Your opinion would be appreciated
-
Walaikum Salaam
Thanks brother Saladin. But this link isn't working either. Gives the same error message. -
peace
a link from this forum
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/theft.htm
lk
Thanks elke, this link is working ..
-
[
Peace zainab,I've been re-inforcing the little understood concept of idiomatic phrases that are misunderstood in the reading which leads to incorrect conclusions. The 'cutting of hands' idiom to my mind means the cutting of resources.
Regards.
Salaam Alaikum
Thanks for this very useful information, truth. I am going thru it gradually .. -
Peace Zainab,
Thanks for this very useful information, truth. I am going thru it gradually ..
Such idiomatic expressions are common in all languages, especially an informal language such as that of the great reading. One can notice how the same plural word that is translaed as hands in 538 is translated as power or resources by all translators in other passages
038.045
YUSUFALI And commemorate Our Servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, possessors of Power and Vision.
PICKTHAL And make mention of Our bondmen, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, men of parts and vision.
SHAKIR And remember Our servants Ibrahim and Ishaq and Yaqoub, men of power and insight.
KHALIFA Remember also our servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were resourceful, and possessed vision.Peace,
Ayman
-
Walaikum Salaam
Thanks brother Saladin. But this link isn't working either. Gives the same error message.salam.
strange . i will copy the article here for uTheft Punishment (53
This is a reply to the article ?Theft Punishment? at http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/theft.htm .
The Koran has clearly commanded the hands of the thieves to be cut off in 538 . but the article at free-minds.org presents a rationalized and forced understanding of 538 . According to the article
<<?(Theft punishment) is to give the chance to the thieves to come forward, acknowledge their crime, and give back what they have stolen to the victim. They might even get a reward. If they do not come forward, prove should be found who are the thieves. Then they should work to pay the fees involved for the whole thing. What was stolen, if found, should be restituted to their owners. Otherwise, thieves should work for them until what they have stolen is repaid.?>>
<<First Literal Understanding
The first understanding says that 538 means to cut off the thief's hand. I do not agree with this understanding for the following reasons. First, the Arabic word <aydiyahuma> is the plural (three or more) of <yad> (hand) used in dual form. As we know, each one of us has normally only two hands, including thieves. How can we possibly cut off the hands (three or more) of a thief?>>If there are two thieves then there are four hands . this is very straightforward .
<<Even if we accept that the hands in this aya refer to the hands of both thieves, should we then cut off both hands of a thief?>>
Even if you accept or not , this aaya clearly refers to the hands of both thieves . and yes , both hands should be cut off .(no problem yet .)<<Second, what will benefit the one who lost their stolen goods in case they would not recovered them? And what would happen if someone were accused mistakenly or maliciously of theft and their hands were cut off?>>
What would happen if someone is executed for committing murder , or what if someone?s hand and foot are cut off as per 533 , and it turns out that the person was mistakenly accused ?(that would be a human error in judgment , not an error in divine law.) does that mean that the law in 533 is wrong ? does that mean we should change the meaning of this verse ? does that mean that the hands and feet are not cut off or the criminal is not executed ? NO . but if there is even slightest doubt then no punishment shall be carried out against such a person .
<<What if someone does not have hands and uses only his brain to plan thefts for their accomplices? This is not a fiction; it happened.>>
Where does the Koran say that it is because they steal with their hands , that their hands are cut ? it does not matter whether they steal with their hands , their feet , eyes , ear , nose , telepathy etc , only their hands are to be cut off .
<<Third, how could the above aya 539 be applied if someone has his or her hands cut off and repents later on and reforms? On other words, if cutting the hands in aya 538 is translated literally to mean cutting off the hands, then aya 539 can not stand logic and common sense. Let?s assume that someone steals something and pays the heavy price of his or her hands being cutting off. Then he or she repents and reforms. What does it mean in his or her case that,
"God redeems him. God is Forgiver, Merciful"? (539).
How will he or she be redeemed once he or she has lost his or her hands? How could he or she deserve a second chance without his or her hands? Indeed, understanding cutting hands as cutting off hands literally does not stand logic and common sense in the context of these two ayat 538-39 in particular, and in the context of Quran in general. >>539 But if the thief repent after his crime and amend his conduct Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.
