Prohibiting Hunting Game in the Sacred Area and During the State of Ihram and it's Penalty:

Surah Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread with Food): Tafsir Ayah 94-95

Prohibiting Hunting Game in the Sacred Area and During the State of Ihram and it's  Penalty:

In the Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, Most Merciful

94. O you who believe! Allah will certainly make a trial of you with something in (the matter of) the game that is well within reach of your hands and your lances, that Allah may test who fears Him unseen. Then whoever transgresses thereafter, for him there is a painful torment.
95. O you who believe! Kill not game while you are in a state of Ihram for Hajj or 'Umrah (pilgrimage), and whosoever of you kills it intentionally, the penalty is an offering, brought to the Ka'bah, of an eatable animal (i.e. sheep, goat, cow, etc.) equivalent to the one he killed, as adjudged by two just men among you; or, for expiation, he should feed Masakin (poor persons), or its equivalent in Saum (fasting), that he may taste the heaviness (punishment) of his deed. Allah has forgiven what is past, but whosoever commits it again, Allah will take retribution from him. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Able of Retribution.

When a person is in the state of pilgrim sanctity (ihram) it is prohibited for him both to hunt and to assist in hunting animals. Indeed, even if an animal has been hunted for him by someone else he may not eat it. However, if someone hunts an animal for himself and makes a gift of it to such a person, there is no harm in his eating it. There is an exception to this injunction and that is with regard to harmful animals. Snakes, scorpions, mad dogs and other such animals which cause injury to man may be killed even by one in the state of ihram. (See Bukhari, 'Talaq', 24; 'Sayd', 2; Abu Da'ud, 'Manasik', 40, 41; Tirmidhi, 'Hajj', 27; 'Sayd', 26 - Ed.)

It would also be 'two men of equity' (Surah al-Ma'idah 5: 95) to judge as to the number of persons one should feed or the number of days one should fast by way of expiation for killing a certain animal.

Ali bin Abi Talhah﴾ Al-Walibi said that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah's statement,

(Allah will certainly make a trial for you with something in (the matter of) the game that is well within reach of your hands and your lances,) (5:94), refers to, "The weak and young game. Allah tests His servants with such game during their Ihram, that if they wish, they would be able to catch it with their hands. Allah has commanded them to avoid catching it.'' Mujahid said that,

(well within reach of your hands) refers to the young game and chicks, while

(and your lances,) refers to mature game. Muqatil bin Hayyan said that this Ayah was revealed during the `Umrah of Al-Hudaybiyyah, when wild game and birds were coming to the Muslim camping area, which they had never seen the likes of before. Allah prohibited them from hunting the game while in the state of Ihram,

(that Allah may test who fears Him in the unseen. ) Therefore, Allah tests His servants with the game that comes near their camping area, for if they wish, they can catch it with their hands and spears in public and secret. This is how the obedience of those who obey Allah in public and secret becomes apparent and tested. In another Ayah, Allah said;

(Verily! Those who fear their Lord in the unseen, theirs will be forgiveness and a great reward (i.e. Paradise).) Allah said next,

(Then whoever transgresses thereafter.) after this warning and threat, according to As-Suddi, then,

(for him there is a painful torment.) for his defiance of Allah's command and what He has decreed. Allah said next,

(O you who believe! Kill not game while you are in a state of Ihram,) This Ayah prohibits killing the game in the state of Ihram, except what is exempt from this as mentioned in the Two Sahihs; `A'ishah narrated that the Messenger of Allah said,

(Five are Fawasiq, they may be killed while in Ihram or not; the crow, the kite, the scorpion, the mouse and the rabid dog.) Ibn `Umar narrated that the Messenger of Allah said,

(It is not harmful in a state of Ihram to kill five kinds of animals: the crow, the kite, the scorpion, the mouse and the rabid dog.) This Hadith was recorded in the Two Sahihs. Ayyub narrated that Nafi` narrated similar wordings for this Hadith from Ibn `Umar. Ayyub said, "So I said to Nafi`, `What about the snake' He said, `There is no doubt that killing the snake is allowed.''' The ruling concerning the rabid dog also includes the wolf, lion, leopard, tiger and their like, since they are more dangerous than the rabid dog, or because the term Kalb (dog) covers them. Allah knows best. Abu Sa`id narrated that the Prophet was asked about the animals that the Muhrim is allowed to kill and he said,

(The snake, the scorpion, the mouse, and the crow - which is shot at but not killed -- the rabid dog, the kite and wild beasts of prey.) Abu Dawud recorded this Hadith, as did At-Tirmidhi, who said, "Hasan'', and Ibn Majah.

The Penalty of Killing Game in the Sacred Area or in the State of Ihram:

Allah said,

(And whosoever of you kills it intentionally, the penalty is ﴿an offering of﴾ livestock equivalent to the one he killed.) Mujahid bin Jabr said, "The meaning of `intentionally' here is that one intends to kill the game while forgetting that he is in the state of Ihram. Whoever intentionally kills the game while aware that he is in the state of Ihram, then this offense is more grave than to make an expiation, and he also loses his Ihram.'' This statement is odd, and the view of majority is that they have to pay the expiation for killing the game whether they forgot that they are in Ihram or not. Az-Zuhri said, "The Book (the Qur'an) asserts the expiation for intentional killing, and the Sunnah included those who forget, as well.'' The meaning of this statement is that the Qur'an mentioned the expiation and sin of those who intentionally kill game,

(that he may taste the heaviness (punishment) of his deed. Allah has forgiven what is past, but whosoever commits it again, Allah will take retribution from him.) the Sunnah that includes the rulings issued by the Prophet and his Companions, indicated the necessity of expiation in cases of unintentional killing of game, just as the Book legislated expiation for intentional killing. Killing game is a form of waste, which requires expiation in intentional and unintentional cases, although those who intend it have sinned, rather than those who made an honest error. Allah's statement,

(The penalty is ﴿an offering of﴾ livestock equivalent to the one he killed.) indicates the necessity of offering an equivalent animal to the one the Muhrim killed. The Companions gave rulings that the camel, for instance, is the equivalent of the ostrich, the cow is the equivalent of wild cattle, and the goat for the deer. As for the cases when there is no equivalent for the killed animal, Ibn `Abbas said that one should spend its amount in Makkah (i.e. charity), as Al-Bayhaqi recorded. Allah's statement,

