Messages

[utter nonsense]

@Noon waalqalami

4 hands=hands of male and female thief= correct grammar=all hands=you are a liar, and you purposefully omit this

from hand to elbow= nothing unclear in this, hand means hand, elbow means elbow, from hand to elbow, but you people who do not know arabic know better than all people who have arabic knowledge, put doubt in what is clear, and this is all a vast conspiracy from all people who studied arabic in the 14 last centuries ( ). But if all is a conspiracy, why believe in the quran or anything else is the first place?

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

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

Salaam

If you do not cut the hands nor put in prison, how the heck do you cut the means to steal ? you cut the brain? you give psychotherapy? you make the thief "understand"? Well it is nice that you are writing you own qur'an. but. You are idealist and in denial. The quran says "cut the hands" .

If for you "cut the hands" means "do what you can in order to prevent the thief from stealing again according to justice truth and wisdom" you are in a grand, terrible denial.

DARE say to people who lost their hands" they were wrong it meant cutting the means!" or "there is no record of such hand cuttings" !Why do you make of reality your wish?

from free-minds.org the punishment in yusuf story is "12:75, "They said, "The punishment, if it is found in his bag, is that the thief belongs to you. We thus punish the guilty."'

slavery must be a lot better ! but of course it isnt slavery because deniers will say "where it is written the word "slave"?" such fools, when reality will catch up to you it will hit you very hard ! i lost too much of my time trying to help you, reality will be sufficient to teach you humility ! i could come in the playground with you and say " where in 5:38 is written "means to steal"? 

BUT this verse does not give instruction at all on how to deal with thieves as it is just a story, but yet again, you deniers will say "this example shows how to behave because yusuf was a prophet!" liars !

here is how the PROPHET Musa deals with shirk

2:54 And [recall] when Moses said to his people, "O my people, indeed you have wronged yourselves by your taking of the calf [for worship]. So repent to your Creator and kill yourselves. That is best for [all of] you in the sight of your Creator." Then He accepted your repentance; indeed, He is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.

SO NOW YOU KNOW HOW TO DO ACCORDING TO YOUR PROPHET    , or maybe its only your reasoning being foolish?

of course deniers will write their own quran and invent things like "god ordered him to say this so it doesn't count" : no, no such thing is mentioned. I could give other example but not worth the time. Because deniers will deny anything. I don't even know if it is possible or a man to reason someone else who s in denial. But maybe i can bring my brick to the wall which will contribute to your "salvation" 


Why do you deny cut the hands? because hands can be figurative ? because cut can be figurative? in the figurative verses, context show OBVIOUSLY that is it figurative. NOT in 5 :38.
What is obviously figurative in "cut the hands of thieves"? =nothing .
you say it is figurative because it is barbaric and doesn't make sense! because of 21 th century morals ! and this is exactly why people didn't bother that much like you before, because without these morals, they didn't question this CLEAR verse. there is no detail on how to carry the punishment WHATEVER IS THE INTERPRETATION. "There is no details" IS NOT a valid argument.

"the hands of god are tied down" is OBVIOUSLY figurative.
like other figratives verses. 5:38=nothing obvious, you say it can't be because of your own reasoning, not because of the qur'an

https://www.free-minds.org/theft-punishment

Therefore why should someone use 12:31 and 12:50 to convey the meaning "to mark" and not 5:33, 7:124, 20:71, 26:49 to convey the meaning "to cut off/amputate"?

you could say the same thing for pretty much every word in the qur'an=utter nonsense

babbling about plural:already explained several times

Second, what will benefit the one who lost their stolen goods in case they would not recovered them?

irrelevant, stick to the verse

And what would happen if someone were accused mistakenly or maliciously of theft and their hands were cut off? 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.

