Cutting the thief's hand- the debate raging on
-
I have been watching a debate in the net about this by a group of Koranist.
538, "The male thief, and the female thief, you shall "eqta?u" (in Arabic)Cut their "aydiyahuma"(in Arabic) their hands as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from GOD. GOD is Almighty, Wise."
Previously some people looked at the story of Joseph and the incident of his brothers for an understanding about robberies
- 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 wrong- doers!"
This was used by some to indicate that this is the punishment. A person gets imprisoned or something till he pays or completes a certain period if he can't.
Other have used this
-
When she heard of their malicious talk, she sent for them and prepared a banquet for them she gave each of them a knife and she said (to Joseph), "Come out before them." When they saw him, they did extol him, and (in their amazement) cut their hands they said, "(Allah) preserve us! no mortal is this! this is none other than a noble angel!"
-
So the king said "Bring ye him unto me." But when the messenger came to him, (Joseph) said "Go thou back to thy lord, and ask him, 'What is the state of mind of the ladies who cut their hands'? For my Lord is certainly well aware of their snare."
They then say that cutting the hand is not amputation and so the verse does not mean amputation when it talks about cutting the hand of the thiefs. But cutting it like in wiping or something but not amputating it. Others have said it means to mark the hand with something. Others have said cut their hands mean to prevent them from doing it again by tying their hands. Here they translate cut their hands as meaning to cut them from using their hands and not the hand itself.
As usual differences emerged and slowly the debate ended with no real answer and agreement. We have seen this many times here.
There seems to be a mindset that the Koran came to create a new legal framework for Muslims to follow. And that since the Koran gave directions to the people of Medina penal system there seems to be an assumption that these things are new to the Arabs. But indeed as noted by some secular historians the Quran was not interested in create a new or complete legal framework but was concerned more on moral and ethical issues and religious rituals to achieve salvation. Even when it commented on legal matters it was always for moral and ethical consideration.
Joseph Schact says
Muhammad's legislation, too, was a complete innovation in the law of Arabia. Muhammad, as a prophet, had little reason to change the existing customary law. His aim was not to establish a new legal order, but to teach men what to do in order to achieve their salvation. This is why Islamic law is a system of duties, of ritual, legal, and moral obligations, all of which are sanctioned by the authority of the same religious command. Thus the Qur'an commands to arbitrate with justice, to give true evidence, to fulfil one's contracts, and, especially, to return a trust or deposit to its owner. As regards the law of family, which is fairly exhaustively treated in the Qur'an, the main emphasis is laid on how one should act towards women and children, orphans and relatives, dependants and slaves. In the field of penal law, it is easy to understand that the Qur'an laid down sanctions for transgressions, but again they are essentially moral and only incidentally penal, so much so that the Qur'an prohibited wine-drinking but did not enact any penalty, and the penalty was determined only at a later stage of Islamic law. The reasons for Qur'anic legislation on all these matters were, in the first place, the desire to improve the position of women, of orphans and of the weak in general, to restrict the laxity of sexual morals and to strengthen the marriage tie, to restrict private vengeance and retaliation and to eliminate blood feuds altogether; the prohibition of gambling, of drinking wine and of taking interest are directly aimed at ancient Arabian standards of behaviour.
Its important to note that Schacht was talking about this from a Koranic point of view as he believed hadiths and Islamic law was a later invention that did not exist at the time of Muhammad.
So it useless in my mind to try to find a legal framework that is Koranic. These different differences will never be solved since the Koran did not come to create one and all this attempt to create one is a waste of time. These differences will never be solved because the Koran was not designed to solve these issues. The hadiths in many ways was an attempt to solve this matter. But as Koranist we must know that many of these legal framework were already there or were taken on an ad-hoc basis.
There is nothing called an Islamic state or an Islamic law which is why these terms are never found in the Koran.
-
So your whole argument boils down to you are of the opinion (and Schact) that The Quran was not meant for this, and you provide no Quranic verses/references/reasoning for this opinion.
Sorry, but that isn't going to cut it with most people here.
