What is the ruling regarding stealing?

[Hamza Asadullah]

thanks akhi.



i understand you have a point. However punishments for murder i would say capital punishment would be reasonable (an eye for an eye). But i doubt the UK would bring that in to power. The death penalty for murder could be a strong deterrent itself. Alot of young people out there involved in knife crime would think twice. However for stealing, I personally believe amputating somebodys hand is too harsh, especially if this thief stole for example food to feed to his poor and hungry family.. Would he deserve his hand cut off then?



Just out interest, what country actually places this punishment into power?

No country currently has any shariah law in place. From what you have mentioned it is clear that you have not fully understood the correct Islamic position regarding stealing and that is thattin order for the theif to be convicted of his crime and for the punishment to be established then it can only be done after testimony of two adult males. The witnesses will be asked the details of the incident, as not to make an error.



A person's hand is not amputated when he steals less than the equivalent of 4.374 grams of gold, from place that does not meet the requirements of security, something that is useless, something that is in general ownership such as water in the river, sticks from the wood, etc�, food that rots very quickly such as milk, meat, fruits, etc, articles that are unlawful due to the possibility that one had an intention of getting rid of it, such as musical instruments.



So food is not mentioned as part of the punishment for theft. In order for this punishment to be carried it the above strict conditions have to be met and so if this law was establish it would not be carried out a lot of the times because of the fact that so many conditions have to be met but what it is really good for is an effective deterrant.



Although a petty crime theft costs society millions every year. There is also no doubt that those who commit theft are regular in their crimes. In every area there will be known theifs and most of the times they keep on stealing simply because they can get away with lenient punishments. There is NO doubt that if every society adopted the laws of Allah that theft would literally vanish from society simply because NO ONE would want to risk having their hand cut off just for stealing something.



You look in prison and you will notice that those who commit serious theft like aggravated burglary and voilet thefts started off with petty minor thefts and eventually built their way up to more serious theft. So if a person is not stopped they will eventually progress into committing more serious thefts which involve aggravated burglarys. If you or anyone you know were a victim of such a horrible crime then you would realise why such laws are needed.



Worryingly aggravated burglarys are on the increase and again it is because the laws are just too lenient. If the laws were harsh then those committing such crimes would think twice. If petty theifs are not stopped they will inevitabley progress into becoming burglars using voilance to steal things.



Therefore there is NO doubt that every society needs these laws to get rid of these crimes particularly theft which is the most common of crimes in most societies. How can such a common crime be eradicated? NOT by any laws that are established today because they are simply too lenient and no one is put off stealing. But by establishing the laws of Allah which will result in those theives thinking twice before even considering theft.



In regards to what you stated about a man theiving for his family well that would not be the case under the laws of Allah as such people would be provided for by the government.



And Allah knows best in all matters

 

[Ramadhan]

Personally I believe the punishments laid down fourteen centuries ago had to be truly severe enough to be a deterrent in their day, but since then our God has taught us more about crime, its causes, the methods of its investigation, the limits of guilt, and the much wider range of possible punishments.

Just out interest, what country actually places this punishment into power?

do you know that China executes its biggest government official corruptors as method of deterrent, and it works! The Index of perception of corruption in China continues to get better.
While in Indonesia, people who steal big are dealt leniently, and as a result, more people continue to steal and many if not most government officials are corrupt (yes, corruption is stealing, and it is actually much worse than stealing in terms of effect)

As Aamirsaab mentioned, in Islam there's more than one punishments for stealing.

 

[AlexJ90]

Right so wouldnt this method of punishment be more of a deterrent than a punishment itself? I mean what are the odds of having four witnessess (for eye witness testimony im sure you know the number of witnesses required was doubled from Islamic law's usual standard of two to four), and getting a confession out of the offender four times.

Lets say he did steal something and only 1 witness saw him. He cannot be punished as a) there was only 1 witness and b) he is not confessing so the lack of evidence would drop any charges against him, correct?

its sort of like the punishment for adultery, which is flogging right? however im sure for that there need to be 4 witnesses to actually witness penetration, what are the odds in that?

I see this as a deterrent to put people off from committing these crimes in the first place, which is smart as it could help bring down the crime rate etc.

 

[GuestFellow]

Thanks for the reply brother. I appreciate you clarifying the verses about Yusuf. However In regards to the verse where the punishment is indeed amputation. Even though witnesses must be needed etc, wouldn't you agree there ought to be a re-interpretation of Islamic verses about ancient punishments?

Salaam,

You are not allowed to re-interpret the Qur'an.

Personally I believe the punishments laid down fourteen centuries ago had to be truly severe enough to be a deterrent in their day, but since then our God has taught us more about crime, its causes, the methods of its investigation, the limits of guilt, and the much wider range of possible punishments.

I've studied Criminal Litigation. From what I can remember we have 5 main sentencing principles: retribution, deterrence, protection, rehabilitation and reparation. The current system focuses on rehabilitation which I doubt is working because we have a high crime rate. Even with all the advancements of psychology and rehabilitation schemes, offenders re-offend in the future.

The Sharia focuses on deterrence. In order for deterrence to be effective, the punishments need to be severe. This will put people off from committing the crime.

The Sharia will lead to reduced crime rate, safer society, resolve the problem of prison overpopulation and less stress for the courts.

While stealing is wrong indeed, there are more humane methods of punishment today, which im sure you can agree on.

Imprisonment and fines do not work all the time. There are other problems with the UK criminal litigation process but these punishments are not severe. It is embarrassing to the extent that the UK protects criminals more than homeless people. We spend so much money on these criminals when the money could be used to help people that did nothing wrong.