(As adjudged by two just men among you;) means, two just Muslim men should determine an animal equivalent to the game killed, or the amount of its price. Ibn Jarir recorded that Abu Jarir Al-Bajali said, "I killed a deer when I was in the state of Ihram and mentioned this fact to `Umar, who said, `Bring two of your brethren and let them judge you.' So I went to `Abdur-Rahman and Sa`d and they said that I should offer a male sheep.'' Ibn Jarir recorded that Tariq said, "Arbad killed a deer while in the state of Ihram and he went to `Umar to judge him. `Umar said to him, `Let us both judge,' and they judged that Arbad should offer a goat that was fed on abundant water and grass. `Umar commented,

(As adjudged by two just men among you;).'' Allah's statement,

(...an offering brought to the Ka`bah.) indicates that this equivalent animal should be brought to the Ka`bah, meaning, the Sacred Area, where it should be slaughtered and its meat divided between the poor of the Sacred Area. There is a consensus on this ruling. Allah said,

(or, for expiation, he should feed the poor, or its equivalent in fasting,) that is, if the Muhrim does not find an equivalent to what he killed, or the animal hunted is not comparable to anything else. `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas commented on the Ayah,

(...an offering brought to the Ka`bah, or, for expiation, he should feed the poor, or its equivalent in fasting.) "If the Muhrim killed game, then his judgement is its equivalent. If he kills an antelope, he offers a sheep slaughtered in Makkah. If he cannot, then he feeds six poor people, otherwise he should fast for three days. If he kills a deer, he offers a cow. If unable, he feeds twenty poor people, or otherwise if unable, he fasts for twenty days. If he kills an ostrich or zebra, he offers a camel, or he feeds thirty poor people, or fasts thirty days.'' Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Jarir recorded this statement, and in Ibn Jarir's narration, the food measurement is a Mudd (4 handfuls of food) each that suffices for the poor. Allah's statement,

(that he may taste the heaviness (punishment) of his deed.) means, We have required him to pay this expiation so that he tastes the punishment of his error,

(Allah has forgiven what is past.) during the time of Jahiliyyah, provided that one becomes good in Islam and follows Allah's Law, all the while avoiding the sin. Allah then said,

(but whosoever commits it again, Allah will take retribution from him.) meaning, whoever does this after it has been prohibited in Islam and having knowledge that it is prohibited,

(Allah will take retribution from him. And Allah is Almighty, All-Able of retribution.) Ibn Jurayj said, "I said to `Ata', `What is the meaning of,

(Allah has forgiven what is past.)' He said, `Meaning, during the time of Jahiliyyah.' I asked about,

(but whosoever commits it again, Allah will take retribution from him.) He said, `Whoever commits this offense again in Islam, then Allah will take retribution from him and he also has to pay the expiation.' I asked, `Is there any punishment for repeating this offense that you know of' He said, `No.' I said, `Do you think that the authorities should punish him' He said, `No, for it is a sin that he committed between him and Allah. He should pay the expiation.''' Ibn Jarir recorded this statement. It was said that the `Allah will take retribution' refers to the expiation, according to Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ata', and the majority among the earlier and later generations. They stated that when the Muhrim kills game, the expiation becomes necessary, regardless of whether it was the first, second or third offense, and whether intentional or by error. Ibn Jarir commented on Allah's statement;

(And Allah is Almighty, All-Able of retribution.) "Allah says that He is invincible in His control, none can resist Him, prevent Him from exacting retribution from anyone, or stop Him from punishing anyone. This is because all creation is His creation and the decision is His, His is the might, and His is the control. His statement,

(All-Able of retribution.) meaning, He punishes those who disobey Him for their disobedience of Him.''

Prohibiting Khamr (Intoxicants) and Maysir (Gambling):

Surah Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread with Food): Tafsir Ayah 90-93

In the Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, Most Merciful

90. O you who believe! Intoxicants (all kinds of alcoholic drinks), gambling, Al-Ansab , and Al-Azlam (arrows for seeking luck or decision) are an abomination of Shaitan's (Satan) handiwork. So avoid (strictly all) that (abomination) in order that you may be successful .
91. Shaitan (Satan) wants only to excite enmity and hatred between you with intoxicants (alcoholic drinks) and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah and from As-Salat (the prayer). So, will you not then abstain?
92. And obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad ), and beware (of even coming near to drinking or gambling or Al-Ansab, or Al-Azlam, etc.) and fear Allah. Then if you turn away, you should know that it is Our Messenger's duty to convey (the Message) in the clearest way.
93. Those who believe and do righteous good deeds, there is no sin on them for what they ate (in the past), if they fear Allah (by keeping away from His forbidden things), and believe and do righteous good deeds, and again fear Allah and believe, and once again fear Allah and do good deeds with Ihsan (perfection). And Allah loves the good-doers.

Prohibiting Khamr (Intoxicants) and Maysir (Gambling):

While divination by arrow-shooting essentially constitutes a game of chance there is nevertheless a certain difference between the two, since divination by arrow-shooting, in addition to being a game of chance, is also tainted with polytheistic beliefs and superstitions. As for games of chance, this expression is applied to those games and acts in which accidental factors are considered the criteria for acquisition, fortune-making and the division of goods and property.

In this verse four things are categorically prohibited:

(1) intoxicants;

(2) games of chance;

(3) places consecrated for the worship of anyone else besides God Almighty, and altars for either sacrifices or offerings in the name of others than God Almighty; and

(4) polytheistic divination by arrow-shooting.

