In the Shade of the Qur'an by Sayyid Qutb

This passage begins to outline some fundamental legislation concerning human life. Some of these are concerned with life protection in a Muslim community that applies Divine law. Others relate to the protection of the system against any rebellion that may seek to undermine the authority administering Divine law in such a society.

All in all, these measures aim to provide proper protection for the Muslim community, as well as wealth and private property in a social set-up based on Divine guidance and ruled by Divine law.

The legislation covering these important aspects of social life take up this whole passage, after an introduction relating the story of Adam’s two sons. This story exposes the nature of crime and its motives, and reveals its ugly face, showing the need to stand up to crime and to stamp it out of the life of Islamic society altogether.

It stresses the need to punish the criminal and to counter the motives for crime.

The story appears to be firmly welded to the rulings and legislation that are subsequently detailed in this sūrah. A reflective reader is bound to feel that the story is given at the right place to fulfil an important function, and present a profound argument that penetrates the reader’s consciousness. It thus puts hearts and minds in the right frame to receive the severe penalties Islam legislates for crimes committed against human life, public order, and personal property. These must be put into effect in an Islamic society which implements Divine law.

Islamic society runs all its life affairs, relations and commitments on the basis of the Divine constitution, implementing God’s law. Thus, it guarantees for every individual, and for the community as a whole, all elements of justice, stability, reassurance and needful provisions. It protects both the individual and the community against all factors of provocation, oppression, injustice and poverty.

Hence, in such a just, balanced society that guarantees mutual solidarity, aggression against personal life, public order, or individual property becomes a horrid crime, without any “extenuating” circumstances. When all factors encouraging a law- abiding life have been provided and motives for crime removed from the life of both individual and society, then a stringent attitude to crime and criminals is totally justified. Nevertheless, Islam ensures for the criminal all that guarantees proper investigation, interrogation and fair judgement, explaining any doubt in his favour, and opening the door to repentance which pardons some crimes in this life and ensures forgiveness of all crimes in the life to come.

We see examples of all this in the present passage and the legislation it puts in place. But before we start our discussion of such legislation we need to say a brief, general word about the environment and social set-up in which such legislation is implemented and the conditions that give its provisions the necessary force.

The legal provisions included in this passage, whether relating to aggression against life, public order or private property have the same status as the rest of Islamic law, prescribing mandatory or discretionary punishments. They are all applicable in Islamic society, in the “land of Islam”. In order to understand this, we need to remember that, from the Islamic point of view, the whole world is divided into two parts. The first is the land of Islam, or the land of peace. This includes any area where Islamic law is implemented, whether its population are all Muslims, or they include non-Muslims living under Islamic rule, or they are all non-Muslims but living under an Islamic government implementing Islamic law.2 It also includes any area which has been occupied by non-Muslims, but its local population, who may all be Muslims or having non-Muslims among them, are able to implement Islamic law in their own life and judge their disputes accordingly. The main criterion in considering an area as a “land of Islam” is whether Islamic law is implemented in it or not.

The second is ‘hostile land’ which includes any area where Islamic legal provisions and Islamic law in general are not implemented, regardless of what population it may have. Thus, even if its population, or the majority of them describe themselves as Muslims, or followers of other Divine religions, or non-believers, any area that does not implement Islamic law is considered a hostile land to Muslims, both individuals and community3 .

Islamic society is that which is established in the land of Islam, as defined above. It is such a society which implements Islamic law that deserves to have the full protection of life, property and public order. In such a society it is only appropriate that the punishments outlined by Islamic law should be inflicted on those whose actions threaten its peace and security. It is a noble, free and just society, which ensures work and sufficient provisions for everyone whether they are able or unable to work. It is a society where motives for goodness are plenty and those encouraging evil are few. It is only right that such a society should impose on every one of its subjects the duty of protecting this splendid state of affairs, respecting other people’s rights to live in peace and security. It is natural that it should preserve the security of the “land of Islam” in which everyone lives peacefully, with all his rights and privileges guaranteed. Whoever violates the law of such a peaceful society is an evil aggressor who deserves severe punishment, allowing him, however, all the guarantees that ensure fair trial and which interpret doubt in his favour.

The people of a hostile land, as defined above, have no right to enjoy the guarantees provided by Islamic legal provisions and the deterrent they represent.

This is because such a land neither implements nor recognises Islamic law. To Muslims who live in the land of Islam, such land is not a land of peace unless it enters into suitable treaties and agreements with the land of Islam. Moreover, Islamic law provides the same guarantees and rights to hostile individuals who come from hostile lands when they enter the land of Islam under a pledge of safety. This applies for the duration of that pledge, and within the area ruled by a Muslim ruler, 2 A non-Muslim is not bound by the entirety of Islamic law. Rather, a non-Muslim is bound to observe such Islamic laws as are not in conflict with his own faith.

