THEFT PUNISHMENT
-
Peace Saladin,
Do you really agree with this ?
http//www.apostatesofislam.com/media/video/handcutting_video_islam_200kbps.wmv
Or would you prefer that the 2 hands shall be cut off ?
-
Salam Fahad
the verse is about two thieves , both have normally two hands , and 2+2=4 i.e more than 3 . if it was about a single thief then the dual form of hand would have been used .
so the "hands" in this verse are physical .You are right "aydiyahuma/their hands" are physical hands, from 538 we shall cut the hands of the robbers, as stated in the same verse we shall reward them for their doings; only for what they sent forth with their own hands.
In the hereafter, the punishment doesn't concern only the physical hands (850-51). The punishment of the transgressors, the rejecters is the result of their deeds that they sent forth with their own hands.
Rampant corruption and disorder have appeared in the land and in the sea because of what people keep doing.. (3041)
Thahara alfasadu feealbarri waalbahri bima kasabat aydee alnnasi...This is valid for the robbers, the reward/jazaan concerns what they earns with their hand; they have to make reparations (539).
Waalssariqu waalssariqatu faiqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan bimakasaba...538
The chapter 111 is similar than 538
1111 Perished is the hands/yada of Abi Lahab (the father of the flame), and perished is he!
Yada/two hands is the dual form of yad/hand, that implies the two physical hands of Abi Lahab.
But "Perished/Condemned the hands of Abi Lahab" means perished what Abi Lahab sent forth with his own two hands (1112).Salam
-
I don't get you Marie, the dual form of hand (yad) is yadeyn (yaa', daal, yaa', noun) and not yada(an).
Yada/two hands is the dual form of yad/hand, that implies the two physical hands of Abi Lahab.
But "Perished/Condemned the hands of Abi Lahab" means perished what Abi Lahab sent forth with his own two hands (1112). -
I don't get you Marie, the dual form of hand (yad) is yadeyn (yaa', daal, yaa', noun) and not yada(an).
Yada/two hands is the dual form of yad/hand, that implies the two physical hands of Abi Lahab.
But "Perished/Condemned the hands of Abi Lahab" means perished what Abi Lahab sent forth with his own two hands (1112).According the grammar, one can use Yadaahu (his two hands) or yadayhi (his two hands), both are the dual form of yad.
One can say yadayni or yadaani or yaday or yadaa.
salam
-
salam Marie .
In the light of the Reading, jazaan/reward doesn't imply systematically a physical punishment
jazaa can be reward,recompense,requital,punishment but how can u say that it cannot be physical punishment ? take a look at 533 . the reward can be physical punishment .
The word "yadayha" which means literally "her two hands" is also used in 266.
whats the point ?
-
salam JM.
As Marie wrote above,
This action "to cut their hand" can have several meanings prevent the thieves to steal, to spend what they have stolen and restitute what they have stolen....why cannot it mean physical hands ?! why can it mean everything else in the world but not "cut the pysical hands" ?
i think the points that i presented that showed how these "resources" arguements are weak have been ignored .
First the verse is a little mistranslated . it does not say ? ?the thief , male or female...? . it says ??the male thief and the female thief ?? . the verse is about two thieves , both have normally two hands , and 2+2=4 i.e more than 3 . if it was about a single thief then the dual form of hand would have been used .
so the "hands" in this verse are physical .salam.
fahad.I do not have enough knowledge in arabic grammar to answer you.
well , there is hardly any arabic grammar involved . !
So what is to be cut off ?
The 2 hands of the thief ? Or only one (his right one) ?both hands .
Assuming could be construed either literal or figurative, why do you prefer the literal meaning ?
because i showed how weak the figurative arguements are . besides that , just like verse 538 , the verses 2071 , 2649 , 533 , 7124 , 1231 all use the words "cut" and "hands" , and all of them mean physical hands . so why should 538 be any different ?
and why assume such a thing anyway . it is not figurative .In , there are more than 2 women, so aydee can be literal or figurative.
how can more than two women make it figurative ?
According to you, what have these women really done with their hands ? Have they cut off it ?
why ? is it impossible ?
salam.
fahad. -
Peace Saladin
I have been following this discussion for some time now, an observation...
Quote
According to you, what have these women really done with their hands ? Have they cut off it ?why ? is it impossible ?
