Free-Minds.org is another Sect...like Suni and Shia Sects.

noble

belH, peace
you make me laugh, crack up with laughter,
why do you put words in my mouth or mind,
where did I say that amputating was a Quranic punishment?
in one i said might be used as qasas in case of corruption in the land for disbelievers who inflict this kind of punishment on others, and theft on the usual scale i am thinking about is not corruption in the land by the way -
in other i said stop thief from his mischief... -
stop fooling around, playing games, mocking about, being shifty... take your pick ;D

Peace,
So you agree that
Amputating Hands and Legs is a Quranic punishment.
means "Cut Off"

Here is my logic to 5-33 and 5-38

In 5-33, God prescribed "Cutting of Hand and Leg" as punishment for the ones who seek corruptions in Land. And because God knew that thief seeks corruption in Land, thus, He adjusted his punishment to "Cutting Off Hands only and not Legs", in the verse (5-3 that follows 5-33, so we can relate to the two verses when understanding the meaning.

peace

noble

Peace
533 is a threat which is not necessarily going to be enforced, and it concerns a specific group of people the Prophet was at war with, so let us please stay in context...
538 is an injunction for the believers on the believers, so we need to look at Quran as a whole, and scrutinise what concerns the believers.
That being said, there is a wisdom why this ayat was worded this way, and close to 538, try and think why? and if you understand why, you will understand that cut cannot mean amputate.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace to all,

How did this become a discussion about "amputation" in the Qur'aan? confused

Maybe you guys should continue this debate here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598148.0

Although I'm really enjoying this discussion, and I'm noticing some great points from both sides, this thread should be reserved for ideas regarding "Free-Minds" being sectarian, like Sunnis and Shi'ites.

Peace,

Ahmad

Samia

This is a well known arabic word that means amputation, however, it is not used in Quran.

For he who hateth thee, he will be cut off
1083

Samia

Peace all,
Samia, I will point to you the point that I disagree with 100%
All the other points you raised make sense and should be studied further;

Then, this is definitely because you know how to cook without having to amputate your hand every time your mother in law drops in unexpectedly ;D

Does that mean that God increased the Punishment in Quran, as He decreased it with Adultery?
Can "Cutting the Hands" of the Thief (which the correct translation) means something different than "the Act to physical Cut"?
If someone stole 50 billion Dollar (or even a million dollar), How can He repay?

God replaced the old verses by better ones...or at least leaves it as is. Cutting off a hand/amputating it is not better, since we have a lesser punishment for adultry

Whatever verse/ sign We copy or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than that or the like thereof (2103).

I agree; however it supports that the "Physical Cutting" is the correct meaning when translating 5-38.

We have to think of other principles an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth...
so how much for a hand? $100.00; a $1000; $10,000 ...etc, all have the same recompense? nope

Now, can you translate

29-5

1- Recompense is according to kind of action (i.e good action gets a good recompense; bad one a bad recompense)
2- 5 29 I would rather you bear/ be charged with my sin and yours and thus be of hell dwellers. This is the recompense of those who harm others/ who do harm

belH

Peace to all,

How did this become a discussion about "amputation" in the Qur'aan? confused

Maybe you guys should continue this debate here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598148.0

Although I'm really enjoying this discussion, and I'm noticing some great points from both sides, this thread should be reserved for ideas regarding "Free-Minds" being sectarian, like Sunnis and Shi'ites.

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace,
The matter regarding if Free.minds.org is a Sect (i.e., Religious Group with a unique doctrine) is obvious. Now we are discussing whither They are flawless Sect or they are just like Suni and shia.

For he who hateth thee, he will be cut off
1083

is a NOUN and not a Verb...moreover, changed the meaning of the , and even changed the way we pronounce .

Now, can you tell us why Free-minds.org have translated 5-33 and 5-38 differently?

