If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
FWD: Hand chopping for theft
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Blair should implement this and worry about this than Iraq. In many cases theft/robbery is done with murder, stabbing, assault. No hand means no theft, no attack and no way to drive away and escape. Sending people to prison doesn't work. Many cases people come out more determined and eager to commit crimes. The cowards who steal from the elderly - we are far too tolerant.
There's no way somebody 'by accident' steals. There's no way somebody 'by accident' smashes your car window in or your door and makes a pigsty of your house.
Cutting off the hand for theft is the Islamic punishment for theft; but the Middle East is not crammed full of one-handed people. In true Islamic company, the very idea of theft is unthinkable, the biggest deterrent being the knowledge that God can see everything you do and if you committed theft it would be recorded against you in your book, for the Day of Judgement. The second big deterrent is the shame that knowledge of your theft would bring not only on your family but on your whole village (if you lived in a small community).
Local laws might be rough and ready, but under Islam the amputation of the hand should not be meted out casually, an accused person being dragged off to a block and summarily punished. The case should be examined carefully, and there have to be witnesses. If it can be proved that the reason the person stole was in some way the inadequancy of the state or local ruler or community (say, for example, that someone stole food for their family because they could not find work to pay for it) then the thief should not be held at fault, but the community, and work and money should be found for the thief and family.
If, however, it was a case of someone being addicted to picking up other people's property without qualms or conscience about it, then Shariah law would not hesitate to order amputation.
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. If it better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to Hell" Mark 9:43
This is intended to stop the person from sinning any further, as well as warning the community that they have a thief in their midst, and giving the deliberately callous thief just punishment for the hurt he or she has caused. Some scholars think the best way 'to cut off the hand of the thief' is to create a society in which theft is unnecessary. In an ideal society, with all citizens and laws truly Muslim, this would be the case.
The Prophet commented that he would carry out this punishment against a deliberate thief, no matter how highly placed and influential, even if it were his own daughter Fatimah!
p.137 "Teach Yourself Islam" Ruqaiyyah Maqsood
There's no way somebody 'by accident' steals. There's no way somebody 'by accident' smashes your car window in or your door and makes a pigsty of your house.
Cutting off the hand for theft is the Islamic punishment for theft; but the Middle East is not crammed full of one-handed people. In true Islamic company, the very idea of theft is unthinkable, the biggest deterrent being the knowledge that God can see everything you do and if you committed theft it would be recorded against you in your book, for the Day of Judgement. The second big deterrent is the shame that knowledge of your theft would bring not only on your family but on your whole village (if you lived in a small community).
Local laws might be rough and ready, but under Islam the amputation of the hand should not be meted out casually, an accused person being dragged off to a block and summarily punished. The case should be examined carefully, and there have to be witnesses. If it can be proved that the reason the person stole was in some way the inadequancy of the state or local ruler or community (say, for example, that someone stole food for their family because they could not find work to pay for it) then the thief should not be held at fault, but the community, and work and money should be found for the thief and family.
If, however, it was a case of someone being addicted to picking up other people's property without qualms or conscience about it, then Shariah law would not hesitate to order amputation.
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. If it better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to Hell" Mark 9:43
This is intended to stop the person from sinning any further, as well as warning the community that they have a thief in their midst, and giving the deliberately callous thief just punishment for the hurt he or she has caused. Some scholars think the best way 'to cut off the hand of the thief' is to create a society in which theft is unnecessary. In an ideal society, with all citizens and laws truly Muslim, this would be the case.
The Prophet commented that he would carry out this punishment against a deliberate thief, no matter how highly placed and influential, even if it were his own daughter Fatimah!
p.137 "Teach Yourself Islam" Ruqaiyyah Maqsood
0
Comments
No an 8 year old wouldn't get such a thing done. In fact Islam says ALL humans who die before puberty (when they become responsible and accountable for their actions and intentions) go to heaven regardless of belief in a religion or not. On the Day of Judgement, it would NOT be fair for God to question an infant or kid on why s/he didn't follow a particular religion.
Also it has to be a certain amount. Something as insignificant as "sweets" wouldn't get the maximum penalty, maybe alot of sweets but I'm not 100% sure on this.
James Whale on his Talksport radio show agrees with you though: "all these scumbag thieves ought to be shot".
What do you do to sarcastic people? :nervous:
so do you believe in other aspects of shariah law, then? like, for instance, the woman who may be stoned to death (buried up to her neck and rocks thrown at her head, to be specific) in Nigeria for adultery?
your quote of Mark wilfully misinterprets it. it's not literal, it's a metaphor.
If someone starving steals a loaf of bread would you still vut their hand off?
How many sweets is lots? when does it become a hand-chopping offence to grab candy, in your opinion?
