When someone thinks of stealing, he actually thinks of increasing what he owns at the expense of someone else. He feels that what he earns legitimately is too little for him and, therefore, he wishes to add to it in an illegitimate way. The fruits of his own labor do not satisfy his greed and he wants to appear to be wealthy or to get himself in a position where he does not need to work or where he is assured of a comfortable life in future. In short, the motive for stealing is to increase one's income or one's wealth. Islam counters this motive by prescribing the punishment of cutting of the thief's hand or leg, since such a punishment will markedly decrease the thief's ability to work and reduce his income and wealth. When a thief is punished according to Islam, his ability to show off is greatly curtailed and his need to work hard is much greater. Moreover, his worry about his future is infinitely greater.

We see, then, that by prescribing the punishment of cutting off a thief's hand, Islamic law counters the psychological motives of theft with even stronger psychological factors which resist the temptation to steal. If, nevertheless, a person yields to temptation and is guilty of stealing, the severity of the punishment will have lasting effects on him to prevent a repeat. This is the basis for the Islamic punishment of theft. It is indeed the best basis for punishing this crime, ever since the creation of mankind.

Most legal codes punish theft with imprisonment, a punishment that has miserably failed in combating crime in general and theft in particular. The failure is due to the fact that imprisonment does not strengthen any psychological influence on a thief to turn him away from stealing. It does not prevent him from work and earning except for the duration of his time of imprisonment, when he has no need to earn since his basic needs are met. When he is discharged, he can go back to his work. Indeed, he has every chance to increase his wealth by both legitimate and illegitimate means. He can easily pretend to be a man of honor and integrity to secure the help of others. If eventually, he achieves his goal, well and good; or that is what he thinks. If not, his loss is minimal.

On the other hand, if a person guilty of stealing has his hand cut off, his punishment drastically reduces his ability to work and earn. This means, in practical terms, that his chances of increasing his income are totally lost, while a drastic reduction in income is most probable. He will not be able to win people's confidence as his own hand tells of his past crime. The unmistakable result, then, is that a thief will definitely end up in a loss if he is punished with cutting off his hand, while he is more likely to profit if he receives a prison sentence. It is in human nature that people do not hesitate to do what is likely to bring them profit and to refrain from something which makes loss a certainty.

I wonder at those who claim that the Islamic punishment for theft is not suitable to our present society in view of the great advancement achieved by mankind. Do progress and advancement mean that we should encourage and reward a thief and allow people to live in fear? Or do they mean that we should work hard so that thieves and dropouts get away with the fruits of our labor? Or do they mean that we ignore the findings of science and human nature as well as the results of human experience and the conclusions of logical thinking in favor of an argument which is supported by new evidence, simply because it receives much propaganda?

If effectiveness in reducing crime is the criterion which makes a certain punishment fitting to an age of progress and advancement, then imprisonment should be abolished as a punishment for theft and replaced by cutting off hands of thieves. This is because the latter is supported by undeniable psychological evidence, human nature and experience as well as logic. Imprisonment as a punishment is supported by none of these.

The basis of this Islamic punishment is a thorough study of human nature and human thinking. It is then, suitable for both the individual and community because it reduces crime and increases security. As such, it is the best and the fairest punishment.

Despite all this, some people object to the Islamic punishment for theft, because they find it cruel. Indeed, this is their only argument. But it is indeed a hollow argument, because no punishment is effective if it is felt not to be serious. Indeed, a punishment must be stern if it is truly a punishment.

In prescribing a severe punishment for theft, Allah, the most Compassionate and Merciful, says: "As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands in retribution for what they have earned, as an exemplary punishment ordained by Allah." The setting up of a deterrent example is intended, because to provide a deterrent is an act of mercy to anyone who contemplates stealing as he stops short of doing it. It is also an act of mercy to the community as a whole, because it increases its security. No one can claim to be more merciful to people than their Creator. Practical experience shows that over the first century of Islam, only very few hands were cut off in punishment of theft. That is because the Islamic society with its stern punishment and adequate safeguards and provisions produced only very few thieves.

But Allah wants to leave the door open to anyone to repent and refrain from committing any crime in future, provided that he does not stop at this rather negative aspect but goes on to do what is positively good: "But whoever repents after having thus done wrong, and makes amends, shall have his repentance accepted by Allah. Allah is Much-forgiving, Merciful." Wrongdoing is an action which is both positive and evil. Therefore, it is not sufficient that a wrongdoer stops doing what is wrong. He should go further than that and do something which is both positive and good. In Islamic law, however, the matter goes further than that. Man is a creature who has to have something to do.

If he stops doing evil without moving on to do good, he feels himself to be in a vacuum which may turn him back toward evil. But when he is positive and does good action, then he moves far from evil. This is an important aspect of the Islamic method of educating people and cultivating goodness in them.

When the Muslim state was stricken by famine, Caliph Umar suspended the enforcement of punishment for theft. The servants of the son of Hatib ibn Abu Baltt'ah stole a camel which belonged to a man of the tribe of Muzaynah. When they were proven guilty, Umar ordered their hands to be cut off. However, on learning that their master kept them hungry, Umar stopped the enforcement of this punishment. He further punished their master, imposing on him a fine equivalent to the price of two camels. It is within this context that we should view the punishments imposed by Islam as a part of comprehensive system which provides guarantees for all.

Every religion revealed by Allah comprises three essential aspects: a faith which settles deep into the mind, a set of worship rituals and a law to regulate human life. The implementation of Allah's law will always be met by opposition from people in authority, those who pursue their own interest or their vain desires and the deluded masses who may find the implementation of Allah's law a heavy burden. Allah addresses His servants to whose care He entrusts the implementation of His law not to fear any human beings or their resistance, they should fear Allah alone.

