111. "Taqwa ... might be translated as "fear of Allah," but the very next clause shows that "fear of Allah" does not mean "fear" in the ordinary sense, which would make you avoid the object of fear. On the contrary the "fear of Allah" is the intense desire to avoid everything that is against His Will and Law. It is in fact (a) duty to Allah, for we are told to seek the means by which we may approach Him, and that can only be done by striving with might and means for His cause" (Yusuf Ali).

112. Wasilah has been interpreted as "nearness" by Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Qatadah, Suddi, Hasan, ‘Ata', Abu Wa'il and others. Thus the meaning is, seek Allah's nearness with righteous deeds (Ibn Jarir, Razi, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir and others). The statement of Ibn `Abbas to this effect has been evaluated as sahih by Hakim (Shawkani, Manar).

In contrast to the word wasl (with saad) which stands for any joining, this wasl (with sin) stands, in its origin, for unison with love (Shafi` from Lisan al-`Arab).

Ibn Zayd however has interpreted wasilah as love, basing his opinion on verse (17: 57): "Such are those who call (upon Him) and seek the wasilah of their Lord" (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

Wasilah has, however, another meaning. It is a place of honor in Paradise (Qurtubi).

Jabir b. `Abdullah has been reported in Bukhari as narrating that the Prophet said: "Whoever heard the call (adhan) and said:

اللَّهُمَّ رَبَّ هَذِهِ الدَّعْوَةِ التَّامَّةِ وَالصَّلاَةِ الْقَائِمَةِ آتِ مُحَمَّدًا الْوَسِيلَةَ وَالْفَضِيلَةَ وَابْعَثْهُ مَقَامًا مَحْمُودًا الَّذِى وَعَدْتَهُ إِلاَّ حَلَّتْ لَهُ الشَّفَاعَةُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ

‘O Allah, the Lord of this complete call and the Prayer that is to be offered, grant Muhammad the excellent Wasilah, and the special rank You have promised him' - but my intercession will become lawful for him on the Day of Judgment."

Muslim has another report which quotes the Prophet through `Abdullah ibn `Amr in words:

إِذَا سَمِعْتُمُ الْمُؤَذِّنَ فَقُولُوا مِثْلَ مَا يَقُولُ ثُمَّ صَلُّوا عَلَىَّ فَإِنَّهُ مَنْ صَلَّى عَلَىَّ صَلاَةً صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ بِهَا عَشْرًا ثُمَّ سَلُوا اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لِىَ الْوَسِيلَةَ فَإِنَّهَا مَنْزِلَةٌ فِى الْجَنَّةِ لاَ تَنْبَغِى إِلاَّ لِعَبْدٍ مِنْ عِبَادِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَأَرْجُو أَنْ أَكُونَ أَنَا هُوَ فَمَنْ سَأَلَ اللَّهَ لِىَ الْوَسِيلَةَ حَلَّتْ عَلَيْهِ الشَّفَاعَةُ

"When you hear the caller (mu'adhdhin) calling out, repeat his words. Then send peace to me. For, he who sent peace to me will have Allah send peace to him ten times. After that ask Allah to grant me Wasilah. It is a place in Paradise that is not deserving of anyone of the slaves of Allah except one. And I hope to be that one. Therefore, whoever prayed to Allah that He grant me that, will enjoy my intercession."

There are ahadith to this effect in Ahmad, Tabarani and Ibn Marduwayh also. (Ibn Kathir)

Mufti Shafi` writes that wasilah written with a sad and wasilah written with a sin both have the same meaning of joining something with another, but since wasilah written with a sin has the additional nuance of joining with love, Mujaddid Alf-Thani has written in his "Correspondences" that an advancement into higher states depends entirely on the love of Allah and His Messenger. And an increase in love depends on following the ways of the Prophet.

The famous Sufi Mufassir Alusi, a one time Hanafiyy Mufti of Baghdad deals with the subject of wasilah in a thorough fashion. Here is an abridged translation:

Some people have used this verse to prove the correctness of supplicating to Allah by the wasilah of the righteous people, placing them between themselves and Allah as the means. They say, for instance, ‘I supplicate to You (O Allah) in the name of so and so (`that You grant me Your grace,' - or whatever else they seek). Some of them say, (naming a dead or a living person), ‘O so and so, supplicate to Allah that He grant me such and such (a thing).' They believe this is the wasilah that is the subject of this verse. They even quote some ahadith to the effect that one might supplicate by the wasilah of the dead. All of this, of course, adds Alusi, is far from the truth.

Alusi writes further down: There is no difference of opinion among the scholars that one might seek the help of the living in supplications, such as to say to someone that he pray for him. However, in such an event, it is not necessary that the more virtuous pray for the less virtuous. It can be vice versa also. The Prophet, for instance, told `Umar when he was leaving for an ‘Umrah: "Do not forget to pray for me, brother." Similarly, the Prophet had instructed `Umar to ask Uways al-Qarni to pray to Allah and seek forgiveness for his (`Umar's) sins. (The hadith is in Muslim: Au.) However, if the person is dead, or not present, then, there is no difference of opinion among the scholars that seeking his wasilah is prohibited. It is a bid`ah that none of the Salaf ever committed. We know very definitely of the Companions that they never sought the Prophet's wasilah when they visited his grave. All that is allowed when one visits the graves is to say Salam to the dead. The Prophet had himself taught his followers to say when they enter the graveyard:

السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الدِّيَارِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُسْلِمِينَ إِنَّا إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ بِكُمْ لاَحِقُونَ نَسْألُ اللَّهَ لَنَا وَلَكُمُ الْعَافِيَةَ.

