Moderate Muslims

[davsel]

I believe the reasoning is in the society at the time you were not home during the day. Occupation/unoccupation is definitely a better distinction, but there is also assumption that someone breaking into a home in day was for property, someone at night was for malice (murder, rape, etc.) And of course with the translation/societal rifts, who knows, that could be how it was originally perceived (occupied/unoccupied).

A good example of that translation/societal rift that most people can associate: " It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to go through heaven." Heard that one before? Sounds like a piss poor metaphor. But, the word for camel, in Aramaic also incidentally means "rope". So let's apply that with the correct translation: "It is easier for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to go through heaven". That is a more conceptual and visual metaphor, right? One of in-numerous translation f-ups that is still in current publications, and undoubtedly there are many that we don't - and probably won't ever - know about.

Reminds me of the laws in Texas that authorize the use of deadly force against certain crimes if they occur in the nighttime:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...E/htm/PE.9.htm

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

There was a case years ago in San Antonio where a Sheriff's Deputy and his son sat on their roof with hunting rifles, waiting for the son's rivals to come over and cause damage to their property - ongoing feud.
They shot and killed one of the rivals and were acquitted because it was considered criminal mischief during the nighttime.

[Dave_L]

Its tough. I agree that it's just property but it's property that I spent hours either at work, building, etc that I can't get back. I struggle with the idea that if I find someone in the act of stealing my stuff, I have to let them have it. Property isn't worth someones life...which is why you shouldn't steal and risk yours (if it were legal to use deadly force).

[Irving]

Whether property is worth a life or not is a decision that a thief should have to make, not a property owner. Too bad that doesn't fly in current society.

[Dave_L]

Whether property is worth a life or not is a decision that a thief should have to make, not a property owner.

That's a great way to word that.

[BushMasterBoy]

Fat Her vs Must Slim...

[Great-Kazoo]

If someone died for stealing, there would be a lot less theives. Either by their choice not to become a thief or because of their choice to become a thief.

S-S-S