The last three items have already been mentioned. (See Surah 2: 219 and Surah 5: 3). Two injunctions had already been revealed concerning the prohibition of intoxicants (See Surahs 2: 219 and 4: 43). Before the revelation of the last injunction, the Prophet (peace be on him) had warned the people that intoxicants were highly displeasing to God Almighty. Hinting at the possibility of their being prohibited, he advised people to dispose of intoxicants if they had any. A little later on the present verse was revealed and the Prophet (peace be on him) then proclaimed that those who had intoxicants should neither consume nor sell them, but rather destroy them. Intoxicating liquors were poured into the streets of Madina. When asked if such liquor might be offered to the Jews as a gift the Prophet (peace be on him) replied in the negative and said: 'He Who has prohibited it has also required it not to be given away as a gift.' Some people inquired whether it was permitted to make vinegar out of such liquor. The Prophet (peace be on him) told them not to do so, but to throw it away instead. Another person asked insistently whether or not an intoxicant could be used as medicine. The Prophet (peace be on him) replied that far from being a remedy for any malady it was in itself a malady. Others sought permission to consume intoxicating liquor on the plea that they lived in a very cold region and had to work very hard, and that the people of that region habitually drank intoxicants to combat exhaustion and cold. The Prophet (peace be on him) inquired if the drink concerned did cause intoxication. On being told that it did, he said that they should abstain from it. They pointed out that the people of their region would not accept this, to which the Prophet (peace be on him) replied that they should fight them.

It is reported by 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'God Almighty has cursed khamr (wine) and him who drinks it, him who provides it to others and him who buys or sells it, him who squeezes (the grapes) into wine and him who causes others to squeeze grapes (in order to make wine), him who carries it and him to whom it is carried.' (See Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p. 97; vol. 1, p. 316; Abu Da'ud, 'Ashribah', 2 - Ed.)

According to another tradition the Prophet (peace be on him) instructed not to eat at the table where intoxicating drinks were being taken. In the beginning the Prophet (peace be on him) even forbade the use of vessels in which intoxicating drinks had either been made or served. Later on, when the prohibition of drinks was completely observed the Prophet (peace be on him) withdrew the interdiction regarding the use of these vessels. (See Abu Da'ud, 'At'imah', 18; Tirmidhi, 'Adab', 43; Darimi, 'Ashribah', 15; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 20; vol. 3, p. 339 - Ed.) Though the word khamr in Arabic means literally 'the drink made from grapes', it was also used figuratively for intoxicating liquors made from wheat, barley, raisins, dates and honey. The Prophet (peace be on him) applied the prohibition of wine to all intoxicants. In this regard we find categorical statements from the Prophet (peace be on him) embodied in traditions: 'Every intoxicant is khamr, and every intoxicant is prohibited.'

'Every drink which causes intoxication is prohibited.' 'I forbid everything which intoxicates.' In a Friday sermon 'Umar defined khamr in the following manner: 'Whatever takes hold of the mind is khamr.' (See Bukhari, 'Wudu", 71; 'Maghazi', 60, 'Ashribah', 4,10, 'Adab', 8, 'Ahkam', 22; Muslim, 'Ashribah', 67-9; Abu Da'ud, 'Ashribah', 5, 71; Ibn Majah, 'Ashribah', 9, 13, 14; Darimi, 'Ashribah', 8, 9; Muwatta', 'Dahaya', 8; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, pp. 274, 289, 350; vol. 2, pp. 16, 158, 171, 185, 429, 501; vol. 3, pp. 63, 66, 112, 119, 361; vol. 4, pp. 41, 416; vol. 6, pp. 36, 71, 72, 97, 131, 190 and 226 - Ed.)

The Prophet (peace be on him) also enunciated the following principle: 'If anything causes intoxication when used in large quantity, even a small quantity of it is prohibited.' 'If a large quantity of something causes intoxication, to drink even a palmful of it is prohibited.' (See Abu Da'ud, 'Ashribah', 5; Ibn Majah, 'Ashribah', 10; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, pp. 167, 179 and vol. 3, p. 343 - Ed.)

In the time of the Prophet (peace be on him) no specific punishment had been laid down for drinking. A person caught drunk would be struck with shoes, fists, and whips made of twisted cloth and palm sticks. The maximum number of lashes to which any culprit was subjected was forty. In the time of Abu Bakr the punishment continued to be forty lashes. In the time of 'Umar the punishment initially remained at forty lashes also, but when he saw people persist in drinking he fixed the punishment at eighty lashes after consulting the Companions. This was considered the prescribed legal punishment for drinking by Malik and Abu Hanifah, and even by Shafi'i according to one tradition. But Ahmad b. Hanbal, and, according to a variant tradition, Shafi'i, considered the punishment to consist of forty lashes, and 'Ali is reported to have preferred this opinion.

According to Islamic Law, it is the bounden duty of an Islamic government to enforce this prohibition. In the time of 'Umar the shop of a member of the Thaqif tribe, by the name of Ruwayshid, was burnt down because he carried on the sale of liquor. On another occasion a whole hamlet was set on fire because it had become a center of illegal traffic in liquor.

Allah forbids His believing servants from consuming Khamr and Maysir which is gambling. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that `Ali bin Abi Talib, the Leader of the Faithful, said that chess is a type of gambling. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that `Ata', Mujahid and Tawus, or , two of them, said that every type of gambling, including children's playing with (a certain type of) nuts, is Maysir. Ibn `Umar said that Al-Maysir means gambling, and this is the same statement that Ad-Dahhak reported from Ibn `Abbas, who added, "They used to gamble during the time of Jahiliyyah, until Islam came. Allah then forbade them from this evil behavior.''

Meaning of Ansab and Azlam:

Al-Ansab were altar stones, in whose vicinity sacrifices were offered (during the time of Jahiliyyah), according to Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ata', Sa`id bin Jubayr and Al-Hasan. They also said that Al-Azlam were arrows that they used for lotteries to make decisions, as Ibn Abi Hatim narrated. Allah said,

(A Rijs of Shaytan's handiwork) meaning, abomination of Shaytan's handiwork, according to `Ali bin Abi Talhah who reported it from Ibn `Abbas. Sa`id bin Jubayr said that Rijs means `sin' while Zayd bin Aslam said; "An evil handiwork of Shaytan.''

(So avoid that) avoid all of these abominations,

(in order that you may be successful.) and this is a statement of encouragement. Allah said next,

(Shaytan wants only to excite enmity and hatred between you with Khamr (intoxicants) and Maysir (gambling), and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah and from the Salah (the prayer). So, will you not then abstain) This is a threat and a warning.

