The word "prison" in the qur'an

Wakas

@Ju5,
Also you asked about grammar. The link about this was already given
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608169.msg382141#msg382141

Did you read it?

Ju5

@good logic

Peace Ju5.
-If my employer asks me to empty the bins and he/she means empty the garbage from my head, then I would not empty any real bins. I will reflect on how I am doing my job instead.

Qoran is the most reliable source and 538 screams it is an idiom. The only way the verse makes sense .(To me at least)

-On the contrary the verse is screaming " idiom" . No physical cutting of hand/s is implied.

GOD bless you.
Peace.

-if your employer asks you to empty the bins and you reflect on your job you will get fired. The good answer was" i would empty the bins and put it to the trash outside. You don't need a manual to do this, nor to cut hands.

The qur'an is not a source to show that it is an idiom as it is not clear, and i am asking for an external source. Do you have any source else than the qur'an showing cut the hands can be used as an idiom in old arabic
i mean "cut the hands" is used as real cutting and not an idiom in other verses. So my question was why is it used with the same terms as real physical cutting in other verses if it is a known idiom ?

Ju5

@Wakas

admits its minority usage
admits in the only other comparable usage it doesn't mean cut off hands
admits there is no comparable address example to 538
admits Quran says do not let pity deter from lashing but not the worse punishment of hand-cutting
is forced to make equivalent (in his mind) paltry theft (e.g. slice of bread) with hand-cutting
admits no corroborating evidence
admits the only other mention of punishment for theft in Quran does not involve hand-cutting (and according to Joseph's reaction in 1279, if Ju5 read carefully, non-cutting is in accordance with God's law)

I never once said the above probabilities prove anything

Then why use

admits its minority usage

as a counter argument?

I never said there was only one comparable examples because all other example involving something else than hands do count as you admit they mean physical cutting. Your case is that you can cut anything but if it is hands it becomes an idiom. So do you have proof that these words can not mean cut hands? and let's quote you again

Wakas
I never once said the above probabilities prove anything

So why would you need a another example ?

There is no other example indeed, but this is not an argument. Your case is "cut the resources " is more probable because there is an example in Yusuf story. but

a story doesn't make a commandmant. In those verses Allah doesn't say "when someone steals, punish him like this.
Yusuf acted according to the law of the king of egypt. He also hid that he was the thief brother to not get problems.
The proposal to offer as a recompense the thief himself came from yusuf brothers, who are not God, but kidnappers. You are taking the law of kidnappers as divine instead of Allah himself who tells you to "cut the hands".

So if "cut the hands" means something, yusuf story isn't an example of it. So there would be no other example of your interpretation either.

Qur'anists argue on problematic (to 21th century morals) verses to make it peaceful and a lots of people speculate because there is no examples too. If there was examples in the qur'an this forum wouldn't exist because everyone would understand it easily regardless of "poor translation".

again

Wakas
I never once said the above probabilities prove anything

on one hand you claim it is better to have compassion if the punishment if worse, on the other hand you say

admits Quran says do not let pity deter from lashing but not the worse punishment of hand-cutting

You should be happy that Allah doesn't tell you to be merciless when carrying such a heavy punishment as cutting hands? Why do you argue?

your point being?
I never said cutting hands for people who steal bread was justice. I am just saying that "cut the hands" means, what it means.
Wakas
I never once said the above probabilities prove anything

1279 He (Joseph) said, "God forbid that we would take anyone except he whom we found our belongings with. Indeed, we would then be wrong doers."

If it is not slavery what it is? It is even the same in the bible, from the same story. You could say its prison and not slavery. But you have no proof of that. In fact it is not even clear and you want to take that as a commandmant from allah while it is a story of the past. While 538 is very clear cut the hands. Just like in 533. So don't say "it can't mean cut the hands.

533 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

You may say "this is the more intense verb form". "The first verb form is used in 538, and not the second." Well the first verb form is also used in 6946

Then We would have cut from him the aorta.

This is intense enough.

Ju5

@huruf

Arabic uses hands in the law today as it has used it in te past and as other languages use it.

source please. With c"cut the hands" used as something else than cut the hands. If ye are truthful.

good_logic

Peace Ju5.

I explained "Iktau Aydyahuma" the way it makes sense in the verse. Qoran set precedents and defines its own context.
Your explanation is not logical nor makes sense.
Here is a small example;
"cut the hand" can be from a small cut like a graze to completely severe the hand( I cut my hand shaving is also clear Arabic but it does not mean I severed my hand completely?). Which one is it in 538? Or are you going to use your common sense without given instruction? That will be your justice not Qoran s!!!!
You cannot and will not be able to explain how to do it according to 538, because it is an idiom.
If you still won t see it, then you are making up your own understanding and you know it.
Thank you and GOD bless you.
Peace.

The_Sardar

The qur'an is not a source to show that it is an idiom as it is not clear, and i am asking for an external source. Do you have any source else than the qur'an showing cut the hands can be used as an idiom in old arabic

Salam don't know this helps but check Lisan Al-Arab, Maqayis Al-Lughah or Kitab Al-Ayn.

