The word "prison" in the qur'an

[Novice]

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

[Wakas]

Please see
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609391.msg403439#msg403439

[Ju5]

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.

[The_Sardar]

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

[The_Sardar]

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.

[Ju5]

Hello Wakas,

Please see
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609391.msg403439#msg403439

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.

1. 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?

2. 6646, 595,

3. 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?

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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)

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Cut their hands. Or, according to you, "cut their resources/power&quot. 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?

13. 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.

[The_Sardar]

Hello Wakas,

1. 6646, 595,

I tried to find 6646 but it doesn't have that verse, the chapter has only 12 verses

[The_Sardar]

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.

[The_Sardar]

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

[hawk99]

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 this

1083 Indeed, your enemy is "l-abtaru" the one cut off .

peace

[The_Sardar]

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 this

1083 Indeed, your enemy is "l-abtaru" the one cut off .

peace

Salam here is the root word of abtar

Ba-Ta-Ra ( &#1585 = 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

[huruf]

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 this

1083 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

[Wakas]

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, 2071

Total 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.html

Re 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.html

The 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.

1. 6646, 595,

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Cut their hands. Or, according to you, "cut their resources/power&quot. 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.

[Ju5]

@Wakas

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, 2071

Total 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.html

Re 5)
Quote
It would be better to have compassion if the punishment is a lot worse (cutting hands).

Exactly my point.

Quote
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.html

The 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.

1. I meant 6946 Then We would have cut from him the aorta.

Yes, maybe only 2 of several verses (else than 538, which would be 3 verses) physical cutting; other indeed mostly mean metaphorical cutting, then what?
meanings in a text are not determined according to the number of times they occur, this is not a game of probabilities but of arabic language, context, etc.... Two verses are enough to prove to a non arabic quranist speculator that it can mean physical cutting. Even it it was only 1 verse, proper translation would be enough.

2. see above

3. Why should we look about the verb being used with hands only to count as valid? you could cut hands, aortas, hair or beef, why would it matter?

if hands was replaced with power, id says yes, it is obviously metaphorical. It is not written power, it is written hand, which is a very physical thing. Yes hand can be used metaphorically. But you would have to use words to show that it is a metaphor. There is nothing really obvious about "cutting the hands" being a metaphor, especially when talking about a punishment for thieves. Get real.

It is Allahs fault that people cut the hands of thieves because they wanted to obey him and picked the obvious (and probably real) interpretation? Does God engage in second degree? He would knew that it would cause people getting their hands lost for life right? By saying God did such a gross error, you are blasphemers.

If I am mistaken, feel free to correct.

In all these verses the verb's subjects are plural (those who wage war, those who believed musa before being permitted by pharaoh...) so the number of hands is necessarily superior to 3(plural). If the sentence said "The one who spreads corruption and wages war against Allah, cut his(plural) hands, then you would be right, but the subjects if never "the one", the subject is "those", "they" ....

5)Correct me if i'm wrong but it still doesn't make sense. God says do not have pity for the ones to be lashed, and he does not tell us to not have pity for the thieves. It would be better to have pity for the thieves, so it makes sense. Now the word of god is the word of god so there is no pity unless commanded, if he says cut the hands, you have to do it, if he says do this or say that you have to do it. This is irrelevant.

The correct interpretation is the one without contradiction. Simple.

Only in the frame of logic and reason. If you have to twist every thing or make wild extrapolations or put metaphors on top of everything, then its not translation it is wishful thinking. Not the truth. When such problems occur not only one time, but several times, you have to draw conclusions it is not perfect. If you twist every word meaning, interpretation, translation, you could make The Odissey become a divine book.

6. My answer does not contradict the qur'an, i am just seeing the meaning of the verse. If you consider that 4239 contradicts 538, then the qur'an contradicts itself. I am not here to solve qur'an contradictions, in fact i am currently showing them to others. If any qur'anist is able to make sense of it, then nice, but i am still waiting for him to show up.
   Now if god says "don't kill life because it is sacred", and then "wage war against the tyrants and kill them wherever you find them", those two statements do not contradict each other, because never kill is the default statement, and "kill them wherever..." is conditional. Which means that if you want to make sense out of the qur'an (possibly), always deals in a fair manner, except when someone steals or commits adultery, then do that...(100 lashes, cut the hands...).

