Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Jabba,

The Quran does ordain the amputation of the right hand as the ultimate punishment for theft - but it is the last resort, and as this is how it has as is being carried out, I would imagine this is how it is being taught as well.

As for the killing of Gays - yes, there are many muslims who believe this to be the punishment. Similarly many muslims are taught and believe that the punishment for apostacy (leaving/renouncing Islam) is death. Both of these are incorrect from a Quranic and Sunnah (the practice of the Holy Prophet, pbuh) standpoint.

In my view, Islam is going through the equivalent of the Christian Middle Ages where the Mullahs are doing what the Church/Priesthood did in the Middle Ages - using Islam for political means and twisting the meanings and teachings for their own ends.

The fact that the self-same 'teachers' will not encourage people to read, question and think is a great clue about their insecurity. The rejection of science and things modern is an insult to the many great Imams and scholars of Islam in the past who revelled in the study of the sciences.

But don't get me wrong - the Mullahs are just doing what is in their self-interest and as history has shown, blood-lust against a foe is a great (and more to the point, distracting) rallying call. These issues are really at the periphery of Islam and 99.9% of the time have no relevance to the lives of a believer - Muslims aren't going round gay-bashing or looking to execute anyone who stops being a Muslim - they are busy leading their own lives - as is everyone else.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

benwj wrote:

shafique wrote:Being 'Gay' is a choice - in-so-far as acting on those impulses goes.

So its OK for you to act on your impuses and make love with someone of the opposite gender, but its not OK for a homosexual to act on their impuses make love with someone of the same gender?

No - Islam does not single out homo.s.exuality as a sin, it says that all carnal relationships outside of marriage are a sin. Fornication and adultery are viewed as just as sinful.

And since Islam does not allow gay marriage, it is impossible for a gay person to have a legal relationship?

benwj wrote:
And since Islam does not allow gay marriage, it is impossible for a gay person to have a legal relationship?

That's right.

In Islam, s.ex is only lawful within marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman.

Cheers,
Shafique

If a gay person isn't born gay that doesn't mean that he chose to be gay. Homosexuality does not have to be genetic to be outside one's control.

If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females. This research was conducted on rats at Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction. In the males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat [7].

A gay person can choose to consumate his urges, as can a paedophile - and I agree in both cases it doesn't really matter whether they were born that way or not. I do not think I am being sensationalist in the comparison - both are differing forms of attraction - both were universally seen as repugnant and intolerable, now it is only the latter which has this stigma in some socieities.

I've never contended that gay people are attracted to the same gender - but just have a problem with the notion that they can't live a normal married live with a partner of the opposite gender. There are many people who are married to partners who do not fit the 'ideal' s.exual partner for them - and it is also my contention that s.exual part of a relationship (whilst important) is not the main criteria in a lasting, loving relationship - the main one imo is that both persons are committed to a long term, stable relationship - for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health etc.

Anyway - glad to see we agree that the nature/nurture debate is not really relevant in the above context of how one chooses to live one's life.

Cheers,
Shafique

I think that it is unfair to include gays and paedophilles in the same boat.
Even if you view both as being repugnant, there is one main difference between them. Paedophilles prey on children who are not willing partners.
This is rape.
Gay people choose willing partners and should have the right to practice their beliefs with them.
And it is more than just the s.ex for them also.

shafique wrote:There are many people who are married to partners who do not fit the 'ideal' s.exual partner for them

My wife asked a recently married co-worker how things were going. She said that they wanted to have children as soon as possible, but had been trying for a while without success. I didn't get into the details, but it turns out that she was getting a very sore backside from the "s.ex". I find it hard to beleive that anyone can be this naive, but the story is from a reputable source and I have no doubt that it is true.

Your endorsement of marriage between a gay person and a hetrosexual only adds weight to the story.

Yes, it happens, but it ain't healthy.

benwj wrote:I think that it is unfair to include gays and paedophilles in the same boat.

My point is that both have 'urges' and both can choose to follow through or not follow through on these urges. Both relate to whom they want to sleep with.

Anything that stops short of the physical act though is just friendship or companionship and is ok in everyone's book.

As for your story about the sore behind - you're kidding right?