3 This definition, made by scholars and nor used in the Qur'ān or ĥadīth, was introduced at a time when the overwhelming majority of Muslims lived under the Islamic state. It has recently been called into question by a number of scholars. — Translator's note.

implementing Islamic law.

Having made this explanation, we may now discuss this passage in detail.

Relate to them in all truth the story of the two sons of Adam: how each offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one of them while it was not accepted from the other. [The latter] said: ‘I will surely kill you.” [The other] replied: “God accepts only from those who are God-fearing. Even if lay your hand on me to kill me, I shall not lay my hand on you to kill you; for I fear God, the Lord of all the worlds. I would rather you should add your sin against me to your other sins, and thus you will be destined for the Fire; since that is the just retribution of wrongdoers.” His evil soul drove him to kill his brother; and he murdered him, and thus he became one of the lost. God then sent forth a raven which scratched the earth, to show him how he might conceal the nakedness of his brother’s body. He cried out: “Woe to me! Am I then too weak to do what this raven has done, and to conceal the nakedness of my brother’s body?” He was then overwhelmed by remorse. (Verses 27-31)

This story gives us a clear example of the nature of evil and totally unjustified aggression. It also gives us an example showing the nature of goodness and a peaceful attitude towards everyone. The two examples are set in clear contrast. The result is a sordid crime, which makes us feel the need for a legal code to impose just retribution and to stop aggressors even before they commit their crimes. If they, nevertheless, do commit crimes, they are certain to receive a punishment commensurate to their crimes. The legal code will thus be able to protect those who are good and ensure their right to live. It is indeed such people that should feel secure and safe under the protection of the law that deters crime and administers justice.

The Qur’ān does not specify the time or place of the story it relates. Nor does it mention the names of its main characters. Although reports mention the names of Cain and Abel as the two sons involved in the story, and although these reports mention some details about the conflict between them over two of their sisters, we prefer to confine our comments to the story as it is related in the Qur’ān, without adding any details. All reports mentioning details have an element of doubt, in the sense that they are given by people who follow earlier religions. The story is mentioned in the ‘Old Testament with details of names, place and time, as given in these reports. The single ĥadīth which refers to the story and has been verified as authentic does not give any details. It is a ĥadīth in which `Abdullāh ibn Mas`ūd quotes the Prophet as saying: “For every soul that is killed unjustly, a share of responsibility is borne by the first son of Adam, who was the first to commit murder.” All that we can say about this story is that it took place during humanity’s childhood stage. It was the first cold-blooded murder. The perpetrator did not know that dead people should be buried.

Leaving the story in the general terms in which it is given in the Qur’ān ensures that the purpose of relating it is fulfilled and its lessons are understood. Providing more details does not add anything to these basic purposes. Hence, our preference to discuss it as it is given.

Relate to them in all truth the story of the two sons of Adam: how each offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one of them while it was not accepted from the other. [The latter] said: “I will surely kill you.” [The other] replied: “God accepts only from those who are God-fearing.” (Verse 27)

Having related to his followers an account of certain events in the history of the Children of Israel with their Prophet, Moses, the Prophet Muĥammad (peace be upon him) is told by God to relate the story of two people representing two types of human being. The account should be given in all honesty, because it tells of the truth deeply entrenched in human nature. It also emphasises the need for a deterrent legal code to ensure justice.

Adam’s two sons were in a situation that gives no rise to any thought of aggression in a good person’s mind. The situation is one of obedience to God and offering a sacrifice to draw closer to God: “How each offered a sacrifice and it was accepted from one of them while it was not accepted from the other.” (Verse 27) We note that the passive mode is used here to indicate that the acceptance or rejection of the offered sacrifice is done by a higher power in a metaphysical way. This mode of expression suggests to us two points: the first is that we should not try to determine how exactly the offering was accepted. We need not discuss reports mentioned in books of commentary on the Qur’ān because these reports are most probably derived from Old Testament fables.

The second point suggests that the one whose offering was accepted had not committed any crime that might cause anyone else to be angry with him to any extent, let alone that that person should plot a murder. He had no say in the acceptance of this offering. The nature of the One who accepted the offering was beyond the perception of either of the two brothers. Hence, thoughts of anger or murder should have been far removed from the minds of both brothers. They were in a situation that is close to worship, since it involves offering a sacrifice for God’s sake.