Background
http//www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm -
Its important to note that Schacht was talking about this from a Koranic point of view as he believed hadiths and Islamic law was a later invention that did not exist at the time of Muhammad.
I do not understand how you concluded this from what he says. To me, he sounds like he makes no difference bewteen Muhammad's legislation (hadith?) and qur'aan's legislation.
-
I do not understand how you concluded this from what he says. To me, he sounds like he makes no difference bewteen Muhammad's legislation (hadith?) and qur'aan's legislation.
This is because he is not a believer in the Koran as Divine. Or at least he doesn't show it to his Western audience. When he says Muhammad, he means the Koran. Schacht does not believe hadith is from Muhammad or even from Muhammad's time. He talks with the assumption that Muhammad is the author of the Koran and so he sees Muhammad's motives and intentions by seeing what the Koran says and what it emphasizes. If you substitute Muhammad with the Koran in his writing you will know what I am saying.
As for as Wakas
Of course I can provide reference from the Koran but we will differ on that too. ;D
I don't think there is a choice. A similar conclusion was reached regarding capital punishment and polygamy. The debate ended with various opinions and nobody found the answer. Its hard to see how there can ever be a legal framework when we can't agree on the most basic issue. Mind you the debate was organized by big time academics who have very good linguistic skills. Yet their arguments and opinions are very similar to the ones over here. There are only so much verses you can debate about. In capital punishment you have maybe 3, in polygamy maybe one or two, in robbery you have maybe 3 or 4 and in adultery you have about 4. Its hard to come up with anything different then what others have come up with given the limited number of verses discussed and nobody has been able to thump anybody else and the difference of opinions are always the same. Only limited family issues there is agreement like who you can marry or not.
You may have your opinion but then others have other opinions and all use the same verses but interpret these verses different. I don't see a way out of this if you ask me. Its the same with the salaat rituals. The same opinions you see here you would find there with some saying two, others 3, others 5 and others believe its all the same regardless. I thought that by having good Arabic knowledge they would be able to reach different conclusions yet its the same as here. No difference whatsoever. In fact the people here seem more advanced.
It doesn't matter whether they have a PHD in Arabic or Islamic history or even Islamic studies. It doesn't matter whether they have memorized the Koran. It doesn't even make a difference even if they have a Phd in Islamic studies and come from a theocratic background. I have seen Shia clerics and Sunni clerics presenting their arguments. They can only support their views if they rely on sources OUTSIDE the Koran. The Koran has only so many verses about these issues. Its the same as the arguments here. Exactly the same.
-
peace Bigmo,
I would like to see verses being referenced for your view, or even articles discussing the view you mention that have actual evidence from Al Quran (AQ). I do not think this request is too difficult.
I don't think there is a choice. A similar conclusion was reached regarding capital punishment and polygamy. The debate ended with various opinions and nobody found the answer. Its hard to see how there can ever be a legal framework when we can't agree on the most basic issue.
Firstly, who says that each situation must only have one option? AQ itself discusses several options for the same thing a few times.
Secondly, if there was disagreement, what's wrong with the court deciding the option by majority vote? If no majority for any, default to the minimum punishment.
Thirdly, the basics are always easy to establish. How much actual work has been done to establish such things based on The Quran by itself? Hardly any as far as I can see, hence the apparent variability in opinion.I am of the view we are living in a Quranic Renaissance period, thus these things will get more and more clarified, and maybe, who knows, culminate in being implemented in part or more somewhere. When you are digging or uncovering buried treasure, sometimes it takes a while to fully uncover the treasure, and during the process of digging deeper and deeper you get glimpses of it, but it takes time to fully ascertain it. ;D
Lastly, I read a book, I think it was "Modern Muslim Intellectuals and The Quran" and Fazlur Rahman, I think, said that when it comes to punishments, there is a specific punishment often mentioned, options sometimes, and along with them often an overview given in terms of direction to head when deciding these things, e.g. 4240.
-
peace Bigmo,
I would like to see verses being referenced for your view, or even articles discussing the view you mention that have actual evidence from Al Quran (AQ). I do not think this request is too difficult.
