The word "prison" in the qur'an
-
Peace Ju5.
So you could not explain the second part of the verse, nor could you find any detail of how to carry out this punishment.
Instead you refer to "traditional Islam"injustice and claim Qoran is the reason!!!
Just like your understanding of it, it is false and problematic and you know it.
Never mind, you seem sure of your way.
So a good job you do not take Qoran seriously, otherwise you will be cutting hands like those who are misled.You came back here because you thought you could prove Qoran wrong, all you seem to be doing is highlighting your misconceptions and false assumptions from some false logic and knowledge . You are proving ,slowly but surely, that you lack deep knowledge of the book.
If you are not sincere about finding the truth of what Qoran says, then leave it be and do not waste your time or other people s time here.I hope you find some useful pastimes that you really believe in and want to pursue.
I do not see a queue of people endorsing your understanding of Qoran in your threads. Does this not tell you that you are failing in your aim?
Anyway ,please yourself. I ask you once more to go back and study the book properly and sincerely if you wish.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
7.57.
Sahih International And it is He who sends the winds as good tidings between the hands of His mercy until, when they have carried heavy rainclouds, We drive them to a dead land and We send down rain therein and bring forth thereby of all the fruits. Thus will We bring forth the dead; perhaps you may be reminded.
25.48
And it is He who sends the winds as good tidings between the hands of His mercy, and We send down from the sky pure water.27.63
Is He who guides you through the darknesses of the land and sea and who sends the winds as good tidings between the hands His mercy? Is there a deity with Allah ? High is Allah above whatever they associate with Him.34.46
Say, "I only advise you of one - that you stand for Allah , in pairs and individually, and then give thought." There is not in your companion any madness. He is only a warner to you between the hands of a severe punishment.HaHAHAH, the Qur'an is such a stupid book...
?It says that mercy has two hands and punishment has two hands!That is good because if mercy or punishment ever stole their hands could be cut.
At any rate, Gracious God has hands, mercy has hands, everything has hands that are stretched to humans and to all creation for our relief and joy.
Salaam
-
7.57.
Sahih International And it is He who sends the winds as good tidings between the hands of His mercy until, when they have carried heavy rainclouds, We drive them to a dead land and We send down rain therein and bring forth thereby of all the fruits. Thus will We bring forth the dead; perhaps you may be reminded.
25.48
And it is He who sends the winds as good tidings between the hands of His mercy, and We send down from the sky pure water.27.63
Is He who guides you through the darknesses of the land and sea and who sends the winds as good tidings between the hands His mercy? Is there a deity with Allah ? High is Allah above whatever they associate with Him.34.46
Say, "I only advise you of one - that you stand for Allah , in pairs and individually, and then give thought." There is not in your companion any madness. He is only a warner to you between the hands of a severe punishment.HaHAHAH, the Qur'an is such a stupid book...
?It says that mercy has two hands and punishment has two hands!That is good because if mercy or punishment ever stole their hands could be cut.
At any rate, Gracious God has hands, mercy has hands, everything has hands that are stretched to humans and to all creation for our relief and joy.
Salaam
http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=34&verse=46
Sahih International Say, "I only advise you of one - that you stand for Allah , in pairs and individually, and then give thought." There is not in your companion any madness. He is only a warner to you before a severe punishment.
Pickthall Say (unto them, O Muhammad) I exhort you unto one thing only that ye awake, for Allah's sake, by twos and singly, and then reflect There is no madness in your comrade. He is naught else than a warner unto you in face of a terrific doom.
...
people who actually know arabic didn't seem to translate it as hands, because they know arabic and the verse make it obvious anyway, just like in the cut the hands verses
its too bad that you see idioms when there is not and you don't see them where there are ones, they are pretty obvious really
you really believe everyone translated the qur'an like pigs for centuries? if a muslim translates "he s a sunni fanatic!", if a non muslim translate " he's an atheist trying to mock the qur'an!" but the non arabic people on internet trying to figure crap from looking at rough word translations and first year arabic lessons "surely they are rooted in science!" this is ridiculous come on people........why do you even bother? fully study arabic and then make your opinion...it's not like you are going to waste yuour time, afterall this is the language of your divine book right?
challenge of the day study arabic for a few years and classical arabic ! if ye are truthful ! God be with you.
