Would You cut someones hand if they stole?

[progressive1993]

5:38 Wa al sariqu wa al sariqatu fa iqtaAAoo aydiyahuma jazaan bimakasaba nakalan mina Allahi waAllahuAAazeezun hakeemun

Aydiya - plural
huma - third person masculine dual

God mentions both the male and female thief here for a reason. We have 2 people here and we have "aydiyahuma" meaning "each of their (dual) resources (plural)." Even if you want to translate it as "hands" then it would be "cut each of their 3 or more hands" which makes no sense. Therefore it has to mean resources/power. The word choices thougout this verse has a purpose.

5:38 As for the male thief and the female thief, you shall cut/cut off/disable/put an end to their means/resources/power for either of them as a recompense/reparation/penalty for what they did/for their doing/crime. This is to serve as a deterrent/an example from God. God is powerful/mighty, wise/judicious/authoritative.

5:39 Whoever turns/repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, then God will accept his repentance. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.

Does this sound just to you? You get both hands cut off and then you can repent without your hands and it's all good?

12:70 When he furnished them with their provisions, he placed the measuring bowl in his brother's bag. Then a caller cried out: "O you in the caravan, you are thieves!"

12:71 They said, turning towards them: "What is it you are missing?"

12:72 He said, "We are missing the measuring bowl of the King, and whoever finds it shall receive a camel-load; I guarantee this."

12:73 They said, "By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!"

12:74 He said, "What shall be the punishment, if you are not truthful?"

12:75 They said, "The punishment is that the person who has it in his bag shall himself be held as penalty. It is such that we punish the wrongdoers."

[Mazhar]

The verbal sentence: فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا has prefixed conjunction particle: فَ  which shows cause and effect, and initiates an apodosis clause.  Thus this sentence is a subordinate clause. Verb is imperative, second person, plural, masculine, of base form made from:  مصدر-قَطْعٌ verbal noun. This form of verb does not include in its semantic ambit the act of amputation: to cut off some appendage/part of the body. This fact is also evident from its direct object: أَيْدِيَهُمَا a possessive phrase, first noun is plural which signifies three and more objects. Obviously a convicted thief does not have three or more hands which could be imputed.
Allah the Exalted has laid down retributive justice system wherein the punishment is proportionate in response to crime.

Its Form-II can have the signification of amputation, and of splitting:
refer 7:124;  7:160

[Makaveli]

So all you Qur'an alone community fans, once again, who will execute lashings and cutting of hands provided that you somehow organize your welfare under the same roof so to speak? I asked the fascist Gerrans this question, he removed the comment. Don't remove mine. Answer honestly.

[HP_TECH]

Don't fall for Makavelli's weak traps.

Rather ask him, where in the Quran it states one should sever the hand of a thief?

The grammar, syntax, morphology of the verse are a clear indication that it is not referring to literal hands but MEANS, ability etc...

Agents 

[Makaveli]

Don't fall for Makavelli's weak traps.

Rather ask him, where in the Quran it states one should sever the hand of a thief?

The grammar, syntax, morphology of the verse are a clear indication that it is not referring to literal hands but MEANS, ability etc...

Agents 

Umm..nope. It means what it means, any attempt to disprove this can as well be attributed to the whole Qur'an. So if you take somethign as literal and the other what you prefer as methaprohical, which methodology do you use in order to understand the Qur'an? In case the language is associative/methaprohical, it means you understand the Qur'an in a wrong way, not just the verse about cutting off hands (literally). So what is your methodology? How many wives can you have in accordance with 35:1?

[Makaveli]

For my answer I just thought about if I were able to actually chop off a hand but its far too freaky for me. I'm glad that the Qur'an might be demonstrated as not telling people to do that, I thought that is very useful and interesting. I'd again also not like tgat law for fear of getting my hand chopped off. If anyone wanted to chop me though I'd want to end their life for sure. I have a very drastic self preservation policy and mechanism and animalistically hate anyone who wishes any level of harm upon me and generally wish immediate death upon such. I'd wish they would be killed outright by God if they wanted to poison my food or cause me a stomach ache or even some small distress of mine pleases them.

