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.
First Clue: Repentance
Verse 5:39 gives us context clues about the correct meaning. Here is what 5:39 says:
- [5:39] But whoever repented after his wrongdoing, and reformed, then indeed God has accepted repentance from him. Indeed, God is Forgiving, Merciful.
This verse says that whoever has repented after his wrongdoing and reformed, then his repentance has been accepted from him.
So what does God’s acceptance of the thief’s repentance tell us about the correct Quranic punishment?
We learn from other Quranic passages that repentance comes after one completes a Quranic punishment.
That is, for anything with a set punishment or penalty, only when it is done and the person is no longer punished will they be fully absolved of what they did because their repentance has been accepted.
As we know, the chopping of the hands (not one, but two) is a permanent punishment on the thief until the day he dies, since no human can function without both of their hands. It can even cause early death due to gangrene or extreme blood loss from both hands.
Let’s examine the evidence for this. In verse 4:16, unlawful homosexual intercourse for believing men is given the standard punishment (100 lashes), and only after the punishment is over is the repentance accepted.
- [4:16] And the two among you who come with it, you shall thus punish both of them. Then (after the punishment) if they repented and reformed, you shall thus avert from them. Indeed, God has been Acceptor of Repentance, Merciful.
The penalty for killing an innocent believer by mistake is to do a few things “as a repentance from God”. In other words, the punishment serves as the means of repentance, after which the person’s repentance gets accepted by God. This means repentance comes after the punishment.
- [4:92] And it has not been for a believer that he kills a believer, except in error. But whoever killed a believer in error, then the freeing of a believing neck, and blood money is that which is submitted to his family, unless it is that they remit as charity…But whoever does not find, then the fasting of two consecutive months as a repentance from God; God has been Knowledgeable, Wise.
So the Quran provides multiple examples indicating that repentance occurs after a punishment is completed. If the punishment is not complete, the person’s repentance will not be accepted. The issue with severing the hands is that this is a punishment that will never be completed, it is a lifelong punishment which will be ongoing until death.
God in verse 5:39 says the repentance of the thief will be accepted if he repented and reformed, thus indicating that the punishment will have already been completed by the time the thief repented.
Thus, the correct interpretation of verse 5:38 is to make a cut on both hands rather than cut off the hands.
Severing Hands Contradicts Quran’s Capital Punishment Rules
Chopping off the thief’s two hands is a contradiction of the Quran’s capital punishment rules.
The death penalty is reserved for murderers, not thieves. Yet, one can easily get gangrene or bleed to death from even one chopped hand, let alone two chopped hands.
Or if they survive but don’t have anyone to support them, they could die from inability to function or do activities of daily living.
The Quran’s general principle is life for a life, and equitable punishments. A de facto death sentence or lifelong handicap for the thief thus contradicts the Quran’s ideal of fair and reciprocal retribution for wrongdoings done against other people.
The Quran says in verse 5:33 that cutting off hands (or being executed, or crucified, or exiled, depending on what they did or tried to do to the messenger, since the chosen punishment has to be reciprocal) is only deserved by criminals who do FAR worse crimes than theft, such as waging was against God’s messenger and cause severe corruption.
If the Quran’s punishments are proportional to the crime, then how is petty theft in any way similar to the crime of trying to kill and fight a messenger of God (for which cutting off the hands is a punishment option)?
[5:45] And We decreed upon them therein (in the Torah): the self for the self, the eye for the eye, the nose for the nose, the ear for the ear, the tooth for the tooth, and retribution of the wounds. But whoever (whether the victim or the victim’s nearest kin) gives charity thereby (to the perpetrator), then it is expiation for him…
[2:178] O you who believed, retribution has been decreed upon you concerning the murdered: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever has been pardoned for it from his brother, in anything, then the following-up with the recognized, and a remuneration of good (blood money and other acts of compensation) to him (the victim’s nearest kin). That is an alleviation from your Lord…
[5:33] The only recompense of the ones who war against God and His messenger, and strive for corruption in the earth, is that they be killed or crucified, or their hands and feet may be cut from different sides, or they be exiled from the land…
As a side note, verse 5:33 says this punishment doesn’t apply if the perpetrator repents before being overpowered.
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 Quranic context.
Leave a Reply