Free Minds

General Issues / Questions => Questions/Comments on the Quran => Topic started by: uq on January 23, 2016, 04:06:48 PM

Title: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: uq on January 23, 2016, 04:06:48 PM
The traditional understanding of 5:38 is that the penalty for theft is amputation of the hand.

In this post I present arguments that take a different view.

I have categorised my arguments into two categories: semantics and pragmatics.

Semantics concerns the grammatical and lexical implications of the text of the verse.

Pragmatics concerns the interpretational and cultural implications of the verse.

Finally, for the sake of a balanced assessment, I give a couple of counter-arguments to my view at the end.

Semantics

(1) The key to a firm understanding of 5:38 is to deconstruct the word أَيۡدِيَهُمَا their hands and its place in the verse, for this word reveals more than we would initially suspect. Let us first look at the traditional translation of 5:38: ?The male thief and the female thief, cut their hands as a reprimand from God. God is mighty, wise.? In Arabic, there are 5 different 3rd person pronouns depending on the number of objects and their gender. The following table gives all 5 pronouns:

http://1drv.ms/1QllyAO (Click on link to see table)

As can be seen from the table, Arabic does not distinguish the gender of pronouns in the dual number. These pronouns are suffixed to nouns and verbs. As an example, let us now suffix these pronouns to the noun كِتَاب book:

http://1drv.ms/1KwUmdE (Click on link to see table)

In 5:38, the word in question (أَيۡدِيَهُمَا their hands) has the noun in the plural and the pronoun in the dual. That is to say, the word يَد hand is used in the plural to signify 3 or more hands and the pronoun signifies 2 people. Therefore, according to the traditional understanding, we are instructed by God in this verse to cut off 3 or more hands from 2 people. This is nonsensical because the supposed command to sever the hand should be applicable to a single individual, not to two individuals at the same time; that is to say, this command can only be applicable if a man AND a woman commit theft at the same time, and is therefore not applicable if two men commit theft or if two women commit theft etc. As such, أَيۡدِى in this verse cannot be referring to hands.

(2) Furthermore, the word يَد in Arabic can refer to any part of the human arm; up to and including the shoulder joint. Therefore, it can refer to the hand from the fingertips up to the wrist, or up to the elbow, or up to the shoulder joint. Why do we not see a specification in the verse as to the point at which the thief?s hand should be severed?

(3) The word يَد in Arabic can also refer to sustenance. But it only carries the meaning of sustenance when it is in the plural, not in the singular. As such, re-interpreting the word أَيۡدِى to mean sustenance instead of hands we re-read the verse as: ?The male thief and the female thief, discontinue their sustenance as a reprimand from God. God is mighty, wise.? The sustenance to which I refer here is the sustenance provided by the state to its citizens. We read in several verses of the Quran that the giving of wealth to the needy is a paramount characteristic of the believers, and if the state were to administer this distribution, then it would be in the position to discontinue the sustenance of those who steal.

(4) The word قَطَعَ used in 5:38 can mean in Arabic one of a number of things, of which are to cut, to cut off, and to disconnect. The first meaning is used in 12:50 in which the women who were present at the gathering of Joseph?s master?s wife are reported to have cut their hands out of astonishment of Joseph?s beauty. It is reasonable to think that this cutting of theirs was not amputation, but an accidental cutting of their hands in the sense of slash or graze. The second meaning has traditionally been thought to be intended in 5:38. And finally the third meaning is expressed in 6:45 where the word is used in an expression to mean disconnected.

Pragmatics

(1) If 5:38 were meant to be interpreted as amputation of the hand, then it is anomalous in that it is the only verse in the Quran for which amputation is the punishment for a sin. Not even رِبَا or زِنَى have been given corporeal punishments as severe as theft; not to mention the greatest sin of them all: شِرۡك , which receives absolutely no corporeal punishment whatsoever. I should mention here that although 5:33 does mention a severing of the hands and feet, it is stated in the impersonal 3rd person sense and is stated as a passive statement meant to be taken as a factitive declaration, not as a command that is to be implemented by the believers.

(2) As briefly mentioned above, there is a lack of provision of specifics of the execution of the command of amputation, namely, from what point of the anatomy should the hand be amputated? why are we given specifics in 5:6 for ablution but not in something as important as amputation? why is amputation the sole punishment of theft and not of more serious crimes?

(3) The after-effects of amputation will quite likely create more problems than it was meant to solve. The thief concerned will undoubtedly suffer emotional distress at the loss of his/her hand and this will give way to mental disorders such as depression and anxiety in view of their place in society. They will effectively be marked out among the population in which they live on account of being identified as a thief. And of course, not having a hand, their mobility will be affected. Are these factors that are deserving of theft? Furthermore, how is the thief to be redeemed in society with an amputated hand in light of the verse following 5:38 which states that God forgives those thieves who repent?

(4) Sunni Islam lays down conditional rules for the execution of the command of amputation in 5:38, as: 1) people living in a community must not be living in a state of poverty which might increase their likelihood of theft, if this is not the case, then amputation cannot take place 2) the thief must be a repeating offender 3) the item stolen must be of a given value 4) the thief must be a sane adult with no history of insanity. All these conditional requirements are admirable, for they hinder the execution of amputation. However, we, as a people who use the Quran only as a guide in life, cannot rely on extra-Quranic sources for the implementation or interpretation of religious guidance. And it is the idea itself of having amputation as a punishment for theft that should be analysed for its merits and faults. I argue the latter to be prevailing.

Counter-arguments

(1) In Classical Arabic, it is permissible for the plural to be used in place of the dual when appended to a pronoun. Example, it is permissible to use the plural أَيۡدِى in reference to the dual يَدَانِ as it is considered a liberality in usage. Another example is found in the Quran in 66:4 where we read قُلُوبُكُمَا where قَلۡبُكُمَا would have otherwise been used. This means that the argument given above about the incomprehension of the plurality of the noun being prefixed to a dual pronoun is invalid only on the grounds that the Author intended أَيۡدِيهُمَا to be an instance of liberality in usage.

(2) A similar argument can be levelled against the interpretation of the word أَيۡدِى as sustenance as that levelled against its interpretation as hands in terms of the lack of the provision of specification of the duration during which the thief?s sustenance should be suspended.
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Wakas on January 24, 2016, 06:51:34 AM
peace uq,

Thanks for sharing your analysis. These are the kinds of posts I much prefer to read. Also it is commendable citing some counter-arguments - as it is rare for authors to do this.

