5:38 Al-Maaida (The Table)

السارق: هو من أخذ مال غيره المحترم خفية، بغير رضاه. وهو من كبائر الذنوب الموجبة لترتب العقوبة الشنيعة، وهو قطع اليد اليمنى، كما هو في قراءة بعض الصحابة. وحد اليد عند الإطلاق من الكوع، فإذا سرق قطعت يده من الكوع، وحسمت في زيت لتنسد العروق فيقف الدم، ولكن السنة قيدت عموم هذه الآية من عدة أوجه: منها: الحرز، فإنه لابد أن تكون السرقة من حرز، وحرز كل مال: ما يحفظ به عادة. فلو سرق من غير حرز فلا قطع عليه. ومنها: أنه لابد أن يكون المسروق نصابا، وهو ربع دينار، أو ثلاثة دراهم، أو ما يساوي أحدهما، فلو سرق دون ذلك فلا قطع عليه. ولعل هذا يؤخذ من لفظ السرقة ومعناها، فإن لفظ \"السرقة\" أخذ الشيء على وجه لا يمكن الاحتراز منه، وذلك أن يكون المال محرزا، فلو كان غير محرز لم يكن ذلك سرقة شرعية. ومن الحكمة أيضا أن لا تقطع اليد في الشيء النزر التافه، فلما كان لابد من التقدير، كان التقدير الشرعي مخصصا للكتاب. والحكمة في قطع اليد في السرقة، أن ذلك حفظ للأموال، واحتياط لها، وليقطع العضو الذي صدرت منه الجناية، فإن عاد السارق قطعت رجله اليسرى، فإن عاد، فقيل: تقطع يده اليسرى، ثم رجله اليمنى، وقيل: يحبس حتى يموت. وقوله: { جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا } أي: ذلك القطع جزاء للسارق بما سرقه من أموال الناس. { نَكَالًا مِّنَ اللَّهِ } أي: تنكيلا وترهيبا للسارق ولغيره، ليرتدع السراق -إذا علموا- أنهم سيقطعون إذا سرقوا. { وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ } أي: عَزَّ وحكم فقطع السارق.