"Peace upon you O Muslim and Mu’min residents of these dwellings. We are, by the Will of Allah, to join you soon. We seek Allah's refuge for you and for us." Accordingly, we see that the Companions never asked the dead for anything when they entered the graveyards - although they were very greedy of virtuous acts. We also know of `Umar that when he visited the Prophet's grave, he merely said Salam to him and to Abu Bakr, and departed without saying another word. The other Companions too used to supplicate to Allah facing the qiblah. It is not reported of any of them that he supplicated facing the Prophet's grave - although the grave of the Prophet is superior to the ‘Arsh. Indeed, Abu Hanifah has ruled that while one offers his Salam to the Prophet, when visiting his grave, he should show his back to the grave and face the qiblah, although some others have said that one might face the grave when saying Salam, but face the qiblah from the right or the left side of the grave while supplicating. What then should one do when visiting the graves of lesser people?

There is, however, continues Alusi, one exception with regard to wasilah. One might supplicate by the wasilah of the Prophet but none else: neither any other Prophet, an angel, nor any other righteous person. This is the opinion of Ibn `Abdul Salam as reported by Munawi in his Al-Fayd Al-Qadir which is a commentary on (Suyuti's) Al-Jami` al-Saghir. This is because of the extremely high status that the Prophet enjoys with his Lord. The opinion also derives its strength from a hadith in Tirmidhi, evaluated hasan sahih by him, (as also in Ahmad):

عَنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ حُنَيْفٍ أَنَّ رَجُلًا ضَرِيرًا أَتَى النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ يَا نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ ادْعُ اللَّهَ أَنْ يُعَافِيَنِي فَقَالَ إِنْ شِئْتَ أَخَّرْتُ ذَلِكَ فَهُوَ أَفْضَلُ لِآخِرَتِكَ وَإِنْ شِئْتَ دَعَوْتُ لَكَ قَالَ لَا بَلْ ادْعُ اللَّهَ لِي فَأَمَرَهُ أَنْ يَتَوَضَّأَ وَأَنْ يُصَلِّيَ رَكْعَتَيْنِ وَأَنْ يَدْعُوَ بِهَذَا الدُّعَاءِ اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ وَأَتَوَجَّهُ إِلَيْكَ بِنَبِيِّكَ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَبِيِّ الرَّحْمَةِ يَا مُحَمَّدُ إِنِّي أَتَوَجَّهُ بِكَ إِلَى رَبِّي فِي حَاجَتِي هَذِهِ فَتَقْضِي وَتُشَفِّعُنِي فِيهِ وَتُشَفِّعُهُ فِيَّ قَالَ فَفَعَلَ الرَّجُلُ فَبَرَأَ - تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده صحيح رجاله ثقات

A blind man came to the Prophet and requested him to pray for his eyesight. The Prophet told him: "If you wish I supplicate for you. But if you observe patience (and remain blind), that would be better for you." The man said: “But rather, pray to Allah.” The Prophet ordered him to make to make an ablution (wudu). He may then offer two rak`ah of Prayer and then supplicate in these words: "O Allah, I ask You and turn to You through Your Prophet - the Prophet of Mercy. O Messenger of Allah, I turn to my Lord by you in this my need so that You might - (O Allah) – so grant this to me, and O Allah accept his intercession in this (affair) of mine." The man did as he was told and he was cured of blindness.

However, continues Alusi, many scholars have interpreted the hadith differently and, consequently, have disallowed that the Prophet's name be cited as wasilah. In the forefront of those who prohibit wasilah of the Prophet are: Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Abu Yusuf (Abu Hanifa's successor), Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and many others. Nonetheless, those who believe that the Prophet's intercession might be sought, have another hadith in their favor in Abu Da'ud in which a man is reported to have said, addressing the Prophet:

فَإِنَّا نَسْتَشْفِعُ بِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ وَنَسْتَشْفِعُ بِاللَّهِ عَلَيْكَ. قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- « وَيْحَكَ أَتَدْرِى مَا تَقُولُ » وَسَبَّحَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- فَمَا زَالَ يُسَبِّحُ حَتَّى عُرِفَ ذَلِكَ فِى وُجُوهِ أَصْحَابِهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ « وَيْحَكَ إِنَّهُ لاَ يُسْتَشْفَعُ بِاللَّهِ عَلَى أَحَدٍ مِنْ خَلْقِهِ شَأْنُ اللَّهِ أَعْظَمُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ ... »

"We seek your intercession with Allah, and seek Allah's intercession with you." The Prophet responded angrily: "Woe unto you man, do you realize what you are saying?” Then he glorified him and kept glorifying until its effect was seen on his face by his Companions. Then he said, “Woe unto you, Allah cannot be cited as interceding for any of His creation. He is far above that..”

Thus we see that the Prophet prohibited that someone seek Allah's intercession for any of His creation, but he did not disapprove the rest of the supplication words, that is, his own intercession be sought with Allah.

As for seeking Allah's favor through someone else saying, in supplication, "O Allah grant me such and such a thing by the grace of so and so," well, this is completely prohibited. The Salaf never used to supplicate in this manner. The ahadith that are quoted in favor of such a practice are untrustworthy. The one in Ibn Majah, for instance, which quotes Abu Sa`id al-Khudri as saying that the Prophet told him to supplicate in words:

اللهم إنى أسألك عليك وبحق السائلين عليك

"O Allah, I ask you by the right of the seekers ..." until the end of the hadith ... well, this is a weak hadith. Similarly, what is reported of Ma`ruf al-Karkhi that he told his pupils to place him as an intermediary while supplicating to Allah, is also an untrustworthy report. In fact, the Prophet taught his Companions to supplicate with words of Allah's praise and by His Good Names and Perfect Attributes, such as to say:

أعوذ برضاك من سخطك وبمعفاتك من عقوبتك وأعوذ بك منك

“O Allah I seek refuge in Your Approval and Forgiveness from Your anger and Your retribution, and I seek Your refuge from You..”