“[The latter] said: I will surely kill you.‘“ (Verse 27) This is a statement of confirmed intention which is met by our disapproval because it is totally unjustified. Indeed, it could only be the result of blind envy which is alien to a good heart. Thus, from the very first moment, we take an attitude of total disapproval of aggression. The sūrah, however, greatly enhances the ghastliness of this act of aggression by showing the peaceful, good-natured attitude of the other brother: “[The other] replied: ‘God accepts only from those who are God-fearing.’’’ (Verse 27)

This is a simple statement which puts matters in their proper perspective. It indicates that the person saying this is a believer who understands the reason for the acceptance of sacrifices offered to God. Also implied in this statement is a gentle advice to the aggressor to fear God, because this is the way through which he could gain acceptance. It is all done very gently so that his brother might remain responsive and unirritated. Adopting a completely peaceful attitude, the good believer of the two brothers tries further to pacify his brother and quieten him: “Even if you lay your hand on me to kill me, I shall not lay my hand on you to kill you; for I fear God, the Lord of all the worlds.” (Verse 28)

What we have here is a case of a peaceful man making clear that his attitude is based on fearing God and implementing His commandments. This attitude fills us with enthusiastic support for the victim of aggression, as we admire his calmness, reassurance and the fact that he fears God alone. His gentle words should have been sufficient to quench his brother’s rage and reduce his anger. A good response would have been sufficient to re-establish the feelings of brotherhood and the reassurance of faith. To achieve this desirable result, however, the good-natured brother adds a word of warning: “I would rather you should add your sin against me to your other sins, and thus you will be destined for the Fire; since that is the just retribution of wrongdoers.” (Verse 29)

We may paraphrase this statement by the God-fearing brother as follows: If you were to stretch your hand to me to kill me, it is not in my nature to do the same thing to you. The thought of murder does not occur to me in the first place, not because I cannot do it, but because I fear God, the Lord of all creation. I will leave you to bear the sin of murdering me so as to add it to your other sins which have caused your offering not to be accepted by God. Thus, you end up with a double burden of sin and a double punishment. This is a just reward for a heinous crime.

He, thus, depicted to his brother how loathsome to him was the very thought of committing murder. He did so in the hope that he would help his erring brother to resist all evil thoughts towards him, especially when he, himself, was of a peaceful disposition. He explained to him that the sinful burden of a murder was too heavy and that he would do well to avoid it in order not to end up with a double punishment. The only way to rid himself of it was through fearing God. In his persuasion, he went as far as any man could go. But the example of an evil man cannot be properly depicted until we know what sort of response he made to such persuasion: “His evil soul drove him to kill his brother; and he murdered him, and thus he became one of the lost.” (Verse 30)

After all this admonition and persuasion, in a perfectly peaceful and gentle approach, the evil soul prevailed and the crime was committed. His evil soul was able to override every hindrance and made him less resistant to the thought of killing. Thus, he killed his own brother, only to be doomed: “Thus he became one of the lost.” (Verse 30) He lost all as he brought himself into ruin, and lost his brother who should have been his friend and support. He also lost his world, since a murderer can never be happy in life. Most certainly, he lost his future life as he added his new sin to his earlier ones.

The ghastliness of his crime was made to appear to him in its most physical shape.

The dead corpse of his brother started to rot and its nakedness became intolerable.

Murderer as he was, he was soon made to realise his powerlessness, as he did not know how to conceal the nakedness of his brother’s corpse. He was weaker than a raven among birds: “God then sent forth a raven which scratched the earth, to show him how he might conceal the nakedness of his brother’s body. He cried out: ‘Woe to me! Am I then too weak to do what this raven has done, and to conceal the nakedness of my brother’s body?’ He was then overwhelmed by remorse.” (Verse 31)

Some reports suggest that there were two ravens and one of them killed the other.

Other reports suggest that the raven found a dead raven or brought the dead one with him and started to scratch the earth and buried the dead one. The murderer expressed his feelings in the way reported in the Qur’ān and liked what he saw the raven do. It is clear that the murderer had never seen a dead man being buried.

Otherwise, he would automatically have buried his brother. This may have been because the murdered brother was the first of Adam’s children to die on earth, or maybe because the killer was still young and had never seen a burial before. Either case is probable. It also appears that his remorse was not one of repentance:

otherwise, God would have accepted it from him. It was the sort of remorse which comes with the realisation that one’s action is futile and leads to nothing but trouble.

It may be that the burial of the dead raven is something that ravens do, as some people suggest. It may also be a supernatural action God wanted to show to the killer at that particular time. To us, both cases are the same. The Creator who gives every species of His creation its nature and habits can accomplish whatever He wills through anyone of His creatures. His power is similarly indicated by either course.

The sūrah then makes use of the profundity of relating this story by enhancing a positive response to the legislation enacted to deal with such a crime. The legislation achieves the dual purpose of weakening the motive to commit a murder and establishing the just punishment for such a crime whenever it takes place: “Because of this did We ordain to the Children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being, for anything other than in punishment of murder or for spreading corruption on earth, it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; and that if anyone saves a human life, it shall be as though he had saved all mankind. Our messengers brought them clear evidence of the truth, but despite all this, many of them continue to commit all manner of excesses on earth.” (Verse 32)

This type of person exists and aggression is committed against peaceful and good- natured people who harbour neither grudges nor ill-feelings towards others. A reminder and a warning may achieve nothing with those who have an evil nature.