-you are making of the quran writers a lot smarter than they are even if they were probably very smart
- you quranists say YOURSELVES that the quran is general and doesn't go into all details, then protest when something doesn't speak about all possible situations = hypocrites

when no details are given about a simple thing as hand cutting : "It can't reasonably be !"
when no details about ramadan, time of the year or how to do it if you live in the north pole :"NO PROBLEMS! people will just do their own thing !"

infact now that i can read free-minds.org articles from a non brainwashed perspective, i can actually see how they are no better than any christian bull**** article about how the end of the world is going to happen in the next few months or any other crap article in the same vein: full of lies in order to persuade naive people suffering from wanttobelievitis; The symptoms from this sickness: believe information without checking, and double standards.

example of double standards : if someone makes the qur'an false, then examine his claims meticulously, each word, each claim, and if a single argument could save the qur'an, even if this argument is without basis, farfetched or exagerrated, then surely the qur'an is true ! BUT god forbid that they check meticulously interpretations for claims that put the qur'an in good light of the 21th century western world ! no need to check for all translations, all roots, question the meaning, it is clear, even if the qur'an doesn't even say this. You can see it a lot with people believing qur'an has scientifics miracles by dozens. The common denominator of these people is arrogance, they believe our ancestors were retarded people who could not observe or experience life in any way, because they are young and ignorants of things like grzat morals which existed before islam and even before christianity, or the knowledge of ancient greeks about the body space etc..

"barrier between seawater and freshwater" "rain falls from clouds"   =incredible allah akbar !
"sun sets in a muddy spring"  = this is wrong ! false translation ! (even if it was translated like this for centuries, and the only reason you contest is not linguistics and translation, but only modern science)


ask yourself this questions : each time a quranists convinces you with his explanation, did you check the facts, or did you swallow it like a good obedient peasant? I can guarantee 100% that you didnt check. Check for real. Or study arabic. You have no right to contradict arabic speakers if you don't study arabic yourselves ! you are only believing one group instead of the other, without ever doing your homework.

Wonder this, are you having double standards? I can guarantee that your reasoning is FULL of it, i am seeing it in almost all your posts ! people would be a lot more civilized when arguing with you if you wern't SO, so, so hypocrite, dishonest and biased. You will probably deny this.  in truth: did you check the informations? were you not biased towards the qur'an? were not a lot of explanations farfetched? don't imagine my evil voice in your head asking these questions, ask these questions YOURSELF, WONDER, start the truth engine !

i think i won't lose my time anymore on this forum

in the end i will not  tell you the quran is wrong
you came here because you refused to swallow something and wanted to be true to yourself, you refused to believe in these barbaric things(Sunna)
Now bear responsibility and free yourself from what other tell you, start your own journey, check the facts of yourself, LEARN for yourself, make your OWN judgement, but still learn from others, AND QUESTION THINGS before believing what others tell you, this is a great lesson from life, even from the qur'an "don't spread rumors!". From now if you don't learn arabic, question things? interpretations etc ... EVEN WHEN THEY FIT YOUR BELIEF, you will NEVER be able to say in front of God " i was truthful while i was on earth".

?And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. Verily, the hearing, and the sight, and the heart of each of those ones will be questioned ?

good bye

Maybe this could answer it. Read onwards of 12:79 to 12:102, you will see in 12:102, speaks about an revelation from the unseen news.

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

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

[Do you have any source else than the qur'an showing cut the hands can be used as an idiom in old arabic ?]

Peace Ju5.

I explained "Iktau Aydyahuma" the way it makes sense in the verse. Qoran set precedents and defines its own context.
Your explanation is not logical nor makes sense.
Here is a small example;
"cut the hand" can be from a small cut like a graze to completely severe the hand( I cut my hand shaving is also clear Arabic but it does not mean I severed my hand completely?). Which one is it in 5:38? Or are you going to use your common sense without given instruction? That will be your justice not Qoran s!!!!
You cannot and will not be able to explain how to do it according to 5:38, because it is an idiom.
If you still won t see it, then you are making up your own understanding and you know it.
Thank you and GOD bless you.
Peace.