A few points:

Let's say Quran did command to cut off a thief's hand, how would you expect the Arabic to be phrased?

When you said it means sustenance it is always the plural. Is this also true for its other meanings of power/means, or just sustenance? I have not checked Quran with regard to this point, but could be interesting.

Re: counter-arguments

1)
In 66:4 perhaps the perceived liberality of usage could be due to the addressees being female and pregnant, hence the reference to more than two hearts. Of course this interpretation may result in asking why is the unborn baby's heart being involved into the discussion. Just something I thought of. It would be interesting if there were other examples of liberality of usage elsewhere in Quran that were clear cases of such.

2)
I think one obvious response to that would be to say it cannot be defined because the value of the theft will vary, thus the suspension (or whatever) would vary.

You may also like to read this, as it brings up some other points:
http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm

e.g.

Quote
Also, 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 [24:2], but it says no such thing for the alleged hand cutting-off verse, when many consider this punishment to be worse. This adds to the possibility that it should not be taken to mean this.
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: good logic on January 24, 2016, 09:27:34 AM
Peace  uq.
Very interesting.

Will require digesting, but so far it makes sense, what you presented.

I agree with Wakas, these kinds of posts are a good example to all of us.

GOD bless you.
Peace.
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Jafar on January 24, 2016, 11:44:05 AM
Regardless of whatever any "holy book" say..

Along with other gruesome punishment found in the holy books, ie. crucifixion, stoning..
The punishment of hand amputation for thief is not a good punishment and MUST not be applied.

Amputating the hands of somebody will render the man useless and impaired for the society.
It's also "irreversible" in case the convicted man later proved to be not guilty.

I'm truly sorry we convicted the wrong man.. here let me return your hand back..

Any punishment should be applied based on the following motivation:
- Beneficial to the society as a whole.
- Reforming the offender.

The main objective is not to "Punish" but to create better society.

Limitation on movement (e.g. Prison) to protect the society and/or "Pro Bono" services (ie making license plate, cleaning the street etc..) is a better punishment for thieves compared to hand amputation.

Amputating the hands will turn a thief into a beggar..
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: HP_TECH on January 24, 2016, 11:50:46 AM
@ Uq
Excellent post I just wanted to highlight some issues and propose some ideas

I think the issue with the mainstream-like interpretation is also of the punishment serving as a means to deter from further future offenses and simultaneously permanently label/mark/stigmatize the offender.
This may have seemed wise to those who interpreted it as such because of the benefit of eliminating the threat of theft by avoiding past offenders upon recognition and obviously the benefit of impeding their abilities.

Punishments although are not mean to permanently mutilate and stigmatize individuals because God is The Forgiver and  always gives individuals an opportunity to repent.
In fact, let us look at the following ayaah:
5:39
But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms (his ways), then indeed, Allah will turn towards him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

An individual cannot have a chance to repent be forgiven if the punishment is immediate, permanent and stigmatizing.

Taking the command as a mutilating punishment would contradict the above ayaah. There are no contradictions in the Quraan.

I am interested  in the semantics you presented. However, I believe that for your translation in the ayaah, one could make an argument that it is conveying severing from the sustenance of the offenders. As in severing a set amount from their means. Instead of completely cutting them off from the resources.
The family who the individual might be responsible for should not have to suffer because of the individuals actions.

That is why I am against the theory of imprisonment or severing the individual from his/her ability to commit the crime by taking away their freedom.
One in such a condition would be left incomeless and his/her family would suffer terribly from such a set back.

I gather that you see the sustenance provided by the state as an even equal redistribution among the citizens of funds raised from the citizens incomes?

I take it to mean that it serves for the less fortunate exclusively, or at the least they are the sole priority in my understanding.
In my opinion we can see an example of such priority in
Surah 59:7
Whatever Allah restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns,it is for Allah and His Messenger and the kindred and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not become a perpetual circulation between the rich among you. And whatever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatever he forbids you from, refrain. And fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.

However you define the sustenance I think the command is to sever a portion, as a fine.
Since I see the sustenance provided by the state as a welfare aid I would exclude the idea of wealthy people recovering the aid. There are however all sorts of thiefs among poor and rich and if one interpreted the punishment as cutting off completely a person's sustenance or resources or wealth then imagine for example a wealthy individual who steals a meal, should he lose his entire estate and wealth over a meal?

If your interpretation is that all citizens receive equal aid from the state, then you have to consider how the aid is funded as well.

I think the sustenance provided by the state is funded by all income receiving individuals. Whatever they have of excess after all their obligatory expenses is for the state welfare.
OR
1/5 ~20% of whatever they have of excess after their obligatory expenses.

I think what is most unsure about right now is weather the wealth is meant to eventually be redistributed evenly to all citizens once needy are well established or it is meant solely to aid the most needy.
I tend to believe the redistribution targets the most needy individuals on their specific needs.
It does not get redistributed evenly or to all the needy indivuals at once, I would propose it is more of a thought out case by case process.
If someone neediest person is in dire need of an apple will you divide the apple in equal fractions and distribute it evenly so that the one that had an excess receives a fraction he does not need and the needy is deprived of what he was in need of?
It wouldn't be fair. You would ensure that the most needy has what is essential first before even thinking about even redistribution.

See the ayaahs below

58. And among them are some who criticize you concerning the (distribution of) charities. If they are given from it, they are pleased; but if they are not given from it then they are enraged.
59. And if they were satisfied with what Allah and His Messenger gave them, and had said, “Sufficient for us is Allah, Allah will give us of His Bounty and (so will) His Messenger. Indeed, we turn our hopes to Allah."

If one stole it would be insensitive to cut them completely from the welfare if they are poor and if one is rich he was probably not ever in need of the welfare.
So the punishment according to interpreting it as a complete cut off from sustenance is not balanced.
The set punishment would penalize poor individuals exceedingly more than their wealthy counterparts.


There are a lot of components surrounding this to consider.


