Qur’anic Directive on Theft
The Qur’anic directive on theft is articulated in Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:38), which states: “As for the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands as recompense for what they committed, as a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (Qur’an 5:38, Sahih International). This severe penalty is designed to deter theft and uphold social order.
Historical Context
Historically, the punishment of amputation for theft was applied with caution during the time of the Prophet Muhammad and the early caliphates. This measure was considered rare and serious, enforced only under stringent conditions such as clear evidence of theft and the theft of property exceeding a certain value. The intention was to apply this practice as an exceptional remedy rather than a common occurrence.
Modern Interpretation and Reconciliation
In contemporary society, Islamic scholars and legal systems have sought to reinterpret and adapt this traditional punishment to align with modern values and human rights standards. Many scholars now advocate for alternative measures that emphasize rehabilitation and restorative justice instead of physical retribution. The focus is on reconciling traditional practices with contemporary ethical norms and societal expectations.
Biblical Perspective
Old Testament
The Biblical perspective on theft contrasts with the Qur’anic approach. In the Old Testament, restitution is emphasized over corporal punishment. For instance, Exodus 22:1 outlines that if someone steals an ox or a sheep, they must repay multiple times the value of the stolen property. This principle of compensation is clearly expressed in the Biblical text: “If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.” (NIV).
New Testament
The emphasis shifts towards forgiveness and moral conduct rather than retributive justice. Jesus’ teachings encourage non-retaliation and the turning of the other cheek: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” (Matthew 5:38-39, NIV). These teachings advocate for forgiveness and discourage seeking retribution.
Conclusion: Bible vs. Qur’an
The Qur’anic punishment of hand-cutting for theft reflects a rigorous legal approach intended to deter crime within early Islamic society. Its historical application was rare and subject to strict conditions, with modern interpretations often emphasizing alignment with contemporary values through rehabilitation rather than physical punishment.
In contrast, the Bible addresses theft with a focus on restitution and forgiveness. The Old Testament requires compensation for stolen goods, while the New Testament promotes a moral stance of forgiveness and non-retaliation. This comparison highlights the differing legal and ethical frameworks in each tradition, illustrating how religious teachings shape their respective approaches to justice and morality.