The fourth verse (38) reverts to the subject of the punishment of crimes where the Islamic Legal Punishment of theft has been described. The punishment for theft belongs to the category of Hudud which is one of the three kinds of Islamic Legal Punishments dis-cussed earlier (under the Tafsir of verses 33 and 34). Since the Holy Qur'an has itself fixed this punishment, it has not been left at the discretion of the relevant authorities. The Holy Qur'an has determined it as the Right of Allah (Haqqullah), therefore, it is called the Hadd of Sariqah (The Islamic Legal Punishment of Theft). The words of the verse are:
وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَالًا مِّنَ اللَّـهِ ۗ وَاللَّـهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ
As for a man or woman who commits theft, cut off the hands of both to recompense them for what they earned, a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.
Noteworthy here is the fact that the address in Qur'anic injunctions is generally to men wherein women are also understood as included consequentially. In Salah, Sawm, Hajj, Zakah and in all injunctions of the Shari’ ah, this is the general operating principle of Qur'an and Sunnah. But, in the case of the punishment for theft and adultery, the text here does not limit itself to addressing men only, in-stead of which it addresses its command to both sexes mentioning them separately.
One reason for doing so is that this is a matter of Hudud in which the least doubt could cause it to be dropped. Therefore, women were not left as implied under the address. They were, rather, mentioned explicitly.
Understanding the Islamic Law of Sariqah (Theft)
Something else we should find out at this stage is the very sense of the word, 'Sariqah' and its definition as determined in the Shari` ah of Islam. According to Al-Qamus, the Arabic Lexicon, if anyone takes what belongs to someone else, from a secured place, without his or her permission, clandestinely, it is called "Sariqah." And this is its Islamic legal definition too. So, in the light of this definition, in order that Sariqah be proved, a few ingredients must exist:
1. BEING PRIVATELY- OWNED: The property concerned must have been owned privately by an individual or group. The stealer should own nothing in it, nor should there be any doubt of such owner-ship, nor should there be things in it in which the rights of common people are equal, such as, institutions of public welfare and their be-longings. This tells us that should someone take something in which he or she has ownership rights, or there is a doubt of such ownership, or in which the rights of common people are equal, then, the Hadd of Sariqah, the Islamic Prescribed Punishment, will not be enforced against the stealer. However, the relevant authority of the time could enforce punitive punishment (Ta` zir) at his discretion.
2. BEING SECURED: It means that the stolen property must be secured as in a locked house or under a security guard. Property not in a secured place, if picked up by someone, would also not render that person liable to be charged with the Hadd of Sariqah. However, should there be even a doubt in the property concerned being secure, even then, the Hadd of Sariqah will stand dropped. Considerations of sin and punitive punishment (Ta` zir) are a separate matter.
3. BEING WITHOUT PERMISSION: If a person, who has been given the permission to take or pick up and use the property concerned, chooses to take it away for good, the Hadd of Sariqah will not be imposed. And should there be even a doubt about the stealer having such permission, the Hadd will stand dropped.
4. TAKING CLANDESTINELY : This is because the looting of someone's property openly is no theft. It is robbery, the punishment for which has already been stated. The point is if it is not by stealth, the Hadd of Sariqah will not be imposed on the person concerned.
After having heard the details involved in all these conditions, you would have already realized that theft as known to us carries a general and wide sense. Every single person who indulges in it is not legally liable to the Hadd of Sariqah, that is, the punishment of cutting hands. Instead of that, this Prescribed Punishment shall be enforced against that particular form of theft in which all these ingredients have been found present.
Along with it, you also know that situations in which the Hadd for theft is dropped, it is not at all necessary that the criminal would go scot-free. In fact, the relevant authority of the time could award punitive punishment against him at his discretion, which could even be physical, as that of lashes.
