The word "prison" in the qur'an

[hawk99]

Cutting off the hands makes no sense.  Cutting off the hand
is a lifetime sentence.  A farmer with a family who has his
hand severed becomes a hardship on his wife, children and
elderly parents.     At least the adulterer gets lashes
and it's over and done with!  And we have this:

108:3 Indeed, your enemy is "l-abtaru" the one cut off  .

إِنَّ شَانِئَكَ هُوَ الْأَبْتَرُ


                                       

[The Sardar]

Cutting off the hands makes no sense.  Cutting off the hand
is a lifetime sentence.  A farmer with a family who has his
hand severed becomes a hardship on his wife, children and
elderly parents.     At least the adulterer gets lashes
and it's over and done with!  And we have this:

108:3 Indeed, your enemy is "l-abtaru" the one cut off  .

إِنَّ شَانِئَكَ هُوَ الْأَبْتَرُ


                                       

Salam here is the root word of abtar:

Ba-Ta-Ra (ب ت ر) = cut or cut off a thing before it was complete, without offspring/progeny, defective/deficient/incomplete/imperfect, in want, poor, suffering or in loss, short, cut off from prosperity or good.

abtar n.m. 108:3

LL, V1, p: 186  ##  http://ejtaal.net/aa/#q=btr

[huruf]

Cutting off the hands makes no sense.  Cutting off the hand
is a lifetime sentence.  A farmer with a family who has his
hand severed becomes a hardship on his wife, children and
elderly parents.     At least the adulterer gets lashes
and it's over and done with!  And we have this:

108:3 Indeed, your enemy is "l-abtaru" the one cut off  .

إِنَّ شَانِئَكَ هُوَ الْأَبْتَرُ


                                       

It is recisely because it makes no sense why Qur'an haters want that by all means that is what is meant in the Qur'an. For those sick people it is inadmissible that Qur'an would make sense. They will go to any extent of idiocy and and absurdity to attach to Qur'an as much lack of sense as it is conceivable.

Sometimes they help because we fall upon sides of the question we hadn't thought of and which make the Qur'an make still more sense than it does already make.

Salaam

[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)

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

Exactly my point.

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.

You claim this is enslavement, but slavery is not stated in that verse.

Hello Wakas,

quoting your message from the link and the verse for people to see :

5:38 [As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.




1) 66:46, 59:5,


2) 5:33, 7:124, 26:49, 20:71.
Other instances mean to divide, which would be a metaphor for amputation. In the joseph/women story (which occur two times) it appears to mean cut and not divide, but how would we pick between divide and only mark? You would guess the command of allah? Did pharaoh threatened to "mark" the hands" and "feet from opposite sides" next to crucifying? Would marks on hands deter a lot of people from stealing? Even if it did originally mean "mark" we would have no sure way to know it did. The qur'an can't guide humanity if it isn't clear.

3) This is the joseph/women story. But the first verb form is used in 5:38, not the second. And it does mean physical cutting as in the verses showed in 1)

4) The subject is "the male and the female thief". They have 4 hands which would require a plural number of hands (3+) to make correct grammar.

5) Actually this is the opposite. It would be better to have compassion if the punishment is a lot worse (cutting hands). Your sentence doesn't make sense. 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.


6) Cut their hands. Or, according to you, "cut their resources/power"). What would it mean? Make him pay a fine. There is absolutely no indication of what would the amount of cut resources/power would be. This is very vague, one would take him a day of work, one could take his whole house. Are we supposed to judge according to the qur'an, or our own fantasisies.
If Allah wanted us to do this, he would not have said "cut the hands" and would have spared people's hands. If he did, it was utterly dangerous and therefore utterly idiotic. You are making a fool of God?

Why would we need to quote other verses? Isn't one single verse of God enough? Or is there a law telling us verses don't count unti lthey are repeated x times?

This story tells us what happened. It is not a commandment from God, unlike 5:38. If it was a commandment, it would contradict 5:38. Furthermore the punishment in this verse is to enslave the thief. Is that your way of "cutting resources"? And this punishment is called in the qur'an "the law of the king" (of egypt). It is not the law of God. it is just a rehash of a bible story. So your hypothesis is wrong in several aspects.

[Ju5]

@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.

[The Sardar]

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.





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...).




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.h.[/b]

Wakas is not here right now but i noticed something.

@3 "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?" Wait how do you know that is obvious interpretation back when Quran was revealed in the beginning?

@6 I don't remember Wakas saying that 42:39-40 would contradict 5:38 if cutting hands translation is true.

@8 But they are not exact same, if i remember correctly that Lot in the Bible was a drunk and had intercourse with his daughters while in the Quran he is not:

From https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A30-38&version=NIV

Genesis 19:30-38 New International Version (NIV)

Lot and His Daughters
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, ?Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children?as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let?s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.?

33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, ?Last night I slept with my father. Let?s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.? 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

36 So both of Lot?s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[a]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites[c] of today.