You seem to be mistaking 'being gay' with 'sodomy' - in my book a gay person is a person who is attracted to the same gender, not someone that likes to perform sodomy. A heteros.exual man can prefer sodomy with a woman and is not a gay person (but in Islam, as with Christianity and Judaism, sodomy is a sin and considered a perversion).

I feel a bit dirty discussing this - not that I hate gays or anything (I have close friends and colleagues who are gay) - I can and do distinguish between the people and the acts they choose to go through. Another example is that the majority of colleagues and friends I have are ok with fornication (s.ex outside marriage) and they know I consider the act a sin - but I get on well with them and their partners and we are all friends.

But to discuss the mechanics of coitus is not a comfortable topic for me and I think I've said all I think I can say on the topic..

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,

I think it is no more then your own assumption to state that Gay people just need to stop acting on urges and that is all there is to it.

Hom.o.se.xuals are typically repulsed by the idea of sleeping with the opposite gender in the same way that a hetr.o.se.xual is repulsed by sleeping with the same s.ex. They normally know that they are very different from a quite young age.

Many of them unlucky enough to live in homeo.pho.bic society's under fear, persecution and ridicule (and as we have discussed, hanging) not to mention the millions creating unhappy 'family units' in an attempt to conform to the views of others - just like the one expressed in your post.

jabbajabba wrote:Shafique,

I think it is no more then your own assumption and a self conceited statement to say that Gay people just need to stop acting on urges and that is all there is to it.

I've been called worse than self-conceited.

jabbajabba wrote:Hom.o.se.xuals are typically repulsed by the idea of sleeping with the opposite gender in the same way that a hetr.o.se.xual is repulsed by sleeping with the same s.ex. They normally know that they are very different from a quite young age.

Are they typically repulsed? That is not the case in my experience - but hey, if you know better - who am I to argue with your research into Gay people's preferences. The people I have spoken to and read about have no psychological hang up with sleeping with women, but prefer men. Perhaps my friends also share my self-conceited delusion?

jabbajabba wrote:Many of them unlucky enough to live in a homeo.pho.bic society's live their lifes out under the fear of persecution and ridicule (and as we have discussed, hanging) not to mention the millions creating unhappy 'family units' in an attempt to conform to the views of others - just like the one expressed in your post.

Thank you for your opinion.

I see you agree that millions do try to conform to the natural order of a family unit - even though you state that they are all unhappy. May I if you think that all men who are not married to their ideal partner now are equally unhappy? Most men end up with a different woman than the one they wooed or shared the honeymoon with - people change after years of marriage and don't look like they used to

Hey, as I said - people are free to live how they want to live in this world and can choose to live in societies where homo.se.xuality is tolerated or even celebrated. I have been giving religion's view of the practice which I agree with and which makes complete sense to me.

At the end of the day - all Gays, imo, can choose whether or not to live a gay life.

Cheers,
Shafique

One thing you said here Shaf:

shafique wrote:The Quran does ordain the amputation of the right hand as the ultimate punishment for theft - but it is the last resort, and as this is how it has as is being carried out, I would imagine this is how it is being taught as well.

If cutting the right hand really is the last resort, then why didn't Muhammed act like it? You know- in that hadith about the woman from Quraish who stole things from another woman after Badr. Osama Bin Zaid tried talking to Muhammed to convince him to try some other punishment or repayment and Muhammed's face "changed colours" and was pretty mad. Because it was considered going against allah's laws.

Then at the evening of the same day, the woman's hand was cut. Not much time to think it over, no?

If you believe everything in Islam is perfect, you don't need to twist facts. When you say cutting hands is the last resort, that's you just saying stuff. You have nothing to back it up, and the actions of the prophet speak otherwise.

He said: "If Fatima the daughter of Muhammed stole. I'd cut her hand off" It is the official punishment for any theft of property which costs 1/4 of a gold Dinar. If not, prove it.

shafique wrote:

Hey, as I said - people are free to live how they want to live in this world and can choose to live in societies where homo.se.xuality is tolerated or even celebrated. I have been giving religion's view of the practice which I agree with and which makes complete sense to me.


