Why Is Theft Punished by Amputation (Q 5:38) in a Supposedly Just Religion?
Islamic law famously prescribes amputation of the hand for theft, based on a clear Qur’anic command:
Qur’an 5:38 — “[As to] the thief, male or female, cut off their hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in Power.”
This harsh penalty raises serious moral and ethical concerns. Is permanent mutilation a just response to theft, especially in light of modern standards of justice and rehabilitation? How can such a punishment be reconciled with the Qur’an’s frequent references to Allah as “Most Merciful” and “Oft-Forgiving”?
1. Literal and Uncompromising: Classical Tafsir Consensus
Most classical scholars agree this verse is to be taken literally. According to:
Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q 5:38 is applied to theft of items over a specific value.
Ibn Kathir affirms that both male and female thieves must have their right hands amputated.
Al-Qurtubi goes further, detailing procedures and tools used for amputation.
There is no metaphorical or symbolic interpretation in the mainstream classical tafsir. This makes Q 5:38 one of the most unequivocally violent punishments in the Qur’an.
2. Conditions and Exceptions Do Not Diminish the Severity
Some argue that Islamic jurisprudence imposes strict conditions before amputation is carried out:
The stolen item must exceed a certain value.
The theft must be deliberate and from a secure location.
There must be clear evidence or confession.
While these qualifications limit the application, they do not soften the brutality of the punishment. Once the conditions are met, the sentence is irreversible. No consideration is made for mitigating factors like poverty, desperation, or mental illness.
3. Disproportionate and Irreversible
In modern justice systems, the idea of proportional punishment is a cornerstone of law. Theft is typically punished with fines, imprisonment, or restitution. Amputation, on the other hand:
Irreversibly maims a human being.
Does not allow for rehabilitation.
Removes any opportunity for forgiveness, compensation, or second chances.
This raises the question: Is justice served by causing permanent harm for a non-violent crime?
4. Inconsistent with the Qur’an’s Own Ethical Claims
The Qur’an repeatedly emphasizes Allah’s mercy and compassion:
“My mercy encompasses all things” (Q 7:156)
“Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (Q 39:53)
So why is theft—often driven by poverty or desperation—met with permanent physical punishment rather than rehabilitation or restorative justice? The lack of nuance contradicts these broader ethical claims.
5. Abrogation, Disuse, or Reform?
Some modern Islamic thinkers argue that this law is either abrogated, historically contextual, or no longer applicable due to changes in society. Yet most Sunni schools of jurisprudence still regard it as valid hudud (fixed punishment) law.
Indeed, countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran have implemented this law in recent history, often without full due process or fair trials.
6. A Legal System Built on Fear, Not Justice
The Quran frames this punishment as a deterrent: “a punishment by way of example.” But deterrence-based justice is inherently utilitarian and fear-driven, not moral or rehabilitative.
Moreover, the verse does not call for repentance or reform, only retribution. This undermines any notion of divine justice based on compassion, fairness, or human dignity.
Conclusion: A Just Religion or a Brutal Legal Code?
The command to amputate thieves' hands (Q 5:38) presents a fundamental challenge to the claim that Islam is a just and merciful religion. The punishment is:
Disproportionate to the crime.
Irreversible and brutal.
Contradictory to Qur’anic claims of mercy and forgiveness.
If divine justice demands compassion, proportionality, and the possibility of redemption, then the amputation law in Q 5:38 appears more like pre-modern cruelty than timeless divine wisdom.
This raises a deeper question: Can a moral and eternal God prescribe such a law—and still be called just?
No comments:
Post a Comment