Several Jihadi accounts said the 'thief' had admitted his crimes 'and also asked that his hand be cut off to cleanse his sins'. It was not immediately possible to verify the accounts, and the photographs and tweets have now been removed from Twitter. source : Dailymail and Bhaskar

G0OD WORK HandsomeDon nice topic

Perhaps if they feed them they won't steal. So very uncivilized. Really.

Because the one thing every zealot who has ever lived has in common is an unflappable belief in their own righteousness, they believe the amputation is justified, killing him for theft wouldn't fall into this concept of "justice" and so they didn't.

A very slippery road indeed ... Both the Bible and Qur'an have sections dedicated to fair treatment of slaves, yet you don't hear anyone from either religion campaigning for the reinstatement of slavery on religious grounds do you? Zealots only see what they want to see and will find justification for their actions whether it exists or not.

ohhhh... wtff..!

Does it? Islam relies on interpretation, reinterpretation and community consensus more so than any other religion I can think of. I haven't seen any machete wielding mobs of muslims roaming the streets in search of thieves, have you? There are over a billion of them surely if it was the "right" thing to do most of them would be but you don't see that do you? Then would that not suggest community consensus is absent, how then can can you or the zealots claim to have the right of it then?

Consensus [kuhn-sen-suhs] noun, plural consensuses. Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process. It is an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. It is a general agreement or a group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel together. 1 hand cutting Muslim or even 1 000 000 does not a majority make. Unless you can prove that at least 600 000 000 (just over half their global population) muslims actively support and / or participate in hand cuttings then you really have no choice but to accept that this is the action of a minority and therefore not the general will of Muslims world wide.

I know it was, that was my intention for all that though its no less true ... I eat meat, I'm not morally opposed to it, when my grandfather goes hunting or fishing and wants me to come with I go. Since I'm not morally opposed to eating meat it only makes sense for me not to be opposed to getting the meat myself. Supporting an action your not willing to carry out yourself doesn't give the impression of certainty, on the contrary it practically SCREAMS "uncertainty". I cannot speak for the unspoken thoughts of the 1 billion+ Muslims on the planet (can you?) so I won't hypothesize what they may or may not think. Rather I think the numbers give a more accurate picture of how things really stand in an unbiased way (either for or against Muslims). The numbers don't support your argument.

No a broad enough survey hasn't been conducted on that but we have examples of laws in Muslim dominated countries governments both in the east and west, we can also factor in the general conduct of Muslims both in those countries and abroad. Those numbers do exist and they are overwhelming in support of my argument.

I can't speak for Muslims but I use my own judgement when it comes to morality. I test those convictions against opposing ones when the opportunity presents itself and if they are found wanting (which doesn't happen very often to be honest) then I adjust them accordingly. One universal and infallible code of morality seems far-fetched to me, we are human and anything we touch (even religiously based morality) carries the possibility of a flaw / flaws.

We have free will, we exercise that free will but we do not exercise that free will within a vacuum. We need context and reference, for religious people that context is their religion. For people who aren't religious that is something else. Personally I don't care which path people take, as long as it leads to an answer that isn't completely reprehensible. Note I made no mention of a "right answer", one that isn't completely wrong is good enough in my book. Gestalt theory states: "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".

I missed this one when I was answering. The way I see it, in other words this isn't fact but my own personal opinion. Religion is a man-made institution, its a system and rituals through which we express our faith in our respective god / gods or goddesses. Faith on the other hand is a God-given state of being. In my own world-view I draw a distinction between the two, placing faith above religion. That isn't to say there's no value to religion, for those who believe religion is a vital and irreplaceable aspect of their lives. That said the Holy Qur'an expressly forbids both suicide and the wholesale slaughter of innocents, there are entire sections dedicated to what is and isn't permissible during war. There have been multiple fatwas (religious edicts) over the years against suicide bombings on these civilian targets as having "No basis in the Holy Qur'an" and declaring them "un-Islamic". From where I'm sitting this isn't "inspiring" but a concerted attempt at "discouraging" any would be zealots.