Firstly, who says that each situation must only have one option? AQ itself discusses several options for the same thing a few times.
Secondly, if there was disagreement, what's wrong with the court deciding the option by majority vote? If no majority for any, default to the minimum punishment.
Thirdly, the basics are always easy to establish. How much actual work has been done to establish such things based on The Quran by itself? Hardly any as far as I can see, hence the apparent variability in opinion.I am of the view we are living in a Quranic Renaissance period, thus these things will get more and more clarified, and maybe, who knows, culminate in being implemented in part or more somewhere. When you are digging or uncovering buried treasure, sometimes it takes a while to fully uncover the treasure, and during the process of digging deeper and deeper you get glimpses of it, but it takes time to fully ascertain it. ;D
Lastly, I read a book, I think it was "Modern Muslim Intellectuals and The Quran" and Fazlur Rahman, I think, said that when it comes to punishments, there is a specific punishment often mentioned, options sometimes, and along with them often an overview given in terms of direction to head when deciding these things, e.g. 4240.
Its not realistic because from banking laws, to border control, to immigration laws, to medical ethics, to marine laws to environmental protection laws, its hard for me to see if anything can be done regarding a legal framework with reference to the Koran. The Koran gives broad guidelines but is very skeletal about a legal framework.
As far as bringing verses from the Koran I can easily do that just look at the verses about what God ordered people and what the prophet's teached. Look at what Abraham was preaching, what Noah was preaching and what Jesus was preaching. Other than Moses and Muhammad its hard to see any legal framework that is based on public policy. Both these religions relied on oral traditions to fill the gap and through that they created a legal framework.
The Koran can be used as an inspiration but beyond that its hard for me to see how this can be done. As far as elections are concerned, yes but thats not necessarily based on the Koran. Thats based on consensus. It can change as time changes. There are guidelines like do not go beyond equivocal response and do not make a society based only on the wealthy. These are guidelines and inspirations, not a legal framework that countries can enact laws over.
One good question. What kind of an economy would the Koran recomend in your mind?
-
peace,
Its not realistic because from banking laws, to border control, to immigration laws, to medical ethics, to marine laws to environmental protection laws, its hard for me to see if anything can be done regarding a legal framework with reference to the Koran.
To prove your point, why not bring the strongest evidence you have (or several of the strongest) and post them, then members can discuss them.
The Koran gives broad guidelines but is very skeletal about a legal framework.
Of course it does, that is its genius. No book can detail every law on every situation possible. It gives us the specifics, and the hikma to determine the rest.
As far as bringing verses from the Koran I can easily do that just look at the verses about what God ordered people and what the prophet's teached. Look at what Abraham was preaching, what Noah was preaching and what Jesus was preaching. Other than Moses and Muhammad its hard to see any legal framework that is based on public policy.
I dont understand the evidence nor the point you are trying to make here. Please clarify.
Both these religions relied on oral traditions to fill the gap and through that they created a legal framework.
What did the people during Muhammad's time and immediately after him have? Did they have oral traditions? They seemed to be very successful.
One good question. What kind of an economy would the Koran recomend in your mind?
I have not studied this topic. However, can you be a bit more specific? Also, if this would be one of your strongest evidences for AQ cannot be used for a legal framework, then feel free to start a separate thread, or you can discuss it here if you want. (see my opening sentence in this post)
-
peace,
To prove your point, why not bring the strongest evidence you have (or several of the strongest) and post them, then members can discuss them.
Of course it does, that is its genius. No book can detail every law on every situation possible. It gives us the specifics, and the hikma to determine the rest.
I dont understand the evidence nor the point you are trying to make here. Please clarify.
What did the people during Muhammad's time and immediately after him have? Did they have oral traditions? They seemed to be very successful.
I have not studied this topic. However, can you be a bit more specific? Also, if this would be one of your strongest evidences for AQ cannot be used for a legal framework, then feel free to start a separate thread, or you can discuss it here if you want. (see my opening sentence in this post)
One of the best way to look at it is for us to ask what was Muhammad's job. This would then gives an understanding of the goal and purpose of the Koran. Prophets have different biographies. If Muhammad was to have remained in Mecca and never had to leave Mecca then the Koran would have probably been different. But there are some things which would not have changed regardless of Muhammad's biography or any other prophet's biography.