يقول تعالى حاكما وآمرا بقطع يد السارق والسارقة وروى الثوري عن جابر بن يزيد الجعفي عن عامر بن شراحيل الشعبي أن ابن مسعود كان يقرؤها" والسارق والسارقة فاقطعوا أيمانهما " وهذه قراءة شاذة وإن كان الحكم عند جميع العلماء موافقا لها لا بها بل هو مستفاد من دليل آخر وقد كان القطع معمولا به في الجاهلية فقرر في الإسلام وزيدت شروط أخر كما سنذكره إن شاء الله تعالى كما كانت القسامة والدية والقراض وغير ذلك من الأشياء التي ورد الشرع بتقريرها على ما كانت عليه وزيادات هي من تمام المصالح ويقال: إن أول من قطع الأيدي في الجاهلية قريش قطعوا رجُلا يقال له دويك مولى لبني مليح بن عمرو من خزاعة كان قد سرق كنز الكعبة ويقال: سرقه قوم فوضعوه عنده وقد ذهب بعض الفقهاء من أهل الظاهر إلى أنه متى سرق السارق شيئا قطعت يده به سواء كان قليلا أو كثيرا لعموم هذه الآية" والسارق والسارقة فاقطعوا أيديهما " فلم يعتبروا نصابا ولا خرزا بل أخذوا بمجرد السرقة وقد روى ابن جرير وابن أبي حاتم من طريق عبد المؤمن عن نجدة الحنفي قال: سألت ابن عباس عن قوله" والسارق والسارقة فاقطعوا أيديهما "أخاص أم عام ؟ فقال: بل عام وهذا يحتمل أن يكون موافقة من ابن عباس لما ذهب إليه هؤلاء ويحتمل غير ذلك فالله أعلم وتمسكوا بما ثبت في الصحيحين عن أبي هريرة أن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قال:" لعن الله السارق يسرق البيضة فتقطع يده ويسرق الحبل فتقطع " يده وأما الجمهور فاعتبروا النصاب في السرقة وإن كان قد وقع بينهم الخلاف في قدره فذهب كل من الأئمة الأربعة إلى قول على حدة فعند الإمام مالك بن أنس - رحمه الله- النصاب ثلاثة دراهم مضروبة خالصة - فمتى سرقها- أو ما يبلغ ثمنها فما فوقه وجب القطع واحتج في ذلك بما رواه عن نافع عن ابن عمر أن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قطع في مجن ثمنه ثلاثة دراهم أخرجاه في الصحيحين قال مالك - رحمه الله-: وقطع عثمان رضي الله عنه في أترجة قومت بثلاثة دراهم وهو أحب ما سمعت في ذلك وهذا الأثر عن عثمان - رضي الله عنه- قد رواه مالك عن عبد الله بن أبي بكر عن أبيه عن عمرة بنت عبد الرحمن أن سارقا سرق في زمن عثمان أترجة فأمر بها عثمان أن تقوم فقومت بثلاثة دراهم - صرف اثني عشر درهما- فقطع عثمان يده قال: أصحاب مالك ومثل هذا الصنيع يشتهر ولم ينكر فمن مثله يحكى الإجماع السكوتي وفيه دلالة على القطع في الثمار خلافا للحنفية وعلى اعتبار ثلاثة دراهم خلافا لهم في أنه لا بد من عشرة دراهم وللشافعية في اعتبار ربع دينار والله اعلم. وذهب الشافعي- رحمه الله- إلى أن الاعتبار في قطع يد السارق بربع دينار أو ما يساويه من الأثمان أو العروض فصاعدا والحجة في ذلك ما أخرجه الشيخان: البخاري ومسلم من طريق الزهري عن عمرة عن عائشة - رضي الله عنها- أن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- قال:" تقطع يد السارق في ربع دينار فصاعدا: ولمسلم عن طريق أبي بكر بن محمد بن عمرو بن حزم عن عمرة عن عائشة - رضي الله عنها- أن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- قال:" لا تقطع يد السارق إلا في ربع دينار فصاعدا " قال أصحابنا: فهذا الحديث فاصل في المسألة ونص في اعتبار ربع الدينار لا ما ساواه قالوا: وح ثمن المجن وأنه كان ثلاثه دراهم لا ينافي هذا لأنه إذ ذاك فإن الدينار باثني عشر درهما فهي ثمن ربع دينار فأمكن الجمع بهذا الطريق وروى هذا المذهب عن عمر بن الخطاب وعثمان بن عفان وعلي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنهم وبه يقول: عمر بن عبد العزيز والليث بن سعد والأزواعي والشافعي وأصحابه وإسحاق بن راهويه في رواية عنه وأبو ثور وداود بن علي الظاهري رحمهم الله. وذهب الإمام أحمد بن حنبل وإسحاق