[The Sardar]

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.

Actually the translation says hands and it's usually the traditional translations. I found a note of one of non traditional muslims which is Edip Yuksel, he said in his note on 5:38:

The Arabic word we translated as "cut," occurs 36 times with all its derivatives. Nineteen of these are read in triliteral form QaTaA, and with the exceptions of 5:38 and 13:4, in all occurrences mean the non-physical or metaphorical action of "cutting off relationship" or "ending" (2:27; 3:127; 6:45; 7:72; 8:7; 9:121; 10:27; 11:81; 15:65; 15:66; 13:25; 22:15; 27:32; 29:29; 56:33; 59:5; 69:46). In 13:4, the noun form is used to describe "pieces," and its usage in 69:46 is understood by some scholars to be physical too. The derivatives that are read in the QaTTaa form occur 17 times. This form, which expresses intensity or frequency of the action, is used both to mean physical cutting off (5:33; 7:124; 20:71; 26:49; 13:31) and metaphorical cutting off (2:166; 6:94; 7:160; 7:167; 9:110; 47:15; 47:22; 21:93; 22:19; 23:53) as well as physically cutting or marking something (12:31; 12:50).

Verse 12:31 mentions women gathered for a party cutting their fingers with knives, for they were awed by the physical attraction of Joseph. Obviously, those women did not cut off their fingers. Thus, it is possible to understand the punishment for thieves in three alternative ways, (1) cutting off their hands, or (2) cutting or marking their hands, or (3) cutting their means to steal, or cutting their hands from committing the crime. It is up to the society to choose one of these meanings or a combination of them depending on the severity of the crime (See 7:52).

It is not right to see theft merely as an individual crime. Family structures, social norms, economic systems, social institutions and values are also responsible for this crime. A society might reduce the crime of theft and burglary by increasing the strength of the family structure and ties, by establishing social and charity institutions, prohibiting usury, changing their wasteful lifestyle, and distributing wealth in a way that is more egalitarian. Punishment alone is not the right way to fight crimes; preventive measures need to be taken. For a discussion of this verse, see the Sample Comparisons section in the Introduction.

According to the Bible, thieves were punished by punitive restitution (Exodus 22:1-8 ; 2 Samuel 12:6 ). If the thief could not pay the fine, he was to be sold to a Hebrew master till he could pay (Exodus 22:1-4 ). A night-thief might be smitten till he died (Exodus 22:2 ).

And also: "There is nothing really obvious about "cutting the hands" being a metaphor, especially when talking about a punishment for thieves." How do you know there is nothing obvious on "cutting the hands" being a metapthor in time of the prophet?

[huruf]

Actually the translation says hands and it's usually the traditional translations. I found a note of one of non traditional muslims which is Edip Yuksel, he said in his note on 5:38:

And also: "There is nothing really obvious about "cutting the hands" being a metaphor, especially when talking about a punishment for thieves." How do you know there is nothing obvious on "cutting the hands" being a metapthor in time of the prophet?

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

[Ju5]

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 ?

[good logic]

Peace All.
Allah has to answer for everything that has gone wrong with the humans, how dare Allah create humans that kill tens/hundreds of people for no reason at all?
It is Allah s fault that thousands /millions have been misled. how dare Allah send a confusing book?
How dare Allah use idioms that people take to mean other things?
How dare Allah guide some and misguides others?
You see brothers and sisters ,it is all Allah s fault. How dare Allah...etc... you can carry on blaming Allah for everything...The buck stops with Allah. Or is it warped logic?
First:
Verse 5:38 says "Iktau Aydyahuma"(Plural 3 or more hands)  ..."Jazaan Bima Kassaba" so we can do the following:
1- Cut one hand of each thief, some are doing that.(This will only cut a total of  two hands ,it is not plural, how come they do that?)
2- Cut two hands of each thief, are there any that are doing that ?(This makes 4 hands ,it is plural)
3- Cut one hand of the male thief and two hands of the female thief.( This makes 3 hands ,it is also plural)
4- Cut two hands of the male thief and one hand of the female thief( This will also make 3 hands  and it is plural.)
5- "Iktau aydyahuma" is an idiom ,the whole expression means " Cut from What their hands will earn/work for..."  (This is the only explanation that fulfils "Jaza an Bima Kassaba" and makes sense.)
With "cutting hands" you have a number of options and no instruction or confirmation of what to cut (2,3 or 4?)!!!!!
Second.
Qoran says what it says for a lot of reasons, some take it to mean this:
16:24
When they are asked, "What do you think of these revelations from your Lord," they say, "Tales from the past."

To others it means this:
16:30
As for Alladina Ittaqaw, when they are asked, "What do you think of these revelations from your Lord," they say, "Khairan." For those who lead a righteous life, happiness, and the abode of the Hereafter is even better. What a blissful abode for Al Muttaqueen.
And there lies life contradictions and problems.
GOD bless .
Peace.