The_Sardar

If it is not slavery what it is? It is even the same in the bible, from the same story. You could say its prison and not slavery. But you have no proof of that. In fact it is not even clear and you want to take that as a commandmant from allah while it is a story of the past.

Maybe this could answer it. Read onwards of 1279 to 12102, you will see in 12102, speaks about an revelation from the unseen news.

The_Sardar

Also you said "It is even the same in the bible, from the same story" May i ask where in the bible does it speak about the story?

Ju5

Peace Ju5.

I explained "Iktau Aydyahuma" the way it makes sense in the verse. Qoran set precedents and defines its own context.
Your explanation is not logical nor makes sense.
Here is a small example;
"cut the hand" can be from a small cut like a graze to completely severe the hand( I cut my hand shaving is also clear Arabic but it does not mean I severed my hand completely?). Which one is it in 538? Or are you going to use your common sense without given instruction? That will be your justice not Qoran s!!!!
You cannot and will not be able to explain how to do it according to 538, because it is an idiom.
If you still won t see it, then you are making up your own understanding and you know it.
Thank you and GOD bless you.
Peace.

Then do we make small cuts like graze in 533? from opposites sides? or do we amputate ?Which one is it? or are you going to use your common sense without given instruction?

Now you didn't answer to these two questions so allow me to copy paste them

The qur'an is not a source to show that it is an idiom as it is not clear, and i am asking for an external source. Do you have any source else than the qur'an showing cut the hands can be used as an idiom in old arabic ?
why is it used with the same terms as real physical cutting in other verses if it is a known idiom ?

Ju5

Maybe this could answer it. Read onwards of 1279 to 12102, you will see in 12102, speaks about an revelation from the unseen news.

when is say it is not clear, i meant that it wasn't a commandmant at all, it is a story plain and simple, like noah or tamud

bible joseph story https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_(Genesis)#The_silver_cup

The_Sardar

when is say it is not clear, i meant that it wasn't a commandmant at all, it is a story plain and simple, like noah or tamud

Are you sure? Because in 12102 it says

12102
Thalika min anba-i alghaybinooheehi ilayka wama kunta ladayhim ithajmaAAoo amrahum wahum yamkuroona
That is from the news of the unseen that We inspire to you. You were not among them when they arranged their plan and were scheming.

Don't think it's just a story, they mean something.

The_Sardar

bible joseph story https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_(Genesis)#The_silver_cup

Also i don't remember anything about silver cup in Quran. Unless i missed it, please show the verses mentioning silver cup with Joseph in Quran.

good_logic

Peace Ju5.
You are stuck with how to cut the hand/s aren t you?
You are looking for excuses if you keep insisting on your way.Also it is irrelevant what you are asking, it does not matter whether idioms like it exist or not. The verse makes sense only as an idiom.
Look here at 1231

How did these ladies "cut their hands"? Did they make a small graze or severed their hands completely?

You are wasting your time arguing a clear case of "You do not know any details of how to cut the hand/s in 538".
No matter what you say, Qoran has not given any command of "cutting hands" otherwise it would have specified how and with what.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

The_Sardar

You may say "this is the more intense verb form". "The first verb form is used in 538, and not the second." Well the first verb form is also used in 6946

Then We would have cut from him the aorta.

This is intense enough.

Actually in Quranix.org the word faiqtaAAoo (&#1575 is in second person masculine plural imperative verb while in 6946 the word laqataAAna (&#1575 is in first person plural perfect verb. I don't know if this is something different since my grammar knowledge is poor. Wakas, you have a good knowledge on Quranic Arabic grammar, could you tell us if there is a difference?

huruf

Actually in Quranix.org the word faiqtaAAoo (&#1575 is in second person masculine plural imperative verb while in 6946 the word laqataAAna (&#1575 is in first person plural perfect verb. I don't know if this is something different since my grammar knowledge is poor. Wakas, you have a good knowledge on Quranic Arabic grammar, could you tell us if there is a difference?

The verb is the first form in both cases, that is, it is non intensive. But this is turning to be a greater toy for the Qur'an hater that he could ever expect for. at is clearly becoming intensive is the quest for imbecility.

Apart form those things that have said on the lack of precision in 5.38 to be taken as to do something as concrete as to severe hands, there is the question that theft is a most gneeral term in any language, no proper legislation anywhere comes up with such a ludicruous penalty for a non described or defined crime. First they describe the crime properly and then fix the amounts that are unduly obtained and then and only then fix any penalty. And there go the superredeemer os lost dumb Qura'n followers and show as how to understand nonsense properly. It is clear that the Qur'an is not a penal code nor pretends to be. It gives general directions, which by the way it does not pretend that are new in the world, they are the directions which wisdom and common sense have been considered all along as appropriate in more or less all moral civilisations.

And that is exactly what it does, fitting well in the context, in 5.38, he or she who appropriates unduly what is not theirs should be cut off the means or possibility of doing such a thing. In order for the means to be physical cutting what should be obviously severed should be the brains not the hands.