بن راهويه في رواية عنه إلى أن كل واحد من ربع الدينار والثلاثة دراهم مرد شرعي فمن سرق واحدا منهما أو ما يساويه قطع عملا بحديث ابن عمر وبحديث عائشة - رضي الله عنها- ووقع في لفظ عند الإمام أحمد عن عائشة أن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- قال:" اقطعوا في ربع دينار ولا تقطعوا فيما هو أدنى من ذلك " وكان ربع الدينار يومئذ ثلاثة دراهم والدينار اثني عشر درهما وفي لفظ للنسائي " لا تقطع يد السارق فيما دون ثمن المجن " قيل لعائشة ما ثمن المجن قالت: ربع دينار فهذه كلها نصوص دالة على عدم اشتراط عشرة دراهم والله أعلم. وأما الإمام أبو حنيفة وأصحابه: أبو يوسف ومحمد وزفر وكذا سفيان الثوري - رحمهم الله- فإنهم ذهبوا إلى أن النصاب عشرة دراهم مضروبة غير مغشوشة واحتجوا بأن ثمن المجن الذي قطع فيه السارق على عهد رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم- فإن ثمنه عشرة دراهم وروى أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة حدثنا ابن نمير وعبد الأعلى حدثنا محمد بن إسحاق عن أيوب بن موسى عن عطاء عن ابن عباس قال: فإن ثمن المجن على عهد النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم- عشرة دراهم ثم قال: حدثنا عبد الأعلى عن محمد بن إسحاق عن عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده قال: قال رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم-:" لا تقطع يد السارق في دون ثمن المجن " وكان ثمن المجن عشرة دراهم قالوا: فهذا ابن عباس وعبد الله بن عمرو قد خالفا ابن عمر في ثمن المجن فالاحتياط الأخذ بالأكثر لأن الحدود تدرأ بالشبهات. وذهب بعض السلف إلى أنه تقطع يد السارق في عشرة دراهم أو دينار أو ما يبلغ قيمته واحدا منهما يحكى هذا عن علي وابن مسعود وإبراهيم النخعي وأبي جعفر الباقر رحمهم الله تعالى.وقال بعض السلف: لا تقطع الخمس إلا في خمس أي في خمسة دنانير أو خمسين درهما وينقل هذا عن سعيد بن جبير رحمه الله وقد أجاب الجمهور عما تمسك به الظاهرية من حديث أبي هريرة "يسرق البيضة فتقطع يده ويسرق الحبل فتقطع يده " بأجوبة أحدها: أنه منسوخ بحديث عائشة وفي هذا نظر لأنه لا بد من بيان التاريخ. " والثاني "أنه مؤول ببيضة الحديد وحبل السفن قاله الأعمش فيما حكاه البخاري وغيره عنه. "والثالث" أن هذه وسيلة إلى التدرج في السرقة من القليل إلى الكثير الذي تقطع فيه يده ويحتمل أن يكون هذا خرج مخرج الإخبار عما كان الأمر عليه في الجاهلية حيث كانوا يقطعون في القليل والكثير فلعن السارق الذي يبذل يده الثمينة في الأشياء المهينة وقد ذكروا أن أبا العلاء المعري لما قدم بغداد اشتهر عنه أنه أورد إشكال على الفقهاء في جعلهم نصاب السرقة ربع دينار ونظم في ذلك شعرا دل على جهله وقلة عقله فقال: يد بخمس مئين عسجد وديت مابالهـا قطعت في ربع دينار تنافض مالناإلا السكوت له وأن نعوذ بمولانا من النار ولما قال ذلك واشتهر عنه تطلبه الفقهاء فهرب منهم وقد أجابه الناس في ذلك فكان جواب القاضي عبد الوهاب المالكي - رحمه الله- أن قال: لما كانت أمينة كانت ثمينة ولما خانت هانت ومنهم من قال هذا من تمام الحكمة والمصلحة وأسرار الشريعة العظيمة فإن في باب الجنايات ناسب أن تعظم قيمة اليد بخمسمائة دينار لئلا يجني عليها وفي باب السرقة ناسب أن يكون القدر الذي تقطع فيه ربع دينار لئلا يسارع الناس في سرقة الأموال فهذا هو عين الحكمة عند ذوي الألباب.ولهذا قال " جزاء بما كسبا نكالا من الله والله عزيز حكيم " أي مجازاة على صنيعهما السيء في أخذهما أموال الناس بأيديهم فناسب أن يقطع ما استعانا به في ذلك نكالا من الله أي تنكيلا من الله بهما على ارتكاب ذلك " والله عزيز" أي في انتقامه " حكيم" أي في أمره ونهيه وشرعه وقدره.