That is why when you take all these in to consideration it would seem that cutting in the sense of slicing (like the women at Joseph's masters's wife's gathering) their sustenance or resources would make more sense. Slicing to let blood drip from their hands as an offering of admiration in the case of the women. Hence slicing from the thief's resources to let some of the sustenance drain out, in proportion to the crime committed or value of the item stolen. The which needs not to be immediate and all at once but just like cutting/slicing is a GRADUAL incision or the blood from the cut therefrom drips gradually.
The penalty should then be a fine in proportion to what was stolen and extracted from the offender in proportion to the offender's means. This way the ones who are maintained by the thief's oaths do not have to suffer.

Salaam
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: hawk99 on January 24, 2016, 12:51:41 PM
Excellent post uq, informative and thought provoking, pragmatics in my
opinion supercedes semantics and pragmatics #2 and 3 are on point.  A farmer with
children who loses a hand for an unspecified theft would be a detriment to his/her family
and society.



                      :peace:
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: uq on January 25, 2016, 04:38:21 PM
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 السارق والسارقة فاقطعوا من كل واحد منهما يدا من الرسغ or من المرفق or من الكتف 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 يد 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 يد in the singular, not the plural. Note also how I used the phrase من كل واحد منهما 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 يد as sustenance is used in the plural, however, other meanings of the word, as power and means can occur in the singular.

Regarding 66:4, 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.
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: huruf on January 26, 2016, 02:45:11 AM
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 السارق والسارقة فاقطعوا من كل واحد منهما يدا من الرسغ or من المرفق or من الكتف 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 يد 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 يد in the singular, not the plural. Note also how I used the phrase من كل واحد منهما 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 يد as sustenance is used in the plural, however, other meanings of the word, as power and means can occur in the singular.

Regarding 66:4, 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 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
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: uq on January 26, 2016, 11:03:02 AM
Peace huruf,

I agree with the points you have contributed.

I am also prepare to entertain the possibility that يد could signify power or ability and thereby the implication of the verse would be to hinder the thief's ability to do things or to restrict their mobility.
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Wakas on January 26, 2016, 02:55:23 PM
peace uq, all,

Quote
The signification of يد as sustenance is used in the plural, however, other meanings of the word, as power and means can occur in the singular.

I think seeing how the plural is used in Quran could be helpful.

In any case, I think the answer could be staring us in the face - what if all we need to do is reconcile the phrase in 5:38 with the example of theft given in Quran, which Joseph oversaw.

Is there a match?

Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Mussabahire on January 26, 2016, 11:06:45 PM
If Muhammad came in 2015 and was from USA, I am sure that God would have told him to Electrocute the thieves or shoot them. We must take the Quranic principle of punishing the thief and apply the form of punishment according to our time (Jail, shooting,...). Thanks.
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Noon waalqalami on January 27, 2016, 01:36:50 AM
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. 

Salaam, yes true numerous idioms for hands...

5:38 والسارق and the male thief (m/s) والسارقه and the female thief (f/s) فاقطعوا fa-iq'ṭaʿū/so shall cut ye of اىدىهما aydiyahuma/hands (i.e. actions) theirs dual جزاء recompense بما in what كسبا earned dual نكالا nakālan/shackle of من from الله the god والله and the god عزىز mighty حكىم wise
5:39 فمن so whom تاب turned من from بعد after ظلمه wrongdoing his واصلح and reconciles فان so surely الله the god ىتوب turns in forgiveness علىه on him ان surely الله the god غفور forgiver رحىم merciful

48:24 وهو and he الذى the one كف withheld اىدىهم hands (actions) theirs عنكم over you واىدىكم and hands (actions) yours عنهم over them ببطن in belly/midst مكه mekka من from بعد after ان that اظفركم gave victory you علىهم over them وكان and be الله the god بما in what تعملون thou working بصىرا seer of

73:12 ان surely لدىنا with us انكالا ankālan/shackles of وجحىما and burning fire of
73:13 وطعاما and food ذا that غصه chokes وعذابا waʿadhāban/and punishment of الىما painful of

Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: reel on January 27, 2016, 02:30:15 AM
Salaam, yes true numerous idioms for hands...

5:38 والسارق and the male thief (m/s) والسارقه and the female thief (f/s) فاقطعوا fa-iq'ṭaʿū/so shall cut ye of اىدىهما aydiyahuma/hands (i.e. actions) theirs dual جزاء recompense بما in what كسبا earned dual نكالا nakālan/shackle of من from الله the god والله and the god عزىز mighty حكىم wise
5:39 فمن so whom تاب turned من from بعد after ظلمه wrongdoing his واصلح and reconciles فان so surely الله the god ىتوب turns in forgiveness علىه on him ان surely الله the god غفور forgiver رحىم merciful

48:24 وهو and he الذى the one كف withheld اىدىهم hands (actions) theirs عنكم over you واىدىكم and hands (actions) yours عنهم over them ببطن in belly/midst مكه mekka من from بعد after ان that اظفركم gave victory you علىهم over them وكان and be الله the god بما in what تعملون thou working بصىرا seer of

73:12 ان surely لدىنا with us انكالا ankālan/shackles of وجحىما and burning fire of
73:13 وطعاما and food ذا that غصه chokes وعذابا waʿadhāban/and punishment of الىما painful of


UQ, Huruf and Noon,
Thanks for clarification. Free-minds has an article based on what Huruf explained. It was very clear. Unfortunately, I am not able to find it  :(
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: uq on January 30, 2016, 08:53:26 PM
Peace Wakas,

In the story of Jospeh could well be a guidance on the law governing the punishment of the thief.

I haven't studied it in depth but it would be interesting to see what a study of the story would reveal.
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Wakas on January 31, 2016, 07:27:41 AM
peace uq, all,

My preliminary analysis would indicate that if we were to use this example as a guide, then the thief is given a chance to confess and return the stolen goods, if not, then if found guilty, would be detained, for a set time and/or in order to work off the cost.

In my view, based on my study, it does seem the punishment could be flexible depending upon the time, circumstances and severity of crime. For example, perhaps it is a mercy that it is theoretically possible to translate it in several ways (as discussed here (http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm)). When you think about it, that kind of flexible wording is even more genius than a one size fits all inflexible wording.
For example if we were to use "cut their sustenance", it could refer to whatever one uses to sustain oneself, e.g. their wealth/goods/food/etc, to the equivalent value of the crime (theft and court costs incurred), or if they earn money from a job, a cut/portion is taken until the equivalent value of the crime is repaid.
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Noon waalqalami on January 31, 2016, 09:24:08 AM
Peace Wakas, nice summary.