Cheers,
Shafique

If Islam really is tolerant of different lifestyles and personal choices (Which I personally don't see, since nothing the Quran or the hadiths specifically calls for the "hate the sin-love the sinner" kinda thing- and everyone who has s.ex should be whipped and whatnot), then it kinda forgot to teach it's followers that tolerance. Cause you know, contrary to popular belief not every sinner is of a social age or has enough resources to travel around into a tolerant country with a majority of tolerant people. Just saying.

PARANOID wrote:What about the story about the woman who had s.ex at the times of Muhammed, and was pregnant cause of it. Then she wanted to repent and have herself stonned for it, but the prophet made her wait each time she came back to him until the baby was born and then had it's teeth grow and stopped feeding of it's mom's milk. Then afterwards she was stonned, and some of her blood dripped on Omar Bin Al-Khattab and he got pissed, but Muhammed told him not to feel that way cause the woman was in heaven?

This is a true hadith. You will note that the Prophet, pbuh, tried to dissuade her from seeking the punishment and was keen to forgive her.

Uh..No.It wasn't for her, it was for the baby. He waited till it was old enough to chew food So it wouldn't die without the mother (Or with the mother- Cause the first time she came to him she was still pregnant).

EDIT: Gee Shaf, your logic is kind of wacked here. Who's the prophet to "forgive" sinners or not? That's Allah's job not his

PARANOID wrote:If you believe everything in Islam is perfect, you don't need to twist facts. When you say cutting hands is the last resort, that's you just saying stuff. You have nothing to back it up, and the actions of the prophet speak otherwise.

He said: "If Fatima the daughter of Muhammed stole. I'd cut her hand off" It is the official punishment for any theft of property which costs 1/4 of a gold Dinar. If not, prove it.

Paranoid - if you look back at my posts you will see that I said this was an easy one to prove - just look at how the punishment was and is being carried out under authorities which implement Shariah and also how it was carried out by the Prophet, pbuh.

You have quoted two hadith which are well known - so the question you should ask is that given these two hadith why is it that all jurists are clear about how the punishment should be implemented and that not all theives have their hands cut off?

[Clue - there are not only two hadith on the subject ]

A general point - wishing a fact to be true doesn't make it that way.

Wasalaam,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

PARANOID wrote:If you believe everything in Islam is perfect, you don't need to twist facts. When you say cutting hands is the last resort, that's you just saying stuff. You have nothing to back it up, and the actions of the prophet speak otherwise.

He said: "If Fatima the daughter of Muhammed stole. I'd cut her hand off" It is the official punishment for any theft of property which costs 1/4 of a gold Dinar. If not, prove it.

Paranoid - if you look back at my posts you will see that I said this was an easy one to prove - just look at how the punishment was and is being carried out under authorities which implement Shariah and also how it was carried out by the Prophet, pbuh.

You have quoted two hadith which are well known - so the question you should ask is that given these two hadith why is it that all jurists are clear about how the punishment should be implemented and that not all theives have their hands cut off?

[Clue - there are not only two hadith on the subject ]

A general point - wishing a fact to be true doesn't make it that way.

Wasalaam,
Shafique

Yes I read all your posts, I still don't see the proof that losing a hand is the last resort? If there are other hadiths, quote them. What I'm telling you is that Muhammed did what was written in the Quran, and got angry when people tried to change it or take it easy with criminals. If you have something to say, say it straight. I'd like to read your response as soon as possible cause I wont be able to access my computer in a couple days or so, so please be direct.

I'm not "wishing" this stuff was real. That's really weak of you to say, obviously it's starting to get to you so you have to accuse me of being this and that. I'm talking from what religious people rant about, and the ways they justify things, and the way muslims act.

A couple of references for cutting off the hands as a punishment (sorry, only had a couple of minutes to do a search):

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive/ar ... E&id=29178

http://www.victoryscent.co.uk/cutting_h ... _theft.htm
(reference for 1/4 dinar's worth of goods stolen - but note that the other hadith saying that stealing 'worthless' or low value items does not merit the cutting of the hand --- and I wonder how much 1/4 dinar is worth in today's money?)


http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfse ... icleid=266
We must also look at the complete ruling of cutting off the hand for stealing. For example, if a man steals because he is hungry then nothing will happen to him. But in fact, his neighbor will be reprimanded for not helping him and feeding him! And, for a man to have his hand cut off for stealing there would be the requirement of 2 witnesses who saw him do such a thing. And for adultery it must be 4 witnesses! How often does that happen? Not very often. But you see, the concept of the possibility is still there and that deters people. As a result of these punishments the environment is safer and people are more mindful of respecting the lives, honor and property of others. The goal of Islamic law, broadly stated, is to bring about good and minimize evil. We can see that the Islamic penal code helps to enforce these ideas in society.