The Necessity of Cutting off the Hand of the Thief

Allah commands and decrees that the hand of the thief, male or female be cut off. During the time of Jahiliyyah, this was also the punishment for the thief, and Islam upheld this punishment. In Islam, there are several conditions that must be met before this punishment is carried out, as we will come to know, Allah willing. There are other rulings that Islam upheld after modifying these rulings, such as that of blood money for example. When Does Cutting the Hand of the Thief Become Necessary In is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, n

«لَعَنَ اللهُ السَّارِقَ يَسْرِقُ الْبَيْضَةَ فَتُقْطَعُ يَدُهُ، وَيَسْرِقُ الْحَبْلَ فَتُقْطَعُ يَدُه»

(May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg and as a result his hand is cut off, and who steals rope and as a result his hand is cut off.) Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded that `A'ishah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«تُقْطَعُ يَدُ السَّارِقِ فِي رُبْعِ دِينَارٍ فَصَاعِدًا»

(The hand of the thief shall be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) Muslim recorded that `A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«لَا تُقْطَعُ يَدُ السَّارقِ إِلَّا فِي رُبْعِ دِينارٍ فَصَاعِدًا»

(The hand of the thief shall only be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) This Hadith is the basis of the matter since it specifies (that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting the hand) is a quarter of a Dinar. So this Hadith fixes the value. And saying that it is three Dirhams is not a contradiction. This is because the Dinar in question was equal to twelve Dirhams, so three Dirhams equalled a fourth of a Dinar. So in this way it is possible to harmonize these two views. This opinion was reported from `Umar bin Al-Khattab, `Uthman bin `Affan,

When Does Cutting the Hand of the Thief Become Necessary

In is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, n

«لَعَنَ اللهُ السَّارِقَ يَسْرِقُ الْبَيْضَةَ فَتُقْطَعُ يَدُهُ، وَيَسْرِقُ الْحَبْلَ فَتُقْطَعُ يَدُه»

(May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg and as a result his hand is cut off, and who steals rope and as a result his hand is cut off.) Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded that `A'ishah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«تُقْطَعُ يَدُ السَّارِقِ فِي رُبْعِ دِينَارٍ فَصَاعِدًا»

(The hand of the thief shall be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) Muslim recorded that `A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«لَا تُقْطَعُ يَدُ السَّارقِ إِلَّا فِي رُبْعِ دِينارٍ فَصَاعِدًا»

(The hand of the thief shall only be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) This Hadith is the basis of the matter since it specifies (that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting the hand) is a quarter of a Dinar. So this Hadith fixes the value. And saying that it is three Dirhams is not a contradiction. This is because the Dinar in question was equal to twelve Dirhams, so three Dirhams equalled a fourth of a Dinar. So in this way it is possible to harmonize these two views. This opinion was reported from `Umar bin Al-Khattab, `Uthman bin `Affan, `Ali bin Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with them - and it is the view of `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Al-Layth bin Sa`d, Al-Awza`i, and Ash-Shafi`i and his companions. This is also the view of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ishaq bin Rahwayh in one of the narrations from him, as well as Abu Thawr, and Dawud bin `Ali Az-Zahari, may Allah have mercy upon them. As for Imam Abu Hanifah and his students Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Zufar, along with Sufyan Ath-Thawri, they said that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting off the hand is ten Dirhams, whereas a Dinar was twelve Dirhams at that time. The first ruling is the correct one, that the least amount of theft is one forth of a Dinar or more. This meager amount was set as the limit for cutting the hand, so that the people would refrain from theft, and this is a wise decision to those who have sound comprehension. Hence Allah's statement,

جَزَآءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَـلاً مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

(as a recompense for that which both committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise.) This is the prescribed punishment for the evil action they committed, by stealing the property of other people with their hands. Therefore, it is fitting that the tool they used to steal the people's wealth be cut off as punishment from Allah for their error.

وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ

(And Allah is All-Powerful, ) in His torment,

حَكِيمٌ

(All-Wise.) in His commands, what he forbids, what He legislates and what He decrees.

