Adultery punishement ?
-
Salam Sabo,
Maybe you mean that "KATA3a" does not mean cutting totally with bones?
It was used 38 times in Quran with many different meanings.
http//www.openburhan.com/pages/ob4cde.html?root=%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%B9%0D
I agree, I do not imagine these women cutting their hands with the bones(it is almost impssible for somebody to cut his own bone). They may have caused only some injury. But if so, then why did not god use another word like "Jara7a" instead of "Kata3a"?
I dont really know. Well, I need help on this.I want however to say that by all what I posted in this thread, I meant that if a punishment is writeen in quran, then we should do it. But I do not however know how to do it. You now made me think there could be another meaning of "kata3a" other than excision.
I want to look more into this. You can also help me as you are an older member fo freeminds.
Peace
-
I have to say one thing about this forum....
In all other forums i visited (not only religion-based, but politics, online game, movies, etc....), I never saw anyone showing enough humility to accept the fact that he/she may not know enough, and actually question his opinion.
That's why I think the people in Free-Mind are on the good direction. By being humble, you have more potential to learn and find the right path. One should never be afraid to admit he may be wrong, misinformed or not know enough. This is the better way to learn. -
Selamlar Sword
Salam Sabo,
Maybe you mean that "KATA3a" does not mean cutting totally with bones?
It was used 38 times in Quran with many different meanings.
http//www.openburhan.com/pages/ob4cde.html?root=%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%B9%0D
I agree, I do not imagine these women cutting their hands with the bones(it is almost impssible for somebody to cut his own bone). They may have caused only some injury. But if so, then why did not god use another word like "Jara7a" instead of "Kata3a"?
I dont really know. Well, I need help on this.I want however to say that by all what I posted in this thread, I meant that if a punishment is writeen in quran, then we should do it. But I do not however know how to do it. You now made me think there could be another meaning of "kata3a" other than excision.
I want to look more into this. You can also help me as you are an older member fo freeminds.
Peace
Search for the word "Jara7tum" in the Quran. You will find that it means something different than causing harm. (Wa ya3lama ma jara7tum bennahar). Be careful that our spoken arabic today in our countries is different than the arabic used in the Quran especially when our understanding can cause harm to people as in the case of 538.
As you could understand that the women didn't cut off their hands, because its not so logical to happen when seeing a beautiful man, the same applies to the physical hands of the thief. God uses in both verses the verb "qata3a" and he doesn't mean cut off. A carefull study of the keywords "qata3a" + "yad" in the quran can lead us to different conclusions.
Sevgilerimle,
sabo -
peace all
CUTTING OFF HANDS OF THIEF
Literal Understanding
The first understanding says that 538 means to cut off the thief's hand. I do not agree with this understanding for the following reasons. First, the Arabic word (aydiya) is the plural (three or more) of (yad) (hand) used in dual form. As we know, each one of us has normally only two hands, including thieves. How can we possibly cut off the hands (three or more) of a thief? Even if we accept that the hands in this ayat refer to the hands of both thieves, should we then cut off both hands of a thief?Second, what will benefit the one who lost his stolen goods in case he would not recover them? And what would happen if someone were accused mistakenly or maliciously of theft and their hands were cut off? What if someone does not have hands and uses only his brain to plan thefts for their accomplices? This is not a fiction; it happened
Third, how could the above ayat 539 be applied if someone has his or her hands cut off and repents later on and reforms? In other words, if cutting the hands in ayat 538 is translated literally to mean cutting off the hands, then ayat 539 cannot stand logic and common sense. Let's assume that someone steals something and pays the heavy price of his or her hands being cutting off, then he or she repents and reforms. What does it mean in his or her case that, "God redeems him, or her. God is Forgiver, Merciful"? (539). How will he or she be redeemed once he or she has lost his or her hands? How could he or she deserve a second chance without his or her hands? Indeed, understanding cutting hands as cutting off hands literally does not stand logic and common sense in the context of these two ayat 538-39 in particular, and in the context of Quran in general.
