Why cutting the hand of the thief???

And I have read that God give people faith and choose them in their so if I try hard and can't reach faith.

Because I am trying since many years but nothing, you have seen in previous post that they are things that I disagree with.

If I die and I am a pagan even if I am tried???

And I am still trying,
what should I do exactly ??

format_quote Originally Posted by Ayesha Rana

Progeny: by stoning for the non-virgin adulterer and adulteress.

Er...what?

format_quote Originally Posted by themuffinman

i dont think its too much, you have to realize this is under sharia law if fully implemented there really shouldnt be a need to steal as sharia also requires full payment of zakaat ( charity) and if implemented correctly noone should be poor so the stealing isnt justified. also with a harsh punishment like that people would think twice about stealing wouldnt they =P

What about kleptomaniacs? People who feel the urge to steel?

as for kleptomaniacs, the pen is lifted for those who are insane, they bear no consequences for it if it can be proven that it really is a problem, hell people claim being gay is a problem in the mind i call bull....

I am answering your thread title question " Why cut the hands of theives?"
In muslim or ISlam you can say stealing is haram and if someone steals they getthere hands cut off so that they can ask for forgivness and never steal again because they have no hands anymore, unless they use their feet.

Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allâh. And Allâh is All*Powerful, All*Wise.

But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allâh), then verily, Allâh will pardon him (accept his repentance). Verily, Allâh is Oft*Forgiving, Most Merciful.


(Qur'an Al Ma'ida 5:38)



A couple of points to note on the punishment of amputation for theft:

a-the punishment will not be applied if there is any doubt as to the guilt of the suspect

b-the punishment will not be applied if the value of the stolen goods is below something of great value -> determined by 'urf [customs of society]

c-the punishment will not be applied if the thief stole out of need/poverty

d-the punishment will not be applied if the goods weren't in proper storage (al-hirz) -> also determined by 'urf (customs of society)

e-the punishment will not be applied if the thief returns the goods and seeks forgiveness of the victim of the theft, before the case enters the judicial system

f-the punishment will not be applied if the culprit is not a sane adult and the crime was not committed under duress

g-the punishment will not be applied if the goods were not legally owned

h-the punishment will not be applied if it is a child stealing from parents or parents stealing from children or one spuse from another according to the opinion of all jurists except Imam Malik.

i-the punishment will not be applied if the person is permitted to enter the place from where he stole because in such a case there is no proper custody (al-hirz)

j-according to Imam Abu Hanifa the punishment is not applied to the non-muslim living in the muslim state, however Imam Shafi', Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal have said that it is.

If the theft passes these restrictions, then it recieves the hadd punishment of hand amputation. Any theft that does not meet these restrictions recieves ta'azir (discretionary punishment). In such cases the Islamic society would most likely follow case/common law by rule of precedent where like cases are treated alike.



Coming to the scenario where amputation is applied in theft, it is interesting to note the effect this has on society. I'd like to quote some parts of a discussion at a conference of the Saudi scholars:

At this point Dr. Dawalbi made a comment:

"I have been in this country for seven years", he said, "and I never saw of heard of, any amputation of the hand for stealing. This is because the crime is extremely rare. So, all that remains of that punishment is its harshness, which has made it possible for those who are tempted to steal, to keep their hands whole. Formerly, when these regions were ruled by the french-inspired Penal Code, under the Ottoman Empire, pilgrims travelling between the two Holy Cities - Mecca and Medina, could not feel secure for their purse or their life, unless they had a strong escort.

But when this country became the Saudi Kingdom, the Qur'anic Law was enforced, crime immediately disappeared. A traveller, then, could journey, not only between the Holy Cities, but even from Al-Dahran on the Gulf to Jeddah on the Red Sea, and traverse a distance of more than one thousand and five hundred kilometres across the desert all alone in his private car, without harbouring any fear or worry about his life or property, be it worth millions of dollars, and he be a complete foreigner."

The Saudi Delegation resumed:

"In this manner, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where Islamic law is enforced, state money is transferred from one town to another, from one bank to another, in an ordinary car, without any escort or protection, but the car driver.

Tell me, Gentlemen: in any of your Western States, would you be ready to transfer money from one bank to another, in any of your capitals without the protection of a strong police force and the necessary number of armoured cars?

...Only here, Gentlemen, in this country where Islamic Law is enforced, the American Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. William Rogers, during his visit last year, could, he and his suit, dispense with the armoured cars, which had been carried in by special planes, and which accompanied them in their tour of more than ten countries. Only here, Gentlemen, did the Government of the Kingdom not allow its visitors to go around in these cars. Eventually, Mr. Rogers spontaneously declined the guard of honour usually placed by the Government at the disposal of their foreign guests; he walked through the soulks by himself, and confessed that, in this Kingdom, and in this Kingdom alone, one had such a feeling of security that one had no more need of a guard.