Hadiths that Prohibit Khamr (Intoxicants):

Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Hurayrah said, "There were three stages to prohibiting Khamr (intoxicants) as was mentioned before. When the Messenger of Allah migrated to Al-Madinah, the people were consuming alcohol and gambling, so they asked the Messenger of Allah about these things, Allah revealed,

(They ask you about alcoholic drink and gambling. Say: "In them is a great sin, and (some) benefit for men.'') (2:219), until the end of the Ayah. The people said, `They (intoxicants and gambling) were not prohibited for us. Allah only said,

(In them is a great sin, and (some) benefit for men.)' So they went on drinking Khamr until one day, one of the emigrants lead his companions in the Maghrib prayer and mixed up the Ayat in his recitation. Thereafter, Allah sent down a tougher statement,

(O you who believe! Approach not the Salah (the prayer) when you are in a drunken state until you know (the meaning of) what you utter.) (4:43) Then, the people would drink before the time of the prayer so that they would attend the prayer while sober. A firmer Ayah was later revealed,

(O you who believe! Khamr, Maysir, Ansab, and Azlam are an abomination of Shaytan's handiwork. So avoid that in order that you may be successful.) (5:90-91) So they said, `We abstained, O Lord!' Later, some people said, `O Allah's Messenger! Some people died in the cause of Allah, while some others died in their beds, but they used to drink alcohol and indulge in gambling, which Allah has made a Rijs of the work of Shaytan.' So Allah sent down,

(Those who believe and do righteous good deeds, there is no sin on them for what they ate...) (5:93), until the end of the Ayah. The Prophet said,

(Had they been made impermissible for them, they would have abandoned them as you have abandoned them.) Ahmad recorded this Hadith. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "O Allah! Explain the verdict about Khamr to us clearly.'' The Ayah in Surat Al-Baqarah was revealed,

(They ask you about alcoholic drink and gambling. Say: "In them is a great sin.'') (2:219) `Umar was summoned and this Ayah was recited to him, but he still said, "O Allah! Make the verdict of Khamr clear to us.'' Then the Ayah in Surat An-Nisa' was revealed,

(O you who believe! Do not approach the Salah when you are in a drunken state.) (4:43) Thereafter, the Prophet had someone herald when it was time to pray, "Those in a drunken state are not to approach the prayer.'' `Umar was again summoned and the Ayah was recited to him, but he still said, "O Allah! Make the verdict concerning Khamr clear to us.'' Then, the Ayah in Surat Al-Ma'idah (5:91)was revealed, and `Umar was summoned and it was recited to him. When he reached the part of the Ayah that reads,

(So, will you not then abstain)(5:91), `Umar said, "We abstained, we abstained.'' Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi, and An-Nasa'i recorded this Hadith. `Ali bin Al-Madini and At-Tirmidhi graded it Sahih. It is recorded in the Two Sahihs, that `Umar bin Al-Khattab said in a speech; while standing on the Minbar of the Messenger of Allah (in the Prophet's Masjid in Al-Madinah) "O people! The prohibition of Khamr was revealed; and Khamr was extracted from five things: From grapes, dates, honey, wheat and barley. Khamr is what intoxicates the mind.'' Al-Bukhari recorded that Ibn `Umar said, "The prohibition of Khamr was revealed when there were five kinds of intoxicants in Al-Madinah, besides what was produced from grapes.''

Another Hadith:

Imam Ahmad recorded that Anas said, "I once was giving an alcoholic beverage to Abu `Ubaydah bin Al-Jarrah, `Ubayy bin Ka`b, Suhayl bin Bayda' and several of their friends meeting at Abu Talhah's house. When they were almost intoxicated, some Muslims came and said, `Did you not know that Khamr has been prohibited' They said, `We'll wait and ask.' They then said, `O Anas! Spill the remaining alcohol out of your container.' By Allah! They never drank it again, and their Khamr at that time was made from unripe and normal dates.''' This is also recorded in the Two Sahihs. In another narration by Anas, "I was the butler of the people in the house of Abu Talhah when Khamr was prohibited, and in those days alcohol was made from unripe and normal dates. A caller then heralded, and Abu Talhah ordered me to see what it was about. So I found that a person was announcing that alcoholic drinks had been prohibited. Abu Talhah ordered me to go out and spill the wine. I went out and spilled it, and it flowed in the streets of Al-Madinah. Some people said, `Some people were killed and wine was still in their stomachs.' Later on, Allah's revelation came,

(Those who believe and do righteous good deeds, there is no sin on them for what they ate...) (5:93).'' Ibn Jarir recorded that Anas bin Malik said, "I was serving Abu Talhah, Abu `Ubaydah bin Al-Jarrah, Abu Dujanah, Mu`adh bin Jabal and Suhayl bin Bayda', until they became intoxicated from an alcoholic drink made of mixed unripe and normal dates. Then I heard someone herald, `Khamr has been made illegal.' So no one went in or out until we spilled the alcohol and broke its barrels. Some of us then performed ablution and others took a shower, and we wore some perfume. We then went out to the Masjid while the Messenger of Allah was reciting,

(O you who believe! Khamr, Maysir, Ansab, and Azlam are only an abomination of Shaytan's handiwork. So avoid that...) (5:90), until,

(So, will you not then abstain) (5:91). A man asked, `O Allah's Messenger! What about those who died drinking it' Allah sent down the verse,

(Those who believe and do righteous good deeds, there is no sin on them for what they ate.) (5:93).''

Another Hadith:

Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(Ten matters related to Khamr were cursed. Khamr itself was cursed, whoever drinks it, its server, seller, buyer, brewer, who asks for it to be brewed, whoever carries it, whomever it is carried to and whoever consumes its price.) Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah recorded this Hadith. Ahmad recorded that Ibn `Umar said, "Once, the Messenger of Allah went out and I went out with him. I walked to his right, but Abu Bakr came along and I gave way to him, and Abu Bakr was walking on the Prophet's right, while I was walking on his left. Then `Umar came along and he was walking on the Prophet's left, since I gave way to him. The Messenger of Allah then found a leather skin hanging containing alcohol, so he asked for a knife and ordered that the skin be cut open. He then said,

(Khamr was cursed, and so are those who drink it, serve it, sell it, buy it, carry it, have it carried to them, brew it, have it brewed and consume its price.)''

