I seek refuge in God from Satan the rejected
A reply to Satan
This is a reply to an article posted on some web sites
regarding "What is the punishment for theft in Quran?" by an author
known to us, who uses the alias "Joe". He and the web sites he writes
for, usually claim to follow the Quran alone.
In his article about the punishment for theft in the
Quran, "Joe" wrote;
<< So far, two punishments for
theft were proposed as an understanding of aya 5:38. The first
understanding says that 5:38 means to cut off the thief's hand. First,
the Arabic "aydiyahuma" is the plural of "yad" (hand) used in dual
form. Should we then cut off both hands of a thief?>>
Since we do disagree with this understanding, as does
the author of this article, we will not discuss it.
<<The second understanding that
was proposed for aya 5:38 is to only mark the thief's hand. This
understanding runs against the same problems as the first one.>>
Not true.
Here, "Joe" claims that ALL arguments against cutting
is also true for marking. Below is the list of problems he mentions
for "cutting of the hand" followed by our reflections.
Problem 1 according to "Joe": The Arabic "aydiyahuma"
is the plural of "yad" (hand) used in dual form. Should we then cut
off both hands of a thief?
** How is that a PROBLEM when comparing cutting with
marking? If he is concerned with the EXTENT of the punishment
suggested in this verse, he has to be equally concerned when applying
this to his own conclusion. Extent and Type are two different things.
Problem 2 according to "Joe": what will benefit
the one who lost his/her stolen goods in case s/he would not recover
them?
** So what is the conclusion here? Should there be no
additional punishment beyond returning the goods? Does a punishment
always have to benefit the victim? Why then does God institute fasting
for killing someone by mistake? Thus this argument is faulty, non-Quranic,
and should be abandoned immediately.
Problem 3 according to "Joe": And what would
happen if someone were accused mistakenly or maliciously of theft and
his/her hands were cut off?
**How is this example in any way relevant. Is he
seriously suggesting that cutting off someone's hand is as serious and
irreversible as marking the hand? What about 2:178. This verse allows
us to call upon death penalty for certain murders. Is this law wrong
because someone might be wrongfully accused?
Problem 4, according to "Joe": What if someone
does not have hands and uses only his brain to plan thefts for his/her
accomplices?
** What if someone does not have feet. Does this mean
that the law to wash the feet for Wudu is wrong? Where is the
relevance in this argument? Where is the common sense in this
argument?
In support for his distorted opinion of this Quranic
commandment, he continues to say <<
<<This is exactly what is
applied to thieves in some Muslim rural areas.>>
These areas that he calls Muslim are not Muslim at all
in the eyes of God. This shows that he falls under the category of
those:
[47:25-26] Surely, those who
slide back, after the guidance has been manifested to them, the devil
has enticed them and led them on. This is because they said to those
who hated what GOD has sent down, "We will obey you in certain
matters." GOD fully knows their secret conspiracies.
According to the same logic "Joe" is using here, can
he also conclude that circumcision of women is correct, since it is
practiced in some rural Muslim communities, and since it is not
specifically corrected in the Quran?
God talks to us in the most effective manner, He tells
us what IS, that we may know what IS NOT. Using the argument that God
never said in the Quran that this practice in the rural Muslim
communities is wrong, then it is to be considered correct, is a non-Quranic
conclusion. Whatever law we support must enjoy support from the
Quranic verses - ALL Quranic verses. God clearly told us that the
punishment for theft is to mark the hand. He also teaches us through
several other verses in the Quran that an equivalent compensation to a
victim is in order. As God says to us, "Equivalence is a life-saving
law for you."
<< First, we should then not
only mark one hand for each thief but both hands. >>
Wrong.
First, the extent of the punishment is not an issue when it comes to
applying the law of God. Second, the verse, 5:38 talked about the male
thief and the female thief then says cut (mark) their ("aydiyahuma" =
hands ). As noticed, ("aydiyahuma" is the plural of "yad" (hand) used
in dual form, for the dual male and female. It may very well indicate
one hand for each, which means "aydiyahuma" for both.
If you study verse 12:50 for example, the women cut (mark) their (aydiyahunna), which
means mark their hands. These women were given a knife which they hold
in one hand. They most probably cut one hand before realizing
what they did. The expression used for pleural was (aydiyahunna), which
means one hand each.
<< Second and besides the same
above problems, we have a specific one to this case. With all esthetic
surgery advances, someone could manage to steal millions and spend a
few thousands to offer himself/herself an esthetic Surgery to hide
his/her hands' markings. >>
We are not to worry about what happens after applying
God's law. God is in control. Here, "Joe" is overlooking an important
aspect in any reasoning we do when it comes to the Quran. The Quran is
a gift to the believers, and a means for them to atone for their sins,
and be able to return to God. It does not contain laws that are to be
imposed or forced upon anyone.
Thus, if a person does not want to abide by God's laws
and cheat his/her own souls by 'escaping' the redeeming consequences
of their deeds, by refusing to pay their dues, then that is their
loss. The laws in the Quran are not there to protect those who refuse
to abide by them, they are there to protect the believers by providing
them with the means and the guidelines to attain salvation, and the
frames explaining the just punishment for different crimes, in times
when they are in a position to suggest such punishments.
<< Therefore, "eqta'u aydiyahuma"
in the above aya 5:38 might mean to cut off from the thieves'
resources and power.>>
To cut off from the thieves' resources and power is a
non-humane punishment as the thieves need to feed their families and
may have to pay for their crimes. If their resources and power are cut
off they become more of a burden on the society. We are not to punish
the society, we need to punish the thieves. This suggested
understanding is against the spirit of the Quran.