The narrower your focus the less you see around you Tanuki, you're so focused on that one point that you're not seeing the dozens more that counter it. Your death penalty analogy while not completely wrong in theory has no measurable variables, its neither here nor there, it simply states a possibility that cannot be proved. Our conduct is however measurable.

Common ground at last. Everyone is entitled to self-determination, provided it does not unduly affect others negatively. PS: "There can be no compulsion in Islam" is at least one of those "right answers" you might like.

Dishonest, eh? No, but I will admit to being ever so slightly evasive. I'm not trying to prove you wrong as such, I'm providing you with an alternate to your theory, whether you end up agreeing with me or not doesn't matter half as much making sure you don't make that decision in a vacuum. In short I'm giving you options.

The point, missing it completely ... okay, lets reset and focus. Lets not make this about a bakers choice of perceived "evils" of Islam, instead lets stay on topic, The cutting off of that mans hand. state a fact, reference your source or withdraw it. You in?

And I'm the only one being evasive? No matter, here are the facts with precise Qur'anic source as reference. "The male thief, and the female thief, you shall mark, cut, or cut-off their hands/means as a recompense for what they earned, and to serve as a deterrent from God. God is Noble, Wise. Whoever repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, then God will relent on him. Truly, God is Forgiving, Merciful." [5:38-39] ... This is the verse you're s concerned about, no? The Arabic word translated as "cut" in the above mentioned 5:38 is "iqtaa" and occurs 14 other times in the same verb form in The Quran, and with the exception of 59:5 and possibly 69:46 all other 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, 13:25, 15:66, 22:15, 27:32, 29:29, 56:33]. Also not that the Arabic word for "hands" (aydi) is often used in The Quran in a metaphorical manner [2:195, 2:237, 3:3, 3:73, 5:64, 6:93, 8:70, 9:29, 23:88, 28:47, 30:36, 38:45, 48:10, 48:24, 111:1], and often has a meaning of power/means. It should also be noted that this word is in the Arabic plural meaning 3 or more hands, whilst only two people are referenced: the male and the female thief. This plural usage causes problems for the common interpretation of hand cutting. 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 should be said however that the only working example given in The Qur'an of theft and its punishment is in the story of Joseph, in which option 3 is done by detaining the one guilty of theft, so that they can work to repay/compensate for the theft. They said, "By God, you know we did not come to cause corruption in the land, and we are no thieves!" He said, "What shall be its recompense, if you are not truthful?" They said, "Its recompense is that he who has it in his bag, then he is its recompense. Like that do we recompense the wrongdoers." [12:73-75] 12:79 makes it clear that Joseph (described in 6:84 as one of the guided and a good doer) was acting in accordance with God's law. Thus, one possible meaning of 5:38 is to apply it in the manner provided by Joseph's example. To conclude, when all the above information is taken into account, it is clear that to physically cut off the hand or hands of the thief is not the only possible understanding and taking into account the law of equivalence would perhaps only be reserved for significant theft which led to harming others, hence harming the perpetrator being that the crime and its punishment must be in proportion to each other.

You are free to think what you think and to draw your own conclusions Aman but you have the facts, read or ignore them at your discretion. Also you can fall back on the classic, "if interpretation is so important, yours may be completely wrong" argument it seems to be a favourite if all else fails conclusion ... Like I said I trying to give you options and context not make your decisions for you.

You have a funny way of using "if" and "may", as if they referred to mere minor possibilities instead of proven facts. 2 (for amputation) versus 12 (against amputation) isn't me possibly being right or both conclusions being equally valid. In an election that's an overwhelmingly unanimous landslide victory, unless of course you use the "every petty dictator of the past centuries vote count process" addition method in which case then 2 vs 12 in my favour means we're about equal at worst and at best means you win. Those of you "not used to having metaphorical language in important texts regarding crime and punishment" probably don't know the first thing about Arabic and have never bothered to even glance at the Qur'an, if you had you'd know that there are always several possible layers of meaning in each section. That uncovering those meanings is its own specialized branch of theological study and has been from early in the history of Islam. You might also note that you're referring to a religions Holy text written centuries ago and not a modern "law for dummies" handbook, it has a certain level of poetry, and far from making it an anomaly amongst other Holy texts in format this trait is the norm so I fail to see why this would surprise you.