WA- AS- SAARIQ WA- AS- SAARIQAH FA- IQT.AcO AYDIYA -HUMAA JAZAA' BI- MAA KASABAA NAKAAL (AN) MIN 'ALLAAH WA- 'ALLAAH cAZEZ H.AKEM 538
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. (Abdullah Yousuf Ali)
Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All Wise. (Muhammad Muhsin Khan)
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. (Pickthall's)
Surprisingly in Abdullah Yousuf Ali's translation we find missing "Jazaa Bi Maa Kasabaa"
Muhsin Khan translated "Jazaa Bi Maa Kasabaa" as " a RECOMPENSE for that which they COMMITTED"
Pickthall translated "Jazaa Bi Maa Kasabaa" as "It is the REWARD of their OWN DEEDS"
KASAB = to gain win profit earn get obtain acquire
'OLAA'IKA LA- -HUM NAS.EB MIN MAA KASABO WA- 'ALLAAH SAREc AL- H.ISAAB 2202
To these will be allotted WHAT THEY HAVE EARNED and Allah is quick in account. (Yusuf Ali)
WA- RABB -KA AL- GHAFOR DHO AR- RAH.MAH LAW YU'AAKHIDH -HUM BI- MAA KASABO LA- cAJJALA LA- -HUM AL- cADHAAB BAL LA- -HUM MAWcID LAN YAJIDO MIN DONI -HI MAW'IL(AN) 1858
But your Lord is Most Forgiving Full of Mercy. If He were to call them (at once) to account for WHAT THEY HAVE EARNED then surely He would have hastened their Punishment but they have their appointed time beyond which they will find no refuge. 1858
Why the word KASAB is not translated as EARNED?
WA- AS- SAARIQ WA- AS- SAARIQAH
As for the thief, both male and femaleFA- IQT.AcO AYDIYA -HUMAA
Cut off their hands (RESOURCES)JAZAA' BI- MAA KASABAA
(SHOULD) RECOMPENSE what THEY EARNED / ACQUIRED/OBTAINEDNAKAAL (AN) MIN 'ALLAAH
A punishment by way of example from AllahWA- 'ALLAAH cAZEZ H.AKEM
And Allah is Exalted in PowerQAALO JAZAA' -HU MAN WUJIDA FE RAH.L -HI FA- HUWA JAZAA' -HU KA- DHAALIKA NAJZE AZ.- Z.AALIMEN 1275
They said "The punishment should be that, in whose saddle bag it is found, THEN HE should RECOMPENSE IT. Thus it is we punish the wrongdoers!" 1275
SO THE CORRECT TRANSLATION INVALIDATES THE PHYSICAL CUTTING OF HANDS.
As for the thief, both male and female cut off their hands (RESOURCES) (SHOULD) RECOMPENSE what THEY EARNED / ACQUIRED/OBTAINED A punishment by way of example from Allah And Allah is Exalted in Power
Thanks
-
Peace Hafeez,
Good work, alhamdu lillah. Perhaps Swords and others can further learn and contemplate on the fairness and just ways of laws/punishments. I believe the same is true for whipping, lashing, stoning, etc. for adultry. These are all uncivilized and barbaric acts. It is simply a matter of understanding. A while ago, someone had posted a movie clip on how a female was half burried, bagged up and stoned to death. In Karachi, I've witnessed people getting whipped or lashed, profusely bleeding all over to death, speically during Moharram. The number of whips seemed between 20 and 30 and the entire act was over in no time. Talk about 100.
FA- IQT.AcO AYDIYA -HUMAA
Cut off their hands (RESOURCES)As for the thief, both male and female cut off their hands (RESOURCES)) (SHOULD) RECOMPENSE what THEY EARNED / ACQUIRED/OBTAINED A punishment by way of example from Allah And Allah is Exalted in Power
-
Salam Sabo, you know Turkish?-)
Salam Hafeez,
First "Aydiyahom" as you said is for 3 or more hands. But this occured only because God there talked about this subject presenting women and men. If God said "sariq" without " sariqa" then "aydiyahom" would not be used. Instead we would see "Yadahosingle" or "Yadaahoplural".
Second, what will benefit the one who lost his stolen goods in case he would not recover them?
The victims right is a different story. This punishment is God's and not intended to benefit the victim. Does imprisoning the thief benefit the victim? I dont think so.
what would happen if someone were accused mistakenly or maliciously of theft and their hands were cut off?
If the world thinks this way then there should be no punishment at all. And let us all wait until criminals come to police stations and explicitely admit their crimes(they dont usually do it). This cannot be a exuse.
What if someone does not have hands and uses only his brain to plan thefts for their accomplices? This is not a fiction; it happened
This is fiction.
If not then we can find a way. Go ahead and imprison him since there is nothing about this in Quran. Judges are free to imagine.However I still say that I am not sure at the moment what "kata3a" means in this context(the aya).
I replied becuase I thought that the above quotes did not apply only on punishments in Quran but to every sentence on earth and hence are irrelevant. Not that I know what the punishment should be.
This was my opinion.Salam brothers and sisters
-
Salam Danish,
Barbaric and uncivilized!
How can I know that cutting a thiefs hand is barbaric and uncivilized. What if we lived in a world where thiefs are killed. Would cutting hand be barbaric and uncivilized then? These are relative terms. And muslims are not the people who control the popular meanings of these words.
Some conservative christians also do not consider cutting hands as barbaric.
I want to believe that cutting hands is not the punishment based on Quran alone.
Salam
-
Salam Sword,
Barbaric and uncivilized!