Your punishment for theft would be return of stolen goods? HA that's a good one. Please think 7 times and then post this again (if you dare)

7. yes there is no other verse. What is the implication? None.

8 ) No. To "what will be the recompense if you lie?" (the thieves) and the "thieves (yusuf brothers say, "the one who is found with the bag (with the stolen thing), let him be the recompense." So the one who is found with the stolen good will be a slave (he will belong to them). it is the same in the bible. But it is Yusuf brothers who said "take the one who stole", it is not the law of god. And nowhere in the verse it is indicated as a commandment. Story of biblical characters happen in the qur'an and do not necessarily apply qur'an commandments. The commandmants are from god, not from reminding old stories.

[The_Sardar]

if hands was replaced with power, id says yes, it is obviously metaphorical. It is not written power, it is written hand, which is a very physical thing. Yes hand can be used metaphorically. But you would have to use words to show that it is a metaphor. There is nothing really obvious about "cutting the hands" being a metaphor, especially when talking about a punishment for thieves. Get real.

It is Allahs fault that people cut the hands of thieves because they wanted to obey him and picked the obvious (and probably real) interpretation? Does God engage in second degree? He would knew that it would cause people getting their hands lost for life right? By saying God did such a gross error, you are blasphemers.

6. My answer does not contradict the qur'an, i am just seeing the meaning of the verse. If you consider that 4239 contradicts 538, then the qur'an contradicts itself. I am not here to solve qur'an contradictions, in fact i am currently showing them to others. If any qur'anist is able to make sense of it, then nice, but i am still waiting for him to show up.
   Now if god says "don't kill life because it is sacred", and then "wage war against the tyrants and kill them wherever you find them", those two statements do not contradict each other, because never kill is the default statement, and "kill them wherever..." is conditional. Which means that if you want to make sense out of the qur'an (possibly), always deals in a fair manner, except when someone steals or commits adultery, then do that...(100 lashes, cut the hands...).

8 ) No. To "what will be the recompense if you lie?" (the thieves) and the "thieves (yusuf brothers say, "the one who is found with the bag (with the stolen thing), let him be the recompense." So the one who is found with the stolen good will be a slave (he will belong to them). it is the same in the bible. But it is Yusuf brothers who said "take the one who stole", it is not the law of god. And nowhere in the verse it is indicated as a commandment. Story of biblical characters happen in the qur'an and do not necessarily apply qur'an commandments. The commandmants are from god, not from reminding old stories.h.

Wakas is not here right now but i noticed something.

@3 "It is Allahs fault that people cut the hands of thieves because they wanted to obey him and picked the obvious (and probably real) interpretation?" Wait how do you know that is obvious interpretation back when Quran was revealed in the beginning?

@6 I don't remember Wakas saying that 4239-40 would contradict 538 if cutting hands translation is true.

@8 But they are not exact same, if i remember correctly that Lot in the Bible was a drunk and had intercourse with his daughters while in the Quran he is not

From https//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A30-38&version=NIV

Genesis 1930-38 New International Version (NIV)

Lot and His Daughters
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, ?Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children?as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let?s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.?

33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, ?Last night I slept with my father. Let?s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.? 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

36 So both of Lot?s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.

[The_Sardar]

if hands was replaced with power, id says yes, it is obviously metaphorical. It is not written power, it is written hand, which is a very physical thing. Yes hand can be used metaphorically. But you would have to use words to show that it is a metaphor. There is nothing really obvious about "cutting the hands" being a metaphor, especially when talking about a punishment for thieves. Get real.

