Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
-
peace uq,
Thanks for sharing your analysis. These are the kinds of posts I much prefer to read. Also it is commendable citing some counter-arguments - as it is rare for authors to do this.
A few points
Let's say Quran did command to cut off a thief's hand, how would you expect the Arabic to be phrased?
When you said it means sustenance it is always the plural. Is this also true for its other meanings of power/means, or just sustenance? I have not checked Quran with regard to this point, but could be interesting.
Re counter-arguments
In 664 perhaps the perceived liberality of usage could be due to the addressees being female and pregnant, hence the reference to more than two hearts. Of course this interpretation may result in asking why is the unborn baby's heart being involved into the discussion. Just something I thought of. It would be interesting if there were other examples of liberality of usage elsewhere in Quran that were clear cases of such.
I think one obvious response to that would be to say it cannot be defined because the value of the theft will vary, thus the suspension (or whatever) would vary.
You may also like to read this, as it brings up some other points
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htme.g.
Also, when lashes are given as punishment for proven adultery, The Quran states not to let pity/compassion prevent you from carrying out such a punishment , but it says no such thing for the alleged hand cutting-off verse, when many consider this punishment to be worse. This adds to the possibility that it should not be taken to mean this.
-
Peace uq.
Very interesting.Will require digesting, but so far it makes sense, what you presented.
I agree with Wakas, these kinds of posts are a good example to all of us.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Regardless of whatever any "holy book" say..
Along with other gruesome punishment found in the holy books, ie. crucifixion, stoning..
The punishment of hand amputation for thief is not a good punishment and MUST not be applied.Amputating the hands of somebody will render the man useless and impaired for the society.
It's also "irreversible" in case the convicted man later proved to be not guilty.I'm truly sorry we convicted the wrong man.. here let me return your hand back..
Any punishment should be applied based on the following motivation
- Beneficial to the society as a whole.
- Reforming the offender.
The main objective is not to "Punish" but to create better society.
Limitation on movement (e.g. Prison) to protect the society and/or "Pro Bono" services (ie making license plate, cleaning the street etc..) is a better punishment for thieves compared to hand amputation.
Amputating the hands will turn a thief into a beggar..
-
@ Uq
Excellent post I just wanted to highlight some issues and propose some ideasI think the issue with the mainstream-like interpretation is also of the punishment serving as a means to deter from further future offenses and simultaneously permanently label/mark/stigmatize the offender.
This may have seemed wise to those who interpreted it as such because of the benefit of eliminating the threat of theft by avoiding past offenders upon recognition and obviously the benefit of impeding their abilities.Punishments although are not mean to permanently mutilate and stigmatize individuals because God is The Forgiver and always gives individuals an opportunity to repent.
In fact, let us look at the following ayaah
539
But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms (his ways), then indeed, Allah will turn towards him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.An individual cannot have a chance to repent be forgiven if the punishment is immediate, permanent and stigmatizing.
Taking the command as a mutilating punishment would contradict the above ayaah. There are no contradictions in the Quraan.
I am interested in the semantics you presented. However, I believe that for your translation in the ayaah, one could make an argument that it is conveying severing from the sustenance of the offenders. As in severing a set amount from their means. Instead of completely cutting them off from the resources.
The family who the individual might be responsible for should not have to suffer because of the individuals actions.That is why I am against the theory of imprisonment or severing the individual from his/her ability to commit the crime by taking away their freedom.
One in such a condition would be left incomeless and his/her family would suffer terribly from such a set back.I gather that you see the sustenance provided by the state as an even equal redistribution among the citizens of funds raised from the citizens incomes?
I take it to mean that it serves for the less fortunate exclusively, or at the least they are the sole priority in my understanding.
In my opinion we can see an example of such priority in
Surah 597
Whatever Allah restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns,it is for Allah and His Messenger and the kindred and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not become a perpetual circulation between the rich among you. And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you from, refrain. And fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.However you define the sustenance I think the command is to sever a portion, as a fine.
Since I see the sustenance provided by the state as a welfare aid I would exclude the idea of wealthy people recovering the aid. There are however all sorts of thiefs among poor and rich and if one interpreted the punishment as cutting off completely a person's sustenance or resources or wealth then imagine for example a wealthy individual who steals a meal, should he lose his entire estate and wealth over a meal?If your interpretation is that all citizens receive equal aid from the state, then you have to consider how the aid is funded as well.