Um, no woman would cut her hands off after seeing an angelic man or a hot dude...that makes this supposed meaning of the passage completely ridiculous...I mean, i can cut my best friend off from pursuing the guy any further or spill a drink over her dress to distract her and him but my own two hands? I don't think so...maybe they got over excited and marked their hands with the damned knives or something...why would you physically cut your hands off just like that?
Does that make even an iota of sense? Yes, it is impossible imo...especially since in the very next passage we hear of no blood curdling screams but a calm narration/confession from the scheming protagonist herself to the very same hand less women who were probably bleeding to death and in the next one after that, yusuf wants to be free of what they invite him to...an orgy with a group of women with no hands and who were still probably dying at this point in time?
Do you think it could be a marking of the physical hands then, rather than amputation in this passage?
-
Salam Fahad,
In the light of the Reading, jazaan/reward doesn't imply systematically a physical punishment
jazaa can be reward,recompense,requital,punishment
Agree, but according the context reward,recompense fit better
there is no AAathab/punishment in 538.but how can u say that it cannot be physical punishment ?
Because the answer to your question is given in 539, the robbers must repent and make reparations after their wrongdoing.
take a look at 533 . the reward can be physical punishment.
This is not the same context, please read before and after 533 (war).
The word "yadayha" which means literally "her two hands" is also used in 266.
whats the point ?
"yadayha" is the dual of yad but has no thing with physical two hands according the context.
I insist only on one point, one cannot stop reading 538 at this satge
"Waalssariqu waalssariqatu faiqtaAAoo aydiyahuma
The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut their hands "
because "bimakasaba/from what they gained illegally " is a key word to get a full understanding of this verse.Another form of the verb qataAAa is used in 7160
7160. And We separated them into twelve tribes as nations; and We inspired Moses when his people wanted to drink ?Strike the rock with your staff,? thus twelve springs burst forth. Every group knew where from to drink. And We shaded them with clouds and We sent down to them manna and quail ?Eat from the good things that We have provided for you.? They did not wrong Us, but it was their souls that they wronged.WaqattaAAnahumu ithnatayAAashrata asbatan omaman waawhayna ilamoosa ithi istasqahu qawmuhu ani idribbiAAasaka alhajara fainbajasat minhu ithnataAAashrata AAaynan qad AAalima kullu onasin mashrabahum wathallalnaAAalayhimu alghamama waanzalna AAalayhimu almannawaalssalwa kuloo min tayyibati marazaqnakum wama thalamoona walakinkanoo anfusahum yathlimoona
qataAAa is the opposite of to join (4722, 1325, 227)
Then 538 can have new meaning
The male thief, and the female thief, you shall separate their hands from what they gained "illegally".
-
salam savage_carrot .
I don't think so...maybe they got over excited and marked their hands with the damned knives or something...
maybe.
Does that make even an iota of sense? Yes, it is impossible imo...
it is no more impossible than three or more women injuring there hands at the same time .
but even if u believe the women marked their hands in 1231 , u cannot equate 1231 with 538 . because
while carrying out the orders to cut off the hands, one does not get "over excited" and accidently mark the thief's hands !
1231 does not tell to what extent the hands were cut , or how deep the cut was . so when God tells us to cut the hands , without telling any limit , it definitely means to cut the whole hand (like in 2071 , 2649 , 533 , 7124 , 1231 ) .
1231 mentions an accident . while 538 mentions a ?requital? for theft , just like 533 mentions ?requital? . and in all occurances(2071 , 2649 , 533 , 7124 , 1231) of ?cut? and ?hands? , the hands are cut off . IN THE SAME MANNER , 538 commands to cut off the hands .
i see , such equating or relating 538 with 1275 and 1231 , only as an attempt to rationalize the clear command in 538 .
peace.
-
Peace Saladin,
it is no more impossible than three or more women injuring there hands at the same time .
You think that if some women were crazy enough to be sitting with sharp pointy objects in their hand waiting to see something er, wonderful enough to cause them some palpitations...they wouldn't accidentally mark their hands holding the blades... but they would take these shining metal knives and start hacking off their extremeties leaving them bloodied stumps...tell me which situation seems the more rational as it were according to the context...accidental marking or bloody stumps? It's really rather plain to see...
but even if u believe the women marked their hands in 1231 , u cannot equate 1231 with 538 . because
while carrying out the orders to cut off the hands, one does not get "over excited" and accidently mark the thief's hands !
