The traditional understanding of 5:38 is that the penalty for theft is amputation of the hand.
In this post I present arguments that take a different view.
I have categorised my arguments into two categories: semantics and pragmatics.
Semantics concerns the grammatical and lexical implications of the text of the verse.
Pragmatics concerns the interpretational and cultural implications of the verse.
Finally, for the sake of a balanced assessment, I give a couple of counter-arguments to my view at the end.
Semantics(1) The key to a firm understanding of 5:38 is to deconstruct the word
أَيۡدِيَهُمَا their hands and its place in the verse, for this word reveals more than we would initially suspect. Let us first look at the traditional translation of 5:38: ?The male thief and the female thief, cut their hands as a reprimand from God. God is mighty, wise.? In Arabic, there are 5 different 3rd person pronouns depending on the number of objects and their gender. The following table gives all 5 pronouns:
http://1drv.ms/1QllyAO (Click on link to see table)
As can be seen from the table, Arabic does not distinguish the gender of pronouns in the dual number. These pronouns are suffixed to nouns and verbs. As an example, let us now suffix these pronouns to the noun
كِتَاب book:
http://1drv.ms/1KwUmdE (Click on link to see table)
In 5:38, the word in question (
أَيۡدِيَهُمَا their hands) has the noun in the plural and the pronoun in the dual. That is to say, the word
يَد hand is used in the plural to signify 3 or more hands and the pronoun signifies 2 people. Therefore, according to the traditional understanding, we are instructed by God in this verse to cut off 3 or more hands from 2 people. This is nonsensical because the supposed command to sever the hand should be applicable to a single individual, not to two individuals at the same time; that is to say, this command can only be applicable if a man AND a woman commit theft
at the same time, and is therefore not applicable if two men commit theft or if two women commit theft etc. As such,
أَيۡدِى in this verse cannot be referring to hands.
(2) Furthermore, the word
يَد in Arabic can refer to any part of the human arm; up to and including the shoulder joint. Therefore, it can refer to the hand from the fingertips up to the wrist, or up to the elbow, or up to the shoulder joint. Why do we not see a specification in the verse as to the point at which the thief?s hand should be severed?
(3) The word
يَد in Arabic can also refer to
sustenance. But it only carries the meaning of
sustenance when it is in the plural, not in the singular. As such, re-interpreting the word
أَيۡدِى to mean
sustenance instead of
hands we re-read the verse as: ?The male thief and the female thief, discontinue their sustenance as a reprimand from God. God is mighty, wise.? The sustenance to which I refer here is the sustenance provided by the state to its citizens. We read in several verses of the Quran that the giving of wealth to the needy is a paramount characteristic of the believers, and if the state were to administer this distribution, then it would be in the position to discontinue the sustenance of those who steal.
(4) The word
قَطَعَ used in 5:38 can mean in Arabic one of a number of things, of which are
to cut,
to cut off, and
to disconnect. The first meaning is used in 12:50 in which the women who were present at the gathering of Joseph?s master?s wife are reported to have
cut their hands out of astonishment of Joseph?s beauty. It is reasonable to think that this
cutting of theirs was not amputation, but an accidental cutting of their hands in the sense of
slash or
graze. The second meaning has traditionally been thought to be intended in 5:38. And finally the third meaning is expressed in 6:45 where the word is used in an expression to mean
disconnected.
Pragmatics(1) If 5:38 were meant to be interpreted as amputation of the hand, then it is anomalous in that it is the only verse in the Quran for which amputation is the punishment for a sin. Not even
رِبَا or
زِنَى have been given corporeal punishments as severe as theft; not to mention the greatest sin of them all:
شِرۡك , which receives absolutely no corporeal punishment whatsoever. I should mention here that although 5:33 does mention a severing of the hands and feet, it is stated in the impersonal 3rd person sense and is stated as a passive statement meant to be taken as a factitive declaration, not as a command that is to be implemented by the believers.
(2) As briefly mentioned above, there is a lack of provision of specifics of the execution of the command of amputation, namely, from what point of the anatomy should the hand be amputated? why are we given specifics in 5:6 for ablution but not in something as important as amputation? why is amputation the sole punishment of theft and not of more serious crimes?
(3) The after-effects of amputation will quite likely create more problems than it was meant to solve. The thief concerned will undoubtedly suffer emotional distress at the loss of his/her hand and this will give way to mental disorders such as depression and anxiety in view of their place in society. They will effectively be marked out among the population in which they live on account of being identified as a thief. And of course, not having a hand, their mobility will be affected. Are these factors that are deserving of theft? Furthermore, how is the thief to be redeemed in society with an amputated hand in light of the verse following 5:38 which states that God forgives those thieves who repent?
(4) Sunni Islam lays down conditional rules for the execution of the command of amputation in 5:38, as: 1) people living in a community must not be living in a state of poverty which might increase their likelihood of theft, if this is not the case, then amputation cannot take place 2) the thief must be a repeating offender 3) the item stolen must be of a given value 4) the thief must be a sane adult with no history of insanity. All these conditional requirements are admirable, for they hinder the execution of amputation. However, we, as a people who use the Quran only as a guide in life, cannot rely on extra-Quranic sources for the implementation or interpretation of religious guidance. And it is the idea
itself of having amputation as a punishment for theft that should be analysed for its merits and faults. I argue the latter to be prevailing.
Counter-arguments(1) In Classical Arabic, it is permissible for the plural to be used in place of the dual when appended to a pronoun. Example, it is permissible to use the plural
أَيۡدِى in reference to the dual
يَدَانِ as it is considered a liberality in usage. Another example is found in the Quran in 66:4 where we read
قُلُوبُكُمَا where
قَلۡبُكُمَا would have otherwise been used. This means that the argument given above about the incomprehension of the plurality of the noun being prefixed to a dual pronoun is invalid only on the grounds that the Author intended
أَيۡدِيهُمَا to be an instance of liberality in usage.
(2) A similar argument can be levelled against the interpretation of the word
أَيۡدِى as
sustenance as that levelled against its interpretation as
hands in terms of the lack of the provision of specification of the duration during which the thief?s sustenance should be suspended.