Actually the translation says hands and it's usually the traditional translations. I found a note of one of non traditional muslims which is Edip Yuksel, he said in his note on 538

The Arabic word we translated as "cut," occurs 36 times with all its derivatives. Nineteen of these are read in triliteral form QaTaA, and with the exceptions of 538 and 134, in all occurrences mean the non-physical or metaphorical action of "cutting off relationship" or "ending" (227; 3127; 645; 772; 87; 9121; 1027; 1181; 1565; 1566; 1325; 2215; 2732; 2929; 5633; 595; 6946). In 134, the noun form is used to describe "pieces," and its usage in 6946 is understood by some scholars to be physical too. The derivatives that are read in the QaTTaa form occur 17 times. This form, which expresses intensity or frequency of the action, is used both to mean physical cutting off (533; 7124; 2071; 2649; 1331) and metaphorical cutting off (2166; 694; 7160; 7167; 9110; 4715; 4722; 2193; 2219; 2353) as well as physically cutting or marking something (1231; 1250).

Verse 1231 mentions women gathered for a party cutting their fingers with knives, for they were awed by the physical attraction of Joseph. Obviously, those women did not cut off their fingers. Thus, it is possible to understand the punishment for thieves in three alternative ways, (1) cutting off their hands, or (2) cutting or marking their hands, or (3) cutting their means to steal, or cutting their hands from committing the crime. It is up to the society to choose one of these meanings or a combination of them depending on the severity of the crime (See 752).

It is not right to see theft merely as an individual crime. Family structures, social norms, economic systems, social institutions and values are also responsible for this crime. A society might reduce the crime of theft and burglary by increasing the strength of the family structure and ties, by establishing social and charity institutions, prohibiting usury, changing their wasteful lifestyle, and distributing wealth in a way that is more egalitarian. Punishment alone is not the right way to fight crimes; preventive measures need to be taken. For a discussion of this verse, see the Sample Comparisons section in the Introduction.

According to the Bible, thieves were punished by punitive restitution (Exodus 221-8 ; 2 Samuel 126 ). If the thief could not pay the fine, he was to be sold to a Hebrew master till he could pay (Exodus 221-4 ). A night-thief might be smitten till he died (Exodus 222 ).

And also "There is nothing really obvious about "cutting the hands" being a metaphor, especially when talking about a punishment for thieves." How do you know there is nothing obvious on "cutting the hands" being a metapthor in time of the prophet?

[huruf]

Actually the translation says hands and it's usually the traditional translations. I found a note of one of non traditional muslims which is Edip Yuksel, he said in his note on 538

And also "There is nothing really obvious about "cutting the hands" being a metaphor, especially when talking about a punishment for thieves." How do you know there is nothing obvious on "cutting the hands" being a metapthor in time of the prophet?

So now we need a doctor in Qur'a hating to make us discern what is an idiom from what it is not.

Hating Qur'an does not make one a doctor in Arabic nor in Qur'an.

The expression in question is of course an idiom.Of course it is an idiom and we do not need to go back any time at all. Arabic uses hands in the law today as it has used it in te past and as other languages use it.

That the colonisation of islam has led to attribute to the Qur'an this kind of nonsense shows how the destruction of Qur'an is being done hand in hand by Qur'an haters and overreligiosit "sel called" muslims who ant to use the religion to enslave minds, should not make us waste time with this kind of crap.

This is repeating ad nauseam the same nonsense over and over. Those who want to be sicnere they know it, and those who do not, they know it too and we know it.

The question is not it is an idiom or it is not. The question is I am being sincere or I am not.

We do know where we are each of us and this is not the first Qur'an hater we have had in the forum. To spew nonsense is his business. May God reward him or her.

Salaam

[Ju5]

So now we need a doctor in Qur'a hating to make us discern what is an idiom from what it is not.

Hating Qur'an does not make one a doctor in Arabic nor in Qur'an.

The expression in question is of course an idiom.Of course it is an idiom and we do not need to go back any time at all. Arabic uses hands in the law today as it has used it in te past and as other languages use it.

