Cut thief's hand off is more logical
-
I recommend http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm
Whatever it look like steps to the logical
-
Cutting off the hand is far to harsh of a penalty for the thief.
What if the thief is a farmer and has children and loses his/her hand
due to a theft offense, would that be an undue hardship on the children?
Identifying the thief by marking the hand should be deterrent enough
in societies were character is important.God knows best
Peace
-
Assalamualaikum
Praise to Allah AlMighty
After reading Monotheist Translation, in verse 538, it say to cut off their resources not hands.
After I though again, It's more better to cut their handIn Saudi Arabia, the thieves had their hand cut off by excutioner in the middle of the crowd and it piece of hands was hanged so the crowd can see its.This punishment is more effective, so the Saudis must be feared and think again if they want to stole.
If cut the resources, the example is a boy stole 5$, as punishmend he must give its back and cut boy's resources to 5$, its not effective, if someday that boy did the thievery again, cause his hands still in place and how if the people still did the same, cause, they're not feared of hard punishment, punishment is too soft.
so Whats your opinion?
Salaam ;D
Punishment in the Quran is based on the law of proportionality (eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth and a soul for a soul) and not deterence. Its about the punishment being equal to the crime and not prevention of crime. Deternce often means a punsihment far greater than the crime to create a sense of fear. justice is not about harshness or prevention as much as its about fairness.
Therefore however you interpret (cut their hands) must be consistent with the law of equity(qist) as the Quran orders. If a person inflicted a harm equal to a loss of a hand than the punishment you talked about is proper. Otherwise what you are prescribing is an eye for ane ye lash and a tooth for a jaw. That is against the teachings of the Quran.
Proportionality is a principle in law which covers two distinct (although related) concepts. Within municipal (domestic) law it is used to convey the idea that the punishment of an offender should fit the crime. Under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, proportionality and distinction are important factors in assessing military necessity.
In European Union law there generally acknowledged to be four stages to a proportionality test, namely,
there must be a legitimate aim for a measure
the measure must be suitable to achieve the aim (potentially with a requirement of evidence to show it will have that effect)
the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it
the measure must be reasonable, considering the competing interests of different groups at handIt is, however, often seen that the third and fourth criterion are often merged into one by the European Court of Justice, depending on the margin of discretion that the Court sees as being afforded to the member state. Examples are found in R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment, where the ECJ points out that a member state has some discretion in the policies it pursues, surrounding unfair dismissal, in reducing unemployment. Further examples of the proportionality test are seen in Mangold v Helm and K?c?kdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG.
Municipal law
Within law, the principle of proportional justice is used to describe the idea that the punishment of a certain crime should be in proportion to the severity of the crime itself. In practice, systems of law differ greatly on the application of this principle. In some systems, this was interpreted as lex talionis, (an eye for an eye). In others, it has led to a more restrictive manner of sentencing. For example, all European Union countries have accepted as a treaty obligation that no crime warrants the death penalty, whereas some other countries in the world do use it.In self-defense cases, the amount of force employed by the defender must be proportionate to the threatened aggressive force. If deadly force is used to defend against non-deadly force, the harm inflicted by the actor (death or serious bodily harm) will be greater than the harm avoided (less than serious bodily harm). Even if deadly force is proportionate, its use must be necessary. Otherwise, unlawful conduct will only be justified when it involves the lesser harm of two harmful choices. If countering with non-deadly force or with no force at all avoids the threatened harm, defensive use of deadly force is no longer the lesser evil of only two choices. Alternatives involving still less societal harm are available.
