Why cutting the hand of the thief???

[fromelsewhere]

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.
​

I put the website link so people can look up the full text. I just put the first part of it, which is the part I consider to be relevant and that makes me particularly uncomfortable (I assume it's also the part that makes others uncomfortable as well). The 'conditions' are so basic that I consider them to be pretty much self-evident, and they certainly don't make the cutting off of a thief's hand any more palatable to me. I think it goes without saying that for a crime to be considered "theft", it must be something of a certain value that was stolen (not a pencil or a discarded book), and one would hope that the "theft" would at least be proven in a court before any punishment, small or harsh, would be issued.

Personally, I much prefer link #2 that argues that we don't need to "physically" cut off the hand... it can be understood to be more symbolic than anything. But it's just me. I have a strong distaste for Salafi philosophy.

 

[fromelsewhere]

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

Are you trying to ask how people are punished for theft in my country?
It depends on how much the thief stole. If you steal above a certain amount, you definitely get prison time. The amount of prison time you get depends on how severe the theft was. There is a max (also maybe a min?), I'm not sure what it is.
If you steal a small amount, you may still get prison time but the sentence would be small (less than 2 years?), or you may just have to pay back + pay a penalty + community service (or a combo).

I'm not a law expert, though. But the punishment is proportional to the severity of the crime. I find this to be quite fair.

 

[cooterhein]

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.

I'm satisfied in knowing that this really is Islamic law, or that it was at least. It's pretty much just the Salafists and the terrorists at this point. What I'm not satisfied with is the idea that this is, or ever was, a moral, just, or remotely acceptable penalty for this crime or for any other crime.

 

[AabiruSabeel]

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'm satisfied in knowing that this really is Islamic law, or that it was at least. It's pretty much just the Salafists and the terrorists at this point. What I'm not satisfied with is the idea that this is, or ever was, a moral, just, or remotely acceptable penalty for this crime or for any other crime.

Being a disbeliever, you will never be satisfied with the laws revealed by Allah :swt:.

Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah. [2:120]

And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious. [5:49]

Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah? [5:50]

 

[azc]

I'm satisfied in knowing that this really is Islamic law, or that it was at least. It's pretty much just the Salafists and the terrorists at this point. What I'm not satisfied with is the idea that this is, or ever was, a moral, just, or remotely acceptable penalty for this crime or for any other crime.

What should be the most severe punishment for theft in your opinion (You've to try to make your country crime-free or at least graph of crime should fall down)

 

[azc]

Are you trying to ask how people are punished for theft in my country?It depends on how much the thief stole. If you steal above a certain amount, you definitely get prison time. The amount of prison time you get depends on how severe the theft was. There is a max (also maybe a min?), I'm not sure what it is.If you steal a small amount, you may still get prison time but the sentence would be small (less than 2 years?), or you may just have to pay back pay a penalty community service (or a combo).I'm not a law expert, though. But the punishment is proportional to the severity of the crime. I find this to be quite fair.

If you were the ruler of your country how much strict laws you would implement ( so that the criminals would think ten times before comitting the crime) to make your country crime free...?

 

[Born_Believer]

I'm satisfied in knowing that this really is Islamic law, or that it was at least. It's pretty much just the Salafists and the terrorists at this point. What I'm not satisfied with is the idea that this is, or ever was, a moral, just, or remotely acceptable penalty for this crime or for any other crime.

Of course mister peaceful

 

[cooterhein]

If you were the ruler of your country how much strict laws you would implement ( so that the criminals would think ten times before comitting the crime) to make your country crime free...?

I would impose penalties with varying levels of severity depending on the severity of the crime and on how many times a person has been convicted of stealing previously. These penalties would range from small fines and brief sentences to longer periods of incarceration, a record, and in some specific instances deportation might also be in play.

Rather than have onerously strict laws that cause people to live in constant fear, I would prefer to do without those laws and explore ways to make my country a better place, where people don't have to and/or don't want to steal. There are more ways to reduce theft than by scaring people. And there are many ways to make a country a better place, but maiming people- on purpose- does not accomplish that.

On a related note, I, as the ruler of any hypothetical country, would very much want my country to be the kind of place that people want to live in. I would not want to turn it into a place that everyone wants to leave, and nobody wants to go to. Eliminating the prospect of hand-chopping is a fairly basic part of that goal, and it really ought to be taken for granted.

 

[aamirsaab]

The hand cutting only applies in certain, and very explicit circumstances - the item has to be a certain amount and type (I.e not food), the criminal must have been of sound mind and not say intoxicated or have any mental issues like say kleptomania. The hudud punishments (the ones you guys cry about) ONLY apply to Muslim criminals anyway...and with any law system, the punishment should fit the severity of the crime. Sharia law is no different.