Adopting a peaceful attitude may not be sufficient to prevent aggression. For all this, the ghastly crime of killing one person is considered so grave and so sordid that it is equated with the crime of killing all mankind. On the other hand, efforts to prevent killing and to spare the life of one person are considered a great action, equal to saving all mankind. The law given to the Children of Israel included this principle which equates the life of any human being with every life. The right to live is applicable to all. Hence, killing one person is an aggression against the right to live in which all people stand equal. Similarly, preventing murder and sparing the life of one person, either through defending the would-be victim or inflicting the death penalty on the killer in order to prevent the murder of another, is to save the basic right of life applicable to all.

It should be clarified here that this rule applies to people in the land of Islam, whether Muslim or not, as long as they are living under the rule and protection of the Islamic authority. As for those who are in a land hostile to Islam, neither their lives nor their properties are protected unless they have concluded a peace treaty with the land of Islam. This legislative rule should be well remembered. We should also remember that the land of Islam is that in which the rule of Islam prevails and Islamic law is implemented. The hostile land is that which does not implement Islamic law.

God has decreed this principle for the Children of Israel, because at that time, they were the recipients of Divine revelation and, as such, they represented the land of Islam as long as they implemented the law of the Torah in its fullness, without any distortion. But the Children of Israel exceeded their limits after God’s messengers came to them with clear proof of the truth. Ever since the time of the Prophet Muĥammad (peace be upon him) many of them continue to commit excesses of all sorts. The Qur’ān records against them these excesses as well as the fact that they have no argument to justify their errors: “Our [i.e. God’s] messengers brought them clear evidence of the truth, but despite all this, many of them continue to commit all manner of excesses on earth.” (Verse 32) What excess is greater than distorting or ignoring God’s law?

This explained, we need to point out that God has made the perpetration of corruption on earth similar to murder: the perpetrator is put to death because he has forfeited his right to live. The security of the Muslim community in the land of Islam and maintaining law and order within the system which gives the Muslim community the sense of peace and security are essential in the same way as the safety of individuals, if not more. Indeed, the safety of individuals cannot be guaranteed unless the security of the community is achieved. There is also the added reason of protecting this distinguished type of community and providing for it all guarantees of stability and continuity so that its people may carry on with their promotion of a better standard of human life. It is perhaps appropriate to mention here that this community provides to all mankind the guarantees necessary for the promotion of life, helps everything good to flourish and repels all evil. Its prime purpose is prevention, but it also administers the proper remedy for what could not be prevented. It removes every cause tempting human beings to lean towards evil and aggression. When it has done all this, anyone who threatens the security of this community is an evil element and should be removed unless he returns to his senses.

The sūrah lays down the punishment for the crime that such wicked elements commit. This is known in the Islamic legal code as the punishment for waging war against Islam: “It is but a just punishment of those who make war on God and His Messenger, and endeavour to spread corruption on earth, that they should be put to death, or be crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides or that they should be banished from the land. Such is their disgrace in this world, and more grievous suffering awaits them in the life to come; except those who repent before you overpower them. For you must know that God is Much-Forgiving, Merciful.” (Verses 33-34)

The crime to which this legislative statement refers involves rebellion against a Muslim ruler who implements the laws of Islam. The rebels gather in a group renouncing the ruler’s authority. They cause fear among the Muslim community living in the Muslim land and they commit aggression against their lives and property. Some scholars also make it a condition that this should take place away from the areas where the ruler’s authority is enforced. Others suggest that the very fact that such rebels begin to gather and use force in aggression against the people of the land of Islam, makes this legal provision applicable to them wherever they are.

This is probably more practical, because Islam adopts a pragmatic approach.

Such rebels do not merely fight the ruler or the community, but they make war on God and His Messenger, since they fight God’s law, wage an assault against the community implementing it and threaten the land where the law is implemented. By doing so, they also spread corruption on earth. There is no worse corruption than the attempt to prevent the implementation of Divine law and to spread fear in a land where Divine law is applied.

It is true that such rebels make war on God and His Messenger, although they surely do not fight God with their swords, and they do not fight His Messenger who has passed away. But by fighting the Muslim ruler and the Muslim community, they actually make war on God as they obstruct His law and prevent its implementation.

Phrased in this way, the Qur’ānic statement also signifies that the ruler who is entitled to enforce these punishments against those who rebel against him is the ruler who actually implements God’s law in the land of Islam. Without such qualities, no ruler may implement these provisions or enforce these punishments.