In United States Law, the United States Supreme Court proposed the Proportionality Doctrine in three cases during the 1980s, namely Enmund v. Florida (1982), Solem v. Helm (1983) and Tison v. Arizona (1987), to clarify this key principle of proportionality within the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The fundamental principle behind proportionality is that the punishment should fit the crime. In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that courts must do three things to decide whether a sentence is proportional to a specific crime
1.Compare the nature and gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty,
2.Compare the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; i.e., whether more serious crimes are subject to the same penalty or to less serious penalties, and
3.Compare the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)
This explains why when it comes to premeditated murder the Quran allowed capital punishment (soul for a soul) but allowed a lower punishment of exile from the community. The punishment can go lower than the crime but never higher. We are told to fight the non believers like they fight us but never to transgress. But we are also told that forgiveness is a charity. Under no circumstance can we go overboard. In the case of manslaughter (unintentional murder) the Quran says there must be some monetary compensation but also allowed charity. This is the Quran's understanding of justice.
Only when it came to adultery and slandering did the Quran allowed exception to this rule. It used deterence against slandering by its inistence that the slanderer needs to get multiple witnesses or else he can be held accountable. This was done as a deterence. To deter people from slandering since in Arab societies slandering a women by itself can create enormous harm to the woman and her family (honor killing etc). So deternce can only be used as an exception to prevent harm, but once a harm is done than the punishment must be equal(qist) to the harm done.
-
There are conditions for cutting the hand off under Sharia law
Because cutting off the hand is a serious matter, it should not be done for just any case of theft. A combination of conditions must be fulfilled before the hand of a thief is cut off. These conditions are as follows
1- The thing should have been taken by stealth; if it was not taken by stealth, then the hand should not be cut off, such as when property has been seized by force in front of other people, because in this case the owner of the property could have asked for help to stop the thief.
2- The stolen property should be something of worth, because that which is of no worth has no sanctity, such as musical instruments, wine and pigs.
2- The value of the stolen property should be above a certain limit, which is three Islamic Dirhams or a quarter of an Islamic Dinar, or their equivalent in other currencies.
3- The stolen property should have been taken from a place where it had been put away, i.e., a place where people usually put their property, such as a cupboard, for example.
4- The theft itself has to be proven, either by the testimony of two qualified witnesses or by the confession of the thief twice.
5- The person from whom the property was stolen has to ask for it back; if he does not, then (the thief?s) hand does not have to be cut off.
In certain cultures, the punishment for cutting hand off may be sensible. eg. middle east. Some apologists claim that quran does not tell you to cut off the hand because "it's not sensible". Well, at the period of Muhammad, it was indeed sensible for such a punishment to be carried out. Don't forget capital punishment only began to be outlawed not long ago.
-
Peace solomon.
" cut the hand off" of the thief in Qoran has the same meaning as "they cut their hands" in sura 12. You know the women from the banquet/party thrown by the wife of the aziz!. Do you think they cut their hands completely off? OR MARKED THEIR HANDS?
How can " cutting the hand" completely be sensible at any time?
Peace.
-
There are conditions for cutting the hand off under Sharia law
In certain cultures, the punishment for cutting hand off may be sensible. eg. middle east. Some apologists claim that quran does not tell you to cut off the hand because "it's not sensible". Well, at the period of Muhammad, it was indeed sensible for such a punishment to be carried out. Don't forget capital punishment only began to be outlawed not long ago.
I was refering to whether the interpretation you have in mind is consistent with the Quranic teachings about justice. The Quran can not in the end contradict itself.
-
Peace solomon.
" cut the hand off" of the thief in Qoran has the same meaning as "they cut their hands" in sura 12. You know the women from the banquet/party thrown by the wife of the aziz!. Do you think they cut their hands completely off? OR MARKED THEIR HANDS?
How can " cutting the hand" completely be sensible at any time?
Peace.
Peace good logic,
Now whether it means marking or cutting depends on Arabic language, which I'm not an expert at. 90% of the Arabic translators translate it as cutting, so I presume the weighting is more on the cutting side.
Even if it means marking, to mars someone's hand, you need to cut it, right? So basically what you are arguing is the severity of the cutting punishment.
-
I was refering to whether the interpretation you have in mind is consistent with the Quranic teachings about justice. The Quran can not in the end contradict itself.
If we already have a preconception on what justice is, why do we need the Quran?