The punishment for theft is confirmed by phrase ?like such we reward ...? ? Qur?an not brothers speaking.

12:73 قالوا said they of تالله by the god لقد indeed علمتم know you ما not جىنا came we لنفسد that we corrupt فى in الارض the earth/land وما and not كنا are we سارقىن thieves
12:74 قالوا said they of فما so what جزاوه reparation its ان if كنتم be you كاذبىن liars?
12:75 قالوا said they of ?جزاوه reparation its من whom وجد found فى in رحله bag his فهو so he جزاوه reparation its? ? كذلك like such نجزى we reward الظالمىن the wrongdoers

21:29 ? كذلك like such نجزى we reward الظالمىن the wrongdoers
35:36 ? كذلك like such نجزى we reward كل each كفور ungrateful
37:80 ? كذلك like such نجزى we reward المحسنىن the good doers
37:105 ? كذلك like such نجزى we reward المحسنىن the good doers
37:110 كذلك like such نجزى we reward المحسنىن the good doers
37:121 ? كذلك like such نجزى we reward المحسنىن the good doers
37:131 ? كذلك like such نجزى we reward المحسنىن the good doers
46:25 ? كذلك like such نجزى we reward القوم the folk المجرمىن the criminals
54:35 ? كذلك like such نجزى we reward من whom شكر grateful
77:44 ? كذلك like such نجزى we reward المحسنىن the good doers

5:38 والسارق and the male thief (m/s) والسارقه and the female thief (f/s) فاقطعوا so cutoff ye of اىدىهما aydiyahuma/hands (actions) theirs dual جزاء recompense بما in what كسبا earned dual نكالا nakālan/shackle of من from الله the god والله and the god عزىز mighty حكىم wise

Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Iyyaka on November 17, 2020, 03:55:41 PM
peace uq,

Thanks for sharing your analysis. These are the kinds of posts I much prefer to read. Also it is commendable citing some counter-arguments - as it is rare for authors to do this.

A few points:

Let's say Quran did command to cut off a thief's hand, how would you expect the Arabic to be phrased?

When you said it means sustenance it is always the plural. Is this also true for its other meanings of power/means, or just sustenance? I have not checked Quran with regard to this point, but could be interesting.

Re: counter-arguments

1)
In 66:4 perhaps the perceived liberality of usage could be due to the addressees being female and pregnant, hence the reference to more than two hearts. Of course this interpretation may result in asking why is the unborn baby's heart being involved into the discussion. Just something I thought of. It would be interesting if there were other examples of liberality of usage elsewhere in Quran that were clear cases of such.

2)
I think one obvious response to that would be to say it cannot be defined because the value of the theft will vary, thus the suspension (or whatever) would vary.

You may also like to read this, as it brings up some other points:
http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm

e.g.
Salam Wakas,

Two remarks :

1/
Very good article https://misconceptions-about-islam.com/misconception.php?id=37 (https://misconceptions-about-islam.com/misconception.php?id=37)
I qote you :
"
Thus, it is possible to understand the punishment for thieves in four alternative ways:
(1) cutting off their hands
(2) cutting or marking their hands
(3) cutting their means/power to steal, e.g. detention/jail.
(4) cutting their sustenance, e.g. in order to compensate the value of the theft.
"
First, for your information, Mazhar presents an another alternative.

Second,there is a point that I didn't hear about in the various exchanges or in your article :
What does the Torah says about it (Al-Quran also "confirms" previous Holy scriptures) ?

   - (Exodus 22:3) If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for
   his theft. (Ex -> story of brothers of Yusuf : "stealing" the king)

   - (Exodus 22:4) If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.

   - (Exodus 22:6) If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire
   shall surely make restitution-compensation.

   - (Exodus 22:9) For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the
   cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

As we can see, the torah rejoins point (4) and at worst point (3).

If one adopts this point of view, then it is a question of "cut//take (اقْطَعُوا = verb in the form 1 = to cut symbolically) [the fruit of] their hands (that is to say, symbolically "what they possess" or "their capacity for work") in remuneration equivalent to what they have acquired...". (5:38).

Thus, the thief's hand is never literally cut off according to the Qur'an; on the contrary, he is punished in proportion to what he has stolen (Law of Retaliation).

- The stolen property (or its equivalent if the property has been squandered) must by definition be returned to its owner; therefore, the message of 5:38 is that in addition to this, the thief's property (or his ability to work freely) must be punished (symbolically cut off) in retribution equivalent to what the thief has acquired", i.e., the thief is required to pay a fine equivalent to the stolen property.

- This just sentence is exactly the same as in the Bible (Exodus 22:4, 22:6, 22:9) where the thief must return the stolen good, doubled by a fine that represents its equivalent or, failing that, pay double the fine.

- Sura 12 also shows that among the Hebrews in Joseph's time, and at least in one case where the thief could not pay compensation, he lost his freedom, which also confirms the book of Exodus (22:3), and that today, if a thief cannot make financial reparation, "his hands are cut off" (i.e., his freedom to earn money) in the sense that he may be punished with, for example, imprisonment or imprisonment until he is able to honor the sentence.

2/
About what brother uq said, i quote him :
"
(1) In Classical Arabic, it is permissible for the plural to be used in place of the dual when appended to a pronoun. Example, it is permissible to use the plural أَيۡدِى in reference to the dual يَدَانِ as it is considered a liberality in usage. Another example is found in the Quran in 66:4 where we read قُلُوبُكُمَا where قَلۡبُكُمَا would have otherwise been used. This means that the argument given above about the incomprehension of the plurality of the noun being prefixed to a dual pronoun is invalid only on the grounds that the Author intended أَيۡدِيهُمَا to be an instance of liberality in usage.
"
As the context indicates, the plural qulûb here does not mean hearts, but secret thoughts, ideas, from the sense of mind, intellect, cf. Lisân al-'arab.