There have been cases where a thief stole something, but there were no witnesses yet the thief came forth and confessed, asking for his hand to be cut off. The reason for such confessions is because of the person's knowledge of what is to come in the Hereafter. All our deeds are recorded - from what we say to what we do. And on the Day of Judgment we all will be held accountable for our deeds, good or bad. And these people who confess have repented and wish to be accounted for their deed here in this world. The punishment for a deed in this world is lifted from the next world. A person who is punished for something they did here now will be relieved of it in the Hereafter. The punishment and embarrassment in the Hereafter is much greater than it is here. Hence, their confessions come due to repentance and their wish to return to a good relationship with their Lord. And Allah forgives in abundance, if only we turn to Him with a sincere heart.


It was however interesting to note the number of anti-Islam sites that Google threw up when searching on the subject. Interesting.

At the end of the day, from just a common sense standpoint, if you know your hand may be chopped off for stealing - you wouldn't steal. If there are extenuating circumstances, precedence is clear that you won't have your hand chopped off. I fail to see the problem - but perhaps that's just me - I was brought up not to steal.
Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:A couple of references for cutting off the hands as a punishment (sorry, only had a couple of minutes to do a search):

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive/ar ... E&id=29178

http://www.victoryscent.co.uk/cutting_h ... _theft.htm
(reference for 1/4 dinar's worth of goods stolen - but note that the other hadith saying that stealing 'worthless' or low value items does not merit the cutting of the hand --- and I wonder how much 1/4 dinar is worth in today's money?)

I haven't said differently. Why would I mention the 1/4 dinar If I don't know that anything that costs less wouldn't take a hand?

88 dirhams is pretty cheap. It dosen't deserve a hand. Nothing does. Cause theft can be fixed.

And I know the rest of the info about needing to steal etc.. Still, that's way far from the main point. YOU claimed cutting a hand is the last resort for someone who stole something that costs 1/4 dinar or above. You still can't prove it.

At the end of the day, from just a common sense standpoint, if you know your hand may be chopped off for stealing - you wouldn't steal. If there are extenuating circumstances, precedence is clear that you won't have your hand chopped off. I fail to see the problem - but perhaps that's just me - I was brought up not to steal.
Cheers,
Shafique

I remember being in Saudi Arabia as a child with my dad. I used to steal a lot, he told me not to steal there cause I'll get my hand cut. Didn't stop me from getting free makeup.

Shafique, I feel responsible for making you feel uncomfortable and I apologise.
Although I admire you willingness to share information about such issues. Thankyou.

No probs benj.


Paranoid, the first reference says"

The Penalty for Theft:


Concerning theft, Islam legislates cutting the thief's hand off as a maximum punishment and under certain conditions. In countries that apply this punishment, like Saudi Arabia, we notice that theft is a very rare occurrence. The judge decides the seriousness of the case and decides if the thief should get the maximum penalty or not according to certain conditions and restrictions.

When a person knows that he will lose his hand if he uses it in stealing, this makes stealing a rare possibility. The implication of such a punishment is this: each organ in the body must be used cleanly, honorably, and legally. The function of the hand is not stealing. If the hand is used to threaten other people, it is a dangerous hand and the judge is entitled to reconsider its existence.

The other implication of cutting the hand off is to give the thief and other people a permanent example and a continuous reminder of the fate of thieves. In countries that merely imprison the thief, the thief himself may steal again after being released from prison.



The article is making my point about how the punishment is implemented in practice - that a Judge assesses the seriousness of the theft to see whether the maximum punishment should be applied.

The second reference gives the hadith, but without interpretation.

In my mind, the practice is what is important - the criterion is not 88 dhirams - but whether it is a significant amount or not.

The article also explains the philosophy of the punishment as well - as a severe deterrent.