It always seems to me that Muslims limit God's plan within the confinements of Muhammad's biography. This is why Sunnis rely on Azbab Al Nuzool. These are narrations that are supposed to give us an idea as to the occassions certain verses came down. They are to tell us when they came down and what were the events on the ground that led to these verses coming down. Azbab Al Nuzool also is intended in giving us an idea as to how these verses were understood and implimented.
Now, why would someone need that kind of information? Anotherwords there is a strong need to have a better understanding of the life of Muhammad and his biography and the events in his life. But none of these issues are discussed in the Koran. Hence the need for Sunni jurist to acquire that information from outside the Koran.
Sunnis also need to know how can we worship God and how we can understand his religion by also looking at how Muhammad performed them and understood them. And since the Koran does not give us that information once again we need to try to find some way to acquire that information. It is precisely for this reason Sunnis will tell you the Koran is not sufficient. The Koran does not give us a better understanding of Muhamamd's life and biography and therefore the Koran is not sufficient on its own for us to understand our religion. Notice the connection between understanding religion and Muhammad's life and biography.
To do that Sunnis need abrogation. Meaning the other prophets' biography is not relevant. Which is why there are only concerned with the verses about obeying the messenger if it relates to Muhammad and only muhammad even though the Koran talks about obedience with reference to many other prophets. They also emphasize the example of the prophet Muhammad without emphasizing the examples of the other prophets. Its strange they would do that given the enormous amount of ink the Koran gives for the other prophets.
But why would the Koran spend so much ink on the other prophets? Why is it that Sunnis are concerned primarily with Muhammad's biography. This then needed reliance on outside information because the Koran does not provide that to the extent they need. But why is that need not fulfilled in the Koran? Another words how much information should there be about a prophet's life in the Koran? And why should that information not be enough?
Many Koranist do not understand the reasons that hadith was needed. Thay are only interested with denying any need for that. But they never seem to ask themselves why Sunnis needed that in the first place.
Why wouldn't the Koran provide that? To answer this we must look at what Muhammad's was sent for in the first place. What was the job and function that God chose him for? This will then tell us what the Koran was concerned about.
And those who believe in Allah and His messengers and do not make a distinction between any of them-- Allah will grant them their rewards; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful 4.152
Say ye "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord We make no difference between one and another of them And we bow to Allah (in Islam)." 2.136
Say We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit 3.84
The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His messengers." And they say "We hear, and we obey (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys." 2.285
Here the Koran seems to warn us about not making any distinctions between the prophets. Sunnis will tell you they don't. But they DO make a distinction between the prophets and they do that based on what they see is the prophetic tradition and biography to follow. That is where their distinction is. The don't believe in the Koran and Sunnah of the prophets, they believe in the Koran and the Sunnah of Muhammad. The Koran meanwhile gives us many Sunnahs of the prophets.
To be able NOT to make a distinction between these prophets there must be a commanilty that is shared by all of them. How else can we not make a distinction unless there is a commanility between all of the prophets. What are these commanilities? What is it that binds all these prophets together? What is it that they all shared?
I think that these are the question we must look at because that will give us what the Koran was sent for and what is its purpose for us. We need to look what the other prophets said and what they preached and what was their biographies and legacies. We need to understand how we can make no distinction between any of God's messengers and prophets and we need to understand why the Muslims have made a distinction between Muhammad and the rest of the prophets and what was their purpose of doing that and what are the consequences of that.
-
I assume your post was addressed to me. If so, I dont quite understand its relevance to what we were discussing. I dont particularly disagree with most of what you said though.
Another words the things that Koranist are not able to do is exactly what hadiths were created to achieve. We attack hadiths without understanding why it appeared in the first place. Thats why we can't agree on any legal framework or a standard religious rituals. Because thats why hadiths were there for. Without it can't be done.
Its very relevant to what we are discussing. These debates we are having occurred from the earliest days of Islam and led to the rise of the proponents of hadiths.