Or shortcut stop being biased and be neutral when judging the verses and making sense out of it.
You could save a few years... -
http//corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=34&verse=46
Sahih International Say, "I only advise you of one - that you stand for Allah , in pairs and individually, and then give thought." There is not in your companion any madness. He is only a warner to you before a severe punishment.
Pickthall Say (unto them, O Muhammad) I exhort you unto one thing only that ye awake, for Allah's sake, by twos and singly, and then reflect There is no madness in your comrade. He is naught else than a warner unto you in face of a terrific doom.
...
people who actually know arabic didn't seem to translate it as hands, because they know arabic and the verse make it obvious anyway, just like in the cut the hands verses
its too bad that you see idioms when there is not and you don't see them where there are ones, they are pretty obvious really
you really believe everyone translated the qur'an like pigs for centuries? if a muslim translates "he s a sunni fanatic!", if a non muslim translate " he's an atheist trying to mock the qur'an!" but the non arabic people on internet trying to figure crap from looking at rough word translations and first year arabic lessons "surely they are rooted in science!" this is ridiculous come on people........why do you even bother? fully study arabic and then make your opinion...it's not like you are going to waste yuour time, afterall this is the language of your divine book right?
challenge of the day study arabic for a few years and classical arabic ! if ye are truthful ! God be with you.
Or shortcut stop being biased and be neutral when judging the verses and making sense out of it.
You could save a few years...I noticed that there is something off with Corpus Quran translation, they translated yaday (ى as before but that's incorrect because the word before in arabic in Quran is qablu which is from Qaf-Ba-Lam ( ل which means = to accept/admit/receive/agree, meet anyone, to face/encounter someone/something, advance/approach, correspond, counteract/compare/requite/compensate, the front part (1226), accept with approval, show favour.
qablu - before/formerly,
qubulun - the fore-part, face to face, before, plural of qabilum,
qibalun - power, side, part,
qiblah - towards, in the direction of, facing, alongside,
qiblatun - anything before, opposite, the point in the direction of which prayer is performed, the Ka'bah at Makkah, a place of worship,
qabulun - favourable reception, gracious acceptance,
qabilun - tribe, host, plural qabilatun,
qabailun - tribe,
aqbala - to come near, draw near, approach, turn towards, rush upon,
taqabbala - to accept,
mutaqabilun - opposite to, facing one another,
mustaqbilun - proceeding towards, heading towards.qabila vb. (1)
impf. act. 9104, 244, 4225
impf. pass. 248, 2123, 385, 390, 391, 954
n.vb. 337
pcple. act. 403qabil n.f. (pl. qaba'il) 727, 4913
qabil n.m. 1792
qibal n.m. or preposition. 2177, 2737, 5713, 7036
qiblah n.f. 2142, 2143, 2144, 2145, 2145, 2145, 1087
qubul n.m. 6111, 1226, 1855
aqbala vb. (4)
perf. act. 1271, 1282, 3727, 3750, 3794, 5129, 5225, 6830
impv. 2831taqabbala vb. (5)
perf. act. 337
impf. act. 527, 4616
impv. 2127, 335, 1440
perf. pass. 527, 536
impf. pass. 527, 953taqabala vb. (6) pcple. act. 1547, 3744, 4453, 5616
istaqbala vb. (10) pcple. act. 4624
LL, V8, p 237, 238 ## http//ejtaal.net/aa/#q=qbl
-
Also the word yaday is in nominative feminine dual noun, not a location adverb.
http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=55806 nominative feminine dual noun
-
I forgot to add the word before in 3446 is bayna (ن which is in accusative location adverb
http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=55805 accusative location adverb
-
Peace The Sardar.
Qoran includes its own dictionary. Verses explain themselves if one is studying the whole book in context.
Verse 538 is not giving "cutting hand/s" as punishment, if it was, it would not say "FaIktau Aydyahuma" This does not make sense as "Ayd" is in plural form. It would have specified either one hand ( yadu Alsarik was al assarika) or two hands( Yadai/n Alsarik Wa Alssarika) for each thief, not a random plural ( Aydiyahuma),
It is clear from the general expression that it is an idiom.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Peace The Sardar.