As for you stealing as a child - that is covered in the hadith and explanations as well - children are not punished this way.

What I will try and dig out when I have time is a judicial ruling on how the punishment should be applied, and the reasoning they give.

Until then, I make the point that in practice not all theives have their hands cut off as per the article quoted. Maybe I should have used the words 'maximum punishment' rather than 'last resort' - for I didn't mean to imply that all theives were let off on their first theft - for serious enough thefts the punishment is merited.

On a social level, I think the thousands of victims of muggings and burglary in London (say) would much prefer if the criminals did not commit the crimes and would rather say a handful of criminals have their hands chopped off and deter all the others from committing the crimes. Sometimes, protecting the rights of the criminal is in effect condemning or punishing a larger number of innocent victims. That is not justice.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes Shafique I GET that. What I was saying is, if the "seriousness" of the case exeeds 1/4 dinar the hand is gone- if there are 88 dirhams stolen, the first thing they will do it cut the hand. If not 88 dirhams, other stuff will happen. You can't choose to tell me what's in your mind and ignore what's really happenning. That's what I said in the first place but you decided to disagree. To the "judge", it's serious when it's 88 dirhams. I think that's wrong, and noone deserves to lose a hand over theft. You think otherwise, good for you.

How about when people use thier s.ex organs for s.ex before merriage we cut them off too ?

Or if they LIE at court and use thier tongue to put someone innoucent in trouble, we cut off those damn sinning tongues??

Geez.

I know that children aren't in the category.

I don't think people in London would prefer that, if you do then note that that is only your opinion. You don't speak for anyone but yourself.

PARANOID wrote:Yes Shafique I GET that. What I was saying is, if the "seriousness" of the case exeeds 1/4 dinar the hand is gone- if there are 88 dirhams stolen, the first thing they will do it cut the hand. If not 88 dirhams, other stuff will happen. You can't choose to tell me what's in your mind and ignore what's really happenning. That's what I said in the first place but you decided to disagree. To the "judge", it's serious when it's 88 dirhams. I think that's wrong, and noone deserves to lose a hand over theft. You think otherwise, good for you.

Paranoid - you are asking me to prove something that is self-evident - in that you can verify how these punishments are carried out.

Let me use a Dubai analogy for how this particular part of the discussion feels to me:

A: Here is a quote and a photo that says there only camels and donkeys in Dubai and that the road between Dubai and Abu Dhabi is a dirt track. Therefore Dubai is a backward country that bans cars.

B. Yes - that quote and photo is 100% correct, but just stand outside and you will see that Dubai doesn't actually ban cars.

A. Ahh - good arguement, but you have not shown any reference to me yet that my references are wrong !

B. Ok - [thinks perhaps A isn't in Dubai and can't look out to see the cars] - here you go 'A', here are a few news articles showing you the problems we have with traffic here in Dubai.

A. You still haven't disproved my original references.

B. Your references were absolutely correct - but in practice we have loads of cars in Dubai - so you can't say Dubai bans cars.

A. YOU say that - but you haven't given me any proof.

B. Arrrgh - ok if you want to believe Dubai bans cars, go on then.



Cheers,
Shafique

Here is a quote and a photo that says there only camels and donkeys in Dubai and that the road between Dubai and Abu Dhabi is a dirt track. Therefore Dubai is a backward country that should bans cars.

Yes they should ban all ragheads from the roads and keep all the roads free for westerners; it was nice to read that in America that there are states that will not allow Middle East peoples to drive unless they pass an American road vehicle test

Paranoid,

You've OBVIOUSLY made up your mind about Islam and criticize certain aspects of it (which you clearly don't understand) to justify your views on it.

If you don't agree with religion, then don't, period. Leave it, it's your choice to leave it, it's your choice not to follow it. It's not about to change its fundamental teachings and views in order to satisfy people that most criticize it. It doesn't work that way. It won't conform to your individual wants, whims, and demands (and in your case, obsessions). No matter how much you think you're right compared to it. Faith is meant to give purpose to life, if you've found purpose in your life, great, why get all worked up about these issues that you've brought up? Do you want to be accepted so badly? If so, the first step is accepting religion wholeheartedly into your life first, and that's a logic that you haven't quite figured out. Yeah, religion really isn't about picking and choosing what is more convenient for you, that kinda defeats the purpose...