I think the sustenance provided by the state is funded by all income receiving individuals. Whatever they have of excess after all their obligatory expenses is for the state welfare.
OR
1/5 ~20% of whatever they have of excess after their obligatory expenses.I think what is most unsure about right now is weather the wealth is meant to eventually be redistributed evenly to all citizens once needy are well established or it is meant solely to aid the most needy.
I tend to believe the redistribution targets the most needy individuals on their specific needs.
It does not get redistributed evenly or to all the needy indivuals at once, I would propose it is more of a thought out case by case process.
If someone neediest person is in dire need of an apple will you divide the apple in equal fractions and distribute it evenly so that the one that had an excess receives a fraction he does not need and the needy is deprived of what he was in need of?
It wouldn't be fair. You would ensure that the most needy has what is essential first before even thinking about even redistribution.See the ayaahs below
- And among them are some who criticize you concerning the (distribution of) charities. If they are given from it, they are pleased; but if they are not given from it then they are enraged.
- And if they were satisfied with what Allah and His Messenger gave them, and had said, Sufficient for us is Allah, Allah will give us of His Bounty and (so will) His Messenger. Indeed, we turn our hopes to Allah."
If one stole it would be insensitive to cut them completely from the welfare if they are poor and if one is rich he was probably not ever in need of the welfare.
So the punishment according to interpreting it as a complete cut off from sustenance is not balanced.
The set punishment would penalize poor individuals exceedingly more than their wealthy counterparts.There are a lot of components surrounding this to consider.
That is why when you take all these in to consideration it would seem that cutting in the sense of slicing (like the women at Joseph's masters's wife's gathering) their sustenance or resources would make more sense. Slicing to let blood drip from their hands as an offering of admiration in the case of the women. Hence slicing from the thief's resources to let some of the sustenance drain out, in proportion to the crime committed or value of the item stolen. The which needs not to be immediate and all at once but just like cutting/slicing is a GRADUAL incision or the blood from the cut therefrom drips gradually.
The penalty should then be a fine in proportion to what was stolen and extracted from the offender in proportion to the offender's means. This way the ones who are maintained by the thief's oaths do not have to suffer.Salaam
-
Excellent post uq, informative and thought provoking, pragmatics in my
opinion supercedes semantics and pragmatics #2 and 3 are on point. A farmer with
children who loses a hand for an unspecified theft would be a detriment to his/her family
and society.peace
-
Peace all,
Peace Wakas,
In terms of the wording of the verse, if the verse was meant to be taken as an amputation of the hand, I would expect the command to use no uncertain terms and be very specific, much like the verse commanding the lashing of the fornicators, something along the lines of or or The male thief and the female thief, cut off, from each of them two, a hand from the wrist or from the elbow or from the shoulder.
Note how the inclusion of the words wrist or elbow or shoulder should leave no doubt in one's mind that the that is spoken of is referring to the arm or hand and therefore the word cannot be taken to mean anything else, in this particular context. Note also how I used the word in the singular, not the plural. Note also how I used the phrase which should leave no doubt that the amputation is applicable to both the male and female thief individually, thereby precluding concomitant duality.
The signification of as sustenance is used in the plural, however, other meanings of the word, as power and means can occur in the singular.
Regarding 664, I find it unlikely that the foetus is being involved in the discussion as God is expecting the hearts of the two women concerned to "take heed" and reform their mistake. I think it is most likely a liberality in usage.
Regarding the second counter-argument, I agree with your point.
Thank you for your link, I agreed with what you wrote in your article.
Peace HP_TECH,
You raise some very important points, my brother.
As you point out, the matter is not straightforward. All your questions and comments deserve further consideration in the application of this law.
As far as I see it, the generality of the law is fixed, i.e. that the thief must be punished by means of subsistence or finance, the specifics of the law are variable, i.e. how the state is structured and how it will go about in the implementation of the law.
I see this as a liberality from God.
-
Peace all,
Peace Wakas,
In terms of the wording of the verse, if the verse was meant to be taken as an amputation of the hand, I would expect the command to use no uncertain terms and be very specific, much like the verse commanding the lashing of the fornicators, something along the lines of or or The male thief and the female thief, cut off, from each of them two, a hand from the wrist or from the elbow or from the shoulder.
Note how the inclusion of the words wrist or elbow or shoulder should leave no doubt in one's mind that the that is spoken of is referring to the arm or hand and therefore the word cannot be taken to mean anything else, in this particular context. Note also how I used the word in the singular, not the plural. Note also how I used the phrase which should leave no doubt that the amputation is applicable to both the male and female thief individually, thereby precluding concomitant duality.
