Stealing

"As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands : a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime", [The Table Spread : 38].

It is this verse which has prompted many critics to say, with their pens dipped in the gall, that Islam is a religion of "Stone-Age primitivism," claiming that it resists progress and development, and that it is incapable of keeping pace with the human society in "humanizing" its legislation. Some critics even went as far as to characterize Islam as a "barbaric" religion.

We would like to begin our commentary by clarifying the following point : the cutting of the hand is contingent upon the fulfillment of a number of conditions; they are :

- The thief must be in full possession of his mental faculties and of legal age;

- The thief must steal the property belonging to someone else, and in which he owns no share;

- The thief must steal the stolen property from a place where it is safely kept;

- The stealing must not be prompted by dire need, such as stinging hunger.

For many centuries, the West had inflicted severe, indeed barbaric, punishments on many hordes of criminals; of such punishments we will mention, by way of example only, one known as the "wheel" which consisted of cutting off the prisoner's limbs and breaking his bones alive while he was screaming from pain. He would breathe his last only when he was a chunk of flesh kneaded with bones and blood.

Another form of punishment consisted of burning the convict alive. They would bind him to a stake, and then they would set fire to a pile of wood and hay that had been put under and around him. The flames would then melt his body like fat on fire. That was the destiny of Joan of Arc in France, Savonarola in Italy, and Bruno in Spain.

Capital punishment is still in use in many European and American countries. Opinion polls have confirmed that the French would like to see capital punishment back in their country. That would also be the case in other Western countries.

As for Inquisition Courts, especially in Spain, France and Italy, which were made up of men of religion and whose measures and provisions emanated from religion, there is a great deal to be said about them on the issue of torture and injustice which spring from fanaticism and intolerance, such as burning people alive, dismembering them, and breaking their bones while they howled from pain.

Before tackling the issue of cutting off the hand, let us first review briefly Islam's initial position concerning crime and punishment.

When the Quran was revealed in 7th century A.D., the world was generally speaking very different from what it is like today in terms of  its laws on crime and punishment.

If we go back to Roman law, the source from which the most advanced European countries had drawn their legislation, we will find out that it had adopted class discrimination, dividing people into two classes : "Patricians" and "Plebeians", in addition to the class of slaves who had no rights whatso-ever. The Patricians enjoyed rights which were denied to the Plebeians.

As for penal law, there was no equality between the Patricians and the Plebeians. If, for example, a Patrician attacked a virgin, his punishment was the confiscation of half his wealth; but if a Plebeian assaulted her, he was whipped and exiled.

Likewise, the punishment for murder differed according to the perpetrator. If he was a Patrician, he was exiled; if he was a Plebeian, he was decapitated with a sword, and if he was from the lowest social class, he was crucified first, then hanged.

That was the case in France before 1789 Revolution which, as we all know, had adopted the slogan of : Liberty - Equality - Fraternity.

The word "Equality" here is clear evidence that ancient law, prior to the revolution, had acknowledged and practised class discrimination which is the opposite of "Equality".

Parliament, whose prerogatives were very limited, was made up of three groups, each of which was a council in its own right. There were the Nobles, the Clergy, and the Third Estate. When the three  groups met in one council, it was called "General Parliament".

Furthermore, not all the people took part in electing the members of the councils; the right to vote was limited to some groups, to the exclusion of others.

The equality which Islam established and acknowledged in the 7th century was not known to the most advanced countries until the end of 18th century and early 19th century beginning from the French Revolution which spread to other peoples and nations.

At the dawn of Islam and when the Prophet set out to spread the message which Allah had revealed to him, the Arabs of Arabia were living in Jahilia (pre-Islamic paganism). If someone committed murder, he was killed. If the tribe of which the victim was a member was a powerful one, and if the victim was one of its leaders or a very powerful member, the tribe would not kill the murderer if he was a commoner; as was customary in those days,  it would kill the tribe member who held the same social status as the slain, or kill the murderer and anyone else it wished to slay along with the perpetrator, to quench its thirst for vengeance and to exercise what it considered its right.

That was how innocent people paid the price with their own lives while the criminals escaped unscathed sometimes, if not all the time. It is clear that such measures were not quite in tune with the principles of equality and justice.

