booke

200chapter fourThen, is it to be expected of you, if you were put in authority, thatyou will do mischief in the land, and break your ties [tuqaããi#å] of kithand kin? (MuÈammad 47:22)Or ‘to divide’:We divided them [qaããa#an§hum] into twelve tribes or nations… ( Al-A#r§f7:160)In light of these semantic variants of q-t-#, we conclude that theexpression ‘to cut the thief’s hand’ cannot be interpreted as ‘amputationby knife or sword’. Instead, we must consider alternative formsof punishments, such as imprisonment, which equally deters convictedthieves to ‘put their hands’ on items that they might steal.Imprisonment also allows society to release fully rehabilitated criminalsback into society unharmed, thus fulfilling God’s command toforgive and show mercy in the face of a thief’s repentance andremorse:But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Godturns to him in forgiveness; for God is oft-forgiving, most merciful.( Al-M§"ida 5:39)Unlike a merciless, indiscriminate revenge for theft by corporal punishment,the possibility of imprisonment permits judges to imposedifferent penalties that take the seriousness of each act of theft intoconsideration. In serious cases, such as stealing intelligence throughespionage or embezzling money on the corporate or state level, thejudge might interpret this as a serious threat to national security andour economy and impose the maximum sentence (analogous to thepenalty for ‘corruption in the land’, see further below). But if thetheft is of a much smaller scale, a lesser sentence will be more appropriate,and convicted criminals could be released from prison onparole if they no longer pose a threat to their community and societyas a whole. None of this flexibility is, however, possible if sentencesstipulate an indiscriminate amputation of the thief’s hand, regardlessof how serious the crime is and regardless of the circumstances inwhich it takes place. It has become the norm in most legal systemstoday that one should not go to the extreme and cut off the thief’shand. Given that, in referring to a thief, the Book always uses theactive participle s§riq (‘the one who steals’), referring to someone whois still actively engaged in criminal activities in contrast to someonewho has profoundly repented of his crime, we should seriously recon-