...Stealing is almost unknown in our Kingdom, when people, in the great Capitals of Western countries under secular regimes, have no more security for their lives of their possessions.

(Doi, Shari'ah: The Islamic Law, Ta Ha Publishers 1984, pp. 260-261)

Personally, I know many people who have lived for ten or twenty years in Saudi Arabia and they have testified that they have never come across such a case of amputation for theft. When you implement such a balanced code, theft becomes un heard of.



I want you to look at this UN survey of burglaries between 1998-2000*. Tell me who is at the bottom of the list? Who is at the top?

*http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur



1. United States 2,099,700 burglaries (1999)
2. United Kingdom 836,027 burglaries (2000)
.
.
.
54. Saudi Arabia 11 (2000)!!!!


Which law is more successful?


These are concrete statistics here. There is no doubt when the UN conducts a survey and the country implementing Islamic law has the fewest burglaries, it demonstrates which is the most successful law in this regard.

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/q...-38-a-634.html

^^ Great post. And the stats prove that it works.

even thieves are humans

And we believe in hell and heaven more than we would believe something which we saw with our eyes.

Every punishment is torture even to worst man.

Punishments are there to deter from doing haram.

And not every thieves hand will be cut there are levels of this things. And when i was a kind i heard on tv that there were thieves who cut old ladies hand to take her golden bracelets.

And because of we believe to hell more than things we saw with our eyes. We pity us. If we get punished from our crimes in this world our our victim forgaves us then we wont be punished in afterlife.

And in ottoman empire which lasted from 13 century to 20 century which has a army and leader which complimented by our prophet s.a.v there was only 6 thieves who their hand cut. This is the work of sharia.

^What's quantum ofthe punishment for theft in your country...?

format_quote Originally Posted by aim

Plus don't you think that is too much??

what is too less.....?

format_quote Originally Posted by fromelsewhere

Cutting the right hand of a thief in Islam... Salafists (ultra-conservative Islamists) think this makes sense, as you can read from the very popular Salafi website: https://islamqa.info/en/9935.

Why do we see deceptive tactics here? You are selective quoting the Fatwa to support your misconception. Read the Fatwa once again and in full.

Let me quote some of the remainder here:

Because cutting off the hand is a serious matter, cutting off the hand of the thief should not be done for just any case of theft. A combination of conditions must be fulfilled before the hand of a thief is cut off.

These conditions are as follows:

The thing should have been taken by stealth; if it was not taken by stealth, then (the hand) should not be cut off, such as when property has been seized by force in front of other people, because in this case the owner of the property could have asked for help to stop the thief.

1- The stolen property should be something of worth, because that which is of no worth has no sanctity, such as musical instruments, wine and pigs.
2- The value of the stolen property should be above a certain limit, which is three Islamic dirhams or a quarter of an Islamic dinar, or their equivalent in other currencies.
3- The stolen property should have been taken from a place where it had been put away, i.e., a place where people usually put their property, such as a cupboard, for example.
4- The theft itself has to be proven, either by the testimony of two qualified witnesses or by the confession of the thief twice.
5- The person from whom the property was stolen has to ask for it back; if he does not, then (the thief’s) hand does not have to be cut off.

If these conditions are fulfilled, then the hand must be cut off.

format_quote Originally Posted by AabiruSabeel

Why do we see deceptive tactics here? You are selective quoting the Fatwa to support your misconception. Read the Fatwa once again and in full.

Let me quote some of the remainder here:

Because cutting off the hand is a serious matter, cutting off the hand of the thief should not be done for just any case of theft. A combination of conditions must be fulfilled before the hand of a thief is cut off.

These conditions are as follows:

The thing should have been taken by stealth; if it was not taken by stealth, then (the hand) should not be cut off, such as when property has been seized by force in front of other people, because in this case the owner of the property could have asked for help to stop the thief.

1- The stolen property should be something of worth, because that which is of no worth has no sanctity, such as musical instruments, wine and pigs.
2- The value of the stolen property should be above a certain limit, which is three Islamic dirhams or a quarter of an Islamic dinar, or their equivalent in other currencies.
3- The stolen property should have been taken from a place where it had been put away, i.e., a place where people usually put their property, such as a cupboard, for example.
4- The theft itself has to be proven, either by the testimony of two qualified witnesses or by the confession of the thief twice.
5- The person from whom the property was stolen has to ask for it back; if he does not, then (the thief’s) hand does not have to be cut off.

If these conditions are fulfilled, then the hand must be cut off.

Do you understand why some people are uncomfortable with this sort of thing? I'm not entirely sure if you understand the nature of the objection.

I personally think cutting of hands is a bit extreme but it definitely works.