<<Second,…… In either case,
punishment does not tall the cutting or marking of hands if it was the
case in 5:38. >>
I guess the author of this article has not understood
what is marking means. It is no more than a slap on the hand for
public embarrassment that keeps the person totally active so that
he/she can pay for his/her crime while taking care of his/her family
and self. It does not cut off his/her power and resources.
<<Last but not least, sura 12
gives us a good example about how to punish the theft.>>
WRONG. As we will see.
12:70-79,
<< The way I understand the
above ayat is this is God's law for theft in application.>>
Wrong
understanding. There was no theft involved but the whole incident is
described as a scheme. The schemer, (Joseph) in this case was the one
in control and he knows that under any circumstances he will not
punish his beloved brother for a scheme he planned. Since there was NO
theft involved, there was no law of theft being applied.
Even, if seeing 12:70-79 as an application of God's
law, then why is "Joe" choosing to disregard the sentence saying :
the thief belongs to you
[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."
This is slavery, isn't it, "The thief belongs to
you"?. Slavery had been the punishment of the thief in these old
communities.
If indeed this is to be seen as guidelines in how to
deal with theft, as "Joe" is suggesting, then he should be willing to
go all the way with it, not just pick out the parts that suits his own
opinion.
<<Joseph and his brothers were
submitters and children of Jacob and Abraham's great great-children.>>
Wrong
again. Joseph was a submitter, but his brothers to that minute were
not. Actually God and Joseph describe them as BAD.
12:77, "They said, "If he stole,
so did a brother of his in the past." Joseph concealed his feelings in
himself, and did not give them any clue. He said (to himself), "You
are really bad. GOD is fully aware of your accusations."'
<< They were applying God's law
then. It is very clear from the above ayat that they were not
following the king's law but rather God's law. >>
Wrong again. First they were not
applying God's law. God's law is not slavery for theft. Second,
Joseph's brothers were not following the King's law because they came
form a different region that did not belong to the King. The verse
never said they were following God's law but rather say the scheme was
well controlled by God's will. These brothers come across the whole
sura to that incident as aggressors and disobedient to God, not the
ones following God's law.
<<First the presumed thieves
were given the chance to come forward, acknowledge their wrongdoing,
and then give back what they have stolen and they might even get a
reward. >>
"Joe" is suggesting that if a person steals, then
steps forward and says "I did it," even though he or she planned to do
it this way to receive the reward, there is no punishment but a
reward. Where is the logic in that?
The correct and only logical interpretation of the
Quranic statement in 12:72, "receives an extra camel-load" is that it
is not directed to the thief, but for anyone else who manages to
restore the property. Suggesting otherwise is as absurd as suggesting
that thieves should be entitled to finders' fees. It is not logical,
just, or sensible, which is a good description of Satan's judgment and
characteristics.
Also, If we cannot distinguish the difference between
a SCHEME and a LAW, how much trust we should have in our intelligence.
God would not contradict Himself and rewards the proven thief in one
verse then orders the punishment in another. The proven thief has a
punishment in 5:38, no reward. Joseph knew that no one will come
forward with the cup and no one would get a reward since his brothers
never suspected the scheme nor the theft.
<<If they refuse to do so, they
must be proven as thieves. Then, what was stolen, if found, should be
restituted to their owners.>>
God left a lot for us to do with our civil law
regulation. God's punishment is spelled out in 5:38. What to do after
that is up to us. Each community can make its own civil laws.
<< Thieves should work to repay
the fees involved in the whole process. They should also work to repay
what was stolen in case they do not give it or the whole of it back.
>>
That is part of what a certain community can set as a
civil law but God's punishment for the thief is spelled out in 5:38.
<<These ayat give us also an
example of someone who was set up for theft for a good reason of
course. But, what would happen to someone who was set up maliciously
and has to face marking or cutting of his or her both hands?>>
Simple answer. 5:38 does not talk about suspected
thief but a proven thief. How about a thief who has his/her power and
resources cut off from him/her after he/she was set up maliciously ?
<< Had Joseph known that God's
punishment for theft is marking or cutting hands (which his brothers
would have apply), he would not scheme that way in order to keep his
brother with him.>>
Wrong
again. Joseph was very sure that his brother is NOT a thief and that
his brothers were bad, not following God's law. Both combinations gave
him assurance to go ahead with the scheme. He can always stop the
punishment since he is the one who knows the truth.
<<The cutting or marking hands
as a punishment of thieves run into contradictions within Quran.>>
This is true for the cutting of the hands and cutting
off the resources and power of the thief, not for the markings.
<< However, meaning of "cutting
hands" in 5:38 as cutting from the thieves' resources and power, the
case of murder's punishment in Quran, and the example of God's law in
application in 12:70-79 are the three arguments, put forward in this
article, to propose the third and closest to Quran's spirit punishment
for theft.>>
Cutting off resources and power is more cruel
punishment than the social embarrassment of the markings of the hands
that keep all the resources and power available to that human being.
It contradicts the spirit of the Quran that tries to save the
resources and power to all parties involved including the person
committing the crime so as to stay active serving his/her family, pay
his/her debts and serve the society.
ALL the conclusions of "Joe" from 5:38 and 12:70-79 is
built on wrong understanding of the verses, the scheme
mentioned in the verses and the status of Joseph's brothers as
explained above.
In conclusion : the markings
of the hand is the closest to the spirit of the Quran that preserves
the resources and power to the individual to stay active in his/her
society and serve his/her family at the same time.
Please check;
Appendix 37
of the
Authorized English translation of the Quran
by
Dr. Rashad Khalifa
Praise be to God.
info@submission.org