Allah also knows that some of those who are charged with the safekeeping and implementation of Allah's law may find worldly temptations too strong to resist. As they realize that people with power or money and those who seek all types of pleasure oppose Allah's legislation, they may flatter them in order to gain something of the riches and pleasures of this world. Professional clerics in all generations have yielded to such temptation as did some Jewish rabbis. Allah addresses all those saying to them: "Do not barter away My revelations for a paltry price." This is the price they get in return for their silence or for their distortion of Allah's revelations or for issuing doubtful rulings. Indeed, every price offered is paltry, even if it includes all that is in this world. How could it be described otherwise, when it is no more than a position, a salary, a title and a petty interest for which faith is bartered away and hell purchased?

Nothing is more wicked than treachery by a person who is in a position of trust and nothing is more vile than the distortion of facts by a witness. Those who are given the title, "religious men" do commit such treachery and distortion. They remain idle when they are called upon to work for the implementation of Allah's revelation and they lift words out of context in order to please those in power at the expense of Allah's revelation.

In a most decisive, definitive and general statement, Allah tell us: "Those who do not judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed are indeed disbelievers." The generality of this statement makes it absolutely unrestricted to time or place. The ruling is definitive and applicable to everyone who does not judge according to Allah's revelation, regardless of where and in what period he lives.

The reason is the one we have already explained. A person whose judgment is at variance with Allah's revelation denies the Godhood of Allah. A basic quality of Godhood is the authority to legislate. Whoever observes something other than Allah's revelation in his judgment does not only reject a particular aspect of Allah's Godhood but also claims for himself certain qualities of Godhood. If that is not disbelief, I wonder what is. For what use is a verbal claim of being a believer or submitting to Allah, when action denies such a claim?

Any argument about this definitive, decisive and general ruling is not more than an attempt to avoid facing the reality. To try to give this ruling a different interpretation is simply an attempt to lift words out of their context. Such arguments change nothing of Allah's clear and definitive judgment.

Having explained this basic rule in all divine faiths, the surah gives some examples of the law contained in the Torah which Allah had revealed so that on its basis, prophets, divines and rabbis judge among the Jews: "In it We decreed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and a (similar) retribution for wounds."

These provisions outlined in the Torah have been retained in Islamic law as an integral part of it, since it is meant to be the law of all mankind, till the end of time. It is true that these provisions may not be implemented except in the land of Islam, but this is only for practical reasons. Islamic authority cannot implement these provisions beyond the borders of the land of Islam. Whenever and wherever Muslim rulers can implement these laws, they are required to do so. Since Islamic law is a code for all mankind in all generations, one provision has been added to them under Islam. This is the one to which reference is made in the following Qur'anic statement: "But for him who forgoes it out of charity it will atone for some of his sins." This was not included in the law of the Torah. Retaliation was inevitable. No one could waive it or forgo it. Hence no atonement of sins could be achieved through such a charitable gesture.

A word on the concept of retaliation in punishment for injuries that may not go amiss. The basic principle which is established through this concept is that of equality of human beings and equality before the law. No law other than that of Allah acknowledges such an equality so as to make the punishment equal to the crime and to remove all considerations of class, position, lineage and race. It is a principle, which is amplified by its comprehensive application: "A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, and ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and a (similar) retribution for wounds." No distinction between rulers and ruled, or between one class and another. All are equal before Allah's law, since they all descend from one single soul created by Allah.

This great principle established by Allah's law is the true and complete declaration of the birth of man when all human beings are considered equal, subject to the same law which rules on the basis of absolute equality. It is the first declaration of its kind. Human laws have lagged behind for tens of centuries before they began to aspire to rise to its level, but even then, their aspirations remained both partial and theoretical. As for practical application, they continued to lag behind.

The Jews, in whose scriptures, the Torah, this great principle was established, deviated from it in their relations with other people. They used to say: "We are subject to no restrictions in relations with the Gentiles." They also deviated from it in their own internal relations, as we have already explained when two Jewish tribes in Madinah, Quraithah and An-Nadheer established a system of blood money which gave the victorious twice as much as it gave the defeated. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, brought them back to the implementation of Allah's law based on equality. He put them all on the same level.

Apart from its being a declaration of the birth of man, retaliation on the basis of equality is a most effective deterrent which makes anyone who contemplates killing another or causing him bodily harm think twice before putting his thoughts into action. He knows that regardless of his position, family connections, class or race, he will be executed for killing and he will suffer the same bodily harm as he causes. If he cuts off the hand or the leg of another person, he will have his own hand or leg cut off; and if he destroys an eye, an ear, a nose or a tooth, a similar organ of his will be destroyed. But he may not hesitate that long when he realizes that all that could happen to him is a period of imprisonment, long as it may be. His own physical agony or handicap is so different from putting up with a period of punishment.

Moreover, retaliation on the basis of equality is the sort of punishment which appeals to human nature. It quenches the desire for revenge which may be fueled by blind fury and it pacifies hearts and heals wounds. Some people may accept blood money while others insist on retaliation.

Under Islam, divine legislation takes full account of human nature, as it has been done in the Torah. Having ensured the satisfactory punishment of retaliation, Islam appeals to the benevolent element in human nature to encourage charitable forbearance: "But for him who forgoes it out of charity, it will atone for some of his sins." It is up to the next of kin of a person who has been killed or to the injured person himself in all cases of wounds and injuries to be charitable and to forgo retaliation. It is up to either person, out of his own free choice, to forgo his right to retaliation and to accept blood money in place of it, or to forgo both. If he does, Allah will forgive him some or all of his sins. It should be added, however, that even if such a person forgoes retaliation for blood money, the Muslim ruler may enforce a lesser punishment, as he deems fit, on the killer.