Verse 539 means that if the thief repents then he should be forgiven . So the hand-cutting punishment is for repeat offenders .<<Non-Literal Understanding
Let?s consider now the third meaning and the closest to Quran?s spirit. >>
Hardly .<<The punishment is to cut off from the thieves? resources and power. Here you are three reasons supporting this non-literal understanding.>>
Let us see .
<<1. First, the Arabic word <yad> (in dual plural in 538 above) or "hand" is used in Quran in its literal and figurative meanings. For instance, 2712 uses it in its literal meaning while 564 uses it in its figurative one to refer to wealth and resources.
Another example for the non-literal meaning is 3845. It uses <yad> in plural (three or more) form. It conveys the meaning of power and possession of resources.
<yad> is also used to infer someone's actions and doings (2195, 2210). It is used too to mean possession of a responsibility or a contract (2237).
Therefore, <eqta?u aydiyahuma> in the above aya 538 means to cut off from the thieves? resources and power.>>Therefore ? you haven?t explained WHY ?aydiya? in 538 should mean ?their resources? and not ?hands? .
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 . and 538 is not any different .Your new meaning and translation of 538
<<538, "The male thief, and the female thief, you shall cut off from their resources and power as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Almighty, Wise." >>
Where did this ?from? come from ? If you translate ?aydiya? as ?resources? , then 538 should translate as ?you shall cut off their resources? , not "from their resources" .<<2. Second, let's consider the case of murder in Quran which is a worse crime than stealing. There are two earthly punishments. 492 deals with a believer's accidental killing. Neither capital punishment nor jail are involved.>>
That is because the killing is accidental .
<<2178 deals with the second case when someone meant the killing. This aya gives the option of sparing the murderer's life. In both cases, there is ransom involved if possible. It is the case maybe because when someone is killed, a source of income is cut from their family and therefore should be compensated. In either case, punishment does not tall the cutting or marking of hands if it was the case in 538.>>
The punishment for murder is death . sparing the life is an option . the option is there because there is a big difference in cutting hands and cutting throats . in the punishment for murder , the murderer?s life is at stake , in punishment for theft , only the thief?s hands . how can u even make such a comparison between the two ?
<<3. Last but not least, sura 12 gives us a good example of how to punish the thieves.>>
Last and definitely the least . sura 12 gives no such example . lets see .
<<The way I understand the above ayat(1270-79) is God's law for theft in application.
127, "In Joseph and his brothers there are lessons for the seekers."
Joseph and his brothers were submitters and children of Jacob and Abraham's great great-children.>>Joseph followed the deen of his forefathers , but not necessarily his brothers . Joseph calls his brothers ?bad? (1277) .
<<It is very clear from the above ayat that they were not following the king?s law to punish the thieves but rather God?s law.>>
The verse only says that the kings law was not applied . joseph?s brothers were asked how they would like to be punished if someone from them is found guilty . the brothers told how they punish the guilty in their land .
<<First the presumed thieves were given the chance to come forward, acknowledge their wrongdoing, and then give back what they have stolen. They might even get a reward. Second, if they do not do so, they must be proven as thieves. Then, what was stolen, if found, should be restituted to their owners. Thieves should work to repay the fees involved in the whole process. They should also work to repay what was stolen in case they do not give it or the whole of it back.
These ayat give us also an example of someone who was set up for theft, for a good reason of course. But, what would happen to someone who was set up maliciously and has to face marking or cutting of his or her both hands? >>The article is questioning God?s wisdom here , but I have addressed this question earlier in the article .
<<The cutting or marking hands as a punishment of thieves run into contradictions within Quran. However, meaning of "cutting hands" in 538 as cutting from the thieves? resources and power, the case of murder?s punishment in Quran, and the example of God?s law in application in 1270-79 are the three arguments, put forward in this article, to propose the third and closest to Quran?s spirit punishment for theft. It goes as follow.
Chance should be given to the thieves to come forward, acknowledge their crime, and give back what they have stolen to the victims. They might even get a reward.>>this will be a good way of making money for the thief , huh ! First he will steal something , then he will return it and receive the reward ? this is what the article is suggesting ....
