booke

190chapter fouroccur to him sufficiently grave or sufficiently proved, he did notapply the maximum penalty. 13 Because of this inbuilt flexibility ofIslamic law, #Umar, opting for a different form of penalty, did notviolate the divine ruling on theft. What he did was to simply movewith his (human) legislation between the upper limit of punishmentfor theft (amputation of the right hand) and its lower limit (full pardon).And we should add that what #Umar did as caliph in seventhcenturyArabia has today become common practice in legal systemsaround the whole world. This makes our argument even strongerthat the aspect of limits is a natural element in all human legislation.And while #Umar acted on impulse in judging cases of theft differently,we today can benefit from the findings of mathematical statisticsand the scientific theories of limits that provide much moresophisticated means for pursuing a further diversification of Islamiclegislation. We no longer need the help of our honourable scholarswho would only continue their search for the umpteenth justificationfor amputation. Instead, we will use modern theories that can leadus to new horizons in the formulation of Islamic law.The Theory of Limits in Islamic LegislationThe theory of limits is based on the notion of a flexible system of(contingent) law that replaces legislation containing rigid regulationsand certain penalties that allow no mitigation and are thought to beonce-and-for-all fixed. Taking up again an analogy with the measurementof blood sugar in the blood, we propose a system that allows13In traditional \anafÊ law the following conditions have to be fulfilled before apunishment for theft can be carried out: a) the thief at the time of the crime is mentallysound; b) he/she has reached the age of puberty; c) he/she has stolen somethingnot less than the worth of a niߧb that is one dÊn§r or ten dirhams (i.e., the equivalentof ca. 4.373 grams of gold); d) he/she has stolen something securely held; e) he/shedid not steal under coercion; f ) he/she did not steal as a result of (mental) confusion;g) the stolen item was wholly owned by someone else; h) there exists a confession oftheft or the testimony of two witnesses. If these conditions are fulfilled, the thief’sright hand is to be amputated. If a convicted thief stole for a second time, his/her leftfoot is to be amputated; and if a third time, he/she is to be imprisoned until he/sherepents (see #Abd al-GhanÊ al-Mayd§nÊ, Lub§b fÊ sharÈ al-kit§b (Beirut: D§r al-Kit§bal-#ArabÊ, n.d.), vol. 1, 336–41). In contrast to this, MS allows more mitigating circumstancesand he allows, in addition, the introduction of a completely different setof punishments (even if all eight conditions have been met in the case of theft),whereby the amputation of the hand or foot is avoided at all costs.