Notis: Det följande är en reproduktion av artiklen "The Punishment for Theft in the Quran".

A reply.

I seek refuge in God from Satan the rejected
In the name of God. Most Gracious, Most Merciful

This is a reply to an article posted on some web sites regarding "What is the punishment for theft in Quran?" by an author known to us, who uses the alias "Joe". He and the web sites he writes for, usually claim to follow the Quran alone.

In his article about the punishment for theft in the Quran, "Joe" wrote;

<<So far, two punishments for theft were proposed as an understanding of aya 5:38. The first understanding says that 5:38 means to cut off the thief's hand. First, the Arabic "aydiyahuma" is the plural of "yad" (hand) used in dual form. Should we then cut off both hands of a thief?>>

Since we do disagree with this understanding, as does the author of this article, we will not discuss it.

<<The second understanding that was proposed for aya 5:38 is to only mark the thief's hand. This understanding runs against the same problems as the first one.>>

Not true.

Here, "Joe" claims that ALL arguments against cutting is also true for marking. Below is the list of problems he mentions for "cutting of the hand" followed by our reflections.

Problem 1 according to "Joe": The Arabic "aydiyahuma" is the plural of "yad" (hand) used in dual form. Should we then cut off both hands of a thief?

** How is that a PROBLEM when comparing cutting with marking? If he is concerned with the EXTENT of the punishment suggested in this verse, he has to be equally concerned when applying this to his own conclusion. Extent and Type are two different things.

Problem 2 according to "Joe": what will benefit the one who lost his/her stolen goods in case s/he would not recover them?

** So what is the conclusion here? Should there be no additional punishment beyond returning the goods? Does a punishment always have to benefit the victim? Why then does God institute fasting for killing someone by mistake? Thus this argument is faulty, non-Quranic, and should be abandoned immediately.

Problem 3 according to "Joe": And what would happen if someone were accused mistakenly or maliciously of theft and his/her hands were cut off?

**How is this example in any way relevant. Is he seriously suggesting that cutting off someone's hand is as serious and irreversible as marking the hand? What about 2:178. This verse allows us to call upon death penalty for certain murders. Is this law wrong because someone might be wrongfully accused?

Problem 4, according to "Joe": What if someone does not have hands and uses only his brain to plan thefts for his/her accomplices?

** What if someone does not have feet. Does this mean that the law to wash the feet for Wudu is wrong? Where is the relevance in this argument? Where is the common sense in this argument?

In support for his distorted opinion of this Quranic commandment, he continues to say <<

<<This is exactly what is applied to thieves in some Muslim rural areas.>>

These areas that he calls Muslim are not Muslim at all in the eyes of God. This shows that he falls under the category of those:

[47:25-26] Surely, those who slide back, after the guidance has been manifested to them, the devil has enticed them and led them on. This is because they said to those who hated what GOD has sent down, "We will obey you in certain matters." GOD fully knows their secret conspiracies.

According to the same logic "Joe" is using here, can he also conclude that circumcision of women is correct, since it is practiced in some rural Muslim communities, and since it is not specifically corrected in the Quran?

God talks to us in the most effective manner, He tells us what IS, that we may know what IS NOT. Using the argument that God never said in the Quran that this practice in the rural Muslim communities is wrong, then it is to be considered correct, is a non-Quranic conclusion. Whatever law we support must enjoy support from the Quranic verses - ALL Quranic verses. God clearly told us that the punishment for theft is to mark the hand. He also teaches us through several other verses in the Quran that an equivalent compensation to a victim is in order. As God says to us, "Equivalence is a life-saving law for you."

<<First, we should then not only mark one hand for each thief but both hands.>>

Wrong. First, the extent of the punishment is not an issue when it comes to applying the law of God. Second, the verse, 5:38 talked about the male thief and the female thief then says cut (mark) their ("aydiyahuma" = hands ).  As noticed, ("aydiyahuma" is the plural of "yad" (hand) used in dual form, for the dual male and female. It may very well indicate one hand for each, which means "aydiyahuma" for both. If you study verse 12:50 for example, the women cut (mark) their (aydiyahunna), which means mark their hands. These women were given a knife which they hold in one hand. They most probably cut one hand before realizing what they did. The expression used for pleural was (aydiyahunna), which means one hand each.

<<Second and besides the same above problems, we have a specific one to this case. With all esthetic surgery advances, someone could manage to steal millions and spend a few thousands to offer himself/herself an esthetic Surgery to hide his/her hands' markings. >>

We are not to worry about what happens after applying God's law. God is in control. Here, "Joe" is overlooking an important aspect in any reasoning we do when it comes to the Quran. The Quran is a gift to the believers, and a means for them to atone for their sins, and be able to return to God. It does not contain laws that are to be imposed or forced upon anyone.

Thus, if a person does not want to abide by God's laws and cheat his/her own souls by 'escaping' the redeeming consequences of their deeds, by refusing to pay their dues, then that is their loss. The laws in the Quran are not there to protect those who refuse to abide by them, they are there to protect the believers by providing them with the means and the guidelines to attain salvation, and the frames explaining the just punishment for different crimes, in times when they are in a position to suggest such punishments.

<<Therefore, "eqta'u aydiyahuma" in the above aya 5:38 might mean to cut off from the thieves' resources and power.>>

To cut off from the thieves' resources and power is a non-humane punishment as the thieves need to feed their families and may have to pay for their crimes. If their resources and power are cut off they become more of a burden on the society. We are not to punish the society, we need to punish the thieves. This suggested understanding is against the spirit of the Quran.