I'd argue at length why you are totally, catastrophically wrong on this, but I think we're starting from such diametrically opposite points of view about the best way to deal with crime that there's no point.
trouble here is that ammount of power in the hands of a relatively uncaring, ignorant, racist and fearful police force ,made up of ignorant believe nothing yobs, is far to dangerous.
we see all around us, our science and our theories ar producing more and more amazing things to own. to want. to need. rarely producing anything that changes the individual or the wider communities life. the gap between rich and poor grows ever vaster...but it's all ok in the eyes of those in the middle.
our science is threatening our well being, choking us, filling us with more fear than hope. and still we put our trust in it.
thousands of years of knowledge has been thrown out the window for the mentality of "i want it and i want it now. nothing can make our science, our way of life stumble. we have knowledge we have might. we cannot be wrong".
it's a godless... souless world that relies on gimmicks and false phrophets of comedy and excess to actualy achieve anything worthwile.
the lunatics have taken over the assylum...and dare speak out !
I have a lot of belief in the rational actor theory, that all people are responsible and should be held accountable.
However I am also greatly aware of the flaws in this (it was implemented in the 18th and 19th century).
It is flawed because there are many cases where someone can't be held accountable for their actions.
This is where I believe in the pre-destined theory.
There are many sub-theories of this that suggest some people will commit a crime no matter what. Some claim that it is in their genes (highly flawed however) and there are others that claim it is in someones mind, that they commit crime because they were born to think that crime is ok.
The most significant though is that of the environmental. The advocates of capital punishment on this board find it disgusting that something else other than the person could make someone commit a crime.
However there is great belief that it is a person's environment. It's no coincidence that people who grow up where crime is a normality (parents in prison, drugs use, police round the house all the time) they themselves will commit crime because they see it as a normal activity.
My argument is this. Surely, to cut off the hand of somebody who is carrying out an action they believe to be a normal activity of life is inherently wrong.
It is much easier to put them in prison for 3-4 years, and during that time teach them that crime is wrong, that what they are doing affects others in a bad way.
Once they have been re-educated they are less likely to reoffend, it is a proven fact that in UK prisons with the lowest populations the recidivism rate is approx 12%. In prisons with the highest populations where the officers don't have time to re-educate the petty criminals the recidivism rate is as high as 60%.
And Aisha, the threat of having a hand chopped off doesn't do anything to deter people in the Middle East to steal the wallets and posessions from visiting tourists does it.
No doubt Taleban-ruled Afghanistan had the lowest crime rate in the whole world. I wonder if lovers of absolute law and order would have been happy living there...
I agree.
I personally believe life in prison should be harsher for all offenders, regardless of crime.
The idea being that if you are in prison it is because you are a repeat offender or your crime was serious.
Liberty really should be taken away from the prisoner. The prison shouldn't be cruel, but it should be tough and stricter than it is.
Jobs should be handed out that are difficult but rewarding, a lot like the current jobs in smaller prisons like manufacturing furniture and clothes.
The person who has committed the theft must be sane.
He must be adult.
He must not have been compelled to commit the theft.
He must not be hungry while committing.
The stolen property must reach 'nisab' (amount of 1/4 or 10 dirhams depending on the school of thought).
It must be valuable.
It must be in a custody.
It must be owned by someone.
Any prohibition in Islam becomes lawful if it endangers life. Pig eating is banned. But if one is starving and nothing else is available one must eat it. The private parts of a person are only to be shown to the spouse but under medical examination or emergency it's ok.
In Saudi money is transferred from a bank to another by a car. You don't need these "Securicor" vans with security guards and red fumes which dye the money red (and the thief) and render it useless if stolen. As Nick Ross said on BBC Crimewatch UK "if you've seen any red men please phone us".
Yes it is harsh, but it acts as a deterrent. Stealing is rare.
"And Aisha, the threat of having a hand chopped off doesn't do anything to deter people in the Middle East to steal the wallets and posessions from visiting tourists does it."
Huh? I didn't say there's NO crime, it just much much less.
The original post said "that someone stole food for their family because they could not find work to pay for it".
Qur'an 5:38 As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from God, for their crime: and God is Exalted in power.
5:39 But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, God turneth to him in forgiveness; for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
9.00pm Beware: Shoplifters 2002 Last Wednesday ITV:
Report on the shameless and often violent world of retail crime, which cost Britain a staggering £1.8billion last year, making the country EUROPE'S SHOPLIFTING CAPITAL. CCTV footage and hidden cameras reveal the lengths thieves will go to in order to make a quick profit on the vast black market operating around pubs and middlemen, and one veteran boasts about the goods he has walked away with over the course of his 15-year `career"
The above is one form of theft. Solve it. The point is we are taught not to steal, yes, but people still do. The higher the deterrent does not mean MORE hand-chopping. It means less theft and thus less hand-chopping, instead of a lower deterrent and MORE forms of other types of punishment. Saudi doesn't have such a problem on retail crime as the UK does. Why not?
It's all too easy for some cowardly animal scum to break into a pensioner's house and beat her up and steal. Lock him up. Right. He's probably been doing it for years and recently come out.