Clearly the reward is for anyone , other than the thief , who can restore the missing cup .<<If they do not come forward, prove should be found who are the thieves. Thieves should then work to pay the fees involved for the whole thing. >>(1275?)
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."'the verse says that the thief belongs to owners . that is slavery . that was the punishment for theft in the homeland of Joseph?s brothers . it doesn?t say that the thief will work to repay them , like the article suggests. and It does not say that the thief will be returned after he repays . it says that the thief will belong to the owners .
<<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 . i.e he will receive his punishments .
1275, "They said, "The punishment, IF IT IS FOUND IN HIS BAG, is that the thief belongs to you??
( if the interpretation of the article is followed then 1275 would mean that "even if the stolen object is found , the thief will work to repay for it." ??!!! )these are some big flaws and contradictions in the article . the arguments carry no weight .
<<We started this article with the first ayat of sura 12 that tells us that God narrates to us the best stories. We have seen how, indeed, we could apply the theft story from this sura to deduce the meaning of theft punishment and its application as stated in 538-39.>>
And we have seen how this rationalized and forced understanding runs into contradiction with the Koran , how the story of Joseph has nothing to do with the crystal clear theft punishment in 538-39 , the only two verses dealing with theft punishment .
Peace .
Fahad.
[email protected]To view disccussion on this topic CLICK HERE .
-
Salaam Alaikum ..
Thank you so much brother saladin .. -
I am going to put my weight on the side of the 'resources' argument for one simple reason, which doesn't even require grammatic analysis. The Koran guides us that punishment should be proportionate to the wrong done (16126). Which is of more value, property, wealth and power, or one's physical hands? The physical hands no doubt. Therefore, cutting off the physical hands would be a disproportionate punishment for theft, as theft only concerns property. Therefore, the most logical punishment would be to restrict the access of the thief to his own property, or to take away part of it, just as he took away part of the property of another. Therefore, when there is a double meaning to decipher, that is physical hands vs. figurative hands, the logical conclusion based on the guidance of the rest of the Koran is that it is the figurative hands (power) that should be cut.
To another argument 1275 talks about enslavement as a response to theft. However, reading on to 1276 makes it seem that this law was the "King's law" and not God's will. 1275 is part of a conversation, and it is not clear who is speaking, and about whose laws.
-
Salaam Alaikum ..
Thanks for this explanation. This makes sense. -
*538 The practice of cutting off the thief's hand, as decreed by the false Muslims, is a satanic practice without Quranic basis. Due to the special importance of this example, God has provided mathematical proof in support of marking the hand of the thief, rather than severing it. Verse 1231 refers to the women who so admired Joseph that they
cut'' their hands. Obviously, they did notcut off'' their hands; nobody can. The sum of sura and verse numbers are the same for 538 and 1231, i.e., 43. It is also the will and mercy of God that this mathematical relationship conforms with the Quran's 19-based code. Nineteen verses after 1231, we see the same word (1250). -
Now the questions turns to what is an appropriate punishment for theft... that is what is the operationalization of cutting off someone's resources.
Using the proportionality principle of 16126, I think it highly unreasonable to take all the thieves property in response to a theft. On the flipside, this cannot simply mean a restitution of the goods, because that is simply restitution and not punishment. So there must be a punishment beyond restitution, as also eluded to by 538.
When a person commits theft, he is in essence cutting off the resources of the victim... depriving him from the enjoyment of his property. So with regards to proportionality, this brings up an interesting question. Should the punishment be equal in value to the stolen goods, or should the proportion of the punishment in relation to the thiefs own goods equal the proportion of the stolen goods in relation to the victims goods. Mathematically, these two options are as follows- p=g
- p/t=g/v
where
p=value of punishment (how much resources to take from the thief)
g=value of stolen goods + any direct consequential loses (how much resources was the victim deprived of)
t=thief's total resources (what he owns, excluding g)
v=victim's total resources (what he owns, including g)
As a concrete example, say person A has 10 sheep and person B 100 sheep. If A steals 10 sheep from B, should he be punished to pay 10 sheep (=to sheep stolen) or one sheep (1/10 sheep = 10/100 sheep) in addition to restituting the stolen sheep. So as an end result, should A be left with 9 sheep and B with 101, or A with none and B with 110.