<<Second,…… In either case, punishment does not tall the cutting or marking of hands if it was the case in 5:38. >>

I guess the author of this article has not understood what is marking means. It is no more than a slap on the hand for public embarrassment that keeps the person totally active so that he/she can pay for his/her crime while taking care of his/her family and self. It does not cut off his/her power and resources.

<<Last but not least, sura 12 gives us a good example about how to punish the theft.>>

WRONG. As we will see.

12:70-79,

<<The way I understand the above ayat is this is God's law for theft in application.>>

Wrong understanding. There was no theft involved but the whole incident is described as a scheme. The schemer, (Joseph) in this case was the one in control and he knows that under any circumstances he will not punish his beloved brother for a scheme he planned. Since there was NO theft involved, there was no law of theft being applied.

Even, if seeing 12:70-79 as an application of God's law, then why is "Joe" choosing to disregard the sentence saying: the thief belongs to you

[12:75] "They said, "The punishment, if it is found in his bag, is that the thief belongs to you. We thus punish the guilty."

This is slavery, isn't it, "The thief belongs to you"?. Slavery had been the punishment of the thief in these old communities.

If indeed this is to be seen as guidelines in how to deal with theft, as "Joe" is suggesting, then he should be willing to go all the way with it, not just pick out the parts that suits his own opinion.

<<Joseph and his brothers were submitters and children of Jacob and Abraham's great great-children.>>

Wrong again. Joseph was a submitter, but his brothers to that minute were not. Actually God and Joseph describe them as BAD.

[12:77] "They said, "If he stole, so did a brother of his in the past." Joseph concealed his feelings in himself, and did not give them any clue. He said (to himself), "You are really bad. GOD is fully aware of your accusations."'

<<They were applying God's law then. It is very clear from the above ayat that they were not following the king's law but rather God's law. >>

Wrong again. First they were not applying God's law. God's law is not slavery for theft. Second, Joseph's brothers were not following the King's law because they came form a different region that did not belong to the King. The verse never said they were following God's law but rather say the scheme was well controlled by God's will. These brothers come across the whole sura to that incident as aggressors and disobedient to God, not the ones following God's law.

<<First the presumed thieves were given the chance to come forward, acknowledge their wrongdoing, and then give back what they have stolen and they might even get a reward.>>

"Joe" is suggesting that if a person steals, then steps forward and says "I did it," even though he or she planned to do it this way to receive the reward, there is no punishment but a reward. Where is the logic in that?

The correct and only logical interpretation of the Quranic statement in 12:72, "receives an extra camel-load" is that it is not directed to the thief, but for anyone else who manages to restore the property. Suggesting otherwise is as absurd as suggesting that thieves should be entitled to finders' fees. It is not logical, just, or sensible, which is a good description of Satan's judgment and characteristics.

Also, If we cannot distinguish the difference between a SCHEME and a LAW, how much trust we should have in our intelligence. God would not contradict Himself and rewards the proven thief in one verse then orders the punishment in another. The proven thief has a punishment in 5:38, no reward. Joseph knew that no one will come forward with the cup and no one would get a reward since his brothers never suspected the scheme nor the theft.

<<If they refuse to do so, they must be proven as thieves. Then, what was stolen, if found, should be restituted to their owners.>>

God left a lot for us to do with our civil law regulation. God's punishment is spelled out in 5:38. What to do after that is up to us. Each community can make its own civil laws.

<<Thieves should work to repay the fees involved in the whole process. They should also work to repay what was stolen in case they do not give it or the whole of it back.>>

That is part of what a certain community can set as a civil law but God's punishment for the thief is spelled out in 5:38.

<<These ayat give us also an example of someone who was set up for theft for a good reason of course. But, what would happen to someone who was set up maliciously and has to face marking or cutting of his or her both hands?>>

Simple answer. 5:38 does not talk about suspected thief but a proven thief. How about a thief who has his/her power and resources cut off from him/her after he/she was set up maliciously ?

<<Had Joseph known that God's punishment for theft is marking or cutting hands (which his brothers would have apply), he would not scheme that way in order to keep his brother with him.>>

Wrong again. Joseph was very sure that his brother is NOT a thief and that his brothers were bad, not following God's law. Both combinations gave him assurance to go ahead with the scheme. He can always stop the punishment since he is the one who knows the truth.

<<The cutting or marking hands as a punishment of thieves run into contradictions within Quran.>>

This is true for the cutting of the hands and cutting off the resources and power of the thief, not for the markings.

<<However, meaning of "cutting hands" in 5:38 as cutting from the thieves' resources and power, the case of murder's punishment in Quran, and the example of God's law in application in 12:70-79 are the three arguments, put forward in this article, to propose the third and closest to Quran's spirit punishment for theft.>>

Cutting off resources and power is more cruel punishment than the social embarrassment of the markings of the hands that keep all the resources and power available to that human being. It contradicts the spirit of the Quran that tries to save the resources and power to all parties involved including the person committing the crime so as to stay active serving his/her family, pay his/her debts and serve the society.

ALL the conclusions of "Joe" from 5:38 and 12:70-79 is built on wrong understanding of the verses, the scheme mentioned in the verses and the status of Joseph's brothers as explained above.

In conclusion :the markings of the hand is the closest to the spirit of the Quran that preserves the resources and power to the individual to stay active in his/her society and serve his/her family at the same time.

See also:

Appendix 37 of the Authorized English Translation of the Quran by Dr. R. Khalifa. Click Here
(eller på svenska Appendix 37 av Dr. Khalifas Auktoriserade Engelska Översättningen av Koranen)

Praise be to God.