If we don't think that Quran is being just in this case (I don't), we simply have to admit it. We're given freedom to choose and apply verses according to the time and space we're living in (3955). IMO this is better than finding alternative meanings. It is only normal that 7th century norms would not be considered suitable for 21st century.
-
Peace solomon.
Thanks for your answer.
Quote Now whether it means marking or cutting depends on Arabic language, which I'm not an expert at. 90% of the Arabic translators translate it as cutting, so I presume the weighting is more on the cutting side.
Since you presume and make assumptions it is not worthwhile debating this subject with you.
Peace to you.
-
If we already have a preconception on what justice is, why do we need the Quran?
If we don't think that Quran is being just in this case (I don't), we simply have to admit it. We're given freedom to choose and apply verses according to the time and space we're living in (3955). IMO this is better than finding alternative meanings. It is only normal that 7th century norms would not be considered suitable for 21st century.
I don't think you understood what I said. I am not saying that the interpretation people usually associate with that is just or npot. I said it violates the Quranic law of proportional justice. I detect you have a hard time understanding what i am saying.
Let me put it this way. How do you understand the law of qisas and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?
So a hand for a ......?
-
Peace solomon.
Thanks for your answer.
Quote Now whether it means marking or cutting depends on Arabic language, which I'm not an expert at. 90% of the Arabic translators translate it as cutting, so I presume the weighting is more on the cutting side.
Since you presume and make assumptions it is not worthwhile debating this subject with you.
Peace to you.
Peace good logic
That is a logical assumption. Don't be arrogant and think you know more than the learned Arabic translators. Only after human rights considerations began to seep into muslims, some "reformists" began translating this as "marking". ALL previous translators translated this as cutting.
-
I don't think you understood what I said. I am not saying that the interpretation people usually associate with that is just or npot. I said it violates the Quranic law of proportional justice. I detect you have a hard time understanding what i am saying.
Let me put it this way. How do you understand the law of qisas and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?
So a hand for a ......?
Yes, I do agree with you it violates the law of proportional justice.
But is proportional justice always reflected in quranic punishments?
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"
eg. Does the above punishment reflect proportional justice?
-
-
As is the usual thing with this poster solomon, the aya is completely mistranslated. There is no punishment in that aya and nobody is told to do anything to anybody nor to inflict anybody with any punishment.
Dirthy or filthy posting that is.
Salaam
Please do not throw ad hominems. It only exposes the upbringing you may've had.
I see no indication that this verse refers to anything other than a punishment. A disproportionate punishment that is.
-
Yes, I do agree with you it violates the law of proportional justice.
But is proportional justice always reflected in quranic punishments?
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"
eg. Does the above punishment reflect proportional justice?
The Talmud (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud) text of Sanhedrin 37a restricts the duty to save life to saving only Jewish lives.
The book on Hebrew censorship, written by Jews themselves (Hesronot Ha-shas), notes that some Talmud texts use the universalist phrase
"Whoever destroys the life of a single human being...it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being ...it is as if he had preserved an entire world."
However, Hesronot Ha-shas points out that these are not the authentic words of the original Talmud.
In other words, the preceding universalist rendering is not the authentic text of the Talmud and thus, for example, this universalist version which Steven Spielberg in his famous movie, Schindler's List attributed to the Talmud (and which became the motto of the movie on posters and in advertisements), is a hoax and constitutes propaganda intended to give a humanistic gloss to a Talmud which is, in its essence, racist and chauvinist hate literature.
In the authentic, original Talmud text it states that "whoever preserves a single soul of Israel, it is as if he had preserved an entire world" (emphasis supplied). The authentic Talmud text sanctions only the saving of Jewish lives.
The Koran tells us about this and condemns this
5.32 On that account We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land
URL http//able2know.org/topic/157270-1
The Quran is once again reminding us that justice should be based on a soul for a soul and an eye for an eye and not a thousand eye for an eye (Judaism) or an eye for an eye lash (Islam).