Peace
533 is a threat which is not necessarily going to be enforced, and it concerns a specific group of people the Prophet was at war with, so let us please stay in context...
538 is an injunction for the believers on the believers, so we need to look at Quran as a whole, and scrutinise what concerns the believers.
That being said, there is a wisdom why this ayat was worded this way, and close to 538, try and think why? and if you understand why, you will understand that cut cannot mean amputate.

Well, I respect your Logic in this, however, it is not based on Quran...You are speculating that even 5-33 calls for cutting of the hands and legs, this was a warning and not actual punishment.
My point here is Why Free.minds.org are translating the exact "Arabic Words" Differently in 5-33 and in 5-38?...As you know, Feeding your understanding when translating is Wrong, and we should Translate Word by Word and let the Reader decide the meaning. However, this prove my Point that Free.Minds.org is a Sect.

Peace

Wakas

1275 says

is an equational sentence, with two parts
is the subject
is the predicate.
is for humans, so the subject is human, implies that the predicate should be about a human.
So, in this verse can only be human/ he.

Are you running away from my questions BelH?

Q_student

Peace Q_S
If you take the ayah on theft and equate cut off as chop off, then the meaning is amputate both hands of each individual.
So if you do not, and that is the meaning, you are disobeying Allah in His book...
What the Scholars did, they found (oh how handy and fortunate) convenient hadith that explain this ayat as follows

steal first strike cut right hand
steal second strike cut left foot
steal fourth strike cut left hand
steal fifth strike cut head...
hmmm...
very imaginative isn't it, Pinochet, Stalin, Hitler, Gengis Khan, Julius Caesar, Nebuchdenazar, and other Taghuts cannot think better!

Ma3azallah !
you can change the Aya or you can call Allah as Hitler ,Stalen etc.Actually it is Fatoor of your imagination and mind.I told you you are not Free -mind rather a complete Mind Free one.
You do not understand such a minor thing that that these are "Hudood" which means extreme puniishments.Which
1Lesser punishment can be given to any person according to severity of charge.
2After these extreme punishments ,no further punishments can be given.
Moreover look at the crime rate in Saudi Arabia as compared to the developed counteries by whome you seem to be impressed

Table 4 2002 Total Recorded Crimes, Ranked by Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants

Rank
Nation
2002 Crime Rate

1
Iceland
21,211. 97

2
Sweden
13,836. 67

3
United Kingdom
11,014. 38

4
Finland
10,005. 65

5
Belgium
9,421. 74

6
Denmark
9,137. 07

7
Netherlands
8,813. 57

8
Canada
8,025. 37

9
Germany
7,888. 23

10
Austria
6,863. 95

11
South Africa
5,918. 73

12
Luxembourg
5,866. 22

13
Malta
4,287. 91

14
Switzerland
4,219. 90

15
Slovenia
4,159. 73

16
Hungary
4,141. 96

17
United States
4,118. 76

18
Uruguay
3,987. 21

19
Italy
3,868. 17

20
Chile
3,810. 36

21
Argentina
3,674. 70

22
Poland
3,672. 89

23
Czech Republic
3,650. 04

24
Lithuania
2,670. 68

25
Maldives
2,448. 08

26
Croatia
2,281. 14

27
Japan
2,244. 39

28
Portugal
2,145. 62

29
Latvia
2,109. 88

30
Slovakia
1,996. 15

31
Cyprus
1,702. 35

32
Mexico
1,503. 71

33
Romania
1,400. 02

34
Belarus
1,338. 71

35
Tunisia
1,332. 94

36
Costa Rica
1,021. 39

37
Morocco
957. 13

38
Republic of Moldova
853. 16

39
Kuwait
831. 19

40
Panama
716. 26

41
El Salvador
697. 55

42
Peru
604. 21

43
Oman
464. 22

44
Saudi Arabia
386. 54
45
Bolivia
353. 48

46
Azerbaijan
189. 92

47
Albania
168. 35

48
Philippines
107. 30

49
Myanmar
37. 51

50
Nepal
36. 78

Source http//www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0347.htm

Regards

belH

1275 says
Are you running away from my questions BelH?