Bottom line is, 9/10, the judge will ask the perpetrator to either give the item back or pay the victim the value of it and possibly some severance pay/fee on top. Done sorted. No clogging up of the legal system, no prison sentence required, no prison/profit centre required so that no corrupt government officials can abuse both it and their people to line their back pockets...and some of you folk have the absolute nerve to lecture Muslim's about their lack of morality...

P.s this thread is from 2008....WHO FINDS THESE ANCIENT RELICS OF OLD?!?

 

[Serinity]

When it comes to understanding the laws of Allah, it is pertinent to not be ruled by one's desires, assumptions and preconceptions.

To the disbeliever, morals are just opinions. The laws of the Kuffar change just like the heart change. I.e. they rule by their opinions.

The disbeliever does not adhere to a specific code, it swifts like the heart swifts (if you understand what I mean), as far as I see.

Allahu alam.

 

[cooterhein]

The hand cutting only applies in certain, and very explicit circumstances - the item has to be a certain amount and type (I.e not food), the criminal must have been of sound mind and not say intoxicated or have any mental issues like say kleptomania. The hudud punishments (the ones you guys cry about) ONLY apply to Muslim criminals anyway...

That's good to hear, because the less it happens, the better. I can't recall that I've ever cried about this, though.

and with any law system, the punishment should fit the severity of the crime. Sharia law is no different.

Well yes it is different, actually, because it includes punishments that involve maiming people. That's the main difference that we're looking at here. And that's a punishment that doesn't fit any crime.

Bottom line is, 9/10, the judge will ask the perpetrator to either give the item back or pay the victim the value of it and possibly some severance pay/fee on top. Done sorted. No clogging up of the legal system, no prison sentence required, no prison/profit centre required so that no corrupt government officials can abuse both it and their people to line their back pockets...and some of you folk have the absolute nerve to lecture Muslim's about their lack of morality...

What exactly is your idea of what a global assessment of corruption would look like? This is what I'm looking at.

http://fortune.com/2016/01/27/transparency-corruption-index/

Islam is fairly well represented at the bottom of this list, and not so well represented at the very top. Some Muslim countries are in the upper half, and they're doing fairly well by this and any other available measurement, but no Islamic countries are in elite territory when it comes to this. And a good handful of them are the absolute worst- and some of those countries have the strictest and most hardline application of Shariah.

Do you have some other global ranking with a different methodology that shows very different results? I'd like to see that, if you have it.

P.s this thread is from 2008....WHO FINDS THESE ANCIENT RELICS OF OLD?!?

Scroll to the bottom of this page, or the bottom of the page on pretty much any thread you may be looking at. See the category that says "Similar threads" to this one? On mine, I'm looking at 3 threads from 2009 and two from 2007. On the other tab I have open (which has a far more recent creation date), there's suggested threads from 2009, 2007, 2007, and 2006.

That's how this happens. So who does this? My guess would be, people who scroll to the bottom of a page and don't look at the date.

 

[aamirsaab]

That's good to hear, because the less it happens, the better. I can't recall that I've ever cried about this, though.

Well wouldn't you believe it, the sharia also agrees. There's no enjoyment to be had in carrying out hudud - if anything, the judge in such cases should be finding ways around it and trying to find some other form of reconciliation. In fact part of being a judge in any court, sharia or otherwise, is that your decision must be just and even handed.

Well yes it is different, actually, because it includes punishments that involve maiming people. That's the main difference that we're looking at here. And that's a punishment that doesn't fit any crime

Neither are dropping bombs on 3rd world countries, colonizing half the planet through brutality, legalization and institutionalized racism and sexism, torture, oh and how can one possibly forget death row. But here we are, discussing the morality of maiming criminals who actively seek to hurt and negatively impact their fellow country men. Oh no, what a crime - how dare a criminal justice system do such a thing?! In the context of everything, yeah this counts as minutiae.

(snip) Islam is fairly well represented at the bottom of this list, and not so well represented at the very top. Some Muslim countries are in the upper half, and they're doing fairly well by this and any other available measurement, but no Islamic countries are in elite territory when it comes to this. And a good handful of them are the absolute worst- and some of those countries have the strictest and most hardline application of Shariah.

Do you have some other global ranking with a different methodology that shows very different results? I'd like to see that, if you have it.

Not sure why are you conflating Islam with Muslim countries - to cut the story short, there are many non-muslim countries that are actually more Islamic than certain Muslim countries and many non-muslims who are more Islamic in their behavior than Muslims (the irony isn't lost on me either, I can assure you!). Moreover, conflating religion, specifically Islam with corruption - the index you gave (thanks for that by the way, genuinely) makes no distinction, not sure how you came to that conclusion - seems a little disingenuous. For the record, I think corruption in any country it has more to do with gaps between rich and poor continually widening as well as the constant fear-mongering and xenophobia. And as far as non western countries go, we can thank multiple outside interference.