In the UK, a person can steal repeatedly and even make a living from it and the worst thing that will happen to them is they might get a prison sentence (which a lot of people see as a bonus because it is free food and accommodation and no Council Tax).

format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -

Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allâh. And Allâh is All*Powerful, All*Wise.

But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allâh), then verily, Allâh will pardon him (accept his repentance). Verily, Allâh is Oft*Forgiving, Most Merciful.


(Qur'an Al Ma'ida 5:38)



A couple of points to note on the punishment of amputation for theft:

a-the punishment will not be applied if there is any doubt as to the guilt of the suspect

b-the punishment will not be applied if the value of the stolen goods is below something of great value -> determined by 'urf [customs of society]

c-the punishment will not be applied if the thief stole out of need/poverty

d-the punishment will not be applied if the goods weren't in proper storage (al-hirz) -> also determined by 'urf (customs of society)

e-the punishment will not be applied if the thief returns the goods and seeks forgiveness of the victim of the theft, before the case enters the judicial system

f-the punishment will not be applied if the culprit is not a sane adult and the crime was not committed under duress

g-the punishment will not be applied if the goods were not legally owned

h-the punishment will not be applied if it is a child stealing from parents or parents stealing from children or one spuse from another according to the opinion of all jurists except Imam Malik.

i-the punishment will not be applied if the person is permitted to enter the place from where he stole because in such a case there is no proper custody (al-hirz)

j-according to Imam Abu Hanifa the punishment is not applied to the non-muslim living in the muslim state, however Imam Shafi', Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal have said that it is.

If the theft passes these restrictions, then it recieves the hadd punishment of hand amputation. Any theft that does not meet these restrictions recieves ta'azir (discretionary punishment). In such cases the Islamic society would most likely follow case/common law by rule of precedent where like cases are treated alike.



Coming to the scenario where amputation is applied in theft, it is interesting to note the effect this has on society. I'd like to quote some parts of a discussion at a conference of the Saudi scholars:

At this point Dr. Dawalbi made a comment:

"I have been in this country for seven years", he said, "and I never saw of heard of, any amputation of the hand for stealing. This is because the crime is extremely rare. So, all that remains of that punishment is its harshness, which has made it possible for those who are tempted to steal, to keep their hands whole. Formerly, when these regions were ruled by the french-inspired Penal Code, under the Ottoman Empire, pilgrims travelling between the two Holy Cities - Mecca and Medina, could not feel secure for their purse or their life, unless they had a strong escort.

But when this country became the Saudi Kingdom, the Qur'anic Law was enforced, crime immediately disappeared. A traveller, then, could journey, not only between the Holy Cities, but even from Al-Dahran on the Gulf to Jeddah on the Red Sea, and traverse a distance of more than one thousand and five hundred kilometres across the desert all alone in his private car, without harbouring any fear or worry about his life or property, be it worth millions of dollars, and he be a complete foreigner."

The Saudi Delegation resumed:

"In this manner, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where Islamic law is enforced, state money is transferred from one town to another, from one bank to another, in an ordinary car, without any escort or protection, but the car driver.

Tell me, Gentlemen: in any of your Western States, would you be ready to transfer money from one bank to another, in any of your capitals without the protection of a strong police force and the necessary number of armoured cars?

...Only here, Gentlemen, in this country where Islamic Law is enforced, the American Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. William Rogers, during his visit last year, could, he and his suit, dispense with the armoured cars, which had been carried in by special planes, and which accompanied them in their tour of more than ten countries. Only here, Gentlemen, did the Government of the Kingdom not allow its visitors to go around in these cars. Eventually, Mr. Rogers spontaneously declined the guard of honour usually placed by the Government at the disposal of their foreign guests; he walked through the soulks by himself, and confessed that, in this Kingdom, and in this Kingdom alone, one had such a feeling of security that one had no more need of a guard.

...Stealing is almost unknown in our Kingdom, when people, in the great Capitals of Western countries under secular regimes, have no more security for their lives of their possessions.

(Doi, Shari'ah: The Islamic Law, Ta Ha Publishers 1984, pp. 260-261)

Personally, I know many people who have lived for ten or twenty years in Saudi Arabia and they have testified that they have never come across such a case of amputation for theft. When you implement such a balanced code, theft becomes un heard of.



I want you to look at this UN survey of burglaries between 1998-2000*. Tell me who is at the bottom of the list? Who is at the top?

*http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur



1. United States 2,099,700 burglaries (1999)
2. United Kingdom 836,027 burglaries (2000)
.
.
.
54. Saudi Arabia 11 (2000)!!!!


Which law is more successful?


These are concrete statistics here. There is no doubt when the UN conducts a survey and the country implementing Islamic law has the fewest burglaries, it demonstrates which is the most successful law in this regard.

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/q...-38-a-634.html

The best and most well researched response on here. This should be satisfactory for anyone seeking to know the reason for this particular Islamic law.