If you believe there is an Islamic state and Islamic law then you are basically admitting that the Koran is not sufficient. If you believe we can have a precise understanding of how we can perform our religious rituals from the Koran then you are also basically admitting that the Koran is not sufficient. It can't be done without a detailed understanding of Muhammad's biography or at least a detailed understanding of any other prophet.
The Koran dooes not provide that. Its that simple.
-
Cutting off the thiefs hand wasn't that hard of punishment in those days. A thief was a disbeliever. When Moses found his people to worship a calf, he told them to kill themselves. Indeed, in modern society we can have lesser punishments, because the damage is less, by theft or idolatry. But in those days, it was different. A people could not tolerate idiocy like idolatry, it would mean their destruction.
-
Cutting off the thiefs hand wasn't that hard of punishment in those days. A thief was a disbeliever. When Moses found his people to worship a calf, he told them to kill themselves. Indeed, in modern society we can have lesser punishments, because the damage is less, by theft or idolatry. But in those days, it was different. A people could not tolerate idiocy like idolatry, it would mean their destruction.
Its not about a hard punishment or not. Capital punishment is accepted today in many parts of the world including the US. However even on that subject there is no agreement. There is no agreement because there is no agreement on how to interpret the Koranic verses regarding that subject. There is only so many verses about that subject and its not possible to reach a consensus on what the Koran says about it.
The same with Zakat even though the payment of taxes ia an accepted form of practice today. So I think the issue here has to do with how verses are interpreted. There is simply not enough ink in the Koran regarding public policy.
-
I have had no problem in understanding it. Only problem is wading through all the nonsense written about these things. Look at the world. All people have had their messengers. The Quran talks about sensible arrangements. They aren't strange rituals to follow. Tax, etc is all in there. Also a mind with good actions to reflect on, is a pure mind, and this is also what the Quran talks about. Good deeds, a clear conscience. Purification. And not only of mind, but of body.
-
peace,
Another words the things that Koranist are not able to do is exactly what hadiths were created to achieve.
And what exactly is it that "Koranist" are not able to do? As I requested earlier, simply bring your strongest example of this, or several of them, then we can discuss and see.
We attack hadiths without understanding why it appeared in the first place.
Perhaps others do, but I have some ideas of why ahadith came about, in fact, not only did I write about this several years ago, the EXACT same point you make, but I have also mentioned it on the forum a few times that if we take what goes on in forum discussion as an example of living in a Quranic era and we can see already the variation in view, thus having it formalised, tied down, made rigid etc gains weight, then come schools of thought, hadiths etc. Supply and demand in action, history repeating itself etc. In this is a sign for those who reflect.
So rather than assuming anything about me, let's stick to an actual evidence based discussion.
Thats why we can't agree on any legal framework or a standard religious rituals. Because thats why hadiths were there for. Without it can't be done.
You state that we cant agree on any legal framework, yet fail to bring any specifics. Further, you assume that there is a standard ritual XYZ, or one size fits all concept, when you haven't even proven this from AQ! In other words, your argument is baseless.
If you believe there is an Islamic state and Islamic law then you are basically admitting that the Koran is not sufficient.
I assume you mean "Islamic law" as per quran+hadith+sunna etc.
If you believe we can have a precise understanding of how we can perform our religious rituals from the Koran then you are also basically admitting that the Koran is not sufficient.
Not sure why you singled out "religious rituals" but in any case so if I believe what AQ says (e.g. it is detailed, clear, self-sufficient, examples of everything) that means I also believe it is not sufficient?
I think you'll find there is a contradiction in your statement.
It can't be done without a detailed understanding of Muhammad's biography or at least a detailed understanding of any other prophet.
The Koran dooes not provide that. Its that simple.
Assumption. Not to mention your reasoning could be classed under several logical fallacies
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
-
I would like to weigh in on a few points randomly with my very limited knowledge of the Quran, so feel free to ignore me. But this has to be said.