Then do we make small cuts like graze in 5:33? from opposites sides? or do we amputate ?Which one is it? or are you going to use your common sense without given instruction?

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

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

- why is it used with the same terms as real physical cutting in other verses if it is a known idiom ?

@huruf

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

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

[their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides]

@Wakas

1) admits its minority usage
2) admits in the only other comparable usage it doesn't mean cut off hands
3) admits there is no comparable address example to 5:38
4) admits Quran says do not let pity deter from lashing but not the worse punishment of hand-cutting
5) is forced to make equivalent (in his mind) paltry theft (e.g. slice of bread) with hand-cutting
6) admits no corroborating evidence
7) admits the only other mention of punishment for theft in Quran does not involve hand-cutting (and according to Joseph's reaction in 12:79, if Ju5 read carefully, non-cutting is in accordance with God's law)

1) 

I never once said the above probabilities prove anything

Then why use

1) admits its minority usage

as a counter argument?

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

Wakas :

I never once said the above probabilities prove anything

[/i]
So why would you need a another example ?

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

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

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

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

again

Wakas :

I never once said the above probabilities prove anything

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

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

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

5) your point being?

6) I never said cutting hands for people who steal bread was justice. I am just saying that "cut the hands" means, what it means.

7) Wakas :

I never once said the above probabilities prove anything

12:79 He (Joseph) said, "God forbid that we would take anyone except he whom we found our belongings with. Indeed, we would then be wrong doers."

If it is not slavery what it is? It is even the same in the bible, from the same story. You could say its prison and not slavery. But you have no proof of that. In fact it is not even clear and you want to take that as a commandmant from allah while it is a story  of the past. While 5:38 is very clear : cut the hands. Just like in 5:33. So don't say "it can't mean cut the hands.

5:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

You may say "this is the more intense verb form". "The first verb form is used in 5:38, and not the second." Well the first verb form is also used in 69:46 :


Then We would have cut from him the aorta.

This is intense enough.

@good logic

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

- Qoran is the most reliable source and 5:38 screams it is an idiom. The only way the verse makes sense .(To me at least)

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

GOD bless you.
Peace.

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

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

- i mean "cut the hands" is used as real cutting and not an idiom in other verses. So my question was : why is it used with the same terms as real physical cutting in other verses if it is a known idiom ?

Hello good logic :

- If your employer said to you : "empty the bins" would you : - empty the bins ?
                                                                                         - be a smartass and say "how many bins? three, five, seven or all of them?" ?
                                                                                         - be a smartass again and say" how do i empty the bins? you didn't tell me how to do it?"

- Do you have any reliable source showing this idiom and it's meaning ?

- Why is this idiom used in verses where it clearly speaks about physical hand cutting ?

@Wakas update on the plural thing, because i was in a bad mood so what i posted before wasn't very neutral.

You say : in other examples they have only one hand cut yet it is still plural. I am not an arabic expert, but i guess that arabic translators can do their job regarding to pronouns without being influenced by the sunna, and that by 1400 years non muslims who didn't try to spit on the qur'an did a correct job of translating this. Only those with knowledge of arabic should give their opinion about this, and the ones who say it is translated wrong while they have no arabic knowledge are simply conspirationists (and it is their right)

My guess is that the pronouns refers to the number of people concerned

Example  : - the male and female thieves are two so it is dual
                - the pharaoh s magicians are plural, so they must be 3+
                - those who wage war are plural

and as for the noun (hands), i guess it is according to the number of hands. Example : 4 magicians get their hands/feet cut from opposite sides = 4 hands = plural

I am sorry becaus ei have a hard time staying relaxed and neutral while i am debating, i am still a newbie.

So now we need a doctor in Qur'a hating to make us discern what is an idiom from what it is not.

Hating Qur'an does not make one a doctor in Arabic nor in Qur'an.

The expression in question is of course an idiom.Of course it is an idiom and we do not need to go back any time at all. Arabic uses hands in the law today as it has used it in te past and as other languages use it.