Certainly.
How can I know that cutting a thiefs hand is barbaric and uncivilized.
Use your GOD given talents!!!
What if we lived in a world where thiefs are killed. Would cutting hand be barbaric and uncivilized then?
If thieves are killed, no need for cutting their hands.
These are relative terms.
Relative but misunderstood.
Some conservative christians also do not consider cutting hands as barbaric.
Unheard of and no factual evidences are witnessed amongst Christians for cutting hands of thieves.
I want to believe that cutting hands is not the punishment based on Quran alone.
Also there is the theft punishment. It is clearly stated. A hand should be cut(I aware of the ongoing controversy about the pluralism of AYDIHUN)
Make up your mind.
-
Peace Farouk, all,
I have a question about the punishement for people who arent married, mentioned in verse 242
"The adulteress and the adulterer you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes. Do not be swayed by pity from carrying out GOD's law, if you truly believe in GOD and the Last Day. And let a group of believers witness their penalty. " (Khalifa translation)
Is the punishement only matching the culture of people living then (year 600 or so), or are we supposed to do it now too, in 2004, at a time where it seems like people are being more "forgiving" for this kind of sin.
I am asking that, because this verses seems to revolt a lot of my atheist/agnostics friends, and i admit i myself wonder if the punishement matchs the sin.
Due to the sanctity of the home (see 2427-28 ), the prohibition against spying (see 4912), and the requirement of a minimum of four witnesses, the only time flogging is prescribed is in (242) it is in practice a punishment for pornography or adultery by a married person, which is a grave sin and a social ill that not only effects the adulterers who commit it but children and society as a whole.
As a side note, ?jalada? comes from the word skin and implies that only the skin is to be touched (i.e. no internal injuries or bleeding can result from the punishment).
The fact that the punishment must be somewhat public reflects a deep understanding of the psychological ill that affects the people who commit pornography. The psychological ill is commonly known as exhibitionism and this humiliating punishment in front a group of people is meant to thwart their desire for public display of this gross sin. Experimental psychology findings suggest that corporal punishment is one of the methods that can reduce this behavior. This method is called aversion therapy or negative treatment.
In summary
"zina" case 1 --> pornography in the case of married and unmarried with a minimum of four witnesses witnessing the act. (100 lashes + loss of some of the divorcee's rights in the case of married)
"zina" case 2 --> adultery in the case of married with no witness except the spouse and the accused does not refute the accusation. (100 lashes + loss of some of the divorcee's rights in the case of married, half = 50 lashes for the married woman if it was an arranged marriage)
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace to all,
I kinda disagree with the fact that why its should be considered a crime when two person agrees to share their body and feelings willingly ? Isnt crime something to do with violation ? If a couple eanjoys eachother willingly and happily than where is the violation ? I am talking about two person who loves eachother or trust each other at that time. Why would God be angry with that ? we know that in western country, bf-gf is a very normal thing and its also obvious that they will have sex. Friends and family knows it. Its just like what so called married couple would do. If its not done in secret and family is aware of it than why should it be considered as crime ? If any abuse is done from any side than law is alwasy there to protect each others right.
I think the defination adultry is totally misunderstood. And also the concept of marriage. I think we are trying to understand adultery comparing with the so called marriage system we have today in our muslim community.
and I also dont think The divine System has any prsonal agenda on such sexual relation.
peace
-
Salaamun alaikum!
Shamsul arefin
I totally agree with you. However, this is not what zina is about. What you are describing is just simply, in quranic terms, nikah! Nikah is no holy sacrament through a ceremony. And it is likewise not a registered thing on a paper. It is a couple staying together willingly and happily, a committed relationship, even if they only call themselves boyfriend and girlfriend. Not much more is needed for nikah. No Mullah needed, no mosque needed, no church needed, no judge needed, no celebration needed ...... .
There are some few quite liberal rules for nikah in the Qur`an and a muslim couple would follow them, but that?s all.And this even confirms why zina is an issue of punishment.
In the law of God there is this easy and beautiful way for fulfillment in love, sexuality and complementarity. Why would someone not chose to take this possibility?
Because he/she does not want to live according to his/her responsibilities. He/she just wants to still the lusts of his/her ego ... no matter how many people might get devastated and damaged through this.
And there can be a lot of damage caused by Zina (personal pain and humiliation, unwanted children, transfer of deadly diseases like syphillis, hepatitis or aids etc. etc. etc.).Peace,
Leyla
-
Salam Leyla, Shamsul-arefin, all
Just wanted to express that I completly agree with the above posts of Leyla and Shamsul-arefin
Sometime after my divorce I started living with a live-in boyfriend and it was a tough moral issue to me. But after research and a lot of reflexion I actually came to the same conclusions )
Bye, Elke