Ask samia if there are two (2) Hwa in the "two red arabic words" or not? Further, ask her if one belongs to the Thief and one belongs to the Cup or not?

For your Question whither the Servants of Joseph knew about the Plot or No, and the punishment of Stealing, please read the following (http//www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen44.pdf)

(Gen 44-1 to 17) And he commanded the steward of his house, saying, Fill the men's sacks food, as much as they
can carry, and put every man's money in his sack's mouth.

And put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack's mouth of the youngest, and his corn money. And he did
according to the word that Joseph had spoken.

As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their asses.

when they were gone out of the city, not far off, Joseph said unto his steward, Up,
follow after the men; and when thou dost overtake them, say unto them, Wherefore have ye rewarded evil for good?

not this in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth? ye have done evil in so doing.

And he overtook them, and he spake unto them these same words.

And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing

Behold, the money, which we found in our sacks' mouths, we brought again unto thee out of the land of Canaan how then should we steal out of thy
lord's house silver or gold?

With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my lord's bondmen.

And he said, Now also it according unto your words he with whom it is found shall be my servant; and ye shall be blameless.

Then they speedily took down every man his sack to the ground, and opened every man his sack.

And he searched, began at the eldest, and left at the youngest and the cup was found in Benjamin's sack.

Then they rent their clothes, and laded every man his ass, and returned to the city

And Judah and his brethren came to Joseph's house; for he yet there and they fell before him on the ground.

And Joseph said unto them, What deed this that ye have done? wot ye not that such a man as I can certainly divine?

And Judah said, What shall we say unto my lord? what shall we speak? or how shall we clear ourselves? God hath found
out the iniquity of thy servants behold, we my lord's servants, both we, and also with whom the cup is found

And he said, God forbid that I should do so the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my servant; and as for you, get
you up in peace unto your father.

Q_student

Peace Brother
In this story of Hazrat Yousaf AH ,his brother was not a thief in any category. Rather whole technique was told by Allah to make join both brothers again. How this analogy is likely to be applied to Practical and well versed thieves.

The very next verse

1276

All this technique was under Allah's guidance ,and it was not a case of theft.
2Seizing of anyperson in return of the so called "theft" was not a LAW in the PRophet Yousaf's Regime Rather it was some religional law which was prevalent in Yousaf's paternal area. What was its Divine punishment at that time ,quran is silent.

Regards

belH

Peace Brother
In this story of Hazrat Yousaf AH ,his brother was not a thief in any category. Rather whole technique was told by Allah to make join both brothers again. How this analogy is likely to be applied to Practical and well versed thieves.
Regards

Peace,

I know...and that is why I told Wakas that the article he mentioned (http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm) is wrong when using Yousuf's Brother punishment to cancel out the punishemnt in 5-38...Wakas did not believe me when I told him that "There is No Thief in the Story, but a Plot by Yousuf".

Anyway, I hope that Wakas and the readers, after reading Gen 1 to 17, can understand that the author of the Article is clueless about Yousuf's Story. (the punishment for thief was Death according to the Brothers, and take the thief as a Slave according to Yousuf)

Here is where the author is making a lie

Began Quote
It should be said however that the only working example given in The Quran of theft and its punishment is in the story of Joseph, in which option 3 is done by detaining the one guilty of theft, so that they can work to repay/compensate for the theft.

They said, "By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!"
He said, "What shall be the punishment, if you are not truthful?"
They said, "The punishment is that the person who has it in his bag, he shall be the penalty for it. It is such that we punish the wicked."

End Quote

The author Forgot that the Sliver Cup was Found, thus, why did the author think that the Thief, when there was no thief, would work to repay for the Cup, when there was no missing Cup?