That the colonisation of islam has led to attribute to the Qur'an this kind of nonsense shows how the destruction of Qur'an is being done hand in hand by Qur'an haters and overreligiosit "sel called" muslims who ant to use the religion to enslave minds, should not make us waste time with this kind of crap.

This is repeating ad nauseam the same nonsense over and over. Those who want to be sicnere they know it, and those who do not, they know it too and we know it.

The question is not it is an idiom or it is not. The question is I am being sincere or I am not.

We do know where we are each of us and this is not the first Qur'an hater we have had in the forum. To spew nonsense is his business. May God reward him or her.

Salaam

Hello, huruf,

- Do you have any proof that to cut the hands can be used as an idiom to cut the resources/power?

- Is there any context in this verse showing that an idiom is used here and not the basic meaning( which would make sense in this context- thief punishment) which is also  used in other verses (threat of the pharaoh, punishment of the corruptors ?

- Are sunni muslims who did cut the hand of thieves in the past responsible for their action as they only followed what was written in the qur'an, or is Allah responsible for using such an idiom ?

- Or are all sunni muslims evil Jinns looking to destroy truth, corrupt the earth and enslave the people, who cut hands of thieves while they knew that it was an idiom ?

[Get real.]

@Wakas

Hello Ju5,

Re: 1)
66:46 does not exist. Perhaps you meant another verse.
I will accept 59:5 as physical cutting off.

Total for 1st verb form = 1 out of 14 means physical cutting off


Re: 2)
I will accept 5:33, 7:124, 26:49, 20:71

Total for 2nd verb form = 4 out of 17 means physical cutting off (albeit all examples using same context)

Re: 3)
You admit (in your reply 2) in the only two verses where hands and 2nd verb form are used it means cut only, not cut off.

Re: 4)
In 5:38 the singular male thief and singular female thief is used, yet the Arabic plural (3+) is used, nominally meaning 3+ hands should be cut off (if one interprets it like that). You claim this is due to correct grammar. However, what you/others seemingly do not realise is that in the other example you gave of physical cutting off (i.e. 5:33, 7:124, 26:49, 20:71) all of these use the plural address along with the plural hands which makes more sense. So, at the very least we can say we cannot find an equivalent example to 5:38 usage in Quran. If I am mistaken, feel free to correct.

Also, this may cause potential interpretive issues because there is only 4 hands and a minimum of 3 must be cut off, and since there is no differentiation made between the male/female thief we can only assume it means to amputate both hands of each, however in those examples you gave (i.e. 5:33, 7:124, 26:49, 20:71) it implies cut off from opposite sides, meaning only one hand and one foot from each person, BUT this would result in less hands being cut off (or same number of limbs in total) for waging war against God and His messenger and corruption in land. Meaning that in this interpretation waging war against God and His messenger and causing corruption in the land is equal to or lesser than theft, which is odd (and perhaps even contradictory) considering the punishment for the former can be capital punishment clearly implying it is the worse of the two.
See this article: http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-crime-punishment-expiation.html

Re: 5)
Quote
It would be better to have compassion if the punishment is a lot worse (cutting hands).

Exactly my point.

Quote
If it did ever make sense for some wierd reason, this argument would only have worked in the premise that the qur'an is without error, and therefore is not valid.

Exactly, see 4:82
http://www.quran434.com/study-method.html

The correct interpretation is the one without contradiction. Simple.

Re: 6)
You answered "cut their hands" but we already know from Quran's clear instruction (42:39-40, elsewhere etc), when it comes to wrong/crime/justice, its recompense is its like, or less. Never more. Thus, your answer contradicts Quran (unless you consider cutting off hands for theft of slice of bread equivalent). Please resolve your contradiction.

You ask me how would it be determined what the recompense is. Isn't it obvious? Quran tells us justice is about equivalence or less. Multiple examples of compensation in Quran regarding divorce for example. For example, in case of theft, return of stolen goods (if possible) and/or detainment of person until works pay off amount stolen (and costs associated with resolving case). Simple.