Why not? Is it impossible? Leaving the irony in that well enough alone...it is possible to mark the hands without getting 'over excited'...If you have a job to do e.g marking/tatooing whatever, you do it...whether you get over excited along with it is not a matter of concern...As you can see, if marking is the order...then marking it is...In 1231, we have a context, how the women managed to cut themselves...in the rest you don't have a storyline depicting this rather interesting turn of events...
1231 does not tell to what extent the hands were cut , or how deep the cut was . so when God tells us to cut the hands , without telling any limit , it definitely means to cut the whole hand
Whoa...how did you get to this conclusion? If your uncle doesn't tell you how much you are supposed to give to your great aunt Tilly (but you know you have to)...you will magically turn over your entire bank account to her? When the context in 1231 is clear that you don't just hack your hands off after seeing a man no matter how wondrous he is...and the fact that you yourself admit there is no mention of how much (a finger/a thumb etc) How in the world do you say lop off the entire thing?
1231 mentions an accident
Good, you agree...and no matter how accidental or brutal this accident is, a group of women are not going to hack their own two hands off in a self inflicted lustful stupor....Might i also mention, like you did in your posts yourself, it mentions hands and cutting...so there is a relation.
1231 mentions an accident . while 538 mentions a ?requital? for theft , just like 533 mentions ?requital? . and in all occurances(2071 , 2649 , 533 , 7124 , 1231) of ?cut? and ?hands? , the hands are cut off . IN THE SAME MANNER , 538 commands to cut off the hands .
When you yourself admit that it is not said whether it's a whole hand, part of the hand, scarring of the hand, a sliver of the palm, a tatoo whatever, how do you reach the conclusion that it is the whole hand? This argument is weak and illogical...Even in normal speaking, if you accidentally cut your hand...we still refer to it as "i cut my hand"....It doesn't mean you cut your hand OFF...
i see , such equating or relating 538 with 1275 and 1231 , only as an attempt to rationalize the clear command in 538 .
Many times, if not all of the times...we put the different verses having the same words/concepts together to get a clearer picture...to not do this is to risk losing the big picture...and the more accurate translation altogether.
I think Marie's explanation of 538 is pretty good though...
-
Salaam Fahad,
Interesting point. I must admit you got me there!! I still dont understand then what the difference would be in that case between "Yadaahunna" and "Aydiyahunna"
One possible explanation, might be that "Aydiyahunna" (A plurality of 3 or more) is referring to the general word used in the plural, without necessarily emphacising whether they cut one of their hands, or both of their hands, but simply, their hands in general. However, in the case of 538 God would have wanted to be more clear as to whether both or a single hand should be cut off, if you intend to view it in the literal sense.
Interestingly, the scholars of Sunnah have had debates on this...and out of their extra sources they have unanimously concluded only 1 hand is enough....bizarrly the verse seems to indicate all hands if you are to take it in the literal sense...so even if if you still believe it is physical hands, that means that RK is wrong and that both hands must be chopped off or marked. Arabic grammar can be pretty tricky sometimes...God willing I will enquire into this with someone who knows more arabic. peace
Omar
-
Salaam all.
Interesting discussion.
I just wan't to bring to your attention that there is a situation /condition in which both the cutting and the marking of hands would not be possible, namely when the thief has no hands. We are not created equal, most of us have two hands, some have only one, and others don't have any. Because someone have no hands doesn't necessarily prevent him/her from becoming a thief. So if we catch a handless thief (whether the thief was born that way or because of an accident or maybe even from previous cutting hand punishment for the person's previous stealing), what should we cut or marks?
salam.
-
Peace rachmanadi,
Yes, i know, thank you for bringing it to our attention...thats what the discussion was leading up to...see, if the statement is 'cut their hands' there are two options
-
Cut/mark the hand.
-
Cut the hand off.
Both are interpretations of the original statement...and if both are correct, then which makes more sense? One correct extraction of the law in the statement can't be from the two because we already see that there are two possible options stemming from that one statement. That and the fact that we see in this day and age (even back then) people do not need hands to steal...I mean it's a seperate issue WHY the law is there...but what do you do with a handless man who steals? Thats where both interpretations fail and it must be looked at from another angle...God obviously means something else here. Which brings us to option three...
- Cut resources off or seperate the thief from etc...which is open for discussion...
-
-
salam Marie .