The signification of as sustenance is used in the plural, however, other meanings of the word, as power and means can occur in the singular.
Regarding 664, I find it unlikely that the foetus is being involved in the discussion as God is expecting the hearts of the two women concerned to "take heed" and reform their mistake. I think it is most likely a liberality in usage.
Regarding the second counter-argument, I agree with your point.
Thank you for your link, I agreed with what you wrote in your article.
Peace HP_TECH,
You raise some very important points, my brother.
As you point out, the matter is not straightforward. All your questions and comments deserve further consideration in the application of this law.
As far as I see it, the generality of the law is fixed, i.e. that the thief must be punished by means of subsistence or finance, the specifics of the law are variable, i.e. how the state is structured and how it will go about in the implementation of the law.
I see this as a liberality from God.
The word hand or hands in plural is, as far as I know,used in many languages with the meaning of power, capacity, ability, authority. Like we say, at least i Sanish, to leave something in the hands of God. God obviously has no hands, the menaing is clearly we cknowledge that we are powerless or not have enough power or knowledge to assume full responsiblity for something. Likewise, we leave things in many peoples hands, that is not putting somethign material into some material hads, but to entrust and empower somebody to do somethig for us.
Exressions of that kind are may, many, and so is in the Qur'an too, where most expressions in which the word appears are idioms and do not refer to the physical hands and even in some of them like those about writing the book with their own hands, are wider and than writing with the physical hands and include responsibility or rather prime the responsibility in that expression rather than the material deed.
Cut the hands off is such a crude and unjudicial expression for meaning a physical hand and a physical cutting that I find it improper of the qur?an as uq has very aptly stated.
Even if you cut the hans what will prevent the author of such a crime to become the "brain" of new thefts? And this time even justified since without hands he will have lost most of his or her ability to earn a living.
Also, how many hands for each thief? Even taken to mean a dual, it leaves us in the dark as to haw many. Both hands each one, both hands one and one hand the other one han and one hand the hands of all potential thisves and thievesses.
Te Qur'an, which uses ver liberally "hands" in idiomatic expressions, is suddenly forbidden by the authority of some readers to continue using hands as idiom?
As to the exression itself in the aya I amnnot convinced by "sustenance" i would think it rather referss to ability or capacity.
In fact there is good reason to use an expression as wide as possible to fit each case because if it is to prevent the thief fromm repeating the exploit, we should cut fromhim or her precisely those factors that enable him or her to steal. Which are those? well, we will have to see in eachcase. It may be the person steals because of need, we must ten solve the problem fromm the social side, the ability comes from need. If it is because of some compulsion, then a psychological handling ight be aproriate. If it is because of greed, then forbid him or her to become rich, prohibit to enjoy this or that that he might greed for.
That is, the hands are a generla expression as to the foundation of what should be done, but do not poit to a particular kind of punishment, although there clearly a punishmet since it is a reward for what he did. That is, any curtailment in his rights after that would not be arbitrary but matching what he did.
And of course, as pointed out by uq, is the vagueness of the punishment, no number of hands, no precision a to how or how much, not whether severe off or just a little...
So, so, we would then need hadith or scholars to solve all those conundrums?
As to the deterrence... I m doubtful. Whe people do those things, the same s when eople murder, they think they are not going to be caught.
May be it does deter a little, but I am doubtful. Prison is really bad. I do nto know why it has such a good ppress,
but I should think it is bad enough.And also, there is the irrversibility of the fact. If there is a mistake or if there is forgiveness, who is going to return to the person the severed hands? To speak of forgiveness in that sense is a joke. If the repentant thief could accept it The family of the thief and society at large would might have plety of trouble accepting it.
Salaam
-
Peace huruf,
I agree with the points you have contributed.
I am also prepare to entertain the possibility that could signify power or ability and thereby the implication of the verse would be to hinder the thief's ability to do things or to restrict their mobility.
-
peace uq, all,
The signification of as sustenance is used in the plural, however, other meanings of the word, as power and means can occur in the singular.
I think seeing how the plural is used in Quran could be helpful.
In any case, I think the answer could be staring us in the face - what if all we need to do is reconcile the phrase in 538 with the example of theft given in Quran, which Joseph oversaw.
Is there a match?