So to Makaveli I would admit that if he wishes harm upon me I wish infinite harm upon him, if he wishes me to falter or fall I wish he didn't even exist or live to have those wishes.

Exactly, you do follow animalistic instincts, and you are deluded if you think you have anything to protect. And you would be wrong, because your jugement is based on the [animalistic] idea of revenge.

Like Machiavelli said, better to be feared than loved.

That was the point of my question. How is the so-called qur'an alone community any different from narcissistic dictatorship, which is described in the Prince?

[Makaveli]

In comparing the Bible and the Qur'an, the Qur'an seems a kinder and more restrained book than the lunacy found in the Bible.

I would not say a book, due to the nature of the fabricated modern Arabic, contains NO and NOT in every other sentence and vows of retribution for those it defines as disbelievers to be anything else other than lunacy.

At the end of the day we are human beings, a kind of animal closely related to other animals, and we should be working on making our experience a more pleasant one and contributing to what we consider to be good and better and best of all.

Or you can try to be something higher than animal, like reducing your instinctive drive and emotions, for instance and judge the situation or events around you without excess of emotions. 

[Makaveli]

I'm not sure that reduced emotionality is always better or safer, which is why I brought up those animal studies contrasting it with the enotionally handicapped psychopaths.

Rationality itself is a necessary absurdity. There is no sense for example in noses being on faces or faces existing as they do or flowers etc. Its all absurdity from nowhere and baseless. Of all these chaotic things though, ideas like care and justice have emerged. The Qur'an simply warns people with the suggestion that these things are fromna source that invents them and can change them and will judge and punish and reward the humans, notions it also is said to have invented baselessly without any real reference as is necessary for the Topmost or First and Ultimate, it makes things up ex nihilo or from and by itself.

So people are supposed to think a bit and carefully run on the strategy they think might best lead to their survival and increased sense of benefit, pleasure, and reward, like animals, even in a maze.

I do agree than justice is among one of the most abused definitions out there. So is logic, which itself is not absolute, of course not. This is why when people judge by executing the silly commandments like 100 lashes or even stoning to death, which appeared due to what I call in the other thread as 'materialistic monotheism', it looks pity, not just. But every action you do can be attributed to your animalistic motivation, something that the authors on this stuff would write, or something, which, in turn, resists your animalistic actions. You always have the choice but you are often confronted with emotions, such as when you pray for someone to 'be dealed with', this is so primitive I can't describe it in words. But if you try to make the person better or simply leave instead of being emotional and curse or impose your power upon someone, this is how you choose to go against the animal in you to become something higher.

[Makaveli]

That's logic and there's no room for emotion.

If you talk of logic as something absolute, which by definition it is, you can't be 100% unemotional as a human being unless of course you are a machine. You judge situations based on emotions even if you act like a coldblooded autistic.

Mandatory reading for you: The Snow Queen, Andersen, H.C.

[HP_TECH]

Umm..nope. It means what it means, any attempt to disprove this can as well be attributed to the whole Qur'an. So if you take somethign as literal and the other what you prefer as methaprohical, which methodology do you use in order to understand the Qur'an? In case the language is associative/methaprohical, it means you understand the Qur'an in a wrong way, not just the verse about cutting off hands (literally). So what is your methodology? How many wives can you have in accordance with 35:1?

All this yapping for nothing. Look past your own nose man.

It's not a matter of interpretation at all. The verse is literal.

If you had actually investigated what I had said instead of denying without evidence you would have sen for yourself that you're awfully wrong.

It is simply linguistically incorrect patna.

Step your Truther game up

& check the post in the thread linked below

https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608169.msg382203#msg382203