Conclusion :

Although hypotheses (1) and (2) (physical punishment) cannot be excluded, there are new arguments in favour of hypotheses (3) and (4).
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: tutti_frutti on November 17, 2020, 07:04:14 PM
salam

i think that surah 5 verse 38 is literal
there is no reason to interpret

however if a thief repents, then he or she is to be let go as we are told in verse 39 of surah 5

The God is the Forgiving

peace

Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Iyyaka on November 18, 2020, 01:41:41 AM
salam
i think that surah 5 verse 38 is literal
there is no reason to interpret
peace
Salam to you tutti_frutti,

Literally it is written word for word: "cut off the hands/aydiy of each of them/humâ [fa-qṭa'û aydiya-humâ]"
Now, if in English it is possible to understand the plural "hands" as designating two hands, this is impossible in the Arabic language for which the plural begins only from three enumerated units, hence the use of the dual case when there are only two objects or persons. Also, this sentence apparently orders to cut off more than two hands to each of the thieves. Or, by forcing the expression, could we understand that for two thieves, either three or four hands must be cut off => We don't know who should be cut off two hands and who should be cut off only one. And should the whole arm be cut off, up to the wrists or elbows? Imprecision which for a law supposed to be as sharp as it is irreversible still poses a problem.

So, literally there is a problem.
Thus, fully conscious of this semantic problem and to deal with it, traditional exegetes (remaining on the physical punishment, certified (?) for them by some hadiths) have proposed, to the best of my knowledge, four solutions to achieve their ends:

-1/ The first is to say that the singular should be understood as meaning the thief/as-sâriq and the thief/as-sâriqa as meaning in reality the thieves/as-sâriqûn and the thieves/as-sâriqât. Since it is difficult to argue that God would have used the singular when He meant the plural, it has been claimed, without proof, that Ibn Mas'ûd recited this verse using the plural: "Thiefs/as-sâriqûn and thiefs/as-sâriqât, cut off their hands...", which would effectively explain the presence of the plural aydiy/hands. However, this variant of recitation/qirâ'a has never been recognized as valid, its only purpose being to provide an argument for the aims of these exegetes who, in reality, have fabricated the argument necessary for them. This qirâ'a is thus a perfect example of exegetical variants.

-2/ The second solution is to assume that one must understand aydiy al-yumnâ, i.e. the right hands, which is to assume against the doxa itself that one can add a word to the Qur'anic text and furthermore make a bend in the Arabic grammar. [These two "solutions" can be found, for example, in Tabari in his tafsîr: Jâmi'u al-bayân fî ta'wîl al-qur'ân, Dâr al-kutub al-'ilmiyya, 3rd edition, Beirut, 1999, T. IV, p. 569].

-3/ The third proposed solution is to claim that in this verse the plural aydiy/hands is valid for the singular yad/hand, which again amounts to taking one word for another [See for example Zamakhsharî: Tafsîr al-kashshâf, Dâr al-kutub al-'ilmiyya, Beirut, 1995, T. I, p. 619].

-4/ The fourth proposed solution is the one evoked by Brother uq and which can be found in the "Tafsir Al-Mizan" made by Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī :
the word, aydi (=hands) is plural, which in Arabic is used for at least three items, while here it means only two hands. It is said that such usage is common; some, rather many, organs in human body are double, like eyes, ears, hands, feet and legs; when two persons are involved the total of these organs comes to four, which demands plural, like their eyes, hands and legs, etc. The usage of plural spread to organs of two persons, even if the said organ was not double. For example, they say: 'I covered the backs and stomachs [in plural] of the two with hitting.' Allãh says: If you both turn to Allãh, then indeed your hearts [in plural] are already inclined . . . (66:4). "Hand" is used for the organ attached to shoulder; according to traditions here it refers to the right hand; cutting of hand means severing the whole or part of it with a sharp instrument.

Conclusion :

So, Personnaly (my own opinion), i find these arguments weak as compared to :

(1) the Quranic principle of the law of retaliation or the law of fair retaliation
+
(2) what the previous scripture tell us
+
(3) Quranic intertexuality with the story of yusuf'brothers.
+
(4) Quran is imprecise about the number of hands to be cut off and on the length..specially on such a sensitive and definitive subject.

But i admit i may be wrong on this delicate subject...in this case it is necessary to take into account the context of the revelation of sura 5 and the tribal environment of this time.
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: huruf on November 27, 2020, 04:45:25 AM
Most of the occurrences of the word hand or handsin the Qur'an are used overwhelmly in the figurative sense, meaning power or capacity. To conclude that in this aya, literal hands are meant, some reason should be given or then all accurrences in the Qur'an be interpreted likewise and not accept in any case the fiurative meaning, which would make a lot of nonsense, exactly as it happens in this aya. Goot that other arguments are given like by Iyyaka here, but really taking it as literal it reflects badly on the reasoning of the person that says so.

Salaam
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Iyyaka on November 27, 2020, 12:23:15 PM
Most of the occurrences of the word hand or handsin the Qur'an are used overwhelmly in the figurative sense, meaning power or capacity. To conclude that in this aya, literal hands are meant, some reason should be given or then all accurrences in the Qur'an be interpreted likewise and not accept in any case the fiurative meaning, which would make a lot of nonsense, exactly as it happens in this aya. Goot that other arguments are given like by Iyyaka here, but really taking it as literal it reflects badly on the reasoning of the person that says so.

Salaam
Salam, (about what is above in bold)

I'm not sure that i understand what you understood from my over the last two interventions (sorry if it was not the case).
So, I  prefer to summarize what I said to be clearer :

Wakas summarized the 4 possibilities of understanding this verse (+ I added Mazhar's one - see his translation).
I quote him :
"
Thus, it is possible to understand the punishment for thieves in four alternative ways:
(1) cutting off their hands
(2) cutting or marking their hands
(3) cutting their means/power to steal, e.g. detention/jail.
(4) cutting their sustenance, e.g. in order to compensate the value of the theft.
"

My opinion bend to option 4 (I gave my arguments previously).
However, I do not rule out option 1 (and I have already given the arguments used to this effect in order that each one form his own opinion). This is why I remain cautious on this subject and I avoid, like expressing you used: "it reflects badly on the reasoning of the person that says so". (i am cautious because it is very easy to project our opinions onto the text without listening to what the text says in context).