Repentance of the Thief is Acceptable

Allah said next,

فَمَن تَابَ مِن بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

(But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds, then verily, Allah will pardon him. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) Therefore, whoever repents and goes back to Allah after he commits theft, then Allah will forgive him. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Abdullah bin `Amr said that a woman committed theft during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and those from whom she stole brought her and said, "O Allah's Messenger! This woman stole from us." Her people said, "We ransom her." The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«اقْطَعُوا يَدَهَا»

(Cut off her hand.) They said, "We ransom her with five hundred Dinars." The Prophet said,

«اقْطَعُوا يَدَهَا»

(Cut off her hand.) Her right hand was cut off and the woman asked, "O Messenger of Allah! Is there a chance for me to repent" He said,

«نَعَمْ أَنْتِ الْيَوْمَ مِنْ خَطِيئَتِكِ كَيَوْمَ وَلَدَتْكِ أُمُّك»

(Yes. This day, you are free from your sin just as the day your mother gave birth to you.) Allah sent down the verse in Surat Al-Ma'idah,

فَمَن تَابَ مِن بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

(But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allah), then verily, Allah will pardon him. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) This woman was from the tribe of Makhzum. Her story was narrated in the Two Sahihs from Az-Zuhri from `Urwah from `A'ishah, The incident caused concern for the Quraysh after she committed the theft during the time of the battle of the Conquest of Makkah. They said, "Who can talk to Allah's Messenger ﷺ about her matter" They then said, "Who dares speak to him about such matters other than Usamah bin Zayd, his loved one." When the woman was brought to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, Usamah bin Zayd talked to him about her and the face of the Messenger ﷺ changed color (because of anger) and he said,

«أَتَشْفَعُ فِي حَدَ مِنْ حُدُودِ اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ؟»

(Do you intercede in a punishment prescribed by Allah) Usamah said to him, "Ask Allah to forgive me, O Allah's Messenger!" During that night, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ stood up and gave a speech and praised Allah as He deserves to be praised. He then said,

«أَمَّا بَعْدُ فَإِنَّمَا أَهْلَكَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا إِذَا سَرَقَ فِيهِمُ الشَّرِيفُ تَرَكُوهُ، وَإِذَا سَرَقَ فِيهِمُ الضَّعِيفُ أَقَامُوا عَلَيْهِ الْحَدَّ، وَإِنِّي وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَوْ أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ بِنْتَ مُحَمَّدٍ سَرَقَتْ لَقَطَعْتُ يَدَهَا»

(Those who were before you were destroyed because when an honorable person among them would steal, they would leave him. But, when a weak man among them stole, they implemented the prescribed punishment against him. By Him in Whose Hand is my soul! If Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad stole, I will have her hand cut off.) The Prophet commanded that the hand of the woman who stole be cut off, and it was cut off. `A'ishah said, `Her repentance was sincere afterwards, and she got married and she used to come to me so that I convey her needs to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ." This is the wording that Muslim collected, and in another narration by Muslim, `A'ishah said, "She was a woman from Makhzum who used to borrow things and deny that she took them. So the Prophet ordered that her hand be cut off." Allah then said,

أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَـوَتِ وَالأَرْضِ

(Know you not that to Allah (Alone) belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth!) He owns everything and decides what He wills for it and no one can resist His judgment,

فَيَغْفِرُ لِمَن يَشَآءُ وَيُعَذِّبُ مَن يَشَآءُ وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

(He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills. And Allah is able to do all things.)

And the thieving male and the thieving female the definite article in both nouns relates to the subject sc. wa’lladhī saraqa wa’llatī saraqat ‘And the male who thieves and the female who thieves’; because this clause resembles a conditional statement sc. ‘if he thieves if she thieves’ etc. the fā’ has been included in the predicate fa’qta‘ū ‘then cut off’ cut off their hands that is the right hand of each of the two from the wristbone; it is explained in the Sunna that the amputation applies to the stealing of a quarter of a dinar and upwards and if the person were to re-offend the left foot should then be amputated from the ankle and then on subsequent re-offending the left hand is amputated followed by the right foot after which discretionary punishment is applied; as a requital jazā’an is in the accusative because it is a verbal noun for what they have earned and an exemplary punishment for both of them from God; God is Mighty His way will prevail Wise in His creation.