Bigmo, saying that we should turn to Hadith because Quran does not provide a detailed framework for legislative purposes seems backwards to me. Quran does not provide nit-picking details on every possibility in life on purpose because what did work for the people of country A yesterday may not work for the people of country B today or the people of country C tomorrow. Also because it is not meant to be a complete and exhaustive set of rules. God in his infinite mercy has only provided us with the basics of how things should be done, the rest is for us to flesh out because remember, Quran was not only meant for the Arabs of the 7th century or for the people of today, but for all people of all times. According to your logic, Quran should have been a scholarly tome with volumes upon volumes which would have made perfect sense to the ancient Arabs, but would have been worse than useless to us. Incidentally, if you are after such a work, I would like to refer you to the Hadiths. Instead of being sheep and looking for guidance and rulings from antiquated man made books, we need to use our own heads and work out what does and doesn't work for us today, in accordance with the basics laid out clearly in the Quran.
So to answer your question in a limited way, God does not care what our border, financial, immigration, medical and environmental protection law books are full of, as long as they contain laws based on justice for all and not just the very few (and rich!)
-
From the QRT
Should Thieves' Hands Be Cut Off?
If non-Muslims "know" anything about Islam, it is that they "know" that the Quran mandates a severe punishment for thieves the cutting off of their hands. Here are three traditional translations of the famous passage followed by our translation
Disputed passage Traditional translations render the punishment for thieves as "cut off," while the verb has other meanings too.
Yusuf Ali As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime and Allah is Exalted in power. (53
Pickthall 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. (53
Shakir And (as for) 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. (53
Reformist The male thief, and the female thief, you shall mark, cut, or cut-off their hands/means as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Noble, Wise. (53
DISCUSSION OF 538
The Quran often uses words with more than one applicable and relevant meaning. This leads to verses that mean two, three, or more things at the same time, verses that make the translator's job exquisitely difficult.
We come now to such a verse. The verb form we translated as "mark, cut, or cut off" comes from a root verb -- QaTa'A ? that occurs in the Quran many times. In almost all of its occurrences in the Quran, this verb means "to sever a relationship" or "to end an act." Only in two instances (1231 and 1250) is this verb clearly used to describe a physical cutting; in another instance (6946), the verb might possibly be interpreted in that way. A related form of this same verb -- one that implies repetition or severity of action -- occurs in the Quran seventeen times. This particular form is used to mean physically cutting off; or as a metaphor for the severing of a relationship; or to describe physically cutting or marking, but not cutting off.
Thus, the verse recommending punishment for theft or burglary, in the context of the Quran and its terminology (and not the terminology or interpretation attributed to Muhammad or his followers) provides us with a single verb ? but one that God has permitted to incorporate a range of possible penalties. For instance
? Cutting or marking the person's hands as a means of public humiliation and identification;
? Physically cutting off the person's hands; or
? Cutting off the person's means and resources to steal and burglarize (presumably through rehabilitation or imprisonment).The act of imposing any of these penalties, or any of their combinations, would of course depend on the facts of each case, the culpability and mental capacity of the accused, and the ability of the society as a whole to act in accordance with God's other instructions in the Quran. Note, for instance, that a Muslim society cannot punish a hungry person for stealing food, since letting a member of the society go hungry is a much bigger crime than the act of stealing food. Such a society actually demonstrates the characteristics of a society of unappreciative people! (See 1071-7; 8917-20; and 906-20). Considering theft solely as an individual crime, and advocating the severest possible interpretation of the Quran in rendering punishment, is neither fair nor consistent with the scripture.
-
I would like to weigh in on a few points randomly with my very limited knowledge of the Quran, so feel free to ignore me. But this has to be said.
Bigmo, saying that we should turn to Hadith because Quran does not provide a detailed framework for legislative purposes seems backwards to me. Quran does not provide nit-picking details on every possibility in life on purpose because what did work for the people of country A yesterday may not work for the people of country B today or the people of country C tomorrow. Also because it is not meant to be a complete and exhaustive set of rules. God in his infinite mercy has only provided us with the basics of how things should be done, the rest is for us to flesh out because remember, Quran was not only meant for the Arabs of the 7th century or for the people of today, but for all people of all times. According to your logic, Quran should have been a scholarly tome with volumes upon volumes which would have made perfect sense to the ancient Arabs, but would have been worse than useless to us. Incidentally, if you are after such a work, I would like to refer you to the Hadiths. Instead of being sheep and looking for guidance and rulings from antiquated man made books, we need to use our own heads and work out what does and doesn't work for us today, in accordance with the basics laid out clearly in the Quran.