Peace

Q_student

Peace,

I know...and that is why I told Wakas that the article he mentioned (http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm) is wrong when using Yousuf's Brother punishment to cancel out the punishemnt in 5-38...Wakas did not believe me when I told him that "There is No Thief in the Story, but a Plot by Yousuf".

Anyway, I hope that Wakas and the readers, after reading Gen 1 to 17, can understand that the author of the Article is clueless about Yousuf's Story.

Peace

Peace Brother
Allah uses the words

It shows Allah revealed to him to adopt this technique.This is not a case of Theft At all.

Samia

is a NOUN and not a Verb...moreover, changed the meaning of the , and even changed the way we pronounce .

confused
is a verb. But when your thieves got caught red handed , and since we do not have a limit up to where the arm/hand ( ) has to be chopped off; and suppose one was sentenced by a judge who believes in chopping off the fingers, and the other unlucky thief got his hand completely chopped off, he is than the first one/ more amputated. Got the relation between the two words?
And why do you expect to find the verb in the qur'aan? Don't you get the message? God is not chopping anything from any body; and at the same time he wants to tell Belal that this word existed at the time of the revelation and with that meaning and that the people understood it, so don't be argumentative and stop chopping off hands

Samia

Ask samia if there are two (2) Hwa in the "two red arabic words" or not? Further, ask her if one belongs to the Thief and one belongs to the Cup or not?

There are two pronouns, not two Hwa. The pronoun suffixed to is not pronounced hwa but hu, and it is not a subject, and cannot be a subject. It refers to the king's cup.
The "hwa/ ", which is isolated (not suffixed to any word) is the subject and refers to (/ whoever) as in whoever the cup is found in his bag, he ( )is its recompense

belH

confused
is a verb. But when your thieves got caught red handed , and since we do not have a limit up to where the arm/hand ( ) has to be chopped off; and suppose one was sentenced by a judge who believes in chopping off the fingers, and the other unlucky thief got his hand completely chopped off, he is than the first one/ more amputated. Got the relation between the two words?
And why do you expect to find the verb in the qur'aan? Don't you get the message? God is not chopping anything from any body; and at the same time he wants to tell Belal that this word existed at the time of the revelation and with that meaning and that the people understood it, so don't be argumentative and stop chopping off hands

I do not disagree that means cut off, however the word " " has the same meaning and was used in the Quran, as in 5-33 (as free-minds.org translate it to "cut off&quot and as clearly means "Cut Off" in this verse

Progressive Muslims
I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, then I will crucify you all.
7124

Why are you running away from answering my Question Why Free-minds.org are translating 5-33 different from 5-38?

Peace Brother
Allah uses the words

It shows Allah revealed to him to adopt this technique.This is not a case of Theft At all.

Agree

belH

There are two pronouns, not two Hwa. The pronoun suffixed to is not pronounced hwa but hu, and it is not a subject, and cannot be a subject. It refers to the king's cup.
The "hwa/ ", which is isolated (not suffixed to any word) is the subject and refers to (/ whoever) as in whoever the cup is found in his bag, he ( )is its recompense

Well, One is for the Cub and one for the thief, as I said before.

However, Yousuf's Brother story is not and cannot be used to cancel out 5-38 as I showed the reasons before.

Q_student

confused
is a verb. But when your thieves got caught red handed , and since we do not have a limit up to where the arm/hand ( ) has to be chopped off; and suppose one was sentenced by a judge who believes in chopping off the fingers, and the other unlucky thief got his hand completely chopped off, he is than the first one/ more amputated. Got the relation between the two words?
And why do you expect to find the verb in the qur'aan? Don't you get the message? God is not chopping anything from any body; and at the same time he wants to tell Belal that this word existed at the time of the revelation and with that meaning and that the people understood it, so don't be argumentative and stop chopping off hands

Peace
Evidence Please

Regards

belH

Peace all,
As were showed, 1276 cannot be used to show the punishment of Theft.
Thus, Free-minds.org Is wrong when stating the following in their Welcome Page