When Islam came, it brought along a new law concerning murder, prescribing the following : "O ye who believe! The law of Equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder : the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude. This is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this, whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. In the Law of equality there is (saving of) life to ye , O men of understanding; that ye may restrain yourselves", [The Cow : 178-179].

Islam has left it up to the family of the slain to pardon the murderer, if they so wish, in which case the blood money is on the murderer who pays it to the family of the slain, and the case is closed.

We notice that Islam does not seek to nurture in the heart of the relative of the slain a feeling of hatred and vengeance, nor does it nourish in him the urge for revenge; on the contrary, Islam exhorts him to pardon and forgive, albeit indirectly.

The most beautiful thing about those two verses is the reference to the forgiver as a "brother", a reminder of the humane brotherhood which prompted him to pardon the murderer, who is originally his "brother" because both the murderer and the relative of the slain belong to the large human family.

Regarding the words "This is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord", they mean that Islam is a religion of mercy before it is one of vengeance and rancor. Pardon seeks to lighten the murderer's burden and tries to save him from punishment by paying blood money to the family of the slain. It is also a mercy for the slain's relative who has pardoned the murderer, thus extinguishing in his own heart the fire of vengeance and rancor and rekindling within him the glow of the great happiness which Allah has bestowed upon the most righteous of his people.

Of all the religious laws, Sharia is the only law that prescribes treatment in kind, and then urges the offended person to forgive his offender : "The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree)", [Counsel : 40]. However, this principle is not absolutely unavoidable, for not abiding by it is dearer to Allah : "But if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah", [Counsel : 40].

The purpose of Qasas (retaliation, or punishment) in Islam is not to punish the criminal as much as it is to discourage him from committing a crime and to thwart his resolve, warning him that if he kills someone, he will be punished for it. Therefore, Qasas is saving life, because if a person knows that he will be killed if he murders someone, he will not kill. In this way the individual who harbors the intention of killing someone will be saving his own life - because there will be no retaliation against him - and that of the person he intends to murder.

Let us now turn to the crime of stealing and the cutting off of the hand about which we have quoted a verse from the Quran above. The cutting off of the hand is no doubt a severe punishment, or so it seems at first glance.

But are not most, if not all, punishments severe, if we take into consideration the fact that this world of ours which we call "civilized" is always trying to "humanize" punishments and to make them less and less painful for the convicts ? Forced labor is done away with, generally speaking, and capital punishment is on its way to abolition. Prison is all that is left. Reformers and those who try to "humanize" punishment are competing among themselves to make prison a "comfy" place for prisoners. Thus in their view a criminal who is doing time because he has killed children after torturing and raping them, held hostages and killed them, robbed banks and attacked institutions - shooting their employees dead with a machine gun and explosives - this criminal deserves the sympathy and affection of society represented by the government. Therefore, he should be allowed to live surrounded with care and attention.

This tendency to treat prisoners as if they are the victims, not the butchers, and this competition to grant them attenuating circumstances - which often results in making their sentences lighter and not always commensurate with the nature of the crime they have committed - have, with time, led to a kind of general laxity. This situation has encouraged criminals to go too far in their crimes, because they know beforehand that all the authorities are inclined to feel sympathetic towards the murderer - not the victim and his relatives, towards the thief - not his prey,  and towards the felon - not his casualty.

This explains the increase in the number of all sorts of thefts in most countries which have adopted the systems known as "Liberalism - Democracy".

Statistics have shown that La Côte D'Azur in the south of France has become an open theater for stealing : stealing cars parked in front of the houses, breaking into homes and even churches and stealing money, antiques, jewelry, and paintings, after climbing up walls and pulling out doors, in spite of all the security measures taken by the owners to protect their valuables.

This license to steal and this persistence in it has a great deal to do with the fact that the thieves and their accomplices commit their crimes and get away with it, because the authorities are usually unable to arrest them. When they are arrested, they receive "humanized" punishments that take into consideration the thieves' own circumstances more than they do those of the victims whose houses have been burglarized and whose possessions and money, which they spent their whole lives saving, have been stolen from them.