Such are the words that the Prophet has taught us to supplicate with.

Indeed, seeking help of the dead is one of the most ludicrous things to do. (Far from the dead, even the living are helpless). Ba Yezid Bustami has said that for the creations to seek the help of other creations is like a prisoner seeking the help of another prisoner. As for the reports of the appearances, (either when awake or in dreams), of those figures whose wasilah was sought while making supplications, and they assuring the suppliant that his supplications have been heard, (or forwarded to Allah), well, that is one of the tricks of Shaytan. It is he who appears to the misguided. In fact, sometimes he speaks through the idols of the pagans too to keep them firm in their religion. The fact is, those who are dead are either the righteous ones who are too busy enjoying the life of barzakh, or they are the wretched ones licking their wounds of punishment, and therefore, also too busy to pay any attention to those seeking their help in the affairs of this life.

Alusi's quote ends here.

Rashid Rida adds: The practice of seeking wasilah of the people first appeared in the Middle Ages and gradually such things as seeking blessings by the names of the righteous, abjuring Allah by their names, seeking their help in overcoming a difficulty or obtaining a thing of one's desire, or seeking the help of those who are in the grave, caught the imagination of Muslim masses in the subsequent periods. The fact is overlooked that, as the Prophet has said,

إن الدعاء هو العبادة

‘Supplication is nothing but a kind of worship.'

Allah has also said (72: 18),

فَلَا تَدْعُوا مَعَ اللَّهِ أَحَدًا [الجن : 18]

"Do not call upon any other than Allah."

And, elsewhere, (7: 194),

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ عِبَادٌ أَمْثَالُكُمْ [الأعراف : 194]

aves like your."

He also said (35: 13-14),

وَالَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِهِ مَا يَمْلِكُونَ مِنْ قِطْمِيرٍ (13) إِنْ تَدْعُوهُمْ لَا يَسْمَعُوا دُعَاءَكُمْ وَلَوْ سَمِعُوا مَا اسْتَجَابُوا لَكُمْ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكْفُرُونَ بِشِرْكِكُمْ وَلَا يُنَبِّئُكَ مِثْلُ خَبِيرٍ [فاطر : 13 ، 14]

"Those whom you call upon apart from Allah do not own even a date-skin. If you call upon them, they cannot hear you. And, if they hear, they cannot answer you. Further, they will disown you on the Day of Judgment. And no one can inform you the way the All-knowing can."

The ignorant are unaware of all these texts.

113. That is, conduct jihad (Ibn Jarir).

114. The implication is: good deeds are the wasilah. In the absence of good deeds, all the wealth of the world would be of no profit (Bayan).

Sayyid Qutb writes: "The most a mind can imagine is the unbelievers coming to possess the whole world. But the Qur'anic statement suggests what is beyond the imagination. It supposes that they possess all that the earth holds, and, in addition, a treasure similar to it; yet, granted that possession, it will prove to be of no profit to them."

115. Muslim has reported the Prophet as having said:

وَيُؤْتَى بِالرَّجُلِ مِنْ أَهْلِ النَّارِ فَيَقُولُ لَهُ يَا ابْنَ آدَمَ كَيْفَ وَجَدْتَ مَنْزِلَكَ فَيَقُولُ أَيْ رَبِّ شَرُّ مَنْزِلٍ فَيَقُولُ لَهُ أَتَفْتَدِي مِنْهُ بِطِلَاعِ الْأَرْضِ ذَهَبًا فَيَقُولُ أَيْ رَبِّ نَعَمْ فَيَقُولُ كَذَبْتَ قَدْ سَأَلْتُكَ أَقَلَّ مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَأَيْسَرَ فَلَمْ تَفْعَلْ فَيُرَدُّ إِلَى النَّارِ - تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده صحيح على شرط مسلم

"A man will be brought out of the Fire. He will be asked: ‘Son of Adam. How do you find your place of rest?' He will reply: ‘An evil resting place.' He will be asked: ‘Would you ransom yourself with earthful of gold?' He will reply: ‘Yes my Lord.' Allah will tell him: ‘You have lied. You were asked for something much simpler than that, but you refused.' Then he will be ordered hurled back into the Fire." Similar reports are in Bukhari and Nasa'i (Ibn Kathir).

116. Nafi` b. Azraq (the Khariji: Au.) is reported to have objected to Ibn `Abbas, in words: "Do you believe people will get out of the Fire? Here is a verse which says: ‘Rather, they will suffer a permanent chastisement.' Ibn `Abbas answered: "Look up man. The verse is talking of unbelievers" (Ibn Kathir, Shawkani).

The Relationship

When Allah (swt) spoke of highway robbery in verse 33 above, He followed it up with the mention of burglary in homes.

117. Ibn Jarir comments: There was no consensus among the Companions of the Prophet over the value of a stolen article which would earn a person the appellant sariq (generally speaking, a thief) and entail the amputation of his hand. It is said that in an incident, the value of goods for which the Prophet ordered amputation was 3 Dirhams (or about 10.9 gm of gold). Some say the value was equal to 10 Dirhams (36.3 gm of gold). The Prophet would perhaps have ordered amputation for a Daniq (smallest coin of those times) had there been a theft of that value. Ibn `Abbas has also said that there is no lower limit to the amount. Nevertheless, a hadith reported by ‘A'isha says that the Prophet said:

القطع في ربع دينار ، فصاعدا

"Amputation is for a quarter Dinar or above."