Qoran includes its own dictionary. Verses explain themselves if one is studying the whole book in context.
Verse 538 is not giving "cutting hand/s" as punishment, if it was, it would not say "FaIktau Aydyahuma" This does not make sense as "Ayd" is in plural form. It would have specified either one hand ( yadu Alsarik was al assarika) or two hands( Yadai/n Alsarik Wa Alssarika) for each thief, not a random plural ( Aydiyahuma),
It is clear from the general expression that it is an idiom.
GOD bless you.
Peace.Salaam good logic
For me you are correct but don't forget brother there has been brain washing for centuries by mullahs and general public get confused that why no one else in centuries said so. I guess people like us were in all times but majority rule has suppressed their teachings.
The hadithi culture was developed over time with force with the help of ruling authorities and it can also be changed by an authority.
Look at Saudi Arabia, crown prince is changing the culture but not without power. Unfortunately reformers start becoming suppressors over time and new era of repression starts.
I feel we have to correct our individual qiblas and try to convey the true message around us by education and practice.
Peace
-
Peace The Sardar.
Qoran includes its own dictionary. Verses explain themselves if one is studying the whole book in context.
Verse 538 is not giving "cutting hand/s" as punishment, if it was, it would not say "FaIktau Aydyahuma" This does not make sense as "Ayd" is in plural form. It would have specified either one hand ( yadu Alsarik was al assarika) or two hands( Yadai/n Alsarik Wa Alssarika) for each thief, not a random plural ( Aydiyahuma),
It is clear from the general expression that it is an idiom.
GOD bless you.
Peace.This is false, the subject is "the male and the female thief".
Two persons have two hands. If you have to cut their hands, the number of hands is 4. The plural is used as it should. The male and the female thief, cut their hands 4 hands plural. -
This is false, the subject is "the male and the female thief".
Two persons have two hands ( confused"but what if he only has one hand?............. brickwall ) If you have to cut their hands, the number of hands is 4. The plural is used as it should. The male and the female thief, cut their hands 4 hands plural.But why didn't it say cut both their hands? This makes me question the traditional interpretation and also check these posts about the verse
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608291.msg384220#msg384220 Started by Reel.
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608169.msg382141#msg382141 Started by Uq -
This is false, the subject is "the male and the female thief".
As far i can see on our brother of Mankind Good Logic's last comment i don't see him changing the subject. If i misread you then i am sorry.
-
Hello Wakas,
Please see
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609391.msg403439#msg403439quoting your message from the link and the verse for people to see
538 the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.
-
The Arabic word translated as "cut" in 538 is "iqtaa" and occurs 14 other times in the same 1st verb form (QaTaA) in The Quran, please tell us how many out of the 14 occurrences it means a clear physical cutting off?
-
6646, 595,
-
The derivatives that are read in the 2nd verb form (QaTTaA) occur 17 times in The Quran. The 2nd verb form expresses intensity/frequency of the action. Please tell us how many out of the 17 occurrences it means a clear physical cutting off?
-
533, 7124, 2649, 2071.
Other instances mean to divide, which would be a metaphor for amputation. In the joseph/women story (which occur two times) it appears to mean cut and not divide, but how would we pick between divide and only mark? You would guess the command of allah? Did pharaoh threatened to "mark" the hands" and "feet from opposite sides" next to crucifying? Would marks on hands deter a lot of people from stealing? Even if it did originally mean "mark" we would have no sure way to know it did. The qur'an can't guide humanity if it isn't clear. -
The more intense 2nd verb form is used alongside hands only twice in Quran - please tell us does it mean cutting off hands in these verses? Yes/No.
-
This is the joseph/women story. But the first verb form is used in 538, not the second. And it does mean physical cutting as in the verses showed in 1)
-
Please explain the plural use of "aydi" (hands) in 538. Note that the Arabic plural means 3 or more hands, thus iqtaa should be done to 3 or more hands.
-
The subject is "the male and the female thief". They have 4 hands which would require a plural number of hands (3+) to make correct grammar.
-
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 (all?) consider this punishment to be far worse. Please explain why this is.
-
Actually this is the opposite. It would be better to have compassion if the punishment is a lot worse (cutting hands). Your sentence doesn't make sense. If it did ever make sense for some wierd reason, this argument would only have worked in the premise that the qur'an is without error, and therefore is not valid.