-
If Muhammad came in 2015 and was from USA, I am sure that God would have told him to Electrocute the thieves or shoot them. We must take the Quranic principle of punishing the thief and apply the form of punishment according to our time (Jail, shooting,...). Thanks.
-
Exressions of that kind are may, many, and so is in the Qur'an too, where most expressions in which the word appears are idioms and do not refer to the physical hands and even in some of them like those about writing the book with their own hands, are wider and than writing with the physical hands and include responsibility or rather prime the responsibility in that expression rather than the material deed.
Salaam, yes true numerous idioms for hands...
538 and the male thief (m/s) and the female thief (f/s) fa-iq'a/so shall cut ye of aydiyahuma/hands (i.e. actions) theirs dual recompense in what earned dual naklan/shackle of from the god and the god mighty wise
539 so whom turned from after wrongdoing his and reconciles so surely the god turns in forgiveness on him surely the god forgiver merciful4824 and he the one withheld hands (actions) theirs over you and hands (actions) yours over them in belly/midst mekka from after that gave victory you over them and be the god in what thou working seer of
7312 surely with us anklan/shackles of and burning fire of
7313 and food that chokes waadhban/and punishment of painful of -
Salaam, yes true numerous idioms for hands...
538 and the male thief (m/s) and the female thief (f/s) fa-iq'a/so shall cut ye of aydiyahuma/hands (i.e. actions) theirs dual recompense in what earned dual naklan/shackle of from the god and the god mighty wise
539 so whom turned from after wrongdoing his and reconciles so surely the god turns in forgiveness on him surely the god forgiver merciful4824 and he the one withheld hands (actions) theirs over you and hands (actions) yours over them in belly/midst mekka from after that gave victory you over them and be the god in what thou working seer of
7312 surely with us anklan/shackles of and burning fire of
7313 and food that chokes waadhban/and punishment of painful ofUQ, Huruf and Noon,
Thanks for clarification. Free-minds has an article based on what Huruf explained. It was very clear. Unfortunately, I am not able to find it ( -
peace uq, all,
My preliminary analysis would indicate that if we were to use this example as a guide, then the thief is given a chance to confess and return the stolen goods, if not, then if found guilty, would be detained, for a set time and/or in order to work off the cost.
In my view, based on my study, it does seem the punishment could be flexible depending upon the time, circumstances and severity of crime. For example, perhaps it is a mercy that it is theoretically possible to translate it in several ways (as discussed here). When you think about it, that kind of flexible wording is even more genius than a one size fits all inflexible wording.
For example if we were to use "cut their sustenance", it could refer to whatever one uses to sustain oneself, e.g. their wealth/goods/food/etc, to the equivalent value of the crime (theft and court costs incurred), or if they earn money from a job, a cut/portion is taken until the equivalent value of the crime is repaid. -
Peace Wakas, nice summary.
The punishment for theft is confirmed by phrase ?like such we reward ...? ? Qur?an not brothers speaking.
1273 said they of by the god indeed know you not came we that we corrupt in the earth/land and not are we thieves
1274 said they of so what reparation its if be you liars?
1275 said they of ? reparation its whom found in bag his so he reparation its? ? like such we reward the wrongdoers2129 ? like such we reward the wrongdoers
3536 ? like such we reward each ungrateful
3780 ? like such we reward the good doers
37105 ? like such we reward the good doers
37110 like such we reward the good doers
37121 ? like such we reward the good doers
37131 ? like such we reward the good doers
4625 ? like such we reward the folk the criminals
5435 ? like such we reward whom grateful
7744 ? like such we reward the good doers538 and the male thief (m/s) and the female thief (f/s) so cutoff ye of aydiyahuma/hands (actions) theirs dual recompense in what earned dual naklan/shackle of from the god and the god mighty wise
-
peace uq,
Thanks for sharing your analysis. These are the kinds of posts I much prefer to read. Also it is commendable citing some counter-arguments - as it is rare for authors to do this.
A few points
Let's say Quran did command to cut off a thief's hand, how would you expect the Arabic to be phrased?
When you said it means sustenance it is always the plural. Is this also true for its other meanings of power/means, or just sustenance? I have not checked Quran with regard to this point, but could be interesting.
Re counter-arguments
In 664 perhaps the perceived liberality of usage could be due to the addressees being female and pregnant, hence the reference to more than two hearts. Of course this interpretation may result in asking why is the unborn baby's heart being involved into the discussion. Just something I thought of. It would be interesting if there were other examples of liberality of usage elsewhere in Quran that were clear cases of such.