NB :
A literal approach in no way prevents figurative comprehension if the text allows or authorizes it.
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: tutti_frutti on November 27, 2020, 01:29:14 PM
salam

i really do not understand why there is the need to interpret the verse

The God was clear ... punishment for stealing is cutting off of the hands unless the thief repents

if He wanted ro say sustenance or what else, im guessing He would have said cut their sustenance. but no, He said HANDS ... so why interpret :)

also if we start interpreting verses then why dont we interpret verses about lashing etc or even about hell and say fire is just an allegory there is no fire

but no, The God is clear in His verses and His words are precise

hands to be amputated for the thief just as there is actual fire and boiling liquid in hell

peace
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Iyyaka on November 27, 2020, 02:28:13 PM
salam
i really do not understand why there is the need to interpret the verse
but no, The God is clear in His verses and His words are precise
peace
Salam,
Please read more carefully my previous answer to you (Textually, it is not so clear as you declare, so figurative understanding is an option - moreover, "hands" as symbols of "power, possession" is also used elsewhere in the quran).
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Wakas on November 27, 2020, 02:56:16 PM
i really do not understand why there is the need to interpret the verse


Why don't you try responding to the problematic issues then perhaps you'll understand why?

See what happened in the past when someone who thought it meant "cut-off" had to explain the issues:
https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609391.msg403439#msg403439

https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9610091.msg414514#msg414514
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: tutti_frutti on November 27, 2020, 03:40:10 PM
salam iyyaka

hope youre well

i did read but still i dont see why it is not clear and literal. The God said cut the hands, well so the hands are to be cut unless they repent. if they repent let them go.

does He use the word sustenance? non, He uses the word hands.

The God is very clear in the Quran and His words are specifically chosen

why chose to interpret this verse? are people going to interpret verses that they do not “like”?

also, let us look at it using the idea that hands means sustenance in the verse ... i understand a thief would usually steal if he has no money and mode of sustenance (unless perhaps the thief is rich and is a compulsive thief or gets kicks out of stealing) ... so if the punishement is to cut his or her sustenance... what are you going to cut?? he stole because he has no way of sustenance ... no work no nothing ... so cut what exactly? a nonexistant source of funds??
so given he has nothing, his mode of sustenance would then be ... his hands ! :)

salam wakkas

hope all is well too

i do not see the issue with this verse. justice is to The God. if He says something then that becomes justice. He is the Standard.

anyways my understanding is that the verse is literal as is the whole Quran unless The God says or makes it obvious He is giving an example (i think He usually tells us theoughout the Book when an example is an example)

peace
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: jkhan on November 27, 2020, 07:49:46 PM
Let's look at the magnitude of crime.. Is killing or prostitution or stealing worse?

For killing if the family agree for certain payment and deliver the killer then how cruel it is to sever physical hands for stealing regardless of what he or she stole....

Unless I am mistaken, Strangely God never said bring one or two or three or four witness before punish thief...

I researched how a thief was punished in ancient times in well known empires... So many ways they dealt and severing physical hands also was one of the options...

I feel this verse refers as discard them from society... I mean to say if one is considered as thief in society then people know how to treat them when they meet them... Society will do the rest... No one will give hand to them.. Society sever the hands with them, But if they reform,  people will know they are not thieves anymore... So forgiveness is worthy.. If they remain thieves,  then their destiny is at the hands of society...they won't have any respect in society but mean and lowly..

I extremely don't agree that it can be physical hands cutting.. ..  By cutting a hand if you can stop a thief, that would be far from reality...

Common sense.. If one thief is caught,  in most cases thief and what he thieved is also get caught... Unless he devour them all so quickly... So if what he stole is caught, then it is most appropriate to return to the owner what he lost... Even after that  his hands severed.. What justice is that?
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Iyyaka on November 28, 2020, 12:15:49 AM
Salam bro Tutti_frutti,

Yes i am well thanks by the grace of Allah. Hope for you too.

Let me answer to your two points :

i did read but still i dont see why it is not clear and literal. The God said cut the hands, well so the hands are to be cut unless they repent. if they repent let them go.
=> Literally it is written word for word: "cut off the hands/aydiy of each of them/humâ [fa-qṭa'û aydiya-humâ]" :

So, it means : cut 3 or more hands for each thief - Does it possible ? NO. I hope it is more clearer now.

But i also said that it may be a use of the Arabic language (i gave arguments from exegetes). And it is your opinion too and it is respectable.

also, let us look at it using the idea that hands means sustenance in the verse ... i understand a thief would usually steal if he has no money and mode of sustenance (unless perhaps the thief is rich and is a compulsive thief or gets kicks out of stealing) ... so if the punishement is to cut his or her sustenance... what are you going to cut?? he stole because he has no way of sustenance ... no work no nothing ... so cut what exactly? a nonexistant source of funds??
so given he has nothing, his mode of sustenance would then be ... his hands ! :)
Good remark and i belived to have answered it but i was not enough clear in my response.

So 3 options in the order of things :
1) cut the equivalent subsistance
2) and if it is not possible (partially or totally), so the thief's hands become the hands serving the person you stole (as with the story of the brothers of yusuf and the king's cup)
2) always possibility to reduce the sentence or forgive : it's an opportunity to do the best deed.

Conclusion at this moment from my side (reconciliation of the two approaches) :

   1/- Physically cut off the thief's hand can be made, but you have of taking into account the context of the revelation of the verse (Tribal society made up of small groups with strong solidarity among members and mutual assistance) and taking into account the state of the society and the individual situation (cf. Muhammad ASAD's commentary).

    2/- as it is so complicated to have the context of an already-existing, fully functioning social security scheme in society : we can apply the figurative approach (i gave my choice on how to apply it by the quran and the torah - The textual context of verse 5:38 and around it is about jews) .

NB : the view of Jkhan is wise too in this case  - i quote him : "I feel this verse refers as discard them from society... I mean to say if one is considered as thief in society then people know how to treat them when they meet them... Society will do the rest...,"
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: jkhan on November 28, 2020, 12:25:34 AM
Look at this Issue in a practical point of view..
 At least when the rule was in the hands of believers while the verse is revealed...
Suppose if one was caught as thief,  he may beg I won't steal again like a repentance.. He repent of not God only knows..
... Plain instruction is Cut their hands... Which hand.. Right or left or both and when to cut.. I mean before repent or after repent.. ... Or not to cut if they repent.. Has Quran clearly instructed not to cut hands if they repented... How they will implement? Only option is cut hands of all those who are thief.. They repent or not repent is not relevant to executors. Everyone would say they repent... So no thief will be there to cut hands... Okay may be considered repetition of theft.. But where is instructions from Quran..