This last mentioned hadith is in the Sahihayn (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

(Quarter Dinar of those times was roughly 6.35 gm of gold: Au.).

Imam Razi points out that the implication of this verse is that it is incumbent upon the Muslims to set up an Islamic state ruled by an Amir. Capital punishments cannot be carried out without a proper Islamic government headed by an Amir. A group of people cannot execute Islamic punishments.

118. It is noticeable that ordinarily the Qur'an does not make a separate mention of women, since what applies to man applies to woman. But when it came to commandments pertaining to theft and adultery, both sexes were specifically named. This is because in matters of capital punishments, no doubts whatsoever can be entertained. Therefore women were also specifically mentioned. Further, in theft, men were mentioned first, while in adultery women were mentioned first when it was said (24: 2):

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ [النور : 2]

"The (unmarried) adulteress and the (unmarried) adulterer, give them both a hundred lashes." This is because in an Islamic society, women are well protected from immorality. If one of them gets involved in adultery, then surely, she would have broken all bounds and measures imposed by the society to be able to do that. Hence she was mentioned earlier to man in adultery. Whereas, so far as theft is concerned, men have several opportunities and options open to them to earn their livelihood. Yet, if one of them chooses to commit theft, surely there is a trace of criminality in him. Therefore, he was mentioned first (Shafi`).

119. With reference to another verse Majid writes: "Next to high moral education and deep religious upbringing it is fear of consequences as world-wide human experience proves, that keeps in check the very natural tendency, almost inherent in human nature, to stealing and thieving."

Legal Points

1. The word in the original is sariqah. Theft is not the precise equivalent for the word since larceny, picking of the pocket, burglary, mugging, felony and all kinds of similar crimes are covered by the term theft, whereas, sariqah is that theft in which i) the value reaches a certain amount, ii) the property was kept well secured, iii) the money was taken stealthily, and iv) it should have been taken without permission. If, for instance, the thief is a part owner, such as, to take an extreme example, in public property (parks, state railways), or an inheritor, share-holder of a company, etc., or the goods were not kept in a secured place, then technically it is not sariqah. It might be some kind of crime, punishable by the court of law, but amputation cannot be ordered. Or, in another case, if the person involved had the permission to use the material, and not to take it home, but he moves it off to his house, then also it might be some kind of a crime, but amputation cannot be ordered. The definition of stealth also removes snatching away of purses, or embezzlement of money, or falsification of accounts, or coffin-stealing, etc. from the definition of sariqah, (Shafi`). Since slavery is no more prevalent, Mufti Shafi` has not pointed out that a fifth condition is that the accused should be a free person and not a slave. Under no condition will slaves undergo capital punishments. Half slaves therefore, as for instance, foreign labor in the Arab countries, cannot be subjected to sariqah rules (Au.).

2. Theft of quickly perishable articles of food is not sariqah.

3. A thief's hand cannot be amputated if the article stolen has no conventional value, even if the thing be greatly valued (Majid), such as, for example, an old stamp or an ancient artifact (Au.).

4. Any doubt, however minor, with regard to the conditions of amputation, will work in favor of the accused, and, following the famous fiqh principle: "Doubts repulse capital punishments," amputation will not be ordered (Shafi`).

5. If the accused does not admit, at least two trustworthy eye-witnesses are essential to prove the crime and order amputation (Shafi`).

6. While in other criminal cases delayed testimony is admissible in the Islamic courts, in cases involving sariqah the witnesses have to be produced within a reasonably short time after the crime. A delay, say of a month, is inadmissible, and in which case, amputation cannot be ordered (Shafi`).

7. If sariqah cannot be proved and amputation cannot be ordered, then the courts are free, (following Ta`aziri rules: Au.) to hand out the punishment they think befits the crime: say imprisonment or monetary fines etc.

8. Since sariqah falls under the General Law, non-Muslims living as dhimmis in a Muslim state will also be punished with amputation (Shafi`). But non-dhimmis, tourists and others are exempted. However, according to the Hanafiyyah, unbelievers cannot be stoned to death for adultery. If the Prophet had ordered it in case of the Jewish pair, it was firstly because it was a very special case and secondly because they had come to him for judgment, and, finally, he ordered a punishment that they admitted was according to the Torah (Thanwi). A corollary of this is that now, in our times, the Jews do not accept the Law of the Torah, rather, have devised their own laws. Accprdingly, stoning to death in crimes involving them or their likes, cannot be ordered (Au.).

9. Testimony of the unbelievers, even if dhimmis, in cases involving hudud (capital punishments) is not admissible (Qurtubi).

10. According to Imam Shafe`i, (also Imam Malik) with the first theft the right hand should be severed from the wrist; with the second, the left foot from the ankle; with the third left hand, and with the fourth left foot. However, Imam Abu Hanifa's (and Imam Ahmad's: Qurtubi) opinion is that there is no amputation after the loss of a hand and a foot (Razi).

11. According to Imam Shafe`i, the criminal is bound to return the stolen goods even if he undergoes the punishment of amputation. (This is also the opinion of Imam Ahmad: Qurtubi). Imam Malik has said that amputation is to be administered in all cases. As for return of the stolen goods, if the criminal is rich then yes, but if he is poor, then no. But, according to Imam Abu Hanifah, it is either amputation or return of the goods. Both punishments cannot be administered at the same time to the same person (Razi).