We wish to make this statement very clear, because some of those who are happy to be subservient to rulers in all generations try to use this verse for the wrong reasons. They find it easy to encourage the enforcement of such punishments by rulers who neither implement God’s law nor promote the establishment of the land of Islam in their countries, even though they may profess to be Muslims. Moreover, they want these punishments to be enforced against people who are not making war against God and His Messenger, but who fight a tyrannical power, disobedient to God and His Messenger. It must be understood that no authority has the backing of God’s law in its suppression of its enemies unless it implements God’s law. Why should an authority seek endorsement of its actions by God’s law anyway, when it rejects its implementation, thus claiming for itself certain qualities of Godhead?

Let us consider a situation where an armed group rebels against the authority of a Muslim ruler who is implementing Islamic law and threatens the lives and properties of Muslims living in the land of Islam. The punishment for those who join such a group is death, or crucifixion, (although some scholars say that they should be crucified after they are put to death, in order to frighten others) or to cut off their right hands and left feet.

Scholars have widely different views on whether a Muslim ruler may choose any of these punishments or whether each punishment is implemented in a particular case. According to the Ĥanafī, Shāfi`ī and Ĥanbalī schools of Islam law, these punishments are ordered according to the crime committed. A rebel who kills without taking any property is put to death, while another who has taken property without killing has his limbs cut off. A person who has committed both crimes is put to death and crucified. A rebel who helps spread fear but has neither killed anyone nor taken any property, is banished.

According to Imām Mālik, a rebel who has killed must be killed. The Muslim ruler does not have a choice to enforce the lesser punishments of cutting off his limbs or banishing him. The only choice he has is either to put him to death by a method chosen by the state or to crucify him. If he has taken the property of Muslims but without killing anyone, he cannot be banished. The choices open to the ruler are to kill or crucify him or to cut off his limbs. If he has helped to spread fear, the ruler has all four choices and he may use his discretion. If the culprit is one of the organisers of rebellion, then cutting off his limbs may not be an adequate enough punishment. He should be either killed or crucified. If he is one who helps the rebellion with his physical strength, then cutting off his limbs is the appropriate punishment. If he is of neither type, then the lesser punishment of sending him into exile should be implemented.

We are more inclined to support Imām Mālik’s views, especially the latter part which makes the punishment enforceable even in the case of mere rebellion and of spreading fear. This gives a Muslim ruler the right to take pre-emptive action to forestall any rebellion. Those who threaten the security of the Muslim community in the land of Islam, thus, face a stern punishment because the Muslim community is the first to deserve to live in peace and security.

Scholars also differ in their understanding of what is meant by banishing the rebels and whether they should be removed from the land where they committed their crime or from the land where they have their freedom. In the latter sense, they are imprisoned. Or is it that they should be banished from the whole earth, which means that they should be put to death? Our preference is that they should be banished from the land where they committed their crime to a place where they feel lonely and weak. This makes their punishment of the same nature as their crime, which involves spreading fear.

“Such is their disgrace in this world, and more grievous suffering awaits them in the life to come.” (Verse 33). This means that their punishment in this life does not waive the punishment of the Hereafter, as it is the case in certain other crimes. This emphasises the gravity of crime and doubles its punishment. The reason being that the Muslim community should live in peace and security in the land of Islam and that the Muslim ruler who implements Islamic rules should be obeyed. Such a social set up and such a just and perfect system deserves to be protected against any design to undermine it.

If the rebels come to realise their mistake and turn to God in repentance when they still have their strength, then their punishment is waived and the Muslim ruler has no way of punishing them. God will forgive them eventually: “Except those who repent before you overpower them. For you must know that God is Much-Forgiving, Merciful.” (Verse 34)

The wisdom behind discounting the crime and waiving punishment in this case is clear. For one thing, it is an appreciation of their repentance where they still have their power. It is taken as evidence of their good intentions. For another, they are encouraged to repent so that the Muslim nation is spared the need to fight them.

Islam deals with human nature in its entirety. God, who has chosen this religion for us, is the Creator of human nature. He knows what suits man and what does not suit him. “How could it be that He who has created all should not know all? Indeed, He alone is unfathomable (in His wisdom), all aware.” (67: 14)

An important feature of the Divine method of moulding human society is that it does not rely solely on legislative action. It certainly arms itself with legal provisions in order to deter those who only fear the force of the law. Indeed, it relies primarily on educative action which smoothes over the rough edges of people’s characters. It provides guidance to the human spirit as it establishes a society that helps the seeds of goodness to grow and gives harmful weeds no fertile soil. The previous verses spoke of very stern punishments for serious crimes. However, once the punishments are outlined, so as to ensure their deterrent effect, the sūrah addresses people’s consciences and spirits, aiming to strengthen faith and consciousness of one’s obligations towards God. It urges people to seek proper ways of moving nearer to what pleases God and to strive hard in His cause, so that they may be successful.

This is coupled with a warning against disbelief and a vivid description of what awaits disbelievers in the Hereafter.