Seeing as 16126 uses the word proportionate as opposed to equal, I will have to answer that in the above example, we should take away 1 sheep from the stock of A, as opposed to his entire stock. Proportionality cannot mean that the punishment for stealing 1/10 of someone's livestock is the confiscation of one's entire stock... but rather the confiscation of 1/10 of the stock (in addition to the restitution of the stolen goods). If the punishment was supposed to be equal and not proportionate, then the Koran would say so, but it doesn't. This would also make sense in the sense of 538... if you cut the resources, that means your dividing them, and taking as punishment the part you've cut off.
Therefore, to calculate the punishment for theft, the following equation can be used in general
p=g*t/v
(definitions given above).This does raise the question of a very poor person who steals from a rich one... is there enough of a deterent given the risks of getting caught? Am I perhaps missing some part of the equation?
-
claurianta wrote....
Therefore, to calculate the punishment for theft, the following equation can be used in generalp=g*t/v
(definitions given above).using that equation and the scenario u provided
p = 1 * (10/100) = 1 * (0.1) = 0.1
am i messing up algebra or is that the punishment that comes up?
-
claurianta wrote....
Therefore, to calculate the punishment for theft, the following equation can be used in generalp=g*t/v
(definitions given above).using that equation and the scenario u provided
p = 1 * (10/100) = 1 * (0.1) = 0.1
am i messing up algebra or is that the punishment that comes up?
You're messing up the numbers
t=10 (thief has 10 sheep of his own), g=10 (he stole 10 sheep; in reality, things like time spent in court and other consequential damages should be added, but for simpicity I will leave those out), v= 100 (victim owns 100 sheep), so you get p=10*10/100=1. So the thief would return the 10 stolen sheep plus one of his own as punishment. -
claurianta wrote...
You're messing up the numbers
t=10 (thief has 10 sheep of his own), g=10 (he stole 10 sheep; in reality, things like time spent in court and other consequential damages should be added, but for simpicity I will leave those out), v= 100 (victim owns 100 sheep), so you get p=10*10/100=1. So the thief would return the 10 stolen sheep plus one of his own as punishment.indeed i did mess it up there! u indeed made the theif steal 10 sheep!
but what if the thief steals a single sheep? i cannot possibly make him steal a minimum of 10 sheep, can i? -)
-
in which case we can either make him return (1 sheep + (0.1 * the cost/value of a sheep)) !
or v can round off 0.1 sheep to the nearest practical value possible and make it 1 sheep and make the theif return 2 sheep!
but 2 sheep will be more than the value and thus disproportionate to the crime, while returning the owner (0.1 * value of sheep) may very well be not an enough compensation to the victim! really, what do u suggest is the appropriate punishment here?
-
in which case we can either make him return (1 sheep + (0.1 * the cost/value of a sheep)) !
or v can round off 0.1 sheep to the nearest practical value possible and make it 1 sheep and make the theif return 2 sheep!
but 2 sheep will be more than the value and thus disproportionate to the crime, while returning the owner (0.1 * value of sheep) may very well be not an enough compensation to the victim! really, what do u suggest is the appropriate punishment here?
Well, do realize that if he steals one sheep, he does have to return that sheep, plus (0.1*value of sheep)=1.1 sheep. So you always have to return what you have stolen, plus a punishment.
Remember I wrote about consequental damage? I think that the criminal will have to compensate in full for these. Like say the victim milks his sheep... obviously during the time that the sheep is out of his hands, he is suffering losses, which must be compensated in full. However, compensation and punishment are separate. Compensation is to be done in full, and the punishment is to be awarded in proportion according to the above equation, where g=(total loss to the victim, including direct consequential damage, such as loss of milk or woll which is caused by the theft of the sheep). So the perpetrator has to return g in full as compensation for losses, and then as an additional punishment, he shall pay p as per the above equation.
I personally think that for repeat offenders there is also an additional punishment that is possible, not to the victim, but to the community, due to the fact that there is a certain amount of trust that is expected in a community, and the perpetrator, by his actions, is negatively affecting that trust.
