THEFT PUNISHMENT
-
salam .
can u tell me who manages the free-minds.org website ? Layth ? -
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off (faqta) their hands (aydiyahuma)
yad (singular) = the hand
yadayn (dual) = les (2) hands
aydee (plural) = the (3 or more) handsaydee-huma (dual of the plural) = the (3 or more) hands of both 2 (the male thief and the female thief)
So, since a thief (like all human beings) has only 2 hands, aydee can only be construed as figurative.
The Sunnis have well understood this, and here is how they have made the interpretation of this word literal they have invented variants of the quran, alleged to come from Ibn Masud.
This variants don't use the word yad (hand), but the word yamin (right hand), of which the plural is aymanun.
Ibn Kathir Wass?riqu wass?riqatu faqta
? aym?nahum? = And the male thief, and the female thief, cut their right hands of both Tabari Wass?riq?na wass?riq?tu faqta? aym?nahum? = And the male thieves, and the female thieves, cut their right hands of both
Qurtubi Wass?riq?na wass?riq?tu faqta`? aym?nahum = And the male thieves, and the female thieves, cut their right hands of themOnly Qurtubi's one is self-cogent, because he replaces huma (both) by hum (them).
The verb qataa (to cut) can also be construe as figurative, like in the following idioms
Qataa hu bil hujjati = he has silenced him with argument
Qataa lisana hu = he has made him to stop talking (he has cut his tongue)
qata'a al-sabeel = he has blocked his movementsPeace
-
salam JM .
i will reply to the arguement u presented . but first i want to ask u , do u agree that the story of joseph and his brothers has nothing to do with 538 . and that the following arguements in the article are in contradiction with the koranAccording to the interpretation of the article at http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/theft.htm , if the thief has stolen an object worth 1000 dollars , he will work to repay the 1000 dollars to the owners.
But verse 1275 says no such thing
1274, "They said, "What is the punishment for the thief, if you are liars?"'
1275, "They said, "The punishment, if it is found in his bag, is that the thief belongs to you. We thus punish the guilty."'Malik They replied "The punishment of he in whose pack you find the royal cup will be to make him your bondsman, that's how we punish wrongdoers."
Pickthal They said The penalty for it! He in whose bag (the cup) is found, he is the penalty for it. Thus we requite wrongdoers.
Yusuf Ali They said "The penalty should be that he in whose saddle bag it is found should be held (as bondman) to atone for the (crime). Thus it is we punish the wrongdoers!"
the verse says that the thief belongs to owners . it doesn?t say that the thief works to repay them . and It does not say that the thief will be returned after he repays . it says that the thief belongs to the owners . period .
The article says ?What was stolen, if found, should be restituted to their owners. Otherwise, thieves should work for them until what they have stolen is repaid.?
But according to the verses EVEN IF THE STOLEN OBJECT IS FOUND , the thief belongs to the owners .
1275, "They said, "The punishment, IF IT IS FOUND IN HIS BAG, is that the thief belongs to you??
-
salam JM .
i will reply to the arguement u presented . but first i want to ask u , do u agree that the story of joseph and his brothers has nothing to do with 538 . and that the following arguements in the article are in contradiction with the koranAccording to the interpretation of the article at http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/theft.htm , if the thief has stolen an object worth 1000 dollars , he will work to repay the 1000 dollars to the owners.
Peace Saladin,
According to me, to make oneseld bondsman is one way to cut one's power, so, it is not in contradiction with .
Today, he should have gone to prison. -
Peace Saladin,
According to me, to make oneseld bondsman is one way to cut one's power, so, it is not in contradiction with .
peace JM .
actually , the understanding that"thieves should work for them until what they have stolen is repaid."
is in contradiction with1275, "They said, "The punishment, if it is found in his bag, is that the thief belongs to you. ..."'
Today, he should have gone to prison.
why to prison ? he should have belonged to the owners , if the 1275 is to be applied , which is not the case .
also
The article says ?What was stolen, if found, should be restituted to their owners. Otherwise, thieves should work for them until what they have stolen is repaid.?
But according to the verses EVEN IF THE STOLEN OBJECT IS FOUND , the thief belongs to the owners .
1275, "They said, "The punishment, IF IT IS FOUND IN HIS BAG, is that the thief belongs to you??
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off (faqta) their hands (aydiyahuma)
yad (singular) = the hand
yadayn (dual) = les (2) hands
aydee (plural) = the (3 or more) handsaydee-huma (dual of the plural) = the (3 or more) hands of both 2 (the male thief and the female thief)
So, since a thief (like all human beings) has only 2 hands, aydee can only be construed as figurative.
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. -
salam JM .
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off (faqta) their hands (aydiyahuma)
yad (singular) = the hand
yadayn (dual) = les (2) hands
aydee (plural) = the (3 or more) handsaydee-huma (dual of the plural) = the (3 or more) hands of both 2 (the male thief and the female thief)
So, since a thief (like all human beings) has only 2 hands, aydee can only be construed as figurative.
as i said before , one thief would have two hands , but two thieves combined have more than three hands . this is why "aydee" is used . "aydee" means physical hands in 538 .this is the correct interpretation . verse 1231 proves this interpretation to be true .