The fourth verse (38) reverts to the subject of the punishment of crimes where the Islamic Legal Punishment of theft has been described. The punishment for theft belongs to the category of Hudud which is one of the three kinds of Islamic Legal Punishments dis-cussed earlier (under the Tafsir of verses 33 and 34). Since the Holy Qur'an has itself fixed this punishment, it has not been left at the discretion of the relevant authorities. The Holy Qur'an has determined it as the Right of Allah (Haqqullah), therefore, it is called the Hadd of Sariqah (The Islamic Legal Punishment of Theft). The words of the verse are:

وَالسَّارِ‌قُ وَالسَّارِ‌قَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِّنَ اللَّـهِ ۗ وَاللَّـهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

As for a man or woman who commits theft, cut off the hands of both to recompense them for what they earned, a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Noteworthy here is the fact that the address in Qur'anic injunctions is generally to men wherein women are also understood as included consequentially. In Salah, Sawm, Hajj, Zakah and in all injunctions of the Shari’ ah, this is the general operating principle of Qur'an and Sunnah. But, in the case of the punishment for theft and adultery, the text here does not limit itself to addressing men only, in-stead of which it addresses its command to both sexes mentioning them separately.

One reason for doing so is that this is a matter of Hudud in which the least doubt could cause it to be dropped. Therefore, women were not left as implied under the address. They were, rather, mentioned explicitly.

Understanding the Islamic Law of Sariqah (Theft)

Something else we should find out at this stage is the very sense of the word, 'Sariqah' and its definition as determined in the Shari` ah of Islam. According to Al-Qamus, the Arabic Lexicon, if anyone takes what belongs to someone else, from a secured place, without his or her permission, clandestinely, it is called "Sariqah." And this is its Islamic legal definition too. So, in the light of this definition, in order that Sariqah be proved, a few ingredients must exist:

1. BEING PRIVATELY- OWNED: The property concerned must have been owned privately by an individual or group. The stealer should own nothing in it, nor should there be any doubt of such owner-ship, nor should there be things in it in which the rights of common people are equal, such as, institutions of public welfare and their be-longings. This tells us that should someone take something in which he or she has ownership rights, or there is a doubt of such ownership, or in which the rights of common people are equal, then, the Hadd of Sariqah, the Islamic Prescribed Punishment, will not be enforced against the stealer. However, the relevant authority of the time could enforce punitive punishment (Ta` zir) at his discretion.

2. BEING SECURED: It means that the stolen property must be secured as in a locked house or under a security guard. Property not in a secured place, if picked up by someone, would also not render that person liable to be charged with the Hadd of Sariqah. However, should there be even a doubt in the property concerned being secure, even then, the Hadd of Sariqah will stand dropped. Considerations of sin and punitive punishment (Ta` zir) are a separate matter.

3. BEING WITHOUT PERMISSION: If a person, who has been given the permission to take or pick up and use the property concerned, chooses to take it away for good, the Hadd of Sariqah will not be imposed. And should there be even a doubt about the stealer having such permission, the Hadd will stand dropped.

4. TAKING CLANDESTINELY : This is because the looting of someone's property openly is no theft. It is robbery, the punishment for which has already been stated. The point is if it is not by stealth, the Hadd of Sariqah will not be imposed on the person concerned.

After having heard the details involved in all these conditions, you would have already realized that theft as known to us carries a general and wide sense. Every single person who indulges in it is not legally liable to the Hadd of Sariqah, that is, the punishment of cutting hands. Instead of that, this Prescribed Punishment shall be enforced against that particular form of theft in which all these ingredients have been found present.

Along with it, you also know that situations in which the Hadd for theft is dropped, it is not at all necessary that the criminal would go scot-free. In fact, the relevant authority of the time could award punitive punishment against him at his discretion, which could even be physical, as that of lashes.

In the same way, let it not be surmised that, in situations where the absence of some condition of Sariqah restrains the enforcement of the Hadd Punishment, the act itself would become legally permissible and lawful - because, as explained earlier, we are not talking about sin and the punishment of the Hereafter here. The concern here is that of the temporal punishment, and that too of a particular kind of punishment. Otherwise, the property of a person taken without his pleasure and permission, no matter how, shall remain Harm (unlawful), causing punishment in the Hereafter - as clarified in the verse : لَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُم بَيْنَكُم بِالْبَاطِلِ (And do not eat up each other's property by false means - 2:188).