-
The recurring theme of justice in The Quran is equivalence or less, i.e. one cannot go overboard in punishment with respect to the crime. Please explain what happens if someone steals a slice of bread according to Quran.
-
Cut their hands. Or, according to you, "cut their resources/power". What would it mean? Make him pay a fine. There is absolutely no indication of what would the amount of cut resources/power would be. This is very vague, one would take him a day of work, one could take his whole house. Are we supposed to judge according to the qur'an, or our own fantasisies.
If Allah wanted us to do this, he would not have said "cut the hands" and would have spared people's hands. If he did, it was utterly dangerous and therefore utterly idiotic. You are making a fool of God? -
Are there any other corroborating verses in Quran which support hand-cutting-off for theft? Yes/No. If yes, cite them.
Why would we need to quote other verses? Isn't one single verse of God enough? Or is there a law telling us verses don't count unti lthey are repeated x times?
8 ) the only working example of theft in Quran is in the story of Joseph , please tell us what the punishment for theft is in this story?
This story tells us what happened. It is not a commandment from God, unlike 538. If it was a commandment, it would contradict 538. Furthermore the punishment in this verse is to enslave the thief. Is that your way of "cutting resources"? And this punishment is called in the qur'an "the law of the king" (of egypt). It is not the law of God. it is just a rehash of a bible story. So your hypothesis is wrong in several aspects.
-
-
Hello Wakas,
- 6646, 595,
I tried to find 6646 but it doesn't have that verse, the chapter has only 12 verses
-
Also this is from https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608169.msg382141#msg382141
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.
-
Same post but from brother/sister Huruf
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
-
Cutting off the hands makes no sense. Cutting off the hand
is a lifetime sentence. A farmer with a family who has his
hand severed becomes a hardship on his wife, children and
elderly parents. nope At least the adulterer gets lashes
and it's over and done with! And we have this1083 Indeed, your enemy is "l-abtaru" the one cut off .
peace
-
Cutting off the hands makes no sense. Cutting off the hand
is a lifetime sentence. A farmer with a family who has his
hand severed becomes a hardship on his wife, children and
elderly parents. nope At least the adulterer gets lashes
and it's over and done with! And we have this1083 Indeed, your enemy is "l-abtaru" the one cut off .
peace
Salam here is the root word of abtar
Ba-Ta-Ra ( ر = cut or cut off a thing before it was complete, without offspring/progeny, defective/deficient/incomplete/imperfect, in want, poor, suffering or in loss, short, cut off from prosperity or good.
abtar n.m. 1083
LL, V1, p 186 ## http//ejtaal.net/aa/#q=btr
-
Cutting off the hands makes no sense. Cutting off the hand
is a lifetime sentence. A farmer with a family who has his
hand severed becomes a hardship on his wife, children and
elderly parents. nope At least the adulterer gets lashes
and it's over and done with! And we have this1083 Indeed, your enemy is "l-abtaru" the one cut off .
peace
It is recisely because it makes no sense why Qur'an haters want that by all means that is what is meant in the Qur'an. For those sick people it is inadmissible that Qur'an would make sense. They will go to any extent of idiocy and and absurdity to attach to Qur'an as much lack of sense as it is conceivable.
Sometimes they help because we fall upon sides of the question we hadn't thought of and which make the Qur'an make still more sense than it does already make.
Salaam
-
Hello Ju5,
Re 1)
6646 does not exist. Perhaps you meant another verse.
