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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.