Also worth noting here is the fact that the words used by the Qur'an in the matter of theft are the same as those used about the punishment of adultery. But, the difference is that, in the matter of theft, the mention of man appears first and that of woman follows, while, in the case of adultery, the arrangement has been reversed where woman has been mentioned first. Thus, in the punishment of theft, it was said: 0, r), (a man or a woman who commits theft - وَالسَّارِ‌قُ وَالسَّارِ‌قَةُ while, in the punishment of adultery, it was said: الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي (the woman and the man guilty of fornication - 24:2). Commentators have indicated many elements of wisdom in this reversal of word order, but the one that appeals most is that the crime of theft when committed by man as compared to that committed by a woman is more grave because Almighty Allah has blessed him with the kind of strength to earn his living which a woman does not have. Should a man who, de-spite that so many doors of earning his living are open to him, stoop so low as to commit the disgraceful crime of theft, really increases the gravity of his sin. And when it comes to the matter of adultery, Allah Almighty has blessed a woman with natural modesty and secured atmosphere which leaves no reason for her to fall into the lower levels of immodesty which would be a grave crime indeed. Therefore, in theft, the mention of man precedes while, in adultery, that of woman.

After stating the Hadd حدّ Punishment for theft in this verse (38), two sentences have been added. The first sentence is: جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا (to recompense them for the evil deed they committed and the second sentence is: نَكَالًا مِّنَ اللَّـهِ (a deterrent from Allah). The later is composed of the words, ` Nakal' (a deterrent) and ` min Allah' (from Allah). Lexically, the Arabic word, ` Nakal' means a punishment which is exemplary, something which teaches a lesson to others as well so that they too abandon any intentions of committing crimes. Therefore, a translation of this word in the idiom of any other language would have to have a sense of lesson and dissuasion both. The hint given here is that the stern punishment of cutting hands is based on a consideration which is special and wise. In simple words, it amounts to punishing one and chastening the rest so that this ugly crime is eradicated totally. Then, by adding ` min Allah' (from Allah), a pointed reference has been made to yet another subject of importance, that is, there are two ways of looking at the crime of theft. Firstly, a person may take the property belonging to someone else without any right to do so which inflicts in-justice on the later. Secondly, this person acted counter to the command of Allah. Keeping the first aspect in sight, this punishment is the right of the victim of injustice which requires that the punishment, if pardoned by the holder of the right, will stand forgiven - and this is the customary practice in all cases of Qisas (Even Retaliation). Now looking at it from the second aspect, this punishment is for having acted contrary to the command of Allah. It requires that this punishment will not be forgiven even if it were to be forgiven by the person who has been the victim of the theft - unless, of course, forgiven by Al-mighty Allah Himself. This is called Hadd or Hudud in the terminology of the Shari` ah of Islam. So, by determining the second aspect through the addition of ` min Allah' (from Allah), the hint given is that this punishment is Hadd - not Qisas, that is, in a manner of saying, the punishment has been awarded for what constitutes a Crime against the State! Therefore, even if the person who is the victim of the theft were to forgive, the punishment would still not be dropped.

Finally, towards the end of the verse (38), by saying: وَاللَّـهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (And Allah is Mighty, Wise), answer has been given to the doubt so widely entertained these days, that is, this punishment is very harsh. Not resting at that, there are the loudmouthed and the uninformed among them who would not even fight shy of saying that this punishment is savage. Refuge with Allah! These words are there to point out that the introduction of this severe punishment is not only that it is an out-come of Allah's being Mighty and Powerful, but that it also based on His being Wise as well. The Islamic Legal Punishments which the modern highbrows of the West label as harsh and savage shall be taken up in details with comments on the wisdom behind them, their need and benefits, soon after we have completed the explanation of the present set of verses.

(As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands�) [5:38]. Said al-Kalbi: �This was revealed about Tu�mah ibn Ubayriq who stole an armour. His story has already been covered�.