Another Hadith:

Al-Hafiz Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqi recorded that Sa`d said, "There were four Ayat revealed about Khamr...'' He then said, "A man from Al-Ansar made some food and invited us. We drank Khamr before it was prohibited and became intoxicated, and thus started to boast about our status. The Ansar said that they were better, while Quraysh (the Muhajirin) said that they were better. So a man from the Ansar took a bone and struck Sa`d's nose with it and made a flesh wound on it. Ever since that happened, Sa`d's nose had a scar from that wound. The Ayah,

(Intoxicants, gambling,) until,

(So, will you not then abstain) was later
revealed.'' Muslim recorded this Hadith.

Another Hadith:

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that `Abdullah bin `Amr said, "This Ayah in the Qur'an,

(O you who believe! Khamr, Maysir, Ansab, and Azlam are only an abomination of Shaytan's handiwork. So avoid that in order that you may be successful.)﴿5:90﴾, was also in the Tawrah; `Allah has sent down truth to eradicate falsehood, joyful play, flute or wind instruments, Zafan (dances) and Kibarat (referring to cabarets using the lute and bagpipe), tambourine, guitar, harp and lyric and love poetry. And Khamr is bitter for those who taste it. Allah has vowed by His grace and power, `Whoever drinks it after I prohibited it, I will make him thirsty on the Day of Resurrection. Whoever abandons it after I prohibited it, I will let him taste it in the residence of Grace (Paradise).''' Its chain of narration is Sahih.

Another Hadith:

Ash-Shafi`i narrated that Malik narrated that Nafi` said that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(Whoever drinks Khamr in the life of this world and does not repent from it, will be deprived of it in the Hereafter.) Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded this Hadith. Muslim recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(Every intoxicant is Khamr, and every intoxicant is unlawful. Whoever drinks Khamr and dies while addicted to it, without repenting from drinking it, will not drink it in the Hereafter.) `Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham said that he heard `Uthman bin `Affan saying, "Avoid Khamr, for it is the mother of all sins. There was a man before your time who used to worship Allah secluded from the people. Later, an evil woman loved him and sent her female servant to him saying that they wanted him to witness something. So he went with the servant. Whenever they went through the door, she locked it behind them, until he reached a beautiful woman with a young servant boy and some alcohol. She said to him, `By Allah! I did not invite you to be a witness for anything, but called you to have sex with me, kill this boy or drink this alcohol.' So she gave him some alcohol, and he kept asking for more until he (became intoxicated and) had sex with her and killed the boy. Therefore, avoid Khamr, because it is never combined with faith, but one of them is bound to expel the other (from the heart).'' This was recorded by Al-Bayhaqi. This statement has an authentic chain of narration. Abu Bakr bin Abi Ad-Dunya recorded this statement in his book on the prohibition of intoxicants, but he related it from the Prophet. Relating it from `Uthman is more authentic, and Allah knows best. Ahmad bin Hanbal recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, "When Khamr was prohibited, some people said, `O Allah's Messenger! What about our brethren who died while still drinking Khamr' Allah sent down the Ayah

(Those who believe and do righteous good deeds, there is no sin on them for what they ate,) until the end of the Ayah. When the Qiblah (direction of the prayer) was changed (from Jerusalem to Makkah), some people asked, `O Allah's Messenger! What about our brethren who died while still praying toward Jerusalem' Allah sent down,

(And Allah would never make your faith to be lost.)'' (2:143)`Abdullah bin Mas`ud said that the Prophet said when the Ayah,

(Those who believe and do righteous good deeds, there is no sin on them for what they ate, if they have Taqwa, and believe...) was revealed,

(I was told, that you are among them.) This is the narration that Muslim, At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa'i collected.

Repentance of the Thief is Acceptable

"But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allah), then verily, Allah will pardon him (accept his repentance). Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Know you not that to Allah (Alone) belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth! He punishes whom He wills and He forgives whom He wills. And Allah is Able to do all things." (Qur'an 5 : 39)

Forgiveness on the part of Allah does not mean that the hand of the thief should not be cut off. It means rather that one who repents and becomes righteous by purging his soul of the sin of stealing will be spared the wrath of God, Who will remove the stain of that sin from him. But if after his hand has been cut off the person concerned does not purge himself of evil intent and continues to nurture the same impure feelings which led to his stealing and thus to the cutting off of his hand, it is evident that even though his hand has been severed from his body, stealing remains ingrained in his soul. The result will be that he will continue to merit God's wrath as he did before his hand was cut off. The Qur'an therefore directs the thief to seek pardon from God and to try to reform himself. For the hand of that thief was cut off for the sake of the judicious administration of human society and the cutting off of a hand did not automatically purify the soul of the person on whom the punishment was carried out. Purity of soul can be achieved only by repentance and turning oneself to God. Traditions mention that after the hand of a thief had been cut off in compliance with the Prophet's order, he was summoned by the Prophet (peace be on him) himself who said to him: 'Say: "I seek pardon from God, and to Him do I turn in repentance.'" The thief uttered these words as directed by the Prophet (peace be on him) who then prayed for the thief, saying: 'O God, accept his repentance.' (Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 8 - Ed.)

Therefore, whoever repents and goes back to Allah after he commits theft, then Allah will forgive him. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Abdullah bin `Amr said that a woman committed theft during the time of the Messenger of Allah and those from whom she stole brought her and said, "O Allah's Messenger! This woman stole from us.'' Her people said, "We ransom her.'' The Messenger of Allah said,

(Cut off her hand.) They said, "We ransom her with five hundred Dinars.'' The Prophet said,

(Cut off her hand.) Her right hand was cut off and the woman asked, "O Messenger of Allah! Is there a chance for me to repent'' He said,

(Yes. This day, you are free from your sin just as the day your mother gave birth to you.) Allah sent down the verse in Surat Al-Ma'idah,

(But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allah), then verily, Allah will pardon him. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) This woman was from the tribe of Makhzum. Her story was narrated in the Two Sahihs from Az-Zuhri from `Urwah from `A'ishah, The incident caused concern for the Quraysh after she committed the theft during the time of the battle of the Conquest ﴿of Makkah﴾. They said, "Who can talk to Allah's Messenger about her matter'' They then said, "Who dares speak to him about such matters other than Usamah bin Zayd, his loved one.'' When the woman was brought to the Messenger of Allah , Usamah bin Zayd talked to him about her and the face of the Messenger changed color (because of anger) and he said,

(Do you intercede in a punishment prescribed by Allah) Usamah said to him, "Ask Allah to forgive me, O Allah's Messenger!'' During that night, the Messenger of Allah stood up and gave a speech and praised Allah as He deserves to be praised. He then said,

(Those who were before you were destroyed because when an honorable person among them would steal, they would leave him. But, when a weak man among them stole, they implemented the prescribed punishment against him. By Him in Whose Hand is my soul! If Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad stole, I will have her hand cut off.) The Prophet commanded that the hand of the woman who stole be cut off, and it was cut off. `A'ishah said, `Her repentance was sincere afterwards, and she got married and she used to come to me so that I convey her needs to the Messenger of Allah.'' This is the wording that Muslim collected, and in another narration by Muslim, `A'ishah said, "She was a woman from Makhzum who used to borrow things and deny that she took them. So the Prophet ordered that her hand be cut off.'' Allah then said,

(Know you not that to Allah (Alone) belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth!) He owns everything and decides what He wills for it and no one can resist His judgment,

(He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills. And Allah is able to do all things.)

The Necessity of Cutting off the Hand of the Thief

In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful.

"Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise." (Qur'an 5:38)

Allah commands and decrees that the hand of the thief, male or female be cut off. During the time of Jahiliyyah, this was also the punishment for the thief, and Islam upheld this punishment. In Islam, there are several conditions that must be met before this punishment is carried out, as we will come to know, Allah willing. There are other rulings that Islam upheld after modifying these rulings, such as that of blood money for example. Now the  injunction is to cut off one not both hands. There is consensus among jurists that in the event of the first theft the right hand should be cut off. This punishment has been laid down for theft alone. The Prophet (peace be on him) declared: "There is no cutting off of a hand for he who embezzles.' (Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 14; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 18; Ibn Majah, 'Hudud', 36; Nasa'i, 'Qat' al-Sariq', 13 - Ed.) This shows that the punishment prescribed for theft does not cover acts involving embezzlement and other dishonest practices. It is applicable only to acts involving the seizure, by stealth, of someone else's property.

When Does Cutting the Hand of the Thief Become Necessary is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg and as a result his hand is cut off, and who steals rope and as a result his hand is cut off.) Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded that `A'ishah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (The hand of the thief shall only be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) This Hadith is the basis of the matter since it specifies (that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting the hand) is a quarter of a Dinar which was less than that of a shield. So this Hadith fixes the value. according to a tradition from Ibn 'Abbas, this was ten dirhams; according to a tradition from Ibn 'Umar, it was three dirhams; according to a tradition from Anas b. Malik, it was five dirhams; and according to the tradition from 'A'ishah, it was a quarter of a dinar. Owing to this discrepancy, there is disagreement among jurists regarding the minimum value of the goods stolen which merits the punishment of cutting off a hand. This value, according to Abu Hanifah, is ten dirhams whereas according to Malik, Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal, it is one quarter of a dinar (three dirhams). (For traditions on objects and amounts of things on which the hand of the thief is to be cut off, see Bukhari, 'Hudud', 13; Muslim, 'Hudud', 1-7; Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 12, 13; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 16; Nasa'i, 'Qat' al-Sariq', 5, 8-10 - Ed.) And saying that it is three Dirhams is not a contradiction. This is because the Dinar in question was equal to about twelve Dirhams, so three Dirhams equalled a fourth of a Dinar. So in this way it is possible to harmonize these two views. This opinion was reported from `Umar bin Al-Khattab, `Uthman bin `Affan, `Ali bin Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with them - and it is the view of `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Al-Layth bin Sa`d, Al-Awza`i, and Ash-Shafi`i and his companions. This is also the view of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ishaq bin Rahwayh in one of the narrations from him, as well as Abu Thawr, and Dawud bin `Ali Az-Zahari, may Allah have mercy upon them. As for Imam Abu Hanifah and his students Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Zufar, along with Sufyan Ath-Thawri, they said that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting off the hand is ten Dirhams, whereas a Dinar was twelve Dirhams at that time. The first ruling is the correct one, that the least amount of theft is one forth of a Dinar or more.

Moreover, there are several things the theft of which would not necessitate cutting off a hand. The Prophet (peace be on him) directed, for instance, that no hand should be cut off if the stolen article was food. According to a tradition from 'A'ishah: '(The hand of) the thief was not cut off during the time of the Messenger of Allah for the theft of trivial things.' (Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 3, p. 464; Darimi, 'Hudud', 4, 7 - Ed.) Furthermore, 'Ali and 'Uthman gave the judgement - and none of the Companions disagreed with it - that a person's hand should not be cut off for stealing birds. 'Umar and 'Ali did not cut off the hands of those who had stolen from the public treasury, and on this question no disagreement on the part of any Companion has been reported. On these grounds the founders of the schools of Islamic Law exempted certain things from the application of this penal injunction.

According to Abu Hanifah a man's hand should not be cut off for stealing vegetables, fruit, meat, cooked food, grain which is not stored in a barn, and instruments of music and play. Likewise, he is of the opinion that a hand should not be cut off for either stealing animals grazing in the forest or for stealing from the public treasury. The founders of the other schools of Islamic Law have also exempted the stealing of certain things from the punishment of cutting off a hand. But this exemption does not mean that the guilty parties should receive no punishment at all. (See the commentaries of Ibn al-'Arabi, Qurtubi and Jassas on this verse. See also Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid, vol. 2, pp. 441 ff. - Ed.)

Anyways this meager amount was set as the limit for cutting the hand, so that the people would refrain from theft, and this is a wise decision to those who have sound comprehension. Hence Allah's statement, (as a recompense for that which both committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise.) This is the prescribed punishment for the evil action they committed, by stealing the property of other people with their hands. Therefore, it is fitting that the tool they used to steal the people's wealth be cut off as punishment from Allah for their error. (And Allah is All-Powerful, ) in His torment, (All-Wise.) in His commands, what he forbids, what He legislates and what He decrees.

The Necessity of Cutting off the Hand of the Thief

In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful.

"Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise." (Qur'an 5:38)

Allah commands and decrees that the hand of the thief, male or female be cut off. During the time of Jahiliyyah, this was also the punishment for the thief, and Islam upheld this punishment. In Islam, there are several conditions that must be met before this punishment is carried out, as we will come to know, Allah willing. There are other rulings that Islam upheld after modifying these rulings, such as that of blood money for example. Now the  injunction is to cut off one not both hands. There is consensus among jurists that in the event of the first theft the right hand should be cut off. This punishment has been laid down for theft alone. The Prophet (peace be on him) declared: "There is no cutting off of a hand for he who embezzles.' (Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 14; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 18; Ibn Majah, 'Hudud', 36; Nasa'i, 'Qat' al-Sariq', 13 - Ed.) This shows that the punishment prescribed for theft does not cover acts involving embezzlement and other dishonest practices. It is applicable only to acts involving the seizure, by stealth, of someone else's property.

When Does Cutting the Hand of the Thief Become Necessary is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg and as a result his hand is cut off, and who steals rope and as a result his hand is cut off.) Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded that `A'ishah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (The hand of the thief shall only be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) This Hadith is the basis of the matter since it specifies (that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting the hand) is a quarter of a Dinar which was less than that of a shield. So this Hadith fixes the value. according to a tradition from Ibn 'Abbas, this was ten dirhams; according to a tradition from Ibn 'Umar, it was three dirhams; according to a tradition from Anas b. Malik, it was five dirhams; and according to the tradition from 'A'ishah, it was a quarter of a dinar. Owing to this discrepancy, there is disagreement among jurists regarding the minimum value of the goods stolen which merits the punishment of cutting off a hand. This value, according to Abu Hanifah, is ten dirhams whereas according to Malik, Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal, it is one quarter of a dinar (three dirhams). (For traditions on objects and amounts of things on which the hand of the thief is to be cut off, see Bukhari, 'Hudud', 13; Muslim, 'Hudud', 1-7; Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 12, 13; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 16; Nasa'i, 'Qat' al-Sariq', 5, 8-10 - Ed.) And saying that it is three Dirhams is not a contradiction. This is because the Dinar in question was equal to about twelve Dirhams, so three Dirhams equalled a fourth of a Dinar. So in this way it is possible to harmonize these two views. This opinion was reported from `Umar bin Al-Khattab, `Uthman bin `Affan, `Ali bin Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with them - and it is the view of `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Al-Layth bin Sa`d, Al-Awza`i, and Ash-Shafi`i and his companions. This is also the view of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ishaq bin Rahwayh in one of the narrations from him, as well as Abu Thawr, and Dawud bin `Ali Az-Zahari, may Allah have mercy upon them. As for Imam Abu Hanifah and his students Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Zufar, along with Sufyan Ath-Thawri, they said that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting off the hand is ten Dirhams, whereas a Dinar was twelve Dirhams at that time. The first ruling is the correct one, that the least amount of theft is one forth of a Dinar or more.

Moreover, there are several things the theft of which would not necessitate cutting off a hand. The Prophet (peace be on him) directed, for instance, that no hand should be cut off if the stolen article was food. According to a tradition from 'A'ishah: '(The hand of) the thief was not cut off during the time of the Messenger of Allah for the theft of trivial things.' (Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 3, p. 464; Darimi, 'Hudud', 4, 7 - Ed.) Furthermore, 'Ali and 'Uthman gave the judgement - and none of the Companions disagreed with it - that a person's hand should not be cut off for stealing birds. 'Umar and 'Ali did not cut off the hands of those who had stolen from the public treasury, and on this question no disagreement on the part of any Companion has been reported. On these grounds the founders of the schools of Islamic Law exempted certain things from the application of this penal injunction.

According to Abu Hanifah a man's hand should not be cut off for stealing vegetables, fruit, meat, cooked food, grain which is not stored in a barn, and instruments of music and play. Likewise, he is of the opinion that a hand should not be cut off for either stealing animals grazing in the forest or for stealing from the public treasury. The founders of the other schools of Islamic Law have also exempted the stealing of certain things from the punishment of cutting off a hand. But this exemption does not mean that the guilty parties should receive no punishment at all. (See the commentaries of Ibn al-'Arabi, Qurtubi and Jassas on this verse. See also Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid, vol. 2, pp. 441 ff. - Ed.)

Anyways this meager amount was set as the limit for cutting the hand, so that the people would refrain from theft, and this is a wise decision to those who have sound comprehension. Hence Allah's statement, (as a recompense for that which both committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise.) This is the prescribed punishment for the evil action they committed, by stealing the property of other people with their hands. Therefore, it is fitting that the tool they used to steal the people's wealth be cut off as punishment from Allah for their error. (And Allah is All-Powerful, ) in His torment, (All-Wise.) in His commands, what he forbids, what He legislates and what He decrees.

The Necessity of Cutting off the Hand of the Thief

In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful.

"Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise." (Qur'an 5:38)

Allah commands and decrees that the hand of the thief, male or female be cut off. During the time of Jahiliyyah, this was also the punishment for the thief, and Islam upheld this punishment. In Islam, there are several conditions that must be met before this punishment is carried out, as we will come to know, Allah willing. There are other rulings that Islam upheld after modifying these rulings, such as that of blood money for example. Now the  injunction is to cut off one not both hands. There is consensus among jurists that in the event of the first theft the right hand should be cut off. This punishment has been laid down for theft alone. The Prophet (peace be on him) declared: "There is no cutting off of a hand for he who embezzles.' (Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 14; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 18; Ibn Majah, 'Hudud', 36; Nasa'i, 'Qat' al-Sariq', 13 - Ed.) This shows that the punishment prescribed for theft does not cover acts involving embezzlement and other dishonest practices. It is applicable only to acts involving the seizure, by stealth, of someone else's property.