In the following verse5:39  God says whoever repents God forgives (God forgives not Ruler or people)... So anyone can repent when they get caught... So..  Nice way to escape ..
Verse 5:38 is clear with instruction.. No conditions... So as a ruler of even people they should first cut thief hands... Probably both.. Coz it doesn't say one hand.. It seems more than two..
So once thief's hands are cut,  he is in a situation to repent himself (not to rulers) for what he did according to 5:39 if he feels he is wrong.. It won't make any thief to reform rather than revenge.. Not only repent but  reform as well.. Simply not steal again.. There comes the biggest scenario.. Now he has no more hands. .the punishment for thief is cutting hands. .so when he is caught stealing then he needs to be punished as per Quran. But only punishment God proclaimed is cutting hands and no alternative... What would ruler of society do.. Let him free go steal again.. Coz thief knows very well now,  he has no hands and punishment proclaimed is cutting hands and proclaiming / implementing anything other than God ordered is violation... So it gives thieves more chance... Do you expect that is exemplary gor thieves..?

Thieves are thieves.. You can't stop them by severing a body part... What exemplary punishment is that from God.. Such punishments were already in such societies even well Before these Quranic verses... It doesn't need to come as exemplary from God..

But if God told the rulers and the society to disconnect their hands then the thieves are given a very mean status in society.. So.. They will suffer mentally in their entire life.. Unless they reform... If they leave theft and get back to good path then society knows that.. Coz they live together... Then God forgives not rulers or people...

If his hands are cut instead,  even he reforms it will be a black mark.. And everyone knows he was a thief once and he will remain in the minds of people he is thief whenever they see a person without hands.

God has not even clarified the magnitude of theft... Stealing a penny is also a theft..

So as per Quran.. If anyone happened to steal anything of theirs, they inform everyone of his theft so that people would disconnect his hands from all dealings... That's possible in a well structured local community like the one probably prophet lived...

So he becomes helpless rather than choosing the right path at least to survive if not for guidance.. So ethic prevails ..
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Wakas on November 28, 2020, 04:38:00 AM
peace tf,


i do not see the issue with this verse. justice is to The God. if He says something then that becomes justice. He is the Standard.


Did you actually read the links I provided? Yes/No.

I hope you are not being lazy but I will post them here for all to see:

Quote
1) The Arabic word translated as "cut" in 5:38 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) 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?

3) The more intense 2nd verb form is used alongside hands only twice in Quran [12:31, 12:50] - please tell us does it mean cutting off hands in these verses? Yes/No.

4) Please explain the plural use of "aydi" (hands) in 5:38. Note that the Arabic plural means 3 or more hands, thus iqtaa should be done to 3 or more hands.

5) 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 [24:2], 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.

6) 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. [42:39-40]

7) Are there any other corroborating verses in Quran which support hand-cutting-off for theft? Yes/No. If yes, cite them.

8 ) the only working example of theft in Quran is in the story of Joseph [12:73-79], please tell us what the punishment for theft is in this story?

Like others who hold the view "cut off" you will be forced to admit the word doesn't usually mean cut-off, when the more appropriate intense 2nd form is used with hands it doesn't mean cut-off and you would cut off the hands for stealing a slice of bread etc etc. Is that "God is the standard" in your eyes?

Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: huruf on November 28, 2020, 07:09:24 AM
Bes thing would be tutti fruti takes all ayas of the Qur'an where hand or hands ar ementionned and make all of them littleral, no idiom and no figurative language at all, and see what he gets.

Salaam
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: good logic on November 29, 2020, 03:15:13 AM
It seems many want to interpret Qoran and implement their interpretation  on others.
ISIS think they are implementing Qoran.
Saudi Arabia think they are implementing Qoran.
Hundreds of sects are following their interpretation and implementing it accordingly.

Should Qoran not be studied and implemented on oneself first and foremost? Are we  not supposed to cleanse our minds and better ourselves with it ?

GOD tells them clearly"do not force deen" on others",but claim Qoran gives the "freedom of choice" when it suits them.
They cut the heads, fingers and hands  and justify it with Qoran.
 They horde wealth and monopolise it for the leaders and powerful"men" and justify it with Qoran.
They oppress women, children and the weak in society and justify it with Qoran
They tell lies about GOD , create a religion and rules galore.enforce it on others and justify it with Qoran.
...and so on.

Why are not those who implement "cutting hands"  not applying it to themselves when some of them steal people s wealth,property and freedom?

In honesty , if "cutting hands" is applied for theft, there will be:
1- Injustice - Many are stealing little things for necessity-Others are stealing very big-
2-Most people  of the world  Having one hand -The majority of humans take what is not theirs- little things- either deliberately or by mistake-
3- Most leaders will have one hand..
GOD might as well create humans with one hand to start with!!  Perhaps on second though it is a good thing GOD created us with two hands. Otherwise some will still interpret "cut hands" and there will be some folks walking about with no hand at all.

Anyway each to their interpretations.
GOD bless you all.
Peace
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: jkhan on November 29, 2020, 07:46:37 AM
Peace..
That's why it is pathetic to hear when conventional Muslims say that it is the order of God in Quran and Hadith.. Heartless people to be honest..

Does anyone notice the strange part in those couple of verses 5:38-39..
God didn't say to forgive them when they thieve..  I would forgive if I found someone  steal anything of mine which the thief need more than me... of course if I realize that.. For example if I found someone is desperate to and found nothing other than stealing.. In case I don't mind losing it.. But God didn't instruct us in Quran to forgive them but can be forgiven when they themselves repent plus reform coz God forgives  so better we do as well.. I or you may be emotional looking at the thief's desperate situation but giving a helping hand for theft and encouraging is not recommended by God correctly... But if we found someone  stealing in hunger, we may approach him casually and extend a helping hand and advise not to steal...  But God directly warns us theft is illegal even how much desperate the situation  is... Big level thieves are real thieves and their only intention  is living a life based on theft...