There was a programme on Wed about this, pretty horrific from non-violent theft via the hook and cane method (steal keys through the letterbox!) to carjacking. A lot of the time cars are stolen as a getaway vehicle. A clampdown on other theft / crime would reduce these car thefts. Sounds obvious ok.
Yes, children should be taught manners, respect to the elders, what is right and wrong even if you are an 'atheist'. These should be integrated more with the family - what are teenager doing on cold winter nights loitering in groups outside, trying to be rough and tough - parents thrown them out?
The punishments in Islam may appear to be harsh but they are a last resort and in the context of other rules and customs of Islam they fit in.
Fornication and adultery is less of a temptation because of various things such as no privacy between unmarried people, more modest dress, there's no mixed parties, no alcohol (I got drunk and ...), no uncovering of the privates except for a doctor or in an emergency, etc. These rules are supposed to reduce the chance of it happening.
ie, is the person tied down with their hand on a bit of wood while everybody watches as some one whacks it off with a knife?? All for stealing 50p?
So you are arguing that the whole system is barbaric, and not just this part then?
Although i have upmost respect for all religion, i don't think it's a good idea to punish in such a way. Neither is it such a good idea for people to feel such shame against having a "criminal" in the family. I've heard many stories of "upright" people taking the law into their own hands to reduce the same caused by other people.
I know this is not the same as theft and I am talking about larger issues than the one you suggested but I think it is important to consider that is hard to draw an absolute line.
Shariah Law is always carried out publicly not for the sake of brutality or to please a bloodthirsty audience but because it is vital that justice is seen to be done, and that the bounds are not exceeded.
See my post on page 1 describing various conditions e.g. adult, sane, Muslim, etc.
(1) The exact method of carrying out the Law is not stated and varies.
(2) Crime must be punished and must be seen to be punished otherwise punishment is no deterrent. Crime is against the community and the community must see that justice is done and must shoulder the responsibility for what it does. The victim too must feel he has had justice.
(3) The victim need not accuse and prosecute the criminal - he could forgive him.
(4) Theft under necessity, e.g. hunger is forgiven. It cannot be punished.
(5) It is the duty of the community to ensure that its members have the necessities of life and have no excuse for theft.
(6) It is generally not the first offender that are so severely punished, nor those not responsible such as the immature or those suffering from low intelligence or mental illness. But it applies to the persistent offenders.
(7) All know about how seriously the crime is regarded and how severely it is punished. So if they commit the crime they must be presumed to have accepted the risk.
(8) The severe punishment is a deterrent and an education. This reduces the amount of crimes. It diminishes suffering by reducing the number of victims and by reducing the number of criminals that need punishment. Therefore, the good it does outweighs the evil. (Certainly to inflict pain and injury on anyone is an evil whether done by the criminal or to the criminal.)
(9) The Law tends to describe limits. The Quran also teaches forgiveness. The Law could, therefore, be modified. But that will depend on circumstances e.g. how prevalent the crime is and whether it is sufficiently effective.
(10) Critics of Islam (and many Muslims) have the habit of expressing their opinions, approval or disapproval about some thing. They appear to incapable of accepting that subjective opinions are completely irrelevant for Islam.
Yes. We call it 'democracy'.
If she was accused and sentenced without proper trial then this is certainly wrong. But what makes you think that there was no proper trial and what do you understand by proper trial? If there is a Law in the land, all should know it and obey it. Ignorance of the Law is never accepted as an excuse. Fornication is 100 lashes and adultery is stoning - maximum punishments. 4 witnesses who have seen the act of penetration are required or the person may confess.
When true Islam governs justice, the judge should be above corruption and bribery, or fear of the power of the prisoner. The Law stipulates that the judge who tries the case should not be hungry, angry, restless or absorbed in some other matter. No one should ever be imprisoned unless they have been convicted by an unbiased court.
One can have compassion for the criminal, but also for the victim who is often forgotten. If the general attitude towards crime is softened then the message is that the crime is not a serious matter and can be indulged in more freely. The result is an increase of crime and consequent suffering. When adultery proliferates, families are destroyed. Fornication produces an increasing number of illegitimate children. Apart from the suffering of the partners, in both cases the next generation is brought up in an environment that is physically, socially, morally and psychologically inadequate for their development. This is specially so in poorer undeveloped countries. Unfortunately some take the Law into their own hands and this is wrong.
It is never a good thing to go by opinions about what is a good idea, based on sentimentality or local convention. All punishments inflict some kind of pain whether done in the West or East. It is a question where the line should be drawn. It should be drawn at a point where it is effective in minimising the overall harm and maximising the benefits. The line has to be drawn, but it is not rigid. Extenuating circumstances are taken into consideration i.e. maturity and mental competence. In the end the Shari'ah comes from God and He know us best.
NO Muslim countries implemently Shari'ah perfectly today. Many especially Saudi have racist and chauvinistic rulings. Please don't confuse certain Muslim people, rulers, governments, cultures with the actual teachings.