Believers, fear God and seek the means to come closer to Him, and strive hard in His cause, so that you may be successful. If those who disbelieve had all that is on earth and as much besides to offer as ransom from the suffering of the Day of Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them. Theirs shall be a painful suffering. They will wish to come out of the Fire, but they shall not come out of it. Theirs shall be a long-lasting suffering. (Verses 35-37)

The Islamic approach makes use of all aspects of human character. It addresses the innermost soul of man and touches on his inner motives as it motivates man to obey God and deters him from disobedience. The prime aim is to keep human nature upright and to prevent it from deviation. Punishment is only one of many methods to be used. It is not the only method, nor is it treated as an aim to be pursued.

This part of the sūrah starts with the story of Adam’s two sons, which is particularly inspiring. It is followed by an outline of stern punishments calling on people to fear God and to remain conscious of their obligations towards Him:

“Believers, fear God.” It is God alone who should be feared because this is the type of fear which fits in with man’s position of honour. To fear the sword and punishment is characteristic of those whose aspirations remain very low. To fear God is much more honourable. In the final resort, it is fear of God and consciousness of Him that work on man’s conscience both in public and in private. They are the motives that deter man from committing evil when no other human being sees him and when he is certain that he cannot be brought before the law in this life. Important and necessary as the law is, it cannot replace fear of God, because what escapes the hand of the law is far greater than the number of cases that are brought to justice. No human soul and no society can remain good if it relies only on the law without adding to it the fear of a higher, Divine authority that works on human conscience.

“And seek the means to come closer to Him.” (Verse 35) Fear God and seek the proper approaches which bring you nearer to Him. Try always to be in contact with Him.

`Abdullāh ibn `Abbās, a learned scholar and a Companion of the Prophet, is reported to have said that seeking the means to come to God means to feel in need of Him.

When human beings realise that they are in need of God’s help and when they pray to Him to answer their needs, they stand in the right position of a servant of God towards his Lord. As such, they are in the best position to bring them success in this life and in the life to come. Both interpretations are correct as they mean that human conscience remains alive and helps man to prosper: “Believers, fear God and seek the means to come closer to Him, and strive hard in His cause, so that you may be successful.” (Verse 35)

On the other side, the sūrah portrays a scene of the unbelievers who neither fear God nor seek the means to come to Him. As such, they will never prosper. It is a very vivid description, because the sūrah does not only give a statement outlining a position, but depicts a full scene with movement and interaction. This is, indeed, the Qur’ānic method used in portraying scenes of the Day of Judgement. The Qur’ān uses it for most purposes: “If those who disbelieve had all that is on earth and as much besides to offer as ransom from the suffering of the Day of Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them. Theirs shall be a painful suffering. They will wish to come out of the Fire, but they shall not come out of it. Theirs shall be a long-lasting suffering.” (Verses 36-37)

By the longest stretch of imagination, the most that the disbelievers can have is all that is available on the face of the earth. But the sūrah goes far beyond that and supposes that they have all that the earth contains twice over, and portrays them trying to pay all that as ransom to spare themselves the suffering of the Day of Resurrection. It also portrays them as they try to get out of the Fire of Hell, but they are unable to do so. They continue to endure their painful, lasting suffering. This is a very vivid scene with actions following one another in quick succession. There they are at first, having everything that is on earth and as much besides. They offer it all to escape punishment. Then we see them disappointed when all their appeals are turned down. They are then forced into the Fire, trying to get out, but having no means of escape. The curtain then falls and they are left to dwell there permanently.

This is followed by a legislation outlining the punishment for theft: “As for the man or the woman who is guilty of stealing, cut off their hands in requital for what they have wrought, as an exemplary punishment ordained by God. God is Almighty, Wise. But whoever repents after having thus done wrong, and makes amends, shall have his repentance accepted by God. God is Much-Forgiving, Merciful. Do you not know that to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth? He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills. God has power over all things.” (Verses 38-40)

Muslim society provides for all inhabitants of the land of Islam, whatever faith they may have, enough to keep any thought of stealing far from any healthy mind. It guarantees good living, proper education and a system of fair distribution. At the same time, it makes private ownership the result of only legitimate means, and assigns to it a beneficial social role. Why, then, should any good person entertain any thought of stealing? When Muslim society has provided all this, it is only fair that it should prescribe a very stern punishment for theft, which represents an aggression on private ownership and the security of the community. This strong approach, however, is qualified by the fact that the enforcement of punishment is blocked when there is doubt as to the crime or its perpetrator. It provides all rights to the accused to prove his innocence so that no one is punished unless proven guilty beyond doubt.

What is left for us to say is that the Islamic system is a fully integrated one. We cannot properly understand the wisdom behind particular point of detail in its legislation unless we understand the nature of this system, its basic principles and its guarantees. Moreover, details of the Islamic system should not be implemented in isolation of the rest of the system. We cannot simply take one legal provision or one principle of Islam and try to implement it in a non-Muslim social set-up. Such an attempt is useless. Such partial implementation of Islamic law cannot be considered an implementation of Islam, because Islam cannot be implemented piecemeal. Islam has a complete system which affects all aspects of life when implemented. This applies to the legislation regarding theft as well as to all provisions of Islamic law.