When Does Cutting the Hand of the Thief Become Necessary is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg and as a result his hand is cut off, and who steals rope and as a result his hand is cut off.) Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded that `A'ishah said that the Messenger of Allah said, (The hand of the thief shall only be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) This Hadith is the basis of the matter since it specifies (that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting the hand) is a quarter of a Dinar which was less than that of a shield. So this Hadith fixes the value. according to a tradition from Ibn 'Abbas, this was ten dirhams; according to a tradition from Ibn 'Umar, it was three dirhams; according to a tradition from Anas b. Malik, it was five dirhams; and according to the tradition from 'A'ishah, it was a quarter of a dinar. Owing to this discrepancy, there is disagreement among jurists regarding the minimum value of the goods stolen which merits the punishment of cutting off a hand. This value, according to Abu Hanifah, is ten dirhams whereas according to Malik, Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal, it is one quarter of a dinar (three dirhams). (For traditions on objects and amounts of things on which the hand of the thief is to be cut off, see Bukhari, 'Hudud', 13; Muslim, 'Hudud', 1-7; Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 12, 13; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 16; Nasa'i, 'Qat' al-Sariq', 5, 8-10 - Ed.) And saying that it is three Dirhams is not a contradiction. This is because the Dinar in question was equal to about twelve Dirhams, so three Dirhams equalled a fourth of a Dinar. So in this way it is possible to harmonize these two views. This opinion was reported from `Umar bin Al-Khattab, `Uthman bin `Affan, `Ali bin Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with them - and it is the view of `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Al-Layth bin Sa`d, Al-Awza`i, and Ash-Shafi`i and his companions. This is also the view of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ishaq bin Rahwayh in one of the narrations from him, as well as Abu Thawr, and Dawud bin `Ali Az-Zahari, may Allah have mercy upon them. As for Imam Abu Hanifah and his students Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Zufar, along with Sufyan Ath-Thawri, they said that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting off the hand is ten Dirhams, whereas a Dinar was twelve Dirhams at that time. The first ruling is the correct one, that the least amount of theft is one forth of a Dinar or more.

Moreover, there are several things the theft of which would not necessitate cutting off a hand. The Prophet (peace be on him) directed, for instance, that no hand should be cut off if the stolen article was food. According to a tradition from 'A'ishah: '(The hand of) the thief was not cut off during the time of the Messenger of Allah for the theft of trivial things.' (Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 3, p. 464; Darimi, 'Hudud', 4, 7 - Ed.) Furthermore, 'Ali and 'Uthman gave the judgement - and none of the Companions disagreed with it - that a person's hand should not be cut off for stealing birds. 'Umar and 'Ali did not cut off the hands of those who had stolen from the public treasury, and on this question no disagreement on the part of any Companion has been reported. On these grounds the founders of the schools of Islamic Law exempted certain things from the application of this penal injunction.

According to Abu Hanifah a man's hand should not be cut off for stealing vegetables, fruit, meat, cooked food, grain which is not stored in a barn, and instruments of music and play. Likewise, he is of the opinion that a hand should not be cut off for either stealing animals grazing in the forest or for stealing from the public treasury. The founders of the other schools of Islamic Law have also exempted the stealing of certain things from the punishment of cutting off a hand. But this exemption does not mean that the guilty parties should receive no punishment at all. (See the commentaries of Ibn al-'Arabi, Qurtubi and Jassas on this verse. See also Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid, vol. 2, pp. 441 ff. - Ed.)

Anyways this meager amount was set as the limit for cutting the hand, so that the people would refrain from theft, and this is a wise decision to those who have sound comprehension. Hence Allah's statement, (as a recompense for that which both committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise.) This is the prescribed punishment for the evil action they committed, by stealing the property of other people with their hands. Therefore, it is fitting that the tool they used to steal the people's wealth be cut off as punishment from Allah for their error. (And Allah is All-Powerful, ) in His torment, (All-Wise.) in His commands, what he forbids, what He legislates and what He decrees.

The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land

The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land:

"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Except for those who (having fled away and then) came back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power; in that case, know that Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 5:33-34)

The 'land' signifies either the country or territory wherein the responsibility of establishing law and order has been undertaken by an Islamic state. The expression 'to wage war against Allah and His Messenger' denotes war against the righteous order established by the Islamic state. It is God's purpose, and it is for this very purpose that God sent His Messengers, that a righteous order of life be established on earth; an order that would provide peace and security to everything found on earth; an order under whose benign shadow humanity would be able to attain its perfection; an order under which the resources of the earth would be exploited in a manner conducive to man's progress and prosperity rather than to his ruin and destruction. If anyone tried to disrupt such an order, whether on a limited scale by committing murder and destruction and robbery and brigandry or on a large scale by attempting to overthrow that order and establish some unrighteous order instead, he would in fact be guilty of waging war against God and His Messenger. All this is not unlike the situation where someone tries to overthrow the established government in a country. Such a person will be convicted of 'waging war against the state' even though his actual action may have been directed against an ordinary policeman in some remote part of the country, and irrespective of how remote the sovereign himself is from him.

These penalties are mentioned here in brief merely to serve as guidelines to either judges or rulers so they may punish each criminal in accordance with the nature of his crime. The real purpose is to indicate that for any of those who live in the Islamic realm to attempt to overthrow the Islamic order is the worst kind of crime, for which any of the highly severe punishments may be imposed.

If they give up subversion and abandon their endeavour to disrupt or overthrow the righteous order, and their subsequent conduct shows that they have indeed become peace-loving, law-abiding citizens of good character, they need not be subjected to the punishments mentioned here even if any of their former crimes against the state should come to light. If their crime involves violation of the rights of other men they may not be absolved from their guilt. If, for instance, they have either killed a person, seized someone's property or committed any other crime against human life or property they will be tried according to the criminal law of Islam. They will not, however, be accused of either rebellion and high treason or of waging war against God and His Messenger.