I think one obvious response to that would be to say it cannot be defined because the value of the theft will vary, thus the suspension (or whatever) would vary.
You may also like to read this, as it brings up some other points
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htme.g.
Salam Wakas,
Two remarks
1/
Very good article https//misconceptions-about-islam.com/misconception.php?id=37
I qote you
"
Thus, it is possible to understand the punishment for thieves in four alternative ways
(1) cutting off their hands
(2) cutting or marking their hands
(3) cutting their means/power to steal, e.g. detention/jail.
(4) cutting their sustenance, e.g. in order to compensate the value of the theft.
"
First, for your information, Mazhar presents an another alternative.Second,there is a point that I didn't hear about in the various exchanges or in your article
What does the Torah says about it (Al-Quran also "confirms" previous Holy scriptures) ?-
(Exodus 223) If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for
his theft. (Ex -> story of brothers of Yusuf "stealing" the king) -
(Exodus 224) If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.
-
(Exodus 226) If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire
shall surely make restitution-compensation. -
(Exodus 229) For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the
cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
As we can see, the torah rejoins point (4) and at worst point (3).
If one adopts this point of view, then it is a question of "cut//take (اقْطَعُوا = verb in the form 1 = to cut symbolically) their hands (that is to say, symbolically "what they possess" or "their capacity for work" in remuneration equivalent to what they have acquired...". (53.
Thus, the thief's hand is never literally cut off according to the Qur'an; on the contrary, he is punished in proportion to what he has stolen (Law of Retaliation).
-
The stolen property (or its equivalent if the property has been squandered) must by definition be returned to its owner; therefore, the message of 538 is that in addition to this, the thief's property (or his ability to work freely) must be punished (symbolically cut off) in retribution equivalent to what the thief has acquired", i.e., the thief is required to pay a fine equivalent to the stolen property.
-
This just sentence is exactly the same as in the Bible (Exodus 224, 226, 229) where the thief must return the stolen good, doubled by a fine that represents its equivalent or, failing that, pay double the fine.
-
Sura 12 also shows that among the Hebrews in Joseph's time, and at least in one case where the thief could not pay compensation, he lost his freedom, which also confirms the book of Exodus (223), and that today, if a thief cannot make financial reparation, "his hands are cut off" (i.e., his freedom to earn money) in the sense that he may be punished with, for example, imprisonment or imprisonment until he is able to honor the sentence.
2/
About what brother uq said, i quote him
"
(1) In Classical Arabic, it is permissible for the plural to be used in place of the dual when appended to a pronoun. Example, it is permissible to use the plural أَيۡدِى in reference to the dual يَدَانِ as it is considered a liberality in usage. Another example is found in the Quran in 664 where we read قُلُوبُكُمَا where قَلۡبُكُمَا would have otherwise been used. This means that the argument given above about the incomprehension of the plurality of the noun being prefixed to a dual pronoun is invalid only on the grounds that the Author intended أَيۡدِيهُمَا to be an instance of liberality in usage.
"
As the context indicates, the plural qulûb here does not mean hearts, but secret thoughts, ideas, from the sense of mind, intellect, cf. Lisân al-'arab.Conclusion
Although hypotheses (1) and (2) (physical punishment) cannot be excluded, there are new arguments in favour of hypotheses (3) and (4).
-
-
salam
i think that surah 5 verse 38 is literal
there is no reason to interprethowever if a thief repents, then he or she is to be let go as we are told in verse 39 of surah 5
The God is the Forgiving
peace
-
salam
i think that surah 5 verse 38 is literal
there is no reason to interpret
peaceSalam to you tutti_frutti,
Literally it is written word for word "cut off the hands/aydiy of each of them/humâ "
Now, if in English it is possible to understand the plural "hands" as designating two hands, this is impossible in the Arabic language for which the plural begins only from three enumerated units, hence the use of the dual case when there are only two objects or persons. Also, this sentence apparently orders to cut off more than two hands to each of the thieves. Or, by forcing the expression, could we understand that for two thieves, either three or four hands must be cut off => We don't know who should be cut off two hands and who should be cut off only one. And should the whole arm be cut off, up to the wrists or elbows? Imprecision which for a law supposed to be as sharp as it is irreversible still poses a problem.So, literally there is a problem.
