[Quranic Reflection]: Quran vs Hadith- why the Hadith is false

[R00tKiT]

Loss of one's freedom is indeed punishment.  Forcing a thief to pay restitution for the theft is better, in my opinion.

That's precisely the problem, isn't it? Everybody has an opinion about how best to punish a thief. Again, don't you think it's even better to listen to the wise opinion of an OMNISCIENT being?

Let me know when an omniscient being actually shows up, Klorophyll.  (Hint:  Stories about omniscient beings don't count.)

This is not a thread about proving theism. For the purpose of this thread, assume there is an omniscient being, now would you rather follow your opinion or the commands of the purported omniscient being?n.

No, no, a thousand times no.  To think in terms like "must be horrible" is to succumb to childish, primitive and simplistic ideas of justice that do vastly more harm than good.

Punishing a handful of thieves according to Islamic law will drastically decrease the occurence of robbery/burglary given the harsh nature of the punishment. That's the point of Islamic law, after all.

A proper punishment is one that corrects the problem in the simplest way possible without causing other problems.  

Thank you, excellent definition. The simplest way to stop a thief from stealing: cut off the hands he steals property with. This way, he won't cause more problems to other members of society. And one man's inability to work (oh, and thieves aren't motivated to work, in general) is outweighed by the overall decrease of thievery as a result of enforcing Islamic law. It seems Islamic law fits your definition perfectly. Again, thanks!

  A man deprived of one or both hands becomes a burden upon society because he can no longer work.  The goal of rehabilitation and restitution has been abandoned in favour of atavistic bloodlust, the very antithesis of justice.

A man in jail is also a burden for society, the cost of incarceration is very high, too. Again, enforcing a harsh punishment will cause an overall decrease of thievery because it's dissuasive. Prison time isn't dissuasive.

On May 27 he was taken to the Place de Grève in Paris and was tortured one last time before being pulled apart by four horses, a method of execution reserved for regicides. Alistair Horne describes the torture Ravaillac suffered: "Before being drawn and quartered... he was scalded with burning sulphur, molten lead and boiling oil and resin, his flesh then being torn by pincers." Following his execution, Ravaillac's parents were forced into exile, and the rest of his family was ordered never to use the name "Ravaillac" again.

Harsh and horrible, wasnt it? But isn't a proper punishment supposed to be horrible? Considering that Damiens most probably knew about Ravaillac, but still attempted regicide, maybe Ravaillacs punisment wasnt horrible proper enough?

I said harsh and horrible, not psychopatic or sadistic. One can think of all kinds of inventive ways to punish a human being, after all. It's good to know that cutting a thief's hand is not applied in all circumstances. Someone stealing food because otherwise he will die of hunger won't get his hands cut off, according to Islamic jurisprudence. The harsh penalty of cutting hands is only for those who didn't really need to steal and could've found a legit source of income.

---

You are invited get yourself sent to prison. Then - and only then - will you be able to decide whether or not prison is punishment.

Boru

I have a TV screen and an internet connection, you know. I know what prisons look like from the inside. I also know for a fact that some prisons are extremely comfortable.

A criminal suffering from inhumane conditions at Bastoy Prison, Norway:



The average recidivism rate in the U.S. is a startling 43%. They don't seem to have learnt much now do they?

---

A private cell in Sollentuna Prison, Sweden: