for adulterers, the punishment described for theft does not indicate that we should not feel mercy/compassion for the person committing theft.
I personally am of the view that we should make the person work for what they have stolen if they have already spent it/it cannot be recovered. If they stole out of hunger, yes it is better that they could have simply asked, but sometimes desperation gets the best of us, man is born weak, and we should forgive.
As the other person states you will have to answer to God for your interpretation, please do not rush to understand the Qu'ran (as God orders) without careful consideration and examining all different views.
Know, then, that Sublimely Exalted is Allah, the Ultimate Sovereign, the Ultimate Truth. (O Prophet) Hasten not in the learning and implementation of the Message of the Qur'an before a particular revelation to you is completed. These Messages given to you shall be established in stages, but always say, "My Lord! Increase me in knowledge." (7516)
-
Think and reflect (or contrast with other verses) as the Qu'ran orders you to do.
I personally am of the view that we should make the person work for what they have stolen if they have already spent it/it cannot be recovered. If they stole out of hunger, yes it is better that they could have simply asked, but sometimes desperation gets the best of us, man is born weak, and we should forgive.
As the other person states you will have to answer to God for your interpretation, please do not rush to understand the Qu'ran (as God orders) without careful consideration and examining all different views.
Peace,
Those who believe in Allah and trust Him, would know that there is no hunger in Allah?s system on earth.
2080 - O Children of Israel, we delivered you from your enemy, summoned you to the right side of Mount Sinai, and we sent down to you manna and quails.
566 - If only they would uphold the Torah and the Gospel, and what is sent down to them herein from their Lord, they would be showered with blessings from above them and from beneath their feet. Some of them are righteous, but many of them are evildoers.
There is no thief in the story of Joseph; therefore, there can be no punishment for theft in that story.
Commonsense would say fictitious thieve = fictitious punishment.
Just like imaginary money which means nothing.
-
Actually Joseph asks them what is the punishment for theft from the other brothers, and they agree on the stated punishment as being standard. It is an example, and not a special case of fictitious punishment.
Quran guides us to follow the best meaning, and i for one think the best meaning is one of prudence and mercy, and equity. You may think amputation is best, but i think to come to that conclusion you would have to ignore the evidence against that interpretation, and therefore make it not the best.
-
You may think amputation is best, but i think to come to that conclusion you would have to ignore the evidence against that interpretation, and therefore make it not the best.
Peace zenshark,
I don?t make law, I don?t give new law. I simply follow the Quran. And 538 is what my Lord teaches me about the theft. I know some people wish to be kind to the thief/wrongdoer against the God?s judgment, that?s their problem.
538 - As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
We are debating this subject on this thread http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600505.45
If you wish to contribute then click the link, read the thread and contribute. Thanks.