Don't like the teachings that go against what you are? Then don't follow it, leave it and don't worry about it. I'm sure that you have other bigger worries to concern yourself with....

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/15/v ... er-mosque/

Paranoid u seriously need some physiotherapy, u sick fool

shaf I value ur effort and all the typing, but it is point less explaining it to people who have made their mind up.

leave it

As it is said

“To you be your Way, and to me mine.”

xibit - I don't think paranoid needs physiotherapy (physiotherapy is for people recovering from physical injury).

Paranoid - follow your own heart. God is big enough to get along without man's religions.

Shafique I'm getting sick of you acting like you're the only one who knows sht about Islam. I've been defending the god damn religion in so many topics on another forum INTELLIGENTLY, I looked up my info and came up with my own conclusions. Don't you and other people accuse me of already making up my mind about it. If you'd like I can show you some of those topics if you pm me.

Your attempt at being a smartass is so lame. I feel liek you are intentionally not answering my very clear statement here.

I did not ask you about children stealing.

I did not ask you about someone who HAD to steal.

I did not ask you about people stealing something that costs less than 88 dirhams.

You proved all those things successfully, but I already knew them. You said "well they cut hands depending on the seriousness of the case", I repeated for you that in Islam it's "serious" if the thief had no reason to steal, but did it anyway and stole something that costs 88 dirhams or above. You disagreed, but you never proved it. I can prove my claims, you can't yours.


I think it's wrong to brand someone forever over theft.

Freza, this was never about me.

xibit, you're not worth the time I spent reading your lousy reply.

Paranoid - 88 dhirams is a false analogy.

At the time of the Prophet, dowries for some women was 3 dates only. Gold was more expensive then (as a % of someone's wages) than it is today.

You have chosen to interpret the Hadith in one way - but unfortunately for you and your argument, the way in which the punishments are carried out do not bear out your interpretation.

By all means criticise Islam or Muslims for things that they teach or do - but it is unfair to criticise something that is a fabrication of one's mind (that any theif who steals over 88 Dhirams has his hand cut off).

Please show me where this figure of 88 dhirams is used in a sharia court today.

For someone who is critical of Islam, you seem to be putting a lot of credence to your own interpretation of Hadith. I'm afraid I won't be able to defend an 'imaginary' implementation of Islam - but I am happy to discuss the teachings and implementation of Islam in reality.

I don't shirk from pointing out wrongs when they occur (see apostacy thread) - but it does annoy me when myths are created to discredit Islam.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
By all means criticise Islam or Muslims for things that they teach or do - but it is unfair to criticise something that is a fabrication of one's mind (that any theif who steals over 88 Dhirams has his hand cut off).

Please show me where this figure of 88 dhirams is used in a sharia court today.

I dunno what to say to you. Everywhere I look over the internet, Islamic websites support what I said. It IS what other muslims taught me and I'm here critisizing it, and it is what most muslims seem to believe in.

But I think it makes sence that 1/4 dinar (Which you yourself quoted from a website in an earlier post) was considered a lot of money long ago. Still, what's being widly spread is the idea that that amount of money is what should get a hand cut. Blame your muslim brothers for spreading supposed lies.

Also, I still believe that making a mistake at one point in your life which can be fixed should NOT be punished by something that lasts forever.

PARANOID wrote: Also, I still believe that making a mistake at one point in your life which can be fixed should NOT be punished by something that lasts forever.

Paranoid, I'm not the only one to say this but some of your posts are scary and make no sense. The statement above, however, makes a lot of sense. Kudos.

Actually, thinking about it again. It couldn't have been such a big amount of money even then. Because at the time if someone accidentaly cut off another person's hand, the one who got his hand cut can either choose to cut the offender's hand too, or instead choose to be paid 500 dinars.

There was a poet who was critical of Islam, I believe his name was Ibin Nawwas. One part of a poem he wrote said something along the lines " A hand that is worth 500 dinars, how come it's cut off for the quarter of one?"

Then some Islamic poet wrote back that the first hand was innocent and the second was that of a thief.

So both ways, it was cheap.