Salaamun alaykum, dear readers!
It has been long-established doctrine that in Islam, both hands of the thief are chopped off.
However, upon closer examination of the related Quranic passage that is used to deliver this punishment to convicted thieves in some Muslim-majority countries, it may be that chopping the hands of the thief is really a tragic misinterpretation of the Quran.
What Does Verse 5:38 Mean?
Let’s examine the relevant Quranic passage, but it is important to be reminded that even if the correct punishment for theft is to have a hand chopped off, the Quran forbids compulsion in the religion of Islam (2:256). Therefore, no matter how light or injurious a Quranic punishment may be, it has to be done with the full consent of the ones found guilty.
- [5:38] And the male thief, and the female thief, you shall thus “iqta’u” their hands as a requital, regarding what they have earned, and as an exemplary punishment from God; God is Dignified, Wise.
The word in contention here is the word “iqta’u”.
Traditionally, Muslims interpret this word as “cut off/sever/amputate”. This is a valid interpretation in the Quran. The word used for cut (qata’) in Arabic is used to clearly mean sever in instances such as verse 2:27 when God condemns those who break His covenant and sever what God commanded to be joined thereby. It is used for physical severing such as when Pharaoh cut off the hands and feet of his dissidents.
However, it has also been used to mean a simple cut on their hands from a knife, also known as a laceration.
In verses 12:31 and 12:50, the verb “qata’a” (from which the command form “iqta’u” is derived) is what the women in the story of Joseph accidentally did immediately after they saw Joseph at the banquet, while they were holding knives.
[12:31] So when she heard of their plotting, she sent for them and prepared for them a banquet. And she then gave each one of them a knife and said, “Exit before them.” So when they saw him, they extolled him and cut (qatta’) their hands. They said, “The perfection of God, this is not a human! This is not but a noble angel!”
[12:50] The king said, “Come to me with him.” Then when the messenger came to him, he said, “Return to your lord and ask him what is the case of the women who cut (qatta’) their hands. Indeed, My Lord is Knowledgeable of their scheme.”
So you can see that they accidentally cut themselves with their knives upon seeing Joseph (non-severe laceration), as opposed to chopping off their hand (amputation).
Therefore, when there are two conflicting definitions, we have to use context clues to resolve the dispute and see which is the correct meaning (if it means amputation or laceration), just like with any multiple-meaning word.
Let’s take a look at this sentence, “He is beating around the bush.” What does that mean? There are a range of possible meanings to this sentence.
- Does it mean he is beating the ground around the bush?
- Does it mean he is winning a race against someone around a bush?
- Does it mean he is beating a drum around a bush?
- Does it mean he is beating up someone around a bush?
- Or is this an idiom for not being straightforward?
This is why context matters when looking for the correct meaning. It would be wrong for anyone to simply assume without evidence that “iqta’u” in 5:38 means to sever both hands of the thief rather than make a superficial laceration on both hands.
Amputation Contradicts Proportionality
Let’s say you have two different crimes: mass murder, and trespassing. Let’s say the judge gives the death penalty or life in prison as a sentence for mass murder. Should the judge sentence a person to life in prison or give the death penalty for trespassing? No, because these crimes are not similar. Trespassing is less severe than murder, hence it deserves a less harsh punishment.
The Quran states in many verses that God is not unfair or unjust to anyone by even an ant’s weight. That means all punishments prescribed by God in the Quran are proportional in relation to the crime. If one crime is far less worse than the other crime, then the Quran gives it a less harsh punishment compared to the more serious crime.
In verse 5:33, the punishment for waging war against the messenger and causing corruption in the land is either: death penalty, or amputation of the hands and feet, or exile, or crucifixion, except if the person repents to God before being overpowered.
- [5:33-34] The penalty for those who wage war against God and His messenger and spread corruption in the land is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter, they shall have a great punishment. Except those who repent before you overpower them, then you should know that God is Forgiver, Merciful.
When a person states that amputation of the hand is the correct punishment for stealing, they are claiming that stealing an apple from the grocery store is just as severe as waging war against prophet Muhammad, and that both crimes deserve a similar punishment. This is of course, not true. Proportionality dictates that crimes with different levels of severity are given different punishments.
Hence, the correct punishment of theft is not cutting off the hand, but making a cut on the hand.
Quranic Criminal Justice
So the actual Quranic punishment here is just to make a single cut on each hand of the thief, along with of course returning the stolen property to its rightful owner and/or adequate financial compensation for damages (an eye for an eye, according to verse 5:45).
That’s it, no prison needed. Just a non-severe laceration on both palms is enough, like how someone would accidentally cut their hands with a sharp knife like the women did in verse 12:31.
And there are many benefits to this form of punishment rather than prisons for theft or maybe a lot of other crimes too. The first is that the thief will be forced to either give back the stolen item, or pay for damages if it is damaged and/or lost rather than going back to prison.
- If the thief is poor or cannot afford to pay for any damage he did to the stolen property, he will either have to sell property of his own or be made to find work somewhere to pay damages, rather than staying in a prison receiving free food, shelter, and medical care.
- The thief will be closely monitored until he fully pays back damages (if he damaged the property after he stole it).
The second benefit is that repeat offenders will be recognized by scars left from repeated cuts on both of their hands, which will be a cause of social shame and stigma for repeat offenders. We are social creatures, so this may cause a strong social incentive to not reoffend.
The third benefit is that the idea of experiencing pain from repeated palm lacerations on both hands might prevent thieves from continuing to reoffend.
Conclusion
The correct punishment for theft in the Quran is to make a superficial cut or laceration on both hands, rather than cut off both hands.
Unfortunately, instead of using logic and reason, we Muslims let unauthorized sources of Islamic law (Hadith) dictate how we interpret the Quran.
Such hadith could be authentic, or could be fabricated, but let us assume for argument’s sake that the Hadiths about Muhammad interpreting the punishment as chopping the hands off is 100% authentic.
- The prophet is human (verse 18:110 and others), so he can make mistakes in his understanding of the Quran like any other human, some of which were documented in the Quran itself.
- So, it should not be seen as unusual if he incorrectly believed that the Quran’s punishment is to chop both hands off rather than make a simple cut on both hands.
It’s easy even from a Quran-alone perspective to mistakenly believe 5:38 says to sever the thief’s hands when not taking into consideration which of multiple interpretations of the word “iqta’u” make the most sense given the broader Quranic context.
Leave a Reply