In Islam, Thieves do not have their hands cut-off, but are made to work until they return that which is stolen (1276), Vs. Sunni and Shia teachings which brutally amputate the hands causing disability...

noble

Peace Q_S
In many such rich arab countries, the leaders get away with massive plundering and theft, and they do not get their hands chopped off...
you are quoting a hypocritical system, and you know what the Quran says about those who lean with the hypocrites ;D

Peace all
belH, I too am not fully satisfied with the translation of free-minds of 538. Cutting from their resources is a possibility, but a more general and open possibility would be stopping their hands or stopping them from doing it (as a common meaning for cut is stop or stop from).

Now about 533, it is in fact well translated, and if you keep the 538 with cut-off but with the understanding that the cut-off of 538 is Stop and the Cut-off of 533 is amputate, then it is perfect, because those two ayahs are addressing several audiences at the same time for several reasons (this is Allah's deep and subtle wisdom that you do not understand).

therefore think a bit more...

Wakas

peace BelH,

It seems you are deliberately being obtuse in your responses. I asked you very simple questions. So, let me provide a summary for you and the readers

Bel "I understand Arabic very well because it is my natural language (All my studies, except for graduate, were in Arabic)" H, has provided 5 versions of 1275 so far (replies 184, 205, 221, 225, 230, and still has NOT provided one that is acceptable to the Arabic.

Ask samia if there are two (2) Hwa in the "two red arabic words" or not? Further, ask her if one belongs to the Thief and one belongs to the Cup or not?

The "hwa/ ", which is isolated (not suffixed to any word) is the subject and refers to (/ whoever) as in whoever the cup is found in his bag, he ( )is its recompense.

Well, One is for the Cub and one for the thief, as I said before

After making basic errors that even I know, as a non-Arabic speaker, he fails to clarify what his 6th version of 1275 is. Let's hope he can get it right this time, so we can actually have an accurate discussion.

Tried to justify "JZY" meant "punishment" but when cornered for evidence, declined to answer several times. Then changed his mind and now thinks it means something else.

Tried to justify from The Quran others knew about the plot of Joseph (see his replies 215, 217, 234) but when cornered and asked for explanation of his evidence (see my replies 212, 227) he provides no explanation and apparently abandons what he said previously. It is hard to tell since he fails to answer directly.

When asked by me (I put it simply as I could)

Who knew about the plot (i.e. how Joseph was going to keep his brother)?
Joseph yes/no? (if you answer yes, please provide specific Quranic evidence)
Joseph's helpers yes/no? (if you answer yes, please provide specific Quranic evidence)
Joseph's brother yes/no? (if you answer yes, please provide specific Quranic evidence)
sons of Jacob yes/no? (if you answer yes, please provide specific Quranic evidence)
Jacob yes/no? (if you answer yes, please provide specific Quranic evidence)

He responds by quoting Genesis! In other words, he has no Quranic evidence whatsoever for his view. We are still waiting for a clear answer from him as to who knew about the plot. Once we know this, then we can apply some logic to see if his view holds weight.

Fails to address the illogical switch from plural to singular to plural by Joseph's helpers- but this is related to who knew about the plot according to him, so we cant conclude anything until he clarifies.

###############################################

I think I have an idea as to why the problem, and since this discussion is about a cup, I thought this wisdom might be apt

A learned man once went to a Zen teacher to inquire about Zen. As the Zen teacher explained, the learned man would frequently interrupt him with remarks like, "Oh, yes, we have that too...." and so on.
Finally the Zen teacher stopped talking and began to serve tea to the learned man. He poured the cup full, and then kept pouring until the cup overflowed.
"Enough!" the learned man once more interrupted. "No more can go into the cup!"
"Indeed" answered the Zen teacher. "Like this cup, you are full of your own opinions and speculations. If you do not first empty your cup, how can you taste my cup of tea?""

I'm out peace