But people who practice theft on desperate situation are not real thieves.. But definitely not encouraged by God.. If they are in a destitute situation, they can / should always find someone who they feel who can help them... Doing something is always within the possibility, if he is capable enough to steal someone else's property ... Isn't it? Believers should always look for help from God if they find they are desperate but not choose theft...
But what about disbliever (poor) who is on desperate situation?  He doesn't mind ethics.. Our emotion towards him won't work.. It will only boost his hunt to theft making us fool...

So.. I highly accept what God's decision to disconnect the hands of thieves from society... Who knows better than God... Our emotions and dislike is not relevant over the decision of God...

If anyone has researched,  " why one becomes a theif" pls share... I feel it is one's own fault in managing his resources before zero level strikes.. But if unfortunate people like (blind,  orphan etc etc) happened to steal then it is the fault of society ... God encourages charity at very high level... But if one tries to live on charity forever and when helpless trying to steal then he is responsible for his situation... Everyone works hard to earn...  Not to make the beggers and thief enrich by doing nothing..

Those who blindly say that God's verses are clear and it has been commanded to cut the physical hands, should seriously question their reasoning on why God didn't set any conditions like to other major crimes.. Such as bring evidences, witnesses,  blood money etc... It is not simple thing Losing both hands.. So need concrete witnesses.. But God is silent on that.. But to disconnect from society just catching the thief on the spot is enough..

What is a thief?
If someone when caught stealing others property and then by returning what he stole will not make him as No thief.. Either he returns or devour he is thief.. Isnt it? ..by returning what he stole when he was caught on the spot won't make him by any means REPENTED or REFORMED..
So.. Do you still want to cut his hands coz he is literally a thief? No one lost anything... But one loses both hands for nothing.. What a shameful act that is..

Or else vice versa.  Stole 500$ and unable to return.. So one lost 500$ .. So cut hands.. Would anyone of you wish if you are a believer to cut a thief's both hands coz you lost 500$? But you won't mind if a murderer was hanged?  That's so natural...

Will you ever be peaceful whenever you see that thief without hands begging on the streets just coz of your dollars?  It will only be a burden to society by that punishment... Is that exemplary from God? No way..
That's cruel heart of evil men invented by hiding the real meaning of real message of God...
Curse upon curse on those nations who execute such practices..

Finally theft is always wrong coz it is against the ethics of a peaceful society... But cutting hands is worse and unethical...

They forgot the basic who implement such unethical barbaric laws..
Simply start from a family.. What would a father do if his son stole something from his locker.. Cut hands or disconnect his hands from family until he repent and reform? If he reforms accept him... But what happens if father just forgive him and neglect even after he found his son stole... Father is cultivating his son to society to become a thief..


Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: TellMeTheTruth on November 30, 2020, 10:57:26 AM
Salam all!

The answer is in the next ayah, that is 5:40
 [Sahih International]
Do you not know that to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth? He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.

Peace!
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Noon waalqalami on November 30, 2020, 03:54:22 PM
Salam all!

The answer is in the next ayah, that is 5:40
 [Sahih International]
Do you not know that to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth? He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.

Peace!

peace, punishment in 5:40 is same as in 5:37, 5:41

5:6 وايديكم and hands yours الي to المرافق the elbow

5:38 ايديهما aydiyahuma/hands theirs dual  

e.g. two people need to sever 4 hands, forearms, etc.

you suggesting severing both their hands make them as armless mannequins?

(https://i.postimg.cc/DZd9dwhw/mannequin.jpg)

https://corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/5/vers/38/handschrift/15

(https://i.postimg.cc/bwj7Znk2/ch5v37-44.jpg)

Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: TellMeTheTruth on December 01, 2020, 12:42:18 AM
Salam brother Noon!

I am not suggesting any punishment. I know that it is only Allah who has all the right to punish ir forgive. Are you not an Allah only believer? Or the translation of 5:40 is wrong?

Peace!
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Noon waalqalami on December 01, 2020, 06:00:59 AM
Or the translation of 5:40 is wrong?

peace tmtt, what has to do with 5:38-39 topic?

5:18 … يغفر forgived لمن to whom يشا willed ويعذب and punished من whom يشا willed ولله and to god ملك sovereignty السموت the skies والارض and the land وما and what بينهما between them dual واليه and towards him المصير the destiny

5:37 … ولهم and for them عذب punishment مقيم established (end verse/topic)

5:38-39 والسارق and the thief (male) والسارقه and the thief (female) …
… ان indeed الله the god غفور forgiver رحيم merciful (end verse/topic)

5:40 الم did not تعلم thou know ان that الله the god له to him ملك sovereignty السموت the skies والارض and the land يعذب punished من whom يشا willed ويغفر and forgived لمن to whom يشا willed والله and the god علي on كل every شي thing قدير supreme

48:14 ولله and to god ملك sovereignty السموت the skies والارض and the land يغفر forgived لمن to whom يشا willed ويعذب and punished من whom يشا willed وكان and be/is الله the god غفورا forgiver of رحيما merciful of
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: TellMeTheTruth on December 01, 2020, 09:17:01 AM
Salam brother noon!

OK. Message of 5:40 is clear and repeated variously in AQ. Now in Dhul-qarnain case, he was allowed to give the punishment to a nation but he avoided. So Allah can give authority to some of his chosen entities. In Musa's killing case, Allah did not punished him. Instead he was forgiven and appointed as a Rasool. Big QuestionMark?
Let's see 5:38-39 case. فاقطعوا is a commabd given to 3 or more people and ایدی is plural for 3 or more hands. I think it is saying to people to restrain THEIR hands from both of them and IF any one of the people forgets this command and harms the السارق or السارقۃ by chance then he/she can تاب and Allah would forgive him/her. Because people are not given the authority to punish anyone. What will you say if people kill a murderer without any trial in court? Need to look at exact meaning of قطع.
5:40 is end of this topic as 5:41 is beginning of a new topic.

Peace!
Peace!
Title: Re: Amputation: the Penalty for Theft?
Post by: Wakas on December 19, 2020, 01:06:48 AM
peace tf,

Did you actually read the links I provided? Yes/No.

I hope you are not being lazy but I will post them here for all to see:

Like others who hold the view "cut off" you will be forced to admit the word doesn't usually mean cut-off, when the more appropriate intense 2nd form is used with hands it doesn't mean cut-off and you would cut off the hands for stealing a slice of bread etc etc. Is that "God is the standard" in your eyes?

As is often the case when confronted with the evidence their only response is silence.