Salam Fahad,
In the light of the Reading, jazaan/reward doesn't imply systematically a physical punishment
jazaa can be reward,recompense,requital,punishment
Agree, but according the context reward,recompense fit better
ok . recompense . and the recompense/reward is to amputate the hands .
but how can u say that it cannot be physical punishment ?
Because the answer to your question is given in 539, the robbers must repent and make reparations after their wrongdoing.
539 means ,if the thieves repent they must be forgiven . so only the repeat offenders' hands will be amputated .
take a look at 533 . the reward can be physical punishment.
This is not the same context, please read before and after 533 (war).
u said the reward cannot be a physical punishment . i showed u it can . it can also be the punishment in the case of theft .
I insist only on one point, one cannot stop reading 538 at this satge
"Waalssariqu waalssariqatu faiqtaAAoo aydiyahuma
The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut their hands "
because "bimakasaba/from what they gained illegally " is a key word to get a full understanding of this verse.The verse does not say ?you shall cut/seperate their hands from what they gained illegally? . The translation is ?cut off/seperate their hands as a punishment for what they have earned?
Then 538 can have new meaning
The male thief, and the female thief, you shall separate their hands from what they gained "illegally".
every other meaning , huh ?
you forgot to put ?AS A PUNISHMENT? in between .
it clearly means ?separate/amputate their hands AS A PUNISHMENT FOR WHAT THEY HAVE EARNED .? , not ?separate their hands from what they gained "illegally".?salam.
fahad. -
Then 538 can have new meaning
The male thief, and the female thief, you shall separate their hands from what they gained "illegally".
and by the way ,where is the reward/recompense in only seperating their hands from what they have earned ? the owners get their stolen stuff back , but what is the recompense for the thieves then ? where is the reward ?! oh , u even left the word "reward" out of your new meaning and translation of 538 .
no "reward" in your new meaning of 538 . and no reward for the thieves. !
peace.
-
Peace all...
If the punishment is to fit the crime...eye for an eye...how does taking a loaf of bread from a store=becoming handicapped?
Further, there is no compulsion in the deen. chopping off hands is forcing someone not to steal...i still haven't figured out the handless theif analogy, but i suppose in this day and age anything is possible.
To me, the story of Joseph explains what we are to do. If Joseph was depicted as GOD-serving, enough that an entire chapter was devoted to him, unlike any other man in quran, we cannot assume that his choice in dealing with the "thief" was contrary to GOD's way, as he was continually rewarded by GOD for his actions.
Eye for an eye, but mercy is better...so, not cutting a thief's hand off is better, even if you think that's what it means...and we are to follow that which is BEST.
There is one exception to the eye for an eye rule, thoroughly explained in the quran adultery.
This is singled out as a gross offense by name, and the eye for an eye scenario would not work...you slept with my wife, so I'll sleep with yours? This is a case where even exchange for the crime committed leads to more problems rather than peaceful solution, which is why not only is a specific punishment given, but GOD in the quran tells us not to mercifully let the offenders go without the punishment. Specific rules, specific consequence, no exceptions.
Everywhere else, you can seek justice, but mercy is better, and ultimately, the punishment is in GOD's hands.
If you are merciful to the thief, he may repent. If he continues, and is never caught...he will still get his from GOD...perhaps in this life, more than likely also in the next.
My two cents.peace,
brian -
Peace all,
I have no problems with accepting that if there is a verse in the quran that say's "poke the eye out of any man who dares to look at any other woman except his wife"...I assure you i would comply...The thing is...if there is a slightest possibility that poking, chopping or marking is not there, i don't want to end up doing/accepting any of these things and thinking it's a law from God. After all, it's all fun and games till someone loses an eye...
The problem i see here is, there are three possible interpretations...The literal two, marking and chopping off and the figurative, seperate resources etc.
-
Chopping off If one claims this is a law from God, then it opens up all possible manner's of abuse...one can get his hands chopped off for stealing an apple ten times...
-
Marking Acceptable...and seems good especially for cases like child molesters etc and also thieves...it can be utilised universally except for the case of the handless thief...btw have any of us ever seen a handless thief or heard of one? I'm not saying that there is an unwritten law that thieves without hands will never steal...because thats just weird...i'm curious...
-
Seperating resources etc Seems good but doesn't seem to imply any punishment as law...could this mean that after the thief gives his apologies, refunds, recompenses the stolen party...one can administer the local brand of justice? One can't claim that form of justice is a law by God though...and can be changed if deemed unworthy, injust or plain stupid...