1231 And when she heard of their sly talk, she sent to
them and prepared for them a cushioned couch
(to lie on at the feast) and gave to every one of
them a knife and said (to Joseph) Come out
unto them! And when they saw him they exalted
him and cut their hands (aydiee) , ...1231 also uses the word "aydee" (plural , more than three),(just like 538 ) although all women had two hands . so u cannot say that 538 means "resources" . or do u and others think that "aydee" in 1231 means "resources" . did the women cut their resources ?
let us know ur opinion ,please .
all arguement for "resources" have failed . both 538 and 1231 use "physical hands" .
salam.
fahad. -
Dear Fahad,
Gramattically verse 538 cannot possibly refer to physical hands. The reason being that Aydeeahooma, is a plurality of 3 or more hands for each one of the two pple
Yadhumaa --> One hand each of the 2 people
Yadaahumaa--> Both hands of each of the 2 people
Aydeeyahumaa--> The 3 or more hands of each of the 2 people
The reason why this is confusing for many ppl is because this form "Aydeeyahumaa" apprears extremely rarely, and so ppl are not familiar with it. In conclusion, from a purely grammatical perspective, it cannot be physical hands. The word is used metaphorically to refer to wealth/resources. Please see how the exact same word is used in an obvious metaphorical sense in teh following verse
Be patient in the face of their utterances, and remember our servant David, the resourceful (Thul- Aydee); he was obedient.
This verse is referring to one person, and says he has Aydee (plural of three or more) hands. Rashad translated it as "resourceful" The only differenece between this and 538 is that 538 is referring to 2 people.
HOpe this clarifies things. Peace,
Omar
-
Gramattically verse 538 cannot possibly refer to physical hands. The reason being that Aydeeahooma, is a plurality of 3 or more hands for each one of the two pple
Yadhumaa --> One hand each of the 2 people
Yadaahumaa--> Both hands of each of the 2 people
Aydeeyahumaa--> The 3 or more hands of each of the 2 people
peace Omar .
i hardly know any arabic grammar , but the way i understand it , "humaa" is not used to mean 3 or more hands of each of the 2 people , but only because the verse is refering to the two people . just like in 1231 where "aydiya -hunna" does not mean three or more hands "of each" of the women . each women did not cut their three or more hands , right ? each women cut only one of their hands , logically .
what do u think now ? please let me know .
peace .
fahad. -
Peace,
Let us compare 242 and 538, we note that the word jazaan/reward is used in 538 and the word AAathab/punishment is used 242
-
The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall lash each of them one hundred lashes, and do not let any pity take you over God?s system if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.
Alzzaniyatu waalzzanee faijlidoo kulla wahidin minhuma mi-atajaldatin wala ta/khuthkum bihima ra/fatunfee deeni Allahi in kuntum tu/minoona biAllahiwaalyawmi al-akhiri walyashhad AAathabahuma ta-ifatun mina almu/mineena -
The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut from their resources as a reward for their doings; a deterrent/lesson from God. God is Almighty, Wise.
Waalssariqu waalssariqatu faiqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan bimakasaba nakalan mina Allahi waAllahuAAazeezun hakeemun
In the light of the Reading, jazaan/reward doesn't imply systematically a physical punishment and nakalan could be translated as a lesson (266)
266 And We made it a lesson to their times and for the future generations and a reminder/exhortation to the righteous.
FajaAAalnaha nakalan lima bayna yadayha wama khalfaha wa mawAAithatan (exhortation/reminder) lilmuttaqeenaThe word "yadayha" which means literally "her two hands" is also used in 266.
-
-
Peace Saladin,
According to me, to make oneseld bondsman is one way to cut one's power, so, it is not in contradiction with .
peace JM .
actually , the understanding that"thieves should work for them until what they have stolen is repaid."
is in contradiction with1275, "They said, "The punishment, if it is found in his bag, is that the thief belongs to you. ..."'
Today, he should have gone to prison.
why to prison ? he should have belonged to the owners , if the 1275 is to be applied , which is not the case .
also
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....The article says What was stolen, if found, should be restituted to their owners. Otherwise, thieves should work for them until what they have stolen is repaid.
But according to the verses EVEN IF THE STOLEN OBJECT IS FOUND , the thief belongs to the owners .
1275, "They said, "The punishment, IF IT IS FOUND IN HIS BAG, is that the thief belongs to you
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off (faqta) their hands (aydiyahuma)
yad (singular) = the hand
yadayn (dual) = les (2) hands
aydee (plural) = the (3 or more) handsaydee-huma (dual of the plural) = the (3 or more) hands of both 2 (the male thief and the female thief)
So, since a thief (like all human beings) has only 2 hands, aydee can only be construed as figurative.
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.
So what is to be cut off ?
The 2 hands of the thief ? Or only one (his right one) ?Assuming could be construed either literal or figurative, why do you prefer the literal meaning ?
salam JM .
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off (faqta) their hands (aydiyahuma)
yad (singular) = the hand
yadayn (dual) = les (2) hands
aydee (plural) = the (3 or more) handsaydee-huma (dual of the plural) = the (3 or more) hands of both 2 (the male thief and the female thief)
So, since a thief (like all human beings) has only 2 hands, aydee can only be construed as figurative.
as i said before , one thief would have two hands , but two thieves combined have more than three hands . this is why "aydee" is used . "aydee" means physical hands in 538 .this is the correct interpretation . verse 1231 proves this interpretation to be true .
1231 And when she heard of their sly talk, she sent to
them and prepared for them a cushioned couch
(to lie on at the feast) and gave to every one of
them a knife and said (to Joseph) Come out
unto them! And when they saw him they exalted
him and cut their hands (aydiee) , ...1231 also uses the word "aydee" (plural , more than three),(just like 538 ) although all women had two hands . so u cannot say that 538 means "resources" . or do u and others think that "aydee" in 1231 means "resources" . did the women cut their resources ?
let us know ur opinion ,please .
all arguement for "resources" have failed . both 538 and 1231 use "physical hands" .
salam.
fahad.In , there are more than 2 women, so aydee can be literal or figurative.
According to you, what have these women really done with their hands ? Have they cut off it ?
Peace
-
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.