To start with, Islam asserts that every individual in the Muslim community and in the land of Islam has the right to live and to have all the safeguards necessary to protect his or her life. Every individual is entitled to have enough to eat and drink, proper clothing and a home providing him with adequate shelter, where he can rest in comfort. The Muslim community represented by the Muslim government must provide every individual with all these essentials, firstly through his own work as long as he is able to work. The community is responsible to teach him how to work and to provide him with the means and the tools to do his work. If he remains unemployed, either because jobs or their tools are unavailable or because he is unable to work, either partially or totally, temporarily or permanently, then he has a claim against the Muslim community. The same applies if his earnings are not sufficient to meet his needs.

This claim gives an individual the right to still have his or her needs satisfied in different ways. There is firstly a maintenance allowance, which could be imposed on those members of his own household who can afford it. Secondly, his maintenance can be imposed on certain people in his locality. Thirdly, he is entitled to be supported by the state, since such a person, man or woman, child or adult, qualifies as a beneficiary of zakāt. If zakāt funds are insufficient to provide adequate support to all people in need, then the Muslim state, which implements the whole of Islamic law in the land of Islam, can impose an additional tax on those who are well off in order to satisfy the needs of the underprivileged. The condition to be observed in such a situation is that what is so imposed must remain reasonable, fair and adequate. It must not constitute an injustice to those who make their earnings through legitimate means.

Islam is also strict in its view on legitimate earnings. Private ownership can come only through what is permissible. Hence, such ownership does not create a grudge motivating those who are deprived to lay their hands on the property of others, particularly since the system ensures fair distribution and does not neglect anyone’s needs.

Moreover, Islam works on people’s consciences and strengthens their moral sense.

It directs their thinking towards earning through work not through theft. If work is unavailable or insufficient, the community helps them meet their needs. Thus, Islam gives them their right with honour.

Under such a system, why should anyone steal? Theft cannot be committed to satisfy a legitimate need. Its purpose is to get rich without working for it. Wealth cannot be sought through depriving the Muslim community in the land of Islam from the security to which it is legitimately entitled. Those who have earned their money in a fair and legitimate way are entitled to enjoy their earnings in peace.

Similarly, every individual in such a community is entitled to earn money fairly and legitimately. No usury, cheating, monopoly or wrongful exploitation of labour is allowed. Moreover, whoever has money must pay his zakāt liability and pay his share of what the community may need. When all this has been fulfilled, it is only right that everyone should have security for their property. If someone steals after having all his needs satisfied, knowing that theft is forbidden and having no reasonable need to lay his hands on the property of others, he commits a crime for which he has no justification. Hence, no mercy should be shown to him once he is proven guilty.

However, when there is doubt as to the circumstances of the crime, then the general Islamic principle of blocking punishment in cases of doubt comes into operation. Hence, when the Muslim state was stricken by famine, `Umar, the second Caliph, suspended the enforcement of the punishment for theft. He did the same in one particular case, which has been documented. The servants of the son of Ĥāţib ibn Abī Balta`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 punishment from being enforced. 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 understand the punishments imposed by Islam as part of its comprehensive system providing guarantees for all, not for a particular class at the expense of another. It is a system which relies on protection before it imposes punishment. It only punishes wrongdoers who commit totally unjustified crimes.

Having explained this general rule about the Islamic system, let us discuss the particular punishment of theft. Theft is to take surreptitiously the property of others which is kept in a private place. What is taken, therefore, must be a property of a certain value. The minimum limit which, if taken surreptitiously, constitutes theft is agreed by scholars to be equivalent to one quarter of one dīnār, which is approximately equal to 25 Egyptian piastres in our present currency. 4 Moreover, what is stolen must be kept in a private place and the thief must take it out of this place. This means that a person who steals property which is given to him for safe custody is not punished by cutting off his hand. Nor does this punishment apply to a servant who is allowed to enter the home of his owner, because what he steals is not kept in a place which is restricted from him. Nor is the punishment enforced against someone who has borrowed a certain property and who then denies having borrowed it, nor in the case of someone who steals fruits or crops until they have been put in a barn or a store. Similarly, the punishment is not enforced in the case of stealing property if it is found lying outside the place where it is normally placed for safekeeping. Moreover, the stolen property must belong entirely to someone else.

Therefore, if one partner steals something which belongs to a partnership his hand is not cut off because he has a share in what he has stolen. Nor is a thief punished by cutting his hands off if he has stolen something from the state treasury because he has a partial claim to it. In all such cases, the thief is given a lesser punishment such as flogging, imprisonment or verbal reproach, as the judge may think fit, according to the circumstances of the case.