I'm not particularly interested in a blow by blow discussion, those days are long gone I'm afraid. But this whole Islam is barbaric because (insert a billion projected and ignorant comments here/ I-read-a-meme-on-the-internet-about-islam-and-now-I'm-an-expert-so-can-turn-my-brain-off-when-discussing-it) shtick is getting real old. Real fast.

 

[fromelsewhere]

I would impose penalties with varying levels of severity depending on the severity of the crime and on how many times a person has been convicted of stealing previously. These penalties would range from small fines and brief sentences to longer periods of incarceration, a record, and in some specific instances deportation might also be in play.

Rather than have onerously strict laws that cause people to live in constant fear, I would prefer to do without those laws and explore ways to make my country a better place, where people don't have to and/or don't want to steal. There are more ways to reduce theft than by scaring people. And there are many ways to make a country a better place, but maiming people- on purpose- does not accomplish that.

On a related note, I, as the ruler of any hypothetical country, would very much want my country to be the kind of place that people want to live in. I would not want to turn it into a place that everyone wants to leave, and nobody wants to go to. Eliminating the prospect of hand-chopping is a fairly basic part of that goal, and it really ought to be taken for granted.

Let me add that there's quite a bit of data to show that countries that have severe penalties, such as flogging, cutting of hands, death penalty, don't have lower crime rates. To the contrary, they often have ironically higher crime rates... food for thought.

 

[azc]

Let me add that there's quite a bit of data to show that countries that have severe penalties, such as flogging, cutting of hands, death penalty, don't have lower crime rates. To the contrary, they often have ironically higher crime rates... food for thought.

which countries have severe punishments for criminals....?

 

[Muslim Woman]

Let me add that there's quite a bit of data to show that countries that have severe penalties, such as flogging, cutting of hands, death penalty, don't have lower crime rates. To the contrary, they often have ironically higher crime rates... food for thought.

Please give more info.

 

[Imran520]

This punishment is necessary to reduce crimes from society.

 

[#HAMMAD#]

I agree because the thief is going to do it again and if he does not have hands he can't steel.

 

[cooterhein]

Let me add that there's quite a bit of data to show that countries that have severe penalties, such as flogging, cutting of hands, death penalty, don't have lower crime rates. To the contrary, they often have ironically higher crime rates... food for thought.

I agree with the other two people, I'd be interested in a link or two as well. I think I've vaguely heard this type of claim, in a general sense, but I can't recall ever having seen any data driven links to this point.

 

[cooterhein]

This punishment is necessary to reduce crimes from society.

It really is not necessary, as there are plenty of other ways to reduce crime that can be quite effective in the absence of hand chopping.

That may not have been exactly what you meant, but that is exactly what you wrote. You said it was necessary in order to get a certain result, and that is clearly not true. It is absolutely not necessary in order to achieve the result of crime reduction and/or deterrence.

What you probably meant to say was, cutting people's hands off is effective in achieving the desired result....which is not the same thing as being necessary in order to achieve that result....and, stated in this way, the claim would not be obviously false on the face of it. It would still be in need of some data, some links maybe, some type of evidence, but it's a workable starting point.

 

[noraina]

Assalamu alaykum

Look, countries where Shariah law is implemented aren't (surprisingly) filled with one-handed people - contrary to popular opinion, Shariah isn't a mob force which goes around lynching sinners and cutting off their limbs, it is an organised, functional justice system based upon solid evidence and looking at each individual case.

As has been said, there are certain conditions to be met before the punishment is meted out - the item has to be of a particular value, it must have been within an enclosed space where theft would have had to be very deliberate, and I also remember reading if the particular thief is suffering from extreme poverty and stealing for basic necessities, they are waived from that punishment. There are a variety of conditions, for which reason this punishment is only implemented rarely.

Also, if that person repents (which most people would probably do if they had to choose between that or having their hand cut off!) and does not reoffend, they will not be punished. From this point of view, it is actually made extremely difficult to go ahead and amputate someone's hand for theft, whatever they have stolen. As Muslims we don't know the state of someone's heart, and so if they say they have repented and will not reoffend, we can't punish them on the assumption of knowing what goes on in their minds.

As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power. But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turns to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Qur'an 5:38-39

Certainly, there can be a miscarriage of justice - but that happens within every justice system, even the UK's, and doesn't mean that the actual system is inherently corrupt, rather the people who are implementing it are.