So to answer your question in a limited way, God does not care what our border, financial, immigration, medical and environmental protection law books are full of, as long as they contain laws based on justice for all and not just the very few (and rich!)
Who said anything about going back to hadiths. And just because the proponents of hadiths emerged to create a theocracy and an orthodoxy because the Koran does not provide one in no way indicates the authenticity of these hadiths. In fact I do not believe in the authenticity of many of these hadiths for the simple fact that if there is gaps then they would easily fill it up with a fabrication. Why is it that people sometimes put words in people's mouth before asking a question?
I am saying that Koranist who endlessly engage in trying to find a legal framework and standard ritual using the Koran are wasting their time.
Edip's article sums up the various points of view regarding the cutting of the hand issue. Each has just as much evidence from the Koran as the other views. And here lies the problem. Unless we accept that the Koran did not come to establish a theocracy or an orthodoxy then i think we will be adding more fuel to those who claim the Koran is insufficient if we insist that there is a theocracy and an orthodoxy in the Koran.
Wakas's problem is he thinks when I talk about Koranist I am talking about him only. I am talking about the Koranic movement in general and the endless debate about 2 salat, or 3 salat etc or polygamy or capital punishment. You can use the Koran to justify capital punishment and you can use the Koran to abolish it. Each has equal weight. There is not enough ink in the Koran about public policy subject and subjects regarding rituals.
Many Koranist will present their point of view as Koranic only for someone else to also present his view as equally Koranic. Both views have support from the Koran depending how you interpret the verses. People can lean towards one view or the other but they never really can fully justify their view as necessarily correct and the other wrong.
At least thats been my observance.
-
Peace "bigmo",
The weight is not equal for all sides. Dont you agree that the usage of the verb "qata" bro Edip showed above in MOST INSTANCES in the Quran does not indicate physical cutting or even in case of phyjsical cutting giving a superb example of how the women CUT their hands whilst looking at Joseph? Can one honestly say tht they cut their complete hands? SO we should at least agree that te Quran does not allow for the interpretation of completely cutting off the hand. GOD Bless! -
Peace "bigmo",
The weight is not equal for all sides. Dont you agree that the usage of the verb "qata" bro Edip showed above in MOST INSTANCES in the Quran does not indicate physical cutting or even in case of phyjsical cutting giving a superb example of how the women CUT their hands whilst looking at Joseph? Can one honestly say tht they cut their complete hands? SO we should at least agree that te Quran does not allow for the interpretation of completely cutting off the hand. GOD Bless!But maybe the Arabs did physically cut the hands of thiefs and maybe this was the sort of penal system that existed in Arabia before the Koran came down. I know the Persians had a presence there before Islam and I would not be surprised if the Persians enacted this form of punishment.
After seizing a great empire, Darius endeavored to judge it by establishing laws. The empire was divided into twenty provinces, each ruled by a Persian satrap and a commander-in-chief. The Persians were exempted from taxation, and India's gold provided nearly a third of the total annual tribute valued at 14,500 talents of silver. Inspectors called "the ears of the king" kept him informed and had their own armed forces. The laws were intended to keep the stronger from destroying the weak. Judges were appointed for life unless they were removed for miscarriage of justice. Darius claimed that he loved what is right and hated lies and what is wrong, that he was not angry but restrained those who were angry. Those who injured he punished. Those who did not speak the truth he did not trust, believing that anyone who lies destroys. He even withdrew a death sentence when he realized that he had violated his own law not to execute anyone for only one crime; but in weighing the man's services against his crime he ended up making him a governor. However, the death penalty was used for offenses against the state or the royal family, and mutilation was common for lesser crimes.
http//www.san.beck.org/1-6-Persia.html#4