12. Security (i.e., wealth or property should have been kept in a secured place) is one of the conditions of amputation that has the consensus of the scholars. It is implied from some ahadith. An untied animal or an unanchored boat, for example, are not secured property (Qurtubi).

13. A hungry person cannot be punished with amputation for stealing food (Qurtubi). Accordingly we see, Sayyid adds, that `Umar temporarily annulled the punishment of amputation during the famous starvation of his times. Also, when the slaves of ibn Hatib ibn abi Balta`ah stole a camel belonging to the Muzayyinah tribe, he initially ordered amputation, but later, when he learned that the slaves were kept starved by their masters, he rescinded the punishment, and, as a measure of disciplinary punishment, ordered their masters to pay fine which amounted to eight camels.

14. In opposition to many others, Imam Abu Hanifah has ruled that the close kinsfolk cannot be punished with amputation for stealing from one another (Qurtubi).

15. If the master of the stolen property forgives the thief before he is presented to the court, amputation cannot be ordered (Manar).

16. So also, amputation is annulled during an active jihad (Manar).

17. A group of people (such as people of a town or village) cannot enforce capital punishments of Islam on themselves, or a section of the population. A proper Islamic government is an essential requirement (Au.).

18. In addition to the above, Qurtubi states some other conditions for amputation such as:

i) Maturity: (i.e., a minor's hand cannot be amputated: Au.).

ii) Sanity

iii) Non-ownership: (i.e., the criminal should not have been an owner or a co-owner of the stolen goods: Au.). A father's hand cannot be amputated for stealing from his son, since a son is himself the father's property.

iv) Non-custodianship: so that a slave or servant's hand will not be amputated for stealing from his master's goods.

120. Asad writes: "The extreme severity of this Qur'anic punishment can be understood only if one bears in mind the fundamental principle of Islamic Law that no duty (taklif) is ever imposed on man without his being granted a corresponding right (haqq); and the term "duty" also comprises, in this context, liability to punishment. Now, among the inalienable rights of every member of the Islamic society - Muslim and non-Muslim alike - is the right to protection (in every sense of the word) by the community as a whole. As is evident from innumerable Qur'anic ordinances as well as the Prophet's injunctions forthcoming from authentic Traditions, every citizen is entitled to a share in the community's economic resources and, thus, to the enjoyment of social security: in other words, he or she must be assured of an equitable standard of living commensurate with the resources at the disposal of the community. For, although the Qur'an makes it clear that the human life cannot be expressed in terms of physical existence alone - the ultimate values of life being spiritual in nature - the believers are not entitled to look upon spiritual truths and values as something that could be divorced from physical and social factors of human existence. In short, Islam envisages and demands a society that provides not only for the spiritual needs of man, but for his bodily and intellectual needs as well. It follows, therefore, that - in order to be truly Islamic - a society (or state) must be so constituted that every individual, man and woman, may enjoy the minimum of material well-being and security without which there can be no human dignity, no real freedom, and, in the last resort, no spiritual progress: for, there can be no real happiness and strength in a society that permits some of its members to suffer undeserved want while others have more than they need. If the whole society suffers privations owing to circumstances beyond its control (as it happened, for instance, to the Muslim community in the early days of Islam), such shared privations may become a source of spiritual strength and, through it, of future greatness. But if the available resources of a community are so unevenly distributed that certain groups within it lives in affluence while the majority of the people are forced to use up all their energies in search of their daily bread, poverty becomes the most dangerous enemy of spiritual progress, and occasionally drives whole communities away from God-consciousness ... Consequently, the social legislation of Islam aims at a state of affairs in which every man, woman and child has (a) enough to eat and wear, (b) an adequate home, (c) equal opportunities and facilities for education, and (d) free medical care in health and sickness. A corollary of these rights is the right to productive and remunerative work while of working age and good health, and a provision (by the community or the state) of adequate nourishment, shelter, etc., in cases of disability resulting from illness, widowhood, enforced unemployment, old age, or under-age. As already mentioned, the communal obligation to create such a comprehensive social scheme has been laid down in many Qur'anic verses, and has been amplified and explained by a great number of the Prophet's commandments. It was the second Caliph, `Umar ibn al-Khattab, who began to translate these ordinances into a concrete administrative scheme ...

"It is against the background of this social security scheme envisaged by Islam that the Qur'an imposes the severe sentence of hand-cutting as a deterrent punishment..."

Ibn Kathir notes: It is said that Abu al-`Ala Mu`arri criticized the scholars in one of his poetical pieces ridiculing their opinion that a man's hand be amputated for an amount as small as three Dirhams: as if a hand was as cheap as that. Qadi Abdul Wahhab Maliki replied that so long as it was a trusted hand, it was a precious one, but after the theft it became worthless. The injunction in fact, is completely in line with the demands of wisdom. If the people's property is to be safe, hands that threaten them have to be amputated. And, to save people's hands from the risk of amputation, its price should be kept high, viz., five hundred Dirhams, which is the compensation (diyah) a man gets if his hand is severed by someone either accidentally or willfully. (Today the diyah for a severed hand is an amount equal to about 1300 grams of gold: Au.)

Yusuf Ali comments: "... (the cutting of the hand follows) the principle that "if thy hand or thy foot offend thee: cut them off, and cast them from thee" (Matthew, xviii, 8). Apparently in the age of Jesus thieves were crucified (Matt. xxvii, 38)".

121. Alusi writes: The punishment for theft, until the time of Musa (asws) was slavery. That is, the thief became a slave of the one he had offended.