Re: 7)
We can conclude you cannot cite any corroborating evidence for the hand cutting off view.

Re: 8 )
Note what Joseph says in 12:79. Detainment of the thief is in keeping with what Joseph understands as God's law. Corroborating evidence for my view.

1) I meant 69:46   Then We would have cut from him the aorta.

Yes, maybe only 2 of several verses (else than 5:38, which would be 3 verses) physical cutting; other indeed mostly mean metaphorical cutting, then what?
meanings in a text are not determined according to the number of times they occur, this is not a game of probabilities but of arabic language, context, etc.... Two verses are enough to prove to a non arabic quranist speculator  that it can mean physical cutting. Even it it was only 1 verse, proper translation would be enough.


2) see above

3) Why should we look about the verb being used with hands only to count as valid? you could cut hands, aortas, hair or beef, why would it matter?

if hands was replaced with power, id says yes, it is obviously metaphorical. It is not written power, it is written hand, which is a very physical thing. Yes hand can be used metaphorically. But you would have to use words to show that it is a metaphor. There is nothing really obvious about "cutting the hands" being a metaphor, especially when talking about a punishment for thieves. Get real.

It is Allahs fault that people cut the hands of thieves because they wanted to obey him and picked the obvious (and probably real) interpretation? Does God engage in second degree? He would knew that it would cause people getting their hands lost for life right? By saying God did such a gross error, you are blasphemers.

4)

If I am mistaken, feel free to correct.

In all these verses the verb's subjects are plural (those who wage war, those who believed musa before being permitted by pharaoh...) so the number of hands is necessarily superior to 3(plural). If the sentence said "The one who spreads corruption and wages war against Allah, cut his(plural) hands, then you would be right, but the subjects if never "the one", the subject is "those", "they" ....

5)Correct me if i'm wrong but it still doesn't make sense. God says do not have pity for the ones to be lashed, and he does not tell us to not have pity for the thieves. It would be better to have pity for the thieves, so it makes sense. Now the word of god is the word of god so there is no pity unless commanded, if he says cut the hands, you have to do it, if he says do this or say that you have to do it. This is irrelevant.

The correct interpretation is the one without contradiction. Simple.

Only in the frame of logic and reason. If you have to twist every thing or make wild extrapolations or put metaphors on top of everything, then its not translation it is wishful thinking. Not the truth. When such problems occur not only one time, but several times, you have to draw conclusions : it is not perfect. If you twist every word meaning, interpretation, translation, you could make The Odissey become a divine book.

6) My answer does not contradict the qur'an, i am just seeing the meaning of the verse. If you consider that 42:39 contradicts 5:38, then the qur'an contradicts itself. I am not here to solve qur'an contradictions, in fact i am currently showing them to others. If any qur'anist is able to make sense of it, then nice, but i am still waiting for him to show up.
Now if god says "don't kill life because it is sacred", and then "wage war against the tyrants and kill them wherever you find them", those two statements do not contradict each other, because never kill is the default statement, and "kill them wherever..." is conditional. Which means that if you want to make sense out of the qur'an (possibly), always deals in a fair manner, except when someone steals or commits adultery, then do that...(100 lashes, cut the hands...).

Your punishment for theft would be return of stolen goods? HA that's a good one. Please think 7 times and then post this again (if you dare)

7) yes there is no other verse. What is the implication? None.

8 ) No. To "what will be the recompense if you lie?" (the thieves) and the "thieves (yusuf brothers say, "the one who is found with the bag (with the stolen thing), let him be the recompense." So the one who is found with the stolen good will be a slave (he will belong to them). it is the same in the bible. But it is Yusuf brothers who said "take the one who stole", it is not the law of god. And nowhere in the verse it is indicated as a commandment. Story of biblical characters happen in the qur'an and do not necessarily apply qur'an commandments. The commandmants are from god, not from reminding old stories.