Therefore, it is no surprise that these societies, which are pursuing a path that will eventually and inevitably lead to "arresting the victim and allowing the criminal to be free", should speak vociferously against the punishment of the cutting off of the hand, condemning and denouncing it, and raising Cain about it. These societies, which accuse Islam of being a fossilized and backward religion, branding it as "primitive and barbaric" - not knowing that by adopting this attitude they are actually realizing the wishes of the enemies of Islam whose names need not be mentioned here because they are well-known to everyone - are actually digging their own graves through indirectly encouraging crime and criminals, especially theft and thieves. 

It is our duty to face the subject of cutting off the hands of thieves calmly and gently, so that we can objectively express an impartial opinion about it.

We must remember that the implementation of this punishment is contingent upon conditions mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. Regardless of everything that has been said earlier, experience has proved that imprisonment, which positive law has established, has not yielded any deterrent effects. The number of thefts is increasing in kind and volume. Serious thefts, such as armed robbery and hold-ups  are not only very common, they are carried out in highly sophisticated ways that have completely baffled those who are responsible for people's money and possessions.

In this case, society must choose between two positions :

- the "humanized" position which is supported by the advocates of "progressist-liberal-democratic civilizations" as they themselves call it and which stipulates that thieves be imprisoned. This position has failed, for it has proved its inability to curb the spread of this social ill.

- The "extreme" and severe position which prescribes the cutting off of a thief's hand in accordance with the conditions stated above.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for example, which applies Sharia, has managed to extirpate this evil through a few cases in which the hands of thieves were cut off; these sentences were enough to deter thieves from stealing.

If we draw a comparison between the situation in Saudi Arabia before and after the application of Sharia, we will realize the big difference : the country has moved from a jungle-like situation to a safe haven on earth.

As a price for this rare and exceptional security, the Kingdom has had to apply the cutting off of the hand in a few theft cases. The amputated hands were those of criminals and felons who had appropriated other people's money and possessions. They had thus received the punishment they deserved, and which was - still is - a deterrent to them and to the Saudi society of ten million people who have adopted the morals and values of the Holy Quran, and those of the Prophet and his virtuous companions.

It is a commonly held view that in the area of thefts and burglary, the United States of America gains the day. In some boroughs of New York and Chicago, for example, a person would not dare to walk around at night, because if he did, he would not return home on his feet; and if he did, it would be only after he had been cleaned out, battered, injured and humiliated.

The hands which plunder those boroughs, and for which stealing and robbery are as natural as going for a walk to breath some fresh air, are foul, dirty and criminal hands. They are a disgrace to humanity. Those are not the hands of Picasso, Dali, Miro and the likes of such great painters; nor are they the hands of Abdul-Wahhab, the Rahbanis, Um-Kalthum, Fairuz and other such famed composers and singers; or the hands of Father Piyar, Mother Teresa; or those of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent workers.

Had America sacrificed ten of those criminal hands that pillage the boroughs of its big cities, she would have saved the whole society, if not the whole country, the number of whose inhabitants exceeds 200 million people, who long for a life of peace and security and who want to keep their property and possessions in a secure place.

Positive law, which the world has adopted to punish thieves and to curb stealing, has failed miserably. In contradistinction, the application of Sharia which prescribes that, if the conditions are met, a thief's hand must be cut off, has yielded very positive results in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for example, wherein justice is taking its course in a way that seeks to strike a balance between mercy and the conscience that is responsible for public safety and people's possessions and rights.

In the New Testament, Christ - peace be upon him - said to the apostles and to the followers one day : "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell", [Matthew 5 : 30].

Would it not be better for the human society to have the hands of a few of its members cut off - the hands that sin and do evil - rather than have the whole society go to ruin ?

These words which were uttered by the Messenger of mercy and forgiveness can prompt us to reflect on and ponder over the Quranic verse which Allah has revealed regarding the issue of cutting off the hand of a thief. If we go back to the spirit of Islam, we will realize that the punishment of cutting off a hand is in fact a "palliation" from Allah and a "mercy", especially if we remember that Verse 179 of the chapter "The Cow", quoted above, proclaims the following wisdom : "In the law of Equality there is (saving of) life to you, O ye men of understanding; that ye may restrain yourselves".

This means that cutting off the hands of thieves will put an end to stealing or at least reduce it to a great extent, because very few people will venture to steal while the large majority of them will not commit such an odious crime. They will live in peace and security under Sharia which emanates from Allah - the Great and Almighty - not from the mortal humans who act according to interests and objectives that are, most of the time, alien to the general welfare.