122. Allah is Mighty, Wise: Asma`i says, "I was reciting these verses and, instead of reading out ‘Allah is Mighty, Wise,' I read out ‘Allah is Forgiving, Kind.' A bedouin was listening. He asked, ‘Whose words are these?' I replied, ‘Allah's.' He said, ‘Read again.' So I repeated ending with, ‘Allah is Forgiving, Kind,' and then realizing the error I corrected, ‘Allah is Mighty, Wise.' He said, ‘Now you have read it right.' I asked, ‘How did you know?' He said, ‘Man. He is Mighty, Wise, so He ordered the amputation. Had He forgiven, out of kindness, He would not have ordered the amputation'" (Razi).

123. Making amends includes returning - if possible - of the goods stolen or seeking forgiveness of the wronged (Bayan).

124. Amputation of a repentant will be carried out all the same (Qurtubi).

Mujahid said that amputation is the thief's repentance. This is based on a hadith:

عن عبد الله بن عمرو أن امرأة سرقت على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فجاء بها إلى الذين سرقتهم، فقالوا: يا رسول الله، أن هذه المرأة سرقتنا. قال قومها: فنحن نفديها، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: "اقطعوا يدها"، فقالوا: نحن نفديها بخمسمائة دينار، فقال "اقطعوا يدها" فقطعت يدها اليمنى، فقالت المرأة: هل لي من توبة يا رسول الله ؟ قال "نعم أنت اليوم من خطيئتك كيوم ولدتك أمك"، فأنزل الله في سورة المائدة {فَمَنْ تَابَ مِنْ بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ}

It says in sum that a woman's hand was to be amputated by the order of the Prophet, despite the fact that her tribe offered ransom amounting to 500 Dinar. She asked him after the amputation whether there was repentance for her. He replied: "Today, you are as clean of sins as you were the day you were born" (Ibn Jarir).

The above report is also in Ahmad and the Sahihayn. It speaks of the famous incident involving the Makhzumi woman after whose theft people sought a concession in her punishment since she belonged to a noble family. Usama b. Zayd was given the tough job of speaking about her to the Prophet. The Prophet was upset when Zayd spoke to him. He asked him: "Do you want to intervene in a punishment ordered by Allah?" Zayd begged him that he should seek Allah's forgiveness for him. The Prophet climbed the pulpit, praised Allah and then said:

أما بعد فإنما أهلك الذين من قبلكم أنهم كانوا إذا سرق فيهم الشريف تركوه، وإذا سرق فيهم الضعيف أقاموا عليه الحد، وإني والذي نفسي بيده لو أن فاطمة بنت محمد سرقت، لقطعت يدها

"Indeed, people before you were destroyed because when one of their nobility committed theft, he was spared, but when a weak one did it, they punished him by the Divine law. By Allah in whose hand is my life! If Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, were to steal, her hand would be cut." Then he ordered that the woman's hand be amputated.

‘A'isha and others have reported that previous to amputation she used to borrow jewelry from women and then deny that she had borrowed them.

`A'isha says the concerned woman later repented well. Later, she got married. She used to visit her seeking the Prophet's help and counsel.

Finally, the Prophet ordered amputation for stealing a camel. Ibn Majah has another report which says that a man called `Umar ibn Samurah came to the Prophet and said:

يا رسول الله، إني سرقت جملاً لبني فلان، فطهرني فأرسل إليهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالوا: إنا افتقدنا جملاً لنا، فأمر به فقطعت يده وهو يقول: الحمد لله الذي طهرني منك، أردت أن تدخلي جسدي النار

"Messenger of Allah. I have stolen a camel belonging to such and such (a tribe). So cleanse me." The Prophet sent a man to the people whose camel he had stolen. They sent word that they were short of a camel. So the Prophet ordered his hand amputated. When that was done, the man said (addressing his hand): "Allah be praised he cleansed me of you. You tried to shove me into the Fire" (Ibn Kathir).

125. Sayyid comments: "`Do you not you know that to Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth?': Thus, it is a single dominion ... dominion of the Sovereign ... from whom emanates the punishment in this world and from whom emanates the punishment in the Hereafter. So there is no division (of authority), no plurality and no break. And, obviously, people's affairs can never be set right without the consolidation of the legalizing and punishing authority into one hand - in this world and in the Hereafter: ‘Were there to be in them another deity, surely they would be destroyed', and ‘It is He who is the deity in the heavens and the deity in the earth.'"

126. Majid writes: "This refutes the doctrine of Karma as promulgated in scores of Indian religions, that there is no remission of sins, and that God Himself is powerless to forgo and forgive!"

127. Rashid Rida points out that the choice of the words while addressing the Prophet tells us something about the high regard in which he is held with Allah, for He did not say, "O Muhammad," rather, "O Messenger." Consequently, we should also exercise care in the choice of words while mentioning him.

The Relationship

The verses above spoke of the hudud of Allah. Now, in the verses that follow Allah gives us an account of those who tampered with the hudud of Allah and earned chastisement. Then, with verse 44, a new passage begins with a note on Tawrah and Injil: those beautiful revelations that their followers neglected (Shabbir).

128. "Those who are Judized" implies that at some point in their history, the Israelites became distinctly different as a people from their forefathers, the Children of Israel. They became Jews (Au.).

Yusuf Ali writes: "Two classes of men are meant, viz., the Hypocrites and the Jews. For both of them Al-Mustafa laboured earnestly and assiduously; and it must have been a cause of great grief and disappointment to him that some among them showed so much insincerity, cunning, and hardness of heart. These are types not yet extinct."

129. "Because they cannot stand the sight of you out of hatred" (Zamakhshari).