When a thief is punished, his hand is cut off up to the wrist. If he commits theft again, then his left foot is cut off up to the ankle. In case of a third or fourth theft, scholars have different views as to what is cut off.

Where any doubt exists, enforcement of the punishment is blocked. If it is suspected that the person concerned stole food to eat when he was hungry, or to meet a particular need, or if it is suspected that he had a share in the stolen property, then these are reasons which prevent his hands from being cut off. If the theft is proven through personal confession without there being witnesses to give evidence, then withdrawal of the confession is sufficient to prevent enforcement of the punishment. Similarly, if the witnesses recant, punishment is not enforced.

Leading scholars have different views on what constitutes doubt. Imām Abū Ĥanīfah blocks enforcement of the punishment if what is stolen is considered common property in the first place, even though it has been subsequently placed within private ownership. This applies to stealing water from someone’s private place or stealing game animals after they have been hunted. Abū Ĥanīfah’s view is that since such matters are in the first place co n property, there is doubt as to their remaining so after being kept in a private place. Mālik, al-Shāfi`ī and Ahmad, the founders of the other three schools of Islamic law, are of the view that the punishment of cutting off a thief’s hand is enforceable in these cases. Abū Ĥanīfah also blocks enforcement of this punishment in the case of stealing something which may become rotten after a short period of time, as in the case of stealing raw meat or other types of food. The other three schools of law as well as Abū Yūsuf, the second highest ranking scholar of the Ĥanafī school, disagree.

To discuss the different views of scholars in detail is beyond the scope of this commentary. They can be easily referred to in books of Filth. We have cited these examples to demonstrate how lenient Islam is and how keen it is not to enforce punishment in any case of doubt. God’s Messenger (peace be upon him) clearly said:

“Block the enforcement of prescribed punishments in any case of doubt.” Whilst `Umar ibn al-Khaţţāb said: “To suspend punishment as a result of doubt is much more preferable to me than to enforce it despite doubt.”

Having explained the reasons for imposing such a stern punishment for theft in the land where Islamic law is implemented, providing all guarantees of justice and fair distribution as well as the means of protection for all, we need to say a word about the suitability of this punishment to the crime of theft in a Muslim community.

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 labour 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 off 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 a person, nevertheless, yields to temptation and is guilty of stealing, the severity of the punishment will have lasting effects on him, which will also prevent him from repeating the offence.

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 failed miserably in combating crime in general and theft in particular. This 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 honour 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 almost 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 situation if he is punished, 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 of cutting off the hand of a thief 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 drop-outs get away with the fruits of our labour? 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 favour 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 thieves’ hands. This is because the latter is supported by undeniable psychological evidence, human nature and experience as well as logic. While 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 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 to be a true punishment. 5

God, who is the Most Compassionate of all those who exercise mercy, says as He makes the punishment for theft so severe: “Cut off their hands in requital for what they have wrought, as an exemplary punishment ordained by God.” (Verse 38) It is, then, a stern punishment meant to be a deterrent. To deter someone from committing a crime is an act of mercy to that person, because he is prevented from becoming a criminal. It is also an act of grace to the whole community, because it ensures peace and security.

No one may claim to be more merciful to people than God who created them except one with a blind mind and a dull soul. Practical evidence shows that this punishment was not enforced except in a handful of cases during a period approaching a whole century at the beginning of Islam. This is because Islamic society, with its own system and severe punishments and the safeguards it puts in place, did not witness any more crimes.

God then opens the door for anyone who wishes to repent and mend his ways, adding to that a demonstration of positive intent through good action: “But whoever repents after having thus done wrong, and makes amends, shall have his repentance accepted by God. God is Much-Forgiving, Merciful.” (Verse 39)

Wrongdoing is an active step that produces evil results. Hence, it is not sufficient that a wrongdoer should stop his evil action. He should move further and do some goodly work that produces good results. But the case is more profound in Islamic thinking. A human soul must always be active. If it stops its evil and corrupting work, without moving on to produce something good, it continues to lack fulfilment.

This may bring about a setback returning it to evil. When it moves on to active goodness, it is more secure against a return to erring ways. This is, then, the method Islam follows in its work to produce a goodly society. It is a Divine method, meant by God, the Creator of all who knows what suits all, to produce the desired results.

Finally the sūrah states the overall principle of punishment in this life and in the Hereafter. God, the Creator and Owner of the universe, can will anything and determine the fate of every creature. It is He who enacts legislation for people to implement in their lives, and it is He who rewards them for their actions both in this life and in the life to come: “Do you not know that to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth? He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills. God has power over all things.” (Verse 40) It is then a single authority of dominion which issues legislation in this life and administers reward and retribution in the life to come.

There is no division or multiplicity of authority. Indeed, human life can only be set right when the authority to legislate and to reward is united in both this life and the life to come.