The case of the handless thief...well, chopping off is out...marking his foot would not be going with the law (maybe it's spirit?), in any case, we can't follow the law to the letter then, unless its option three...We could also have option four where we let him off because we know handicapped people already get the best/free parking and less taxes...so why not let him have his day in the sun...or maybe scratch option four...
1a)The thing is, a govt can claim chopping off as God's law, thus something that can't be overturned incase of a travesty or abuse of the same, if incase they treat it as a manmade justice system, then it can be touched and overturned in favour of something more appropriate that wouldn't allow such abuse...thats the problem with option 1 and the fact that i'm not too keen on amputation especially since it is not the only interpretation.
2a)I'm okay with marking...but with the handless thief means it can't be universally applied so we improvise?
3a)No punishment deemed by God but making sure the recompense is dealt with...and then a manmade justice system advocating or recommending a punishment is good...at least we get to change the laws if they are moronic...
-
-
You are right, Saladin In , aydeehuma can designate physical hands, if we assume that the 2 hands have to be cut.
If only one hand is to be cut (as the sunnis claim), it cannot.So, aydeehuma in can be either literal or figurative.
No, assuming it is literal, 2 questions (to sum up what other people have said)
- Why do you claim the hand should be amputated, and not simply marked ?
- How do you punish recidivists ? Do you cut off their feets ?
- Do you really think my 2 hands have to be amputated if I steal a egg, as if I steal a bullock?
If the punishment is to be the same whatever has been stolen, can this law really be compatible with the law of equivalence " an eye for an eye... "
And We have decreed for them in it that a life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and wounds to be similar; and whoever remits anything of it, then it will cancel sins for him. And whoever does not judge by what God has sent down, then these are the wicked.
Peace
-
peace savage_carrot .
1231 does not tell to what extent the hands were cut , or how deep the cut was . so when God tells us to cut the hands , without telling any limit , it definitely means to cut the whole hand
Whoa...how did you get to this conclusion? If your uncle doesn't tell you how much you are supposed to give to your great aunt Tilly (but you know you have to)...you will magically turn over your entire bank account to her? When the context in 1231 is clear that you don't just hack your hands off after seeing a man no matter how wondrous he is...and the fact that you yourself admit there is no mention of how much (a finger/a thumb etc) How in the world do you say lop off the entire thing?
cuz if there was a limit ,God would have said so . 1231 does not contain any command . it is a story of the past . all necessary details have been given in it . details about how much of their hands they cut are not necessary , right ? BUT in case of 538 , the verse contains a COMMAND FOR US TO CARRY OUT , if we were supposed to cut the thieves' hands to a certain limit , the limit would have been provided in detail .
also checkout (again, sigh) 2071 , 2649 , 533 , 7124 . thats how .
I think Marie's explanation of 538 is pretty good though...
you r free to believe . peace .
EDITED.
-
Peace saladin,
cuz if there was a limit ,God would have said so
Once again, if we cut our hand, it doesn't mean we cut our hand off...it can mean we cut our hand...we marked our hand...God does ask us to use reasoning...
also checkout (again, sigh) 2071 , 2649 , 533 , 7124 , 1231 . thats how .
You still have not proved that it's cutting rather than cutting off...If you are trying to link brutal tactics as that of execution as evidence that cutting must mean cutting off, we also have exile/banishment included in 533...the rest talk about pharoah, a fine upstanding role model...and as seen 1231 is marking, if you still think it's cutting OFF of both hands, I dare you to show me how you can cut off your left hand after cutting off your right.
you r free to believe . peace
As are you...but if one starts a discussion, we must talk about all the points...I for one don't want to hold on to a wrong belief especially when it involves body parts and knives...Peace.
after other user edited previous post
Okay, lets say 1231 is not important...doesn't matter...we still need to address the issue of cut vs. cut off...
If God has not provided the details it does NOT mean its the whole hand, it could be that the interpretation is up to us, keeping in mind the law of equivalence...that still makes cutting OFF an extremely unlikely interpretation when you can't gauge the worth of one hand to the goods stolen and the fact that we should NOT have to at all, unless the thief has stolen someone else's hand by hacking it OFF...it is absolute madness to start discussing the worth of body parts to goods stolen...whereas on the other hand (pardon the pun), recompensing the person whose goods have been stolen by work or monetary value etc is something within the realms of reason...