That the colonisation of islam has led to attribute to the Qur'an this kind of nonsense shows how the destruction of Qur'an is being done hand in hand by Qur'an haters and overreligiosit "sel called" muslims who ant to use the religion to enslave minds, should not make us waste time with this kind of crap.

This is repeating ad nauseam the same nonsense over and over. Those who want to be sicnere they know it, and those who do not, they know it too and we know it.

The question is not it is an idiom or it is not. The question is I am being sincere or I am not.

We do know where we are each of us and this is not the first Qur'an hater we have had in the forum. To spew nonsense is his business. May God reward him or her.

Salaam

Hello, huruf,

• Do you have any proof that to cut the hands can be used as an idiom to cut the resources/power?

• Is there any context in this verse showing that an idiom is used here and not the basic meaning( which would make sense in this context- thief punishment) which is also used in other verses (threat of the pharaoh, punishment of the corruptors ?

• Are sunni muslims who did cut the hand of thieves in the past responsible for their action as they only followed what was written in the qur'an, or is Allah responsible for using such an idiom ?

• Or are all sunni muslims evil Jinns looking to destroy truth, corrupt the earth and enslave the people, who cut hands of thieves while they knew that it was an idiom ?

[good_logic]

Peace All.
Allah has to answer for everything that has gone wrong with the humans, how dare Allah create humans that kill tens/hundreds of people for no reason at all?
It is Allah s fault that thousands /millions have been misled. how dare Allah send a confusing book?
How dare Allah use idioms that people take to mean other things?
How dare Allah guide some and misguides others?
You see brothers and sisters ,it is all Allah s fault. How dare Allah...etc... you can carry on blaming Allah for everything...The buck stops with Allah. Or is it warped logic?
First
Verse 538 says "Iktau Aydyahuma"(Plural 3 or more hands) ..."Jazaan Bima Kassaba" so we can do the following
1- Cut one hand of each thief, some are doing that.(This will only cut a total of two hands ,it is not plural, how come they do that?)
2- Cut two hands of each thief, are there any that are doing that ?(This makes 4 hands ,it is plural)
3- Cut one hand of the male thief and two hands of the female thief.( This makes 3 hands ,it is also plural)
4- Cut two hands of the male thief and one hand of the female thief( This will also make 3 hands and it is plural.)
5- "Iktau aydyahuma" is an idiom ,the whole expression means " Cut from What their hands will earn/work for..." (This is the only explanation that fulfils "Jaza an Bima Kassaba" and makes sense.)
With "cutting hands" you have a number of options and no instruction or confirmation of what to cut (2,3 or 4?)!!!!!
Second.
Qoran says what it says for a lot of reasons, some take it to mean this
1624
When they are asked, "What do you think of these revelations from your Lord," they say, "Tales from the past."

To others it means this
1630
As for Alladina Ittaqaw, when they are asked, "What do you think of these revelations from your Lord," they say, "Khairan." For those who lead a righteous life, happiness, and the abode of the Hereafter is even better. What a blissful abode for Al Muttaqueen.
And there lies life contradictions and problems.
GOD bless .
Peace.

[Ju5]

@Wakas update on the plural thing, because i was in a bad mood so what i posted before wasn't very neutral.

You say in other examples they have only one hand cut yet it is still plural. I am not an arabic expert, but i guess that arabic translators can do their job regarding to pronouns without being influenced by the sunna, and that by 1400 years non muslims who didn't try to spit on the qur'an did a correct job of translating this. Only those with knowledge of arabic should give their opinion about this, and the ones who say it is translated wrong while they have no arabic knowledge are simply conspirationists (and it is their right)

My guess is that the pronouns refers to the number of people concerned

Example - the male and female thieves are two so it is dual

• the pharaoh s magicians are plural, so they must be 3+
• those who wage war are plural

and as for the noun (hands), i guess it is according to the number of hands. Example 4 magicians get their hands/feet cut from opposite sides = 4 hands = plural

I am sorry becaus ei have a hard time staying relaxed and neutral while i am debating, i am still a newbie.