But to understand that verse you need to look at the community the Quran is refering to. In this case its the Israelite community. What the Talmud did was limited that verse to the Israelites. Since a Jewish live now is equal to the whole world, than if a crime is commited against a Jew than the punishment can be collective. A Jewish eye for a thousand gentile eye. Since saving a Jewish eye is equivalent to saving the whole world's eye. The Quran here is talking about premediated murder and it does so explicitly. this is spereate from manslaughter where the Quran stipulated financial compensation since it was unintentional. But it also allowed relieving as a charity. However in intentional murder the Quran allwed capital punishment but allowed exile from the community as a lower ceiling. A person who intentionally kills can not be allowed to go free like manslaughter since he is capable of doing the same thing again. The highest ceiling can not go above capital punishment for premediated murder. A soul for a soul but it can go less like being exiled from the community. This is why some countries have life imprisonment as an alternative for intentional murder.
Chapter 5
-
Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah. It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said the former, "(Allah) doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous.
-
"If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds.
-
"For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong."
-
The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones.
-
Then Allah sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. "Woe is me!" said he; "Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?" then he became full of regrets-
-
On that account We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
-
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
-
Except for those who repent before they fall into your power in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
As can be seen this is talking about intentional murder. The Quran than tells us why murder is such a crime because when you kill someone you are also killing all his future offsprings who could have existed. Imagine all theoffspings of that son of Adam who could have existed had he remained alive and allowed to produce offspring. That is why murder is such a crime in God's eyes. But the Israelites limited that to Jewish life. This then lead them to justify disproportionate retribution for Jews. This was the Talmudic spin on that tradition the Quran talked about. The Quran than stipulates that when it comes to intentional murder the highest ceiling is capital punishment but allowed exile from the community as the lowest ceiling.
That is what I am trying to say. The context that the verses appear in the Quran and whom it was refering to when it came commiting excesses. Excesses means disprotionate justice as what some Israeli politcians believe Israel is allowed to do whenever Palestinians attack them. They retaliate by disproportianate collective punishment.
Islam converted the law of proprtionality to justice based on deterence. Harsh laws are allowed to act as a deterence to prevent crime. The Quran is not interested about preventing crime. Crime will always exist. Its interested about proportional justice. The eye for an eye and a hand for a hand and a tooth for a tooth. The left side of the scale must equal the right side. The scale (meezan) is the symbol of justice as we know. This is why.
The Quran reminds us that we must balance the meezan with qist, equity.
- 9 And observe the weight with equity and do not make the balance deficient
In another part the Quran uses the term men for men, women for women and slave for slave. This is the same as tooth for tooth and soul for a soul. Orages for oranges and apples for apples. Like the American saying goes "do not mix apples with oranges". Another words don't make an unequal comparison. Comparisons should be based on qist
-
-
Peace solomon.
Please take few minutes, read your posts again and see what you make of them.
You say the majority translate it as " cutting" . I said they mistranslated it. Why is that arrogant?
You have said they have not, Have I called you arrogant?
You are the one who said you " presume" ? is that evidence that you are right?
Peace to you.
-
Please do not throw ad hominems. It only exposes the upbringing you may've had.
I see no indication that this verse refers to anything other than a punishment. A disproportionate punishment that is.
I do not expecto you to see anything, you are not here for that. Trolling usually does not encompass seeing anything other than what helps trolling.
Salaam
-
Peace solomon.
Please take few minutes, read your posts again and see what you make of them.
You say the majority translate it as " cutting" . I said they mistranslated it. Why is that arrogant?
You have said they have not, Have I called you arrogant?
You are the one who said you " presume" ? is that evidence that you are right?
Peace to you.
Peace good logic
I take back my arrogant comment. Sorry for that.
Quranist scholar Edip Yuksel interprets the word to have multiple meanings. Could mean "cut off", "marking" or cutting off his means/ways of stealing.
If it's marking, what does "marking" mean? A small mark to distinguish thieves? Or a police record, in modern times?
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 instanceCutting 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.