> Cut off the hand of the thief... (5:38)

[Qatada]

Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allâh. And Allâh is All*Powerful, All*Wise.

But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allâh), then verily, Allâh will pardon him (accept his repentance). Verily, Allâh is Oft*Forgiving, Most Merciful.


(Qur'an Al Ma'ida 5:38)



A couple of points to note on the punishment of amputation for theft:

a-the punishment will not be applied if there is any doubt as to the guilt of the suspect

b-the punishment will not be applied if the value of the stolen goods is below something of great value -> determined by 'urf [customs of society]

c-the punishment will not be applied if the thief stole out of need/poverty

d-the punishment will not be applied if the goods weren't in proper storage (al-hirz) -> also determined by 'urf (customs of society)

e-the punishment will not be applied if the thief returns the goods and seeks forgiveness of the victim of the theft, before the case enters the judicial system

f-the punishment will not be applied if the culprit is not a sane adult and the crime was not committed under duress

g-the punishment will not be applied if the goods were not legally owned

h-the punishment will not be applied if it is a child stealing from parents or parents stealing from children or one spuse from another according to the opinion of all jurists except Imam Malik.

i-the punishment will not be applied if the person is permitted to enter the place from where he stole because in such a case there is no proper custody (al-hirz)

j-according to Imam Abu Hanifa the punishment is not applied to the non-muslim living in the muslim state, however Imam Shafi', Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal have said that it is.

If the theft passes these restrictions, then it recieves the hadd punishment of hand amputation. Any theft that does not meet these restrictions recieves ta'azir (discretionary punishment). In such cases the Islamic society would most likely follow case/common law by rule of precedent where like cases are treated alike.



Coming to the scenario where amputation is applied in theft, it is interesting to note the effect this has on society. I'd like to quote some parts of a discussion at a conference of the Saudi scholars:

At this point Dr. Dawalbi made a comment:

"I have been in this country for seven years", he said, "and I never saw of heard of, any amputation of the hand for stealing. This is because the crime is extremely rare. So, all that remains of that punishment is its harshness, which has made it possible for those who are tempted to steal, to keep their hands whole. Formerly, when these regions were ruled by the french-inspired Penal Code, under the Ottoman Empire, pilgrims travelling between the two Holy Cities - Mecca and Medina, could not feel secure for their purse or their life, unless they had a strong escort.

But when this country became the Saudi Kingdom, the Qur'anic Law was enforced, crime immediately disappeared. A traveller, then, could journey, not only between the Holy Cities, but even from Al-Dahran on the Gulf to Jeddah on the Red Sea, and traverse a distance of more than one thousand and five hundred kilometres across the desert all alone in his private car, without harbouring any fear or worry about his life or property, be it worth millions of dollars, and he be a complete foreigner."

The Saudi Delegation resumed:

"In this manner, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where Islamic law is enforced, state money is transferred from one town to another, from one bank to another, in an ordinary car, without any escort or protection, but the car driver.

Tell me, Gentlemen: in any of your Western States, would you be ready to transfer money from one bank to another, in any of your capitals without the protection of a strong police force and the necessary number of armoured cars?

...Only here, Gentlemen, in this country where Islamic Law is enforced, the American Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. William Rogers, during his visit last year, could, he and his suit, dispense with the armoured cars, which had been carried in by special planes, and which accompanied them in their tour of more than ten countries. Only here, Gentlemen, did the Government of the Kingdom not allow its visitors to go around in these cars. Eventually, Mr. Rogers spontaneously declined the guard of honour usually placed by the Government at the disposal of their foreign guests; he walked through the soulks by himself, and confessed that, in this Kingdom, and in this Kingdom alone, one had such a feeling of security that one had no more need of a guard.

...Stealing is almost unknown in our Kingdom, when people, in the great Capitals of Western countries under secular regimes, have no more security for their lives of their possessions.

(Doi, Shari'ah: The Islamic Law, Ta Ha Publishers 1984, pp. 260-261)

Personally, I know many people who have lived for ten or twenty years in Saudi Arabia and they have testified that they have never come across such a case of amputation for theft. When you implement such a balanced code, theft becomes un heard of.



I want you to look at this UN survey of burglaries between 1998-2000*. Tell me who is at the bottom of the list? Who is at the top?

*http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur



1. United States 2,099,700 burglaries (1999)
2. United Kingdom 836,027 burglaries (2000)
.
.
.
54. Saudi Arabia 11 (2000)!!!!


Which law is more successful?


These are concrete statistics here. There is no doubt when the UN conducts a survey and the country implementing Islamic law has the fewest burglaries, it demonstrates which is the most successful law in this regard.