-
yes, indeed! i now see what u are saying! but tell me, do u reckon that seems like setting an example? paying ((0.1* value of sheep) + wool + milk)! the 1 sheep which he returns was in anycase not his own, so what he really pays is ((0.1* value of sheep) + wool + milk)! so does that really serve as a deterrent?
again, if u may allow then may we move to some other scenarios? -)
-
yes, indeed! i now see what u are saying! but tell me, do u reckon that seems like setting an example? paying ((0.1* value of sheep) + wool + milk)! the 1 sheep which he returns was in anycase not his own, so what he really pays is ((0.1* value of sheep) + wool + milk)! so does that really serve as a deterrent?
again, if u may allow then may we move to some other scenarios? -)
Yes, as you can see in my first post where I elaborate the equation, I do raise the question of sufficient deterrent. It is something I cannot answer as yet, but I'm sure there is an answer in the Koran. My guess is that there is an element of trust between the members of a community that is broken in committing a crime, and thus there should be some kind of additional attonement with respect to the community (public apology? community service?)
I am of course open to discussing other scenarios.
-
as u state, the punishment is (0.1*value of sheep + wool + milk +... +)! in this case could it be that the actual punishment is still (0.1 * value of sheep) as the time for which the thief had possession of the sheep, he could have easily fleeced and milked it! and i agree with u that does seem to be too less of a deterrent.
thanks for agreeing to discuss other scenarios, but lets wait a while and see what inputs do others have to offer regarding our sheep scenario. -)
-
Now the questions turns to what is an appropriate punishment for theft... that is what is the operationalization of cutting off someone's resources.
Using the proportionality principle of 16126, I think it highly unreasonable to take all the thieves property in response to a theft. On the flipside, this cannot simply mean a restitution of the goods, because that is simply restitution and not punishment. So there must be a punishment beyond restitution, as also eluded to by 538.
When a person commits theft, he is in essence cutting off the resources of the victim... depriving him from the enjoyment of his property. So with regards to proportionality, this brings up an interesting question. Should the punishment be equal in value to the stolen goods, or should the proportion of the punishment in relation to the thiefs own goods equal the proportion of the stolen goods in relation to the victims goods. Mathematically, these two options are as follows- p=g
- p/t=g/v
where
p=value of punishment (how much resources to take from the thief)
g=value of stolen goods + any direct consequential loses (how much resources was the victim deprived of)
t=thief's total resources (what he owns, excluding g)
v=victim's total resources (what he owns, including g)
As a concrete example, say person A has 10 sheep and person B 100 sheep. If A steals 10 sheep from B, should he be punished to pay 10 sheep (=to sheep stolen) or one sheep (1/10 sheep = 10/100 sheep) in addition to restituting the stolen sheep. So as an end result, should A be left with 9 sheep and B with 101, or A with none and B with 110.
Seeing as 16126 uses the word proportionate as opposed to equal, I will have to answer that in the above example, we should take away 1 sheep from the stock of A, as opposed to his entire stock. Proportionality cannot mean that the punishment for stealing 1/10 of someone's livestock is the confiscation of one's entire stock... but rather the confiscation of 1/10 of the stock (in addition to the restitution of the stolen goods). If the punishment was supposed to be equal and not proportionate, then the Koran would say so, but it doesn't. This would also make sense in the sense of 538... if you cut the resources, that means your dividing them, and taking as punishment the part you've cut off.
Therefore, to calculate the punishment for theft, the following equation can be used in general
p=g*t/v
(definitions given above).This does raise the question of a very poor person who steals from a rich one... is there enough of a deterent given the risks of getting caught? Am I perhaps missing some part of the equation?
Salaam Alaikum and peace to all ..
Allah has said that He has made the Qur'aan easy to understand. And indeed it is easy, Alhamdulilah.I implore my brothers and sisters to please refrain from interpretations involving such unnecessarily complicated analysis. This is totally needless and might only confuse the minds of the common people. Most importantly, it will encourage the adherents of Hadeeth to reiterate the Qur'aan's "dependency" on Hadeeth for explanation which is again completely false.
Please let's be focused on keeping the tafseer to the best of our conscience .. correct, consise, to the point and simple.
This is just my opinion, mean no offence to no one.
Shokran and thanks.
JazekAllah Khair ..