In the same way, let it not be surmised that, in situations where the absence of some condition of Sariqah restrains the enforcement of the Hadd Punishment, the act itself would become legally permissible and lawful - because, as explained earlier, we are not talking about sin and the punishment of the Hereafter here. The concern here is that of the temporal punishment, and that too of a particular kind of punishment. Otherwise, the property of a person taken without his pleasure and permission, no matter how, shall remain Harm (unlawful), causing punishment in the Hereafter - as clarified in the verse : لَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُم بَيْنَكُم بِالْبَاطِلِ (And do not eat up each other's property by false means - 2:188).
Also worth noting here is the fact that the words used by the Qur'an in the matter of theft are the same as those used about the punishment of adultery. But, the difference is that, in the matter of theft, the mention of man appears first and that of woman follows, while, in the case of adultery, the arrangement has been reversed where woman has been mentioned first. Thus, in the punishment of theft, it was said: 0, r), (a man or a woman who commits theft - وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ while, in the punishment of adultery, it was said: الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي (the woman and the man guilty of fornication - 24:2). Commentators have indicated many elements of wisdom in this reversal of word order, but the one that appeals most is that the crime of theft when committed by man as compared to that committed by a woman is more grave because Almighty Allah has blessed him with the kind of strength to earn his living which a woman does not have. Should a man who, de-spite that so many doors of earning his living are open to him, stoop so low as to commit the disgraceful crime of theft, really increases the gravity of his sin. And when it comes to the matter of adultery, Allah Almighty has blessed a woman with natural modesty and secured atmosphere which leaves no reason for her to fall into the lower levels of immodesty which would be a grave crime indeed. Therefore, in theft, the mention of man precedes while, in adultery, that of woman.
After stating the Hadd حدّ Punishment for theft in this verse (38), two sentences have been added. The first sentence is: جَزَاءً بِمَا كَسَبَا (to recompense them for the evil deed they committed and the second sentence is: نَكَالًا مِّنَ اللَّـهِ (a deterrent from Allah). The later is composed of the words, ` Nakal' (a deterrent) and ` min Allah' (from Allah). Lexically, the Arabic word, ` Nakal' means a punishment which is exemplary, something which teaches a lesson to others as well so that they too abandon any intentions of committing crimes. Therefore, a translation of this word in the idiom of any other language would have to have a sense of lesson and dissuasion both. The hint given here is that the stern punishment of cutting hands is based on a consideration which is special and wise. In simple words, it amounts to punishing one and chastening the rest so that this ugly crime is eradicated totally. Then, by adding ` min Allah' (from Allah), a pointed reference has been made to yet another subject of importance, that is, there are two ways of looking at the crime of theft. Firstly, a person may take the property belonging to someone else without any right to do so which inflicts in-justice on the later. Secondly, this person acted counter to the command of Allah. Keeping the first aspect in sight, this punishment is the right of the victim of injustice which requires that the punishment, if pardoned by the holder of the right, will stand forgiven - and this is the customary practice in all cases of Qisas (Even Retaliation). Now looking at it from the second aspect, this punishment is for having acted contrary to the command of Allah. It requires that this punishment will not be forgiven even if it were to be forgiven by the person who has been the victim of the theft - unless, of course, forgiven by Al-mighty Allah Himself. This is called Hadd or Hudud in the terminology of the Shari` ah of Islam. So, by determining the second aspect through the addition of ` min Allah' (from Allah), the hint given is that this punishment is Hadd - not Qisas, that is, in a manner of saying, the punishment has been awarded for what constitutes a Crime against the State! Therefore, even if the person who is the victim of the theft were to forgive, the punishment would still not be dropped.
Finally, towards the end of the verse (38), by saying: وَاللَّـهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ (And Allah is Mighty, Wise), answer has been given to the doubt so widely entertained these days, that is, this punishment is very harsh. Not resting at that, there are the loudmouthed and the uninformed among them who would not even fight shy of saying that this punishment is savage. Refuge with Allah! These words are there to point out that the introduction of this severe punishment is not only that it is an out-come of Allah's being Mighty and Powerful, but that it also based on His being Wise as well. The Islamic Legal Punishments which the modern highbrows of the West label as harsh and savage shall be taken up in details with comments on the wisdom behind them, their need and benefits, soon after we have completed the explanation of the present set of verses.