130. "These are men among the Jews who were eager to catch up any lie against the Prophet. They had their ears open even to tales from people who had never so much as come near to the Prophet. If we understand ‘for’ instead of ‘to’ before ‘others’ (for the Arabic word would bear both meanings), the sense will be: They are keen listeners or spies for any lies they can catch; and they will act as spies for others (their Rabbis, etc.) who are in the background but to whom they carry false tales" (Yusuf Ali).

131. According to Abu Hurayrah the revelation of these verses was occasioned by an incident involving a Jewish pair that had committed adultery. The Jews referred the case to the Prophet with the intention to accept his judgment if he would order whipping but reject otherwise. The Prophet went to their dwellings to enquire what the Tawrah prescribed as the punishment for such a crime. They said, ‘Whipping and then parading them around the town on a donkey with faces blackened, facing the tail - as a measure of humiliation.' He asked Ibn Suriyah, a fairly young man, one-eyed, but an acclaimed scholar of the Torah, in the name of all that was holy to the Jews if it was not stoning to death that the Tawrah had prescribed. After some hesitation the man admitted that that was the punishment, and the Prophet ordered the pair stoned to death. However, notwithstanding the context of revelation, the verses also seem to be dealing with the hypocrites (Ibn Jarir).

Another cause of revelation has been reported. Ibn `Abbas said that in pre-Islamic times some Jewish tribes did not consider themselves equal to other Jewish tribes. Banu Nadir for instance, considered themselves superior to Banu Qurayzah. Therefore, in cases involving murder, they would not allow their man to be killed in retaliation of a murder, rather, forced Banu Qurayzah to accept blood wit. Now, the murder of a Qurazi at the hands of a Banu Nadir man took place after the Prophet's migration to Madinah. Banu Qurayzah demanded that the murderer be handed over to them. Banu Nadir would only agree to blood wit. Banu Qurayzah - long victims of Banu Nadir's oppression - began to moan about it. They said: "We believe in the same Prophet, follow the same Scripture, believe in the same Law, and are one people. Why then should we be treated unequal?" Finally, when no solution could be found, Banu Nadir were advised by their rabbis to refer the case to the Prophet and accept the decision only if he gave a favorable judgment. The rabbis themselves remained behind the scene (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi).

The above report is in Ahmad, Abu Da'ud, Ibn al-Mundhir, Tabarani, Abu al-Sheikh and Ibn Marduwayh (Shawkani). Ahmad Shakir has evaluated the report in Musnad Ahmad as sahih. (S. Ibrahim)

Nonetheless, a second opinion, that of Ibn `Abbas, Abu Hurayrah, Mujahid, Jabir and others, is that this refers to the incident of the Jews forwarding a case to the Prophet of a pair of adulterers. The rabbis had given instructions to their people that they were to accept the judgment only if he ordered whipping. But if he ordered the punishment as prescribed in the Torah, viz., stoning to death, then it was to be rejected (Ibn Jarir).

Rejecting the Prophet's judgment would not, of course, have been difficult. But, had the Prophet judged in accordance with what they desired, they would have accepted it. For, if criticized, they would have explained to the Muslims that they had accepted the judgment of a Prophet, and to the Jews that they had accepted the judgment of a political authority. Further, some reports say that the Jews came to the Prophet, but some other reports say that he went to them. Well, it is possible that first they came to him and then, subsequently, he visited them for a first hand assessment of the crime (Bayan).

Reports supporting the opinion of Ibn `Abbas vis a vis the cause of revelation, are in Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Abu Da'ud (Qurtubi).

The Sahihayn have a report which confirms the report of Ibn Jarir. Narrated by `Abdullah ibn `Umar, it says that the Jews presented to the Prophet the case of a Jewish man and woman who had committed adultery. They did that in the hope of a light punishment as his religion sounded to be less demanding. He asked them: "What has the Tawrah to say about it?" They replied: "Well. We disgrace them and whip them." `Abdullah ibn Sallam interjected: "You have lied. It commands stoning to death. Bring the Torah."

Accordingly, they brought in the Torah and began to read. When they reached the portion speaking of the punishment by stoning to death, the reader placed his hand on the line and read what was before and after it. `Abdullah ibn Sallam said: "Move away your hand and read." It was speaking of stoning to death. They said, "Muhammad. You spoke the truth. It has the commandment about stoning to death." So the Prophet ordered that they be stoned to death. "I was one of those," Ibn `Umar added, "who threw the stones. And I saw the man shielding the woman as the stones were being pelted at them." The version of Abu Da'ud gives some more details such as that the Prophet was invited to their dwellings. He went into a house called Midrash

in a locality called Quff. They asked him to judge a case involving a pair that had adulterated. They presented a cushion for him to sit on. He sat on it and asked them to produce the Torah. When they brought in the Torah, he got down the cushion, placed the Torah on it and said, "I believe in you and in what has been revealed to me."

A report in Ahmad also says that the Jews followed the Torah commandment only when a weak among them was involved, sparing the noble ones. But when adultery spread among them then they decided that they should rather have one punishment for all, and so they agreed on whipping, blackening the faces and parading the offenders around the town on a donkey with faces turned toward the tail. Abu Da'ud has several versions of this report. According to one, the Prophet ordered them to produce four witnesses who would swear that they saw the very act of copulation. When they did, he ordered the stoning (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

Asad adds: "Although this verse is, in the first instance, addressed to the Prophet, it concerns all followers of the Qur'an and is, therefore, valid for all times. The same observation applies to the people of whom this verse speaks: although it mentions only the hypocrites and Jews, it refers, by implication, to all people who are prejudiced against Islam and willingly lend ear to any false statement about its teachings, preferring to listen to unfriendly non-Muslim ‘experts’ rather than to turn to the Qur'an itself for enlightenment..."