The title of the thread, by the way, continues to be very funny for a "progressive" one.
Prison is about the most infamous and corrupting means of correcting anybody. That some people get out corrected is a monument to human capacity to regenerate.

Salaam

Novice

Salaam The Sardar

Both verbs are from the root . Any word derived from a root shows the meaning of the root. The word to focus on in 538 is (hand).

When we say

It is not in my hands, or
Give me a hand, or
How can I help you in this matter as you have cut your hands.

we do not use the word "hand" in literal sense but idiomatically.

Every language has idioms and people using a language know the idioms of that language.

Like good logic said severing hands in 538 is not practicable and make no sense.

Novice

Novice

And that is exactly what it does, fitting well in the context, in 5.38, he or she who appropriates unduly what is not theirs should be cut off the means or possibility of doing such a thing. In order for the means to be physical cutting what should be obviously severed should be the brains not the hands.

(........37

.......and none but people of wisdom reflect.

The_Sardar

Salaam The Sardar

Both verbs are from the root . Any word derived from a root shows the meaning of the root. The word to focus on in 538 is (hand).

When we say

It is not in my hands, or
Give me a hand, or
How can I help you in this matter as you have cut your hands.

we do not use the word "hand" in literal sense but idiomatically.

Every language has idioms and people using a language know the idioms of that language.

Like good logic said severing hands in 538 is not practicable and make no sense.

Novice

Salam/Peace i check the root word of qataa and it's Qaf-Tay-Ayn ( &#1593 = to cut/sever/disunite/separate/detach, to disable in prosecuting, unable to proceed in, withdrew, break down, perish/cease/finish/fail, cut short / stop, intercepted/interrupted, put an end/stop to, a piece/bit/part/portion cut off from a whole, herd, distinct portion.

qata'a vb. (1)
perf. act. 772, 595, 6946
impf. act. 227, 3127, 87, 9121, 1325, 2215, 2929
impv. 538
perf. pass. 645
pcple. act. 2732
pcple. pass. 1566, 5633

qit n.m. 1181, 1565

qita n.f. (pl. of qitah) 1027, 134

qatta'a vb. (2)
perf. act. 7160, 7168, 1231, 1250, 4715
impf. act. 7124, 2071, 2649, 4722
perf. pass. 1331, 2219
impf. pass. 533

taqatta'a vb. (5)
perf. act. 2166, 694, 2193, 2353
impf. act. 9110

LL, V8 supplement, p 244 ## http//ejtaal.net/aa/#q=qTe

Yes in Project Root List it is in first verb from but i noticed in PRL 6946 the word laqataAAna (&#1575 is in perfect (i.e. action done/completed) and active while in 538 faiqtaAAoo (&#1575 is in imperative which is are verbs used to give orders, commands,warning or instructions, and (if you use "please&quot to make a request.

The_Sardar

So what do you think of this Novice?

huruf

Salam/Peace i check the root word of qataa and it's Qaf-Tay-Ayn ( &#1593 = to cut/sever/disunite/separate/detach, to disable in prosecuting, unable to proceed in, withdrew, break down, perish/cease/finish/fail, cut short / stop, intercepted/interrupted, put an end/stop to, a piece/bit/part/portion cut off from a whole, herd, distinct portion.

qata'a vb. (1)
perf. act. 772, 595, 6946
impf. act. 227, 3127, 87, 9121, 1325, 2215, 2929
impv. 538
perf. pass. 645
pcple. act. 2732
pcple. pass. 1566, 5633

qit n.m. 1181, 1565

qita n.f. (pl. of qitah) 1027, 134

qatta'a vb. (2)
perf. act. 7160, 7168, 1231, 1250, 4715
impf. act. 7124, 2071, 2649, 4722
perf. pass. 1331, 2219
impf. pass. 533

taqatta'a vb. (5)
perf. act. 2166, 694, 2193, 2353
impf. act. 9110

LL, V8 supplement, p 244 ## http//ejtaal.net/aa/#q=qTe

Yes in Project Root List it is in first verb from but i noticed in PRL 6946 the word laqataAAna (&#1575 is in perfect (i.e. action done/completed) and active while in 538 faiqtaAAoo (&#1575 is in imperative which is are verbs used to give orders, commands,warning or instructions, and (if you use "please&quot to make a request.

I think the tense, the mood are all clear, problem there, but the translations are a mess.

It has already been said by some poster I don't know whether in this thread or another, the verb in Arabic that would properly mean AMPUTATE is b-t-r, that would clinch it.

As it is, is it traslated as cut off, which can be anything in english can be amputate or can be simply cut access, so there can come to you the anti Qur'an cursaders pretending that if a hand is mentionned the only thing you can do with it is amputate it. And the fact that they have no shame in their crusading seems to make tham believe that they have become doctors in Arabic language and in the mind that drafted the Qur'an.

I understand that people want to make sure of things so they are not mislead by or made to shut up by troublemakers, and in fact some of them do participate here and of course are welcome or should be at any rate, but the lack of interest and the insistence on making the Qur'an the champion of nonsense, give away the ill will and need to spite on the Qur'an METAPHORICALLY.