How do you amputate thieves?

In a four-page letter to MEPs, the kingdom’s mission to the EU called for “tolerance, respect and understanding” with regard to the country’s desire to preserve its traditional values and “family lineage”.

The new penal code, which also provides for the amputation of thieves and whipping of people wearing clothes associated with the opposite sex, was brought in on 3 April, despite international condemnation.

An amputation upon a thief perhaps, the amputation of a hand of a thief, but an amputation of a thief?

14 comments on “How do you amputate thieves?

  1. accidental liberalism- typo means that the maximum penalty for theft is a severe impugning.

  2. It’s the same, analogously, as ‘How typical of modern medicine to find the only non-malign part of Randolph and remove it.’ (Evelyn Waugh) Or, said of a former colleague who converted, ‘When they circumcised him,they threw the wrong bit away.’

  3. Good heavens, what could possibly be the reason for this? Oh right, Sharia Law in another vibrant Muslim country.

    Ironically Brunei’s official name is the “Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace”, so we have “The Religion of Peace” in “The Abode of Peace”. Lol. Expect the place to become totally fucked within a decade.

  4. “An amputation upon a thief perhaps, the amputation of a hand of a thief, but an amputation of a thief?”

    If you consider it from the hand’s point of view…

    Although that raises an interesting question. Which part of the thief’s body is ‘the thief’? Is it just the hand, perhaps? Could someone possibly think that way – that the body extremities defined the characteristics of a personality, rather than the brain? You’re ‘a thief’ because of your hands? You’re ‘a male’ because of your genitals? And if you no longer have your hands, or your genitals, you’re no longer a thief or a man?

  5. Which part of the thief’s body is ‘the thief’? Is it just the hand, perhaps?

    Not an entirely unusual belief. What was it, if thine eye offend thee then pluck it out? Or summat – King James not being recent reading matte for me.

  6. @ NiV & Tim
    If you’ve ever had the dubious pleasure of dealing with ( as gamecock usefully puts it) those of the religion of pieces, they do have a rather distinct way of looking at the world. Everything is as God wills it. So that used car you’re buying may have four wheels. If God wills it. If doesn’t have four wheels, but only three, then God didn’t will it. The seller should be excused of describing it to you as having three, as at the time he believed God did will it to have four & that he willed it to have three is as much a revalation to the seller as to the buyer (PBUH)
    So I’d imagine that one could say that God had willed your hand to steal and you had nothing to do with it. Or maybe God didn’t wish you to steal but your hand ignored Him. (PBUH)
    Or maybe God made them a bunch of thieving lying ragheads for his own purposes (PBUH) Who can know the mind of God? (PBUH)

  7. @Tim, indeed Jesus was indeed a keen promoter of the removal of offending body parts, but more so that the remaining, non-impure parts could make it into heaven, rather than as a measure for the prevention of recidivism.

    It is said that the motivations for removing wealth as a hindrance to entering the kingdom of heaven may have become corrupted over the last couple of thousand years. In any case, almost no Christians ever sell all they have and give the proceeds to the poor to follow Jesus. The usual excuse is that is one of the allegorical bits (along with the seven-day creation, instructions on how to perform abortions on unfaithful women, etc), or only applies to the one person it was said to.

  8. ‘… the amputation of a hand of a thief, but an amputation of a thief?’

    Keeping options open as to what bit(s) of the thief might get amputated.

  9. “…almost no Christians ever sell all they have and give the proceeds to the poor to follow Jesus. The usual excuse is that is one of the allegorical bits…”

    Not so. Essentially, theologians argue that Christ’s teaching divides into the basics and the Counsels of Perfection. The former are summarised in the Great Commandment:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment
    The latter are supererogatory:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_counsels

  10. Just noticed the signs they are carrying say ‘socialist worker’ at the top.

    So CM scum are behind this. SURPRISE !!!

  11. @BiG

    “instructions on how to perform abortions on unfaithful women, ”

    Genuine question – where do you find (or even think you find) them? I’m pretty familiar with most of the Bible, and would know where to find most of the “controversial” bits, but that’s a new one on me.

    I think the “If your eye offends you…” teaching is pretty clearly a case of a point being made about the seriousness of sin and its consequences, rather than practical instruction to poke your eyes out to prevent sin. It’s hyperbolic language to give emphasis to a point – in exactly the same way that the disciples are told to forgive 70×7 times – not so they can keep count and stop forgiving at offence number 491, but to teach that the extent of their forgiveness should be unlimited.

  12. @ The Prole
    Well said! The 70 times 7 was pretty close to saying “a number so large that you will los count before you get there” – and if someone even tries to keep counting up to 490 he/she/they is a pretty pathetic individual.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.