Thus, fully conscious of this semantic problem and to deal with it, traditional exegetes (remaining on the physical punishment, certified (?) for them by some hadiths) have proposed, to the best of my knowledge, four solutions to achieve their ends-1/ The first is to say that the singular should be understood as meaning the thief/as-sâriq and the thief/as-sâriqa as meaning in reality the thieves/as-sâriqûn and the thieves/as-sâriqât. Since it is difficult to argue that God would have used the singular when He meant the plural, it has been claimed, without proof, that Ibn Mas'ûd recited this verse using the plural "Thiefs/as-sâriqûn and thiefs/as-sâriqât, cut off their hands...", which would effectively explain the presence of the plural aydiy/hands. However, this variant of recitation/qirâ'a has never been recognized as valid, its only purpose being to provide an argument for the aims of these exegetes who, in reality, have fabricated the argument necessary for them. This qirâ'a is thus a perfect example of exegetical variants.
-2/ The second solution is to assume that one must understand aydiy al-yumnâ, i.e. the right hands, which is to assume against the doxa itself that one can add a word to the Qur'anic text and furthermore make a bend in the Arabic grammar. .
-3/ The third proposed solution is to claim that in this verse the plural aydiy/hands is valid for the singular yad/hand, which again amounts to taking one word for another .
-4/ The fourth proposed solution is the one evoked by Brother uq and which can be found in the "Tafsir Al-Mizan" made by Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī
the word, aydi (=hands) is plural, which in Arabic is used for at least three items, while here it means only two hands. It is said that such usage is common; some, rather many, organs in human body are double, like eyes, ears, hands, feet and legs; when two persons are involved the total of these organs comes to four, which demands plural, like their eyes, hands and legs, etc. The usage of plural spread to organs of two persons, even if the said organ was not double. For example, they say 'I covered the backs and stomachs of the two with hitting.' Allãh says If you both turn to Allãh, then indeed your hearts are already inclined . . . (664). "Hand" is used for the organ attached to shoulder; according to traditions here it refers to the right hand; cutting of hand means severing the whole or part of it with a sharp instrument.Conclusion
So, Personnaly (my own opinion), i find these arguments weak as compared to
(1) the Quranic principle of the law of retaliation or the law of fair retaliation
+
(2) what the previous scripture tell us
+
(3) Quranic intertexuality with the story of yusuf'brothers.
+
(4) Quran is imprecise about the number of hands to be cut off and on the length..specially on such a sensitive and definitive subject.But i admit i may be wrong on this delicate subject...in this case it is necessary to take into account the context of the revelation of sura 5 and the tribal environment of this time.
-
Most of the occurrences of the word hand or handsin the Qur'an are used overwhelmly in the figurative sense, meaning power or capacity. To conclude that in this aya, literal hands are meant, some reason should be given or then all accurrences in the Qur'an be interpreted likewise and not accept in any case the fiurative meaning, which would make a lot of nonsense, exactly as it happens in this aya. Goot that other arguments are given like by Iyyaka here, but really taking it as literal it reflects badly on the reasoning of the person that says so.
Salaam
-
Most of the occurrences of the word hand or handsin the Qur'an are used overwhelmly in the figurative sense, meaning power or capacity. To conclude that in this aya, literal hands are meant, some reason should be given or then all accurrences in the Qur'an be interpreted likewise and not accept in any case the fiurative meaning, which would make a lot of nonsense, exactly as it happens in this aya. Goot that other arguments are given like by Iyyaka here, but really taking it as literal it reflects badly on the reasoning of the person that says so.
Salaam
Salam, (about what is above in bold)
I'm not sure that i understand what you understood from my over the last two interventions (sorry if it was not the case).
So, I prefer to summarize what I said to be clearerWakas summarized the 4 possibilities of understanding this verse (+ I added Mazhar's one - see his translation).
I quote him
"
Thus, it is possible to understand the punishment for thieves in four alternative ways
(1) cutting off their hands
(2) cutting or marking their hands
(3) cutting their means/power to steal, e.g. detention/jail.
(4) cutting their sustenance, e.g. in order to compensate the value of the theft.
"My opinion bend to option 4 (I gave my arguments previously).
However, I do not rule out option 1 (and I have already given the arguments used to this effect in order that each one form his own opinion). This is why I remain cautious on this subject and I avoid, like expressing you used "it reflects badly on the reasoning of the person that says so". (i am cautious because it is very easy to project our opinions onto the text without listening to what the text says in context).NB
A literal approach in no way prevents figurative comprehension if the text allows or authorizes it.