Thanwi comments: In the words, ‘If you are given this accept it, but if you are not given it, then be on the guard,' there is a lot of similarity between this Jewish attitude and that of those Muslims who go to the scholars with enquiries, but with the intention that if they rule according to their desires they would follow them, but if they would not, the affair would be subject to further enquiry and consideration.

132. In its root the word suht means something that destroys. The unlawful has been termed suht because it destroys the person's character as it does his good deeds. Elsewhere the Qur'an has used the word in this sense. It said (20: 61):

فَيُسْحِتَكُمْ بِعَذَابٍ [طه : 61]

"Lest the punishment destroys you."

According to `Umar ibn al-Khattab, `Abdullah (ibn Mas`ud), Mujahid, Hasan, Qatadah, Suddi and others the word suht alludes to bribes. `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud has ruled that if bribes are accepted to offer a judgment following laws other than the revealed ones, then it amounts to disbelief. To substantiate, he recited the verse (5: 44):

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ [المائدة : 44]

"He who did not rule by what Allah has revealed, such then are the unbelievers."

It is said that upon Masruq's recommendation, someone's pending work was completed (by a contractor). So the man gifted a slave girl to Masruq. Masruq was upset about it. He said: "Had I known that you will behave this way, I would never have recommended your case. And I shall never do it in the future. I have heard Ibn Mas`ud say, ‘Whoever did something to get someone obtain his right or get a wrong righted, and is gifted something which he accepts, then that is suht.'" He was told: "We did not know that. We had always thought that playing with the rules (of the Shari`ah) to favor someone is suht." Masruq replied: "That is disbelief."

`Ali ibn abi Talib has said, "The following are suht: A cupper's earnings, the earnings of a prostitute, the price of a dog, expedition of a case (upon receipt of bribe), a soothsayer's earnings, the fees for lending out a bull for mating, bribes, the price of wine and the price of carrion." The Prophet has said:

وَمَنْ نَبَتَ لَحْمُهُ عَلَى السُّحْتِ ، فَالنَّارُ أَوْلَى بِهِ.

"He who nurtured his flesh on suht is better deserving of the Fire."

He was asked: "What is suht, O Messenger of Allah?" He replied: "Bribes for judging in one’s favor" (Ibn Jarir).

The second part of the above hadith could not be found in Sahih Hadith works (Au).

As for the price for a dog, perhaps, those would be exempted that are used for security purposes or for hunting. See note 27 above (Au.).

Qurtubi writes: Imam Abu Hanifah has said that if a ruler accepts bribes, he loses the right to rule even if he does not abdicate. Therefore, all his rulings and judgments after that are null and void. The Prophet has forbidden bribes in very strong terms. He said:

الرَّاشِي وَالْمُرْتَشِي فِي النَّارِ

"He who gives and he who accepts bribe are in the Fire."

However, there is no difference of opinion that if a person finds it impossible to obtain his right without bribes, then he might bribe without incurring a sin. The sin will be upon he who received it.

133. Authorities have differed over whether a Muslim ruler is bound to judge the affairs of the unbelievers within his jurisdiction according to the Shari`ah law, or, has he a choice? Scholars such as Hasan, `Ikrimah, Suddi, Mujahid and Qatadah have said that the choice has been abrogated by another verse (5: 49):

وَأَنِ احْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ [المائدة : 49]

"And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires."

However, others, such as Sha`bi, Ibrahim, ‘Ata' and Qatadah have said that a Muslim ruler has the choice to either judge between them or turn them away to be judged by their own laws. Zuhri has stated that the practice has always been to let them be judged by their own laws in matters of "personal affairs” unless they apply to the Shari`ah courts. But, without sufficient evidence of abrogation, I am inclined to believe that the second opinion is correct (Ibn Jarir).

Qurtubi adds: Imam Abu Hanifa's opinion is that non-Muslims cannot be judged by Islamic laws, unless they seek judgment by them, in which case the judge is bound to rule by the Islamic law alone. But, if there is no such request, then they have to be judged by their own laws. For example, if a Muslim and a non-Muslim commit adultery, the Muslim would be stoned to death but not the non-Muslim partner in the crime. And, if a pair of non-Muslims commits adultery, the two might be whipped but not stoned to death. Nevertheless, the issue is complicated and other jurists hold different opinions (Qurtubi).

134. Sha`bi, Ibrahim and Mujahid have said that the allusion by the term "equity" is to the Shari`ah, i.e., "If you judge between them, judge by what Allah has revealed" (Ibn Jarir).

135. That is, why at all should the Jews come to a Muslim authority for judgment when it is already clearly mentioned in the Torah that the adulterer and adulteress should be stoned to death? Says the Torah in Deutronomy:

22.20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel, (unmarried women)

22.21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

22.22 “If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman and the woman; so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

22.23 If a damsel who is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her,

22.24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones, that they die — the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man,because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife; so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

The Gospels too confirm that stoning to death was the punishment in the Jewish Law. The Gospel of John recounts the following famous story:

8:1 Jesus went to the mount of Olives: 8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him; and he sat down and taught them. 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman taken in adultery: and when they had set her in the midst, 8:4 They say to him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned; but what sayest thou? 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not]. 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he raised himself, and said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 8:9 And they who heard [it], being convicted by [their own]

conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] to the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 8:10 When Jesus had raised himself, and saw none but the woman, he said to her, Woman, where are those thy accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.