I will accept 595 as physical cutting off.Total for 1st verb form = 1 out of 14 means physical cutting off
Re 2)
I will accept 533, 7124, 2649, 2071Total for 2nd verb form = 4 out of 17 means physical cutting off (albeit all examples using same context)
Re 3)
You admit (in your reply 2) in the only two verses where hands and 2nd verb form are used it means cut only, not cut off.Re 4)
In 538 the singular male thief and singular female thief is used, yet the Arabic plural (3+) is used, nominally meaning 3+ hands should be cut off (if one interprets it like that). You claim this is due to correct grammar. However, what you/others seemingly do not realise is that in the other example you gave of physical cutting off (i.e. 533, 7124, 2649, 2071) all of these use the plural address along with the plural hands which makes more sense. So, at the very least we can say we cannot find an equivalent example to 538 usage in Quran. If I am mistaken, feel free to correct.Also, this may cause potential interpretive issues because there is only 4 hands and a minimum of 3 must be cut off, and since there is no differentiation made between the male/female thief we can only assume it means to amputate both hands of each, however in those examples you gave (i.e. 533, 7124, 2649, 2071) it implies cut off from opposite sides, meaning only one hand and one foot from each person, BUT this would result in less hands being cut off (or same number of limbs in total) for waging war against God and His messenger and corruption in land. Meaning that in this interpretation waging war against God and His messenger and causing corruption in the land is equal to or lesser than theft, which is odd (and perhaps even contradictory) considering the punishment for the former can be capital punishment clearly implying it is the worse of the two.
See this article http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-crime-punishment-expiation.htmlRe 5)
It would be better to have compassion if the punishment is a lot worse (cutting hands).
Exactly my point.
If it did ever make sense for some wierd reason, this argument would only have worked in the premise that the qur'an is without error, and therefore is not valid.
Exactly, see 482
http//www.quran434.com/study-method.htmlThe correct interpretation is the one without contradiction. Simple.
Re 6)
You answered "cut their hands" but we already know from Quran's clear instruction (4239-40, elsewhere etc), when it comes to wrong/crime/justice, its recompense is its like, or less. Never more. Thus, your answer contradicts Quran (unless you consider cutting off hands for theft of slice of bread equivalent). Please resolve your contradiction.You ask me how would it be determined what the recompense is. Isn't it obvious? Quran tells us justice is about equivalence or less. Multiple examples of compensation in Quran regarding divorce for example. For example, in case of theft, return of stolen goods (if possible) and/or detainment of person until works pay off amount stolen (and costs associated with resolving case). Simple.
Re 7)
We can conclude you cannot cite any corroborating evidence for the hand cutting off view.Re 8 )
Note what Joseph says in 1279. Detainment of the thief is in keeping with what Joseph understands as God's law. Corroborating evidence for my view.You claim this is enslavement, but slavery is not stated in that verse.
Hello Wakas,
quoting your message from the link and the verse for people to see
538 the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.
-
6646, 595,
-
533, 7124, 2649, 2071.
Other instances mean to divide, which would be a metaphor for amputation. In the joseph/women story (which occur two times) it appears to mean cut and not divide, but how would we pick between divide and only mark? You would guess the command of allah? Did pharaoh threatened to "mark" the hands" and "feet from opposite sides" next to crucifying? Would marks on hands deter a lot of people from stealing? Even if it did originally mean "mark" we would have no sure way to know it did. The qur'an can't guide humanity if it isn't clear. -
This is the joseph/women story. But the first verb form is used in 538, not the second. And it does mean physical cutting as in the verses showed in 1)
-
The subject is "the male and the female thief". They have 4 hands which would require a plural number of hands (3+) to make correct grammar.
-
Actually this is the opposite. It would be better to have compassion if the punishment is a lot worse (cutting hands). Your sentence doesn't make sense. If it did ever make sense for some wierd reason, this argument would only have worked in the premise that the qur'an is without error, and therefore is not valid.
-
Cut their hands. Or, according to you, "cut their resources/power". What would it mean? Make him pay a fine. There is absolutely no indication of what would the amount of cut resources/power would be. This is very vague, one would take him a day of work, one could take his whole house. Are we supposed to judge according to the qur'an, or our own fantasisies.
If Allah wanted us to do this, he would not have said "cut the hands" and would have spared people's hands. If he did, it was utterly dangerous and therefore utterly idiotic. You are making a fool of God?
Why would we need to quote other verses? Isn't one single verse of God enough? Or is there a law telling us verses don't count unti lthey are repeated x times?
This story tells us what happened. It is not a commandment from God, unlike 538. If it was a commandment, it would contradict 538. Furthermore the punishment in this verse is to enslave the thief. Is that your way of "cutting resources"? And this punishment is called in the qur'an "the law of the king" (of egypt). It is not the law of God. it is just a rehash of a bible story. So your hypothesis is wrong in several aspects.
-
