Q34 :The Repast – “Al-Maidah”:”As for the man or
woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands in retribution for
what they have earned, as an exemplary punishment ordained by Allah.
Allah is Almighty, Wise. But whoever repents after having thus done
wrong, and makes amends, shall have his repentance accepted by Allah.
Allah is Much-forgiving, Merciful. Do you not know that to Allah
belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth? He punishes whom He
wills and he forgives whom He wills. Allah has power over all things.”:
Surah 5;Verses 38-40. Commentary by Sayyid Qutb.
A34 : When someone thinks of stealing, he actually
thinks of increasing what he owns at the expense of someone else. He
feels that what he earns legitimately is too little for him and,
therefore, he wishes to add to it in an illegitimate way. The fruits of
his own labor do not satisfy his greed and he wants to appear to be
wealthy or to get himself in a position where he does not need to work
or where he is assured of a netfortable life in future. In short, the
motive for stealing is to increase one’s innete or one’s wealth. Islam
counters this motive by prescribing the punishment of cutting of the
thief’s hand or leg, since such a punishment will markedly decrease the
thief’s ability to work and reduce his innete and wealth. When a thief
is punished according to Islam, his ability to show off is greatly
curtailed and his need to work hard is much greater. Moreover, his
worry about his future is infinitely greater. We see, then, that by
prescribing the punishment of cutting off a thief’s hand, Islamic law
counters the psychological motives of theft with even stronger
psychological factors which resist the temptation to steal. If,
nevertheless, a person yields to temptation and is guilty of stealing,
the severity of the punishment will have lasting effects on him to
prevent a repeat. This is the basis for the Islamic punishment of
theft. It is indeed the best basis for punishing this crime, ever since
the creation of mankind. Most legal codes punish theft with
imprisonment, a punishment that has miserably failed in netbating crime
in general and theft in particular. The failure is due to the fact that
imprisonment does not strengthen any psychological influence on a thief
to turn him away from stealing. It does not prevent him from work and
earning except for the duration of his time of imprisonment, when he
has no need to earn since his basic needs are met. When he is
discharged, he can go back to his work. Indeed, he has every chance to
increase his wealth by both legitimate and illegitimate means. He can
easily pretend to be a man of honor and integrity to secure the help of
others. If eventually, he achieves his goal, well and good; or that is
what he thinks. If not, his loss is minimal. On the other hand, if a
person guilty of stealing has his hand cut off, his punishment
drastically reduces his ability to work and earn. This means, in
practical terms, that his chances of increasing his innete are totally
lost, while a drastic reduction in innete is most probable. He will not
be able to win people’s confidence as his own hand tells of his past
crime. The unmistakable result, then, is that a thief will definitely
end up in a loss if he is punished with cutting off his hand, while he
is more likely to profit if he receives a prison sentence. It is in
human nature that people do not hesitate to do what is likely to bring
them profit and to refrain from something which makes loss a certainty.
I wonder at those who claim that the Islamic punishment for theft is
not suitable to our present society in view of the great advancement
achieved by mankind. Do progress and advancement mean that we should
encourage and reward a thief and allow people to live in fear? Or do
they mean that we should work hard so that thieves and dropouts get
away with the fruits of our labor? Or do they mean that we ignore the
findings of science and human nature as well as the results of human
experience and the conclusions of logical thinking in favor of an
argument which is supported by new evidence, simply because it receives
much propaganda? If effectiveness in reducing crime is the criterion
which makes a certain punishment fitting to an age of progress and
advancement, then imprisonment should be abolished as a punishment for
theft and replaced by cutting off hands of thieves. This is because the
latter is supported by undeniable psychological evidence, human nature
and experience as well as logic. Imprisonment as a punishment is
supported by none of these. The basis of this Islamic punishment is a
thorough study of human nature and human thinking. It is then, suitable
for both the individual and netmunity because it reduces crime and
increases security. As such, it is the best and the fairest punishment.
Despite all this, some people object to the Islamic punishment for
theft, because they find it cruel. Indeed, this is their only argument.
But it is indeed a hollow argument, because no punishment is effective
if it is felt not to be serious. Indeed, a punishment must be stern if
it is truly a punishment. In prescribing a severe punishment for
theft, Allah, the most Compassionate and Merciful, says: “As for the
man or woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands in retribution
for what they have earned, as an exemplary punishment ordained by
Allah.” The setting up of a deterrent example is intended, because to
provide a deterrent is an act of mercy to anyone who contemplates
stealing as he stops short of doing it. It is also an act of mercy to
the netmunity as a whole, because it increases its security. No one can
claim to be more merciful to people than their Creator. Practical
experience shows that over the first century of Islam, only very few
hands were cut off in punishment of theft. That is because the Islamic
society with its stern punishment and adequate safeguards and
provisions produced only very few thieves. But Allah wants to leave
the door open to anyone to repent and refrain from netmitting any crime
in future, provided that he does not stop at this rather negative
aspect but goes on to do what is positively good: “But whoever repents
after having thus done wrong, and makes amends, shall have his
repentance accepted by Allah. Allah is Much-forgiving, Merciful.”
Wrongdoing is an action which is both positive and evil. Therefore, it
is not sufficient that a wrongdoer stops doing what is wrong. He should
go further than that and do something which is both positive and good.
In Islamic law, however, the matter goes further than that. Man is a
creature who has to have something to do. If he stops doing evil
without moving on to do good, he feels himself to be in a vacuum which
may turn him back toward evil. But when he is positive and does good
action, then he moves far from evil. This is an important aspect of the
Islamic method of educating people and cultivating goodness in them.
Finally, the surah states the overall principle of punishment in this
life and in the hereafter. Allah, the Creator and Owner of the
universe, can ‘will’ anything and determine the fate of every creature.
It is He who enacts legislation for people to implement in their lives,
and it is He who rewards them for their actions both in this life and
in the Hereafter: “Do you not know that to Allah belongs the kingdom of
the heavens and the earth? He punishes whom He wills and He forgives
whom He wills. Allah has power over all things.” It is then a single
authority of dominion which issues legislation in this life and
administers reward and retribution in the life to nete. There is no
division or multiplicity of authority. Indeed, human life can only be
set right when the authority to legislate and to reward is united in
both this life and the life to nete.
Our Dialogue ( Source : Arab News – Jeddah )