What are the preconditions for cutting hands of a thief?

Sources

• ✓ 5:38 · Al-Maaida

  5:38 · Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall

  وَٱلسَّارِقُ وَٱلسَّارِقَةُ فَٱقْطَعُوٓا۟ أَيْدِيَهُمَا جَزَآءًۢ بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَٰلًۭا مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌۭ

  As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

• ✓ Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 5:38

  Sunni

  Tafsir Ibn Kathir · 5:38

  Allah commands decisively in this verse the cutting off of the hand of the male and female thief as a legal ruling. Al-Thawri narrated from Jabir ibn Yazid al-Ju'fi, from Amir ibn Sharahil al-Sha'bi, that Ibn Mas'ud recited it as: "And the male and female thief, cut off their right hands." This reading is unusual, even though the ruling agreed by most scholars aligns with the prescribed meaning, which is derived from other evidence rather than this variant reading itself. Cutting off the hand was a practice enforced even in pre-Islamic times, and Islam confirmed it with additional conditions, as will be explained. This is similar to other rulings such as the division of inheritance, blood compensation, and other legal ordinances that Islam adopted while adding wisdom and reforms. It is said that the Quraysh were the first to cut hands during the pre-Islamic period, cutting the hand of a man named Duwayk, a freed slave of Banu Mulayh ibn Amr from Khuz'a, who had stolen the treasure of the Ka'bah. Some say others took the treasure and placed it with him. Some jurists of the Zahiri school held that whenever a thief steals anything, their hand should be cut off regardless of the amount stolen, based on the general wording of this verse: "And the male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands." They did not consider any minimum threshold or security value, taking theft itself as sufficient for the punishment. Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim report from Abd al-Mu'min, from Najda al-Hanafi, that he asked Ibn Abbas whether this verse is specific or general in its ruling, and Ibn Abbas replied that it was general. This may align with the Zahiri view, although other interpretations are possible; Allah knows best. They also supported their view with the authentic hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah, where the Messenger of Allah forbade theft, cursing the thief: "If a thief steals an egg, his hand is cut off; if he steals a rope, his hand is cut off." However, the majority of scholars have accepted the necessity of a minimum value (nisab) for the theft to merit cutting the hand, though there were differences about the precise amount. Each of the four great Imams had their own distinct opinion. Imam Malik held that the minimum was three pure dirhams. If the thief steals this amount or its equivalent or more, the hand must be severed. He cited as evidence the narration of Nafi', from Ibn 'Umar, that the Prophet cut off the hand for a dagger valued at three dirhams, recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Malik said that Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, also cut off a hand for stealing an orange valued at three dirhams, which Malik considered the best evidence for this view. This report is transmitted via Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr, from his father, from 'Amra bint 'Abd al-Rahman, about a thief in Uthman's time who stole an orange and whose hand was cut off. Malik's companions said such practice was well-known and unchallenged, and it points to cutting off the hand for fruits as well, contrary to the Hanafi position. They also pointed out disagreement on the nisab: whereas Malik accepted three dirhams, the Hanafis required ten dirhams, and the Shafi'is considered a quarter of a dinar. The Shafi'i school, may Allah have mercy on him, held that the punishment applies at a quarter of a dinar or its equivalent in valuable goods and fruits upward. Their proof is the hadith recorded by both al-Bukhari and Muslim through the chain of al-Zuhri, from 'Amra, from 'A'isha, in which the Prophet said: "Cut off the hand of a thief for a quarter of a dinar or more." Muslim relates through Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn 'Amr ibn Hazm, from 'Amra, from 'A'isha, that the Prophet said: "The hand of a thief is not cut off except for a quarter of a dinar or more." Our scholars say this hadith decisively settles the matter and establishes the quarter dinar threshold rather than others. The account about the dagger priced at three dirhams does not conflict with this, because then a dinar was equivalent to twelve dirhams; thus, three dirhams represented a quarter dinar, which harmonizes the reports. This position is attributed to Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, Ali ibn Abi Talib — may Allah be pleased with them all — and is supported by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, al-Layth ibn Sa'd, al-Awza'i, al-Shafi'i and his followers, Ishaq ibn Rahwayh (in one narration), Abu Thawr, and Dawud ibn 'Ali al-Zahiri (may Allah have mercy on them). Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahwayh (in one narration) held that both the quarter dinar and the three dirhams are valid legal thresholds. Whoever steals either one or their equivalent deserves the cutting, based on the hadiths of Ibn 'Umar and 'A'isha, may Allah be pleased with them, with Imam Ahmad reporting explicitly from 'A'isha that the Prophet said: "Cut off the hand for a quarter dinar, and do not cut it for less than that." The quarter dinar then equaled three dirhams, while a dinar was twelve dirhams. An-Nasa'i transmits a version stating that theft under the price of the dagger does not require cutting. According to this, all these texts indicate there is no condition that the minimum be ten dirhams, and Allah knows best. Meanwhile, Imam Abu Hanifa and his followers — including Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, Zufar, and Shu'ayb al-Thawri — held that the minimum nisab is ten pure, unadulterated dirhams. They argued that the dagger whose theft warranted cutting during the Prophet’s time was priced at ten dirhams. Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Prophet's time value of the dagger was ten dirhams. They further narrated from Amr ibn Shu'ayb from his father, from his grandfather, that the Prophet said: "The hand of the thief is not cut off for less than the price of the dagger," which was ten dirhams. Thus, Ibn Abbas and Abdullah ibn Amr disagreed with Ibn Umar regarding the dagger’s price, and prudence recommends going with the greater amount since the hudud punishments are lifted in cases of doubt. Some early scholars held that the hand should be cut off for theft of the equivalent of ten dirhams or one dinar, with reports traced back to Ali, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, and Abu Ja'far al-Baqir (may Allah have mercy on them). Others narrated that the hand should only be cut off for theft of five dinars or fifty dirhams. This is reported from Sa'id ibn Jubayr, may Allah have mercy on him. The majority responded to the Zahiri school's reliance on Abu Hurayrah’s hadith about stealing an egg or a rope by offering interpretations: First, that the hadith is abrogated by the hadith of ‘A'isha. There is some consideration in this since historical clarification is required. Second, that it is an allegorical expression, interpreting “egg” and “rope” as iron eggs or ship ropes, as al-A'mash narrated in the accounts related by al-Bukhari and others. Third, that it indicates a gradation in punishment depending on the value stolen, gradually increasing from lesser to greater amounts warranting cutting. It might also be a report about the pre-Islamic practice, when even minor thefts led to cutting the hand, condemning the thief who lost his hand over petty gains. It is mentioned that the poet Abu al-‘Ala’ al-Ma'arri, upon arriving in Baghdad, questioned the scholars about why they set the theft nisab at a quarter dinar, composing a poem reflecting on its apparent ignorance and lack of understanding. When this became known, the scholars sought him and he fled. The Maliki judge, Abd al-Wahhab, replied that at the time when the thing stolen was valuable, its theft was serious; once it lost value, it became trivial. Some explained this measure as a perfect wisdom in the law, balancing the value in property crimes and criminal law, ensuring the hand's value is large enough to prevent unjust punishment but the theft threshold low enough to deter stealing. The verse's concluding phrase, "As a punishment from Allah; and Allah is Powerful, Wise," means the cut hand is a fitting consequence for using the hand to unlawfully take others' wealth, as a form of divine punishment. Allah is both able to enforce justice and wise in His decrees. Then Allah says: "But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, indeed, Allah will turn to him in mercy. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." This refers to the thief who repents after stealing and turns to Allah, who accepts the repentance between them. Still, the stolen property must be restored or compensated according to the majority. Abu Hanifa said that if a hand is cut but the item stolen is lost or spoiled, no compensation is required. Al-Daraqutni narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah was presented with a thief who had stolen a cloak, initially denying it, but when admitting, the Prophet ordered his hand to be cut and the hand washed, then the thief was returned to him and told to repent, which he did, and Allah accepted his repentance. Another similar report is narrated with a slight difference; Al-Madini and Ibn Khuzaymah preferred it as a mursal hadith. Ibn Majah narrates from Ibn Lahi'ah from Yazid ibn Abi Habib, from Abd al-Rahman ibn Tha’laba al-Ansari, from his father, that Amr ibn Samra came to the Prophet ﷺ saying he had stolen a camel. The Prophet sent to confirm, and after confirmation, ordered the hand be cut off. The man praised Allah upon the punishment as cleansing him from sin. Ibn Jarir also narrates that a woman stole jewelry and the complainants came to the Prophet ﷺ. The Prophet said to cut off her right hand. The woman asked if there was repentance, and he said she would be as pure as on the day she was born. Then the verse about repentance was revealed. This woman was from the Banu Makhzum and this account is confirmed in both Sahihs, narrated by al-Zuhri, from Urwa, from ‘A’isha. The Quraysh had been concerned about the case, fearing to approach the Prophet on her behalf. Usama ibn Zayd, close to the Prophet, spoke to him about it. The Prophet's face changed and he asked if he was interceding in Allah's legal punishments. Usama asked forgiveness, and when the Prophet addressed the people, he warned that in past nations the rich were excused while the poor were punished. He said: "By the One in Whose hand is my soul, if Fatima daughter of Muhammad stole, I would cut off her hand." He then ordered the woman's hand be cut off. ‘A’isha said her repentance was good; she married and later raised her needs to the Prophet. Muslim’s narration states that it was a Makhzumi woman who borrowed jewelry and denied having it, and the Prophet ordered her hand cut off. Ibn ‘Umar also affirmed this incident. Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and an-Nasa'i recorded this incident also, stating the woman repeatedly borrowed and withheld jewelry. The Prophet told her to repent to Allah and restore what she took, then ordered Bilal to cut off her hand. Numerous hadiths on theft rulings are recorded in the book "Al-Ahkam". Finally, Allah says: "Do you not know that Allah has dominion over the heavens and the earth? He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent." This emphasizes His absolute sovereignty and the ultimate authority in judgement, punishment, and forgiveness.

• ✓ Sahih Muslim 29:3

  Sunni SAHIH

  Sahih Muslim · Book 29, Hadith 3 · Narrated by Aisha

  The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "The hand of the thief is not to be cut off except if the value of what was stolen is a quarter of a dinar or more."