Some Ahmadis have supported the interpretation of the Qur’anic verse relating to the punishment of theft as meaning imprisonment or something else other than the actual amputation of the hands. Is such a view valid, particularly since it’s contrary to the practice of the Holy Prophet, or so it appears? It all stems from a meaning attributed to qatiyat. Some people insist that qatiyat, the word used by the Holy Qur’an for severing one’s hand, also means to put somebody out of circulation, to make him ineffective.
And they also quote from the Holy Qur’an referring to the verse, And it says that virtually, practically, not virtually but practically, literally, the hands of Abu Lahab were never severed and they remained intact and healthy. They were not destroyed. But virtually he was destroyed and he was made ineffective in his efforts to destroy Islam. So taking their cue from this as well, they say that if a thief is made ineffective in any manner, so that he cannot steal again, that purpose is also served by this verse. So that is why they say it. But it’s an open question. It has to be investigated and found out definitely to what extent. But as far as the practical, the first literal translation is concerned, we know Qaul-i-Jibreel that Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa ordered the severing of hands. And one should not be ashamed of this.
If you are running away from this through shame, being ashamed of an Islamic teaching, while you are facing a modern world, this is the wrong attitude. Because that will be insulting Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa sallallahu alaihi wa sallam too. Because if an act is to be ashamed of in his time, then it should be an act of shame for this time as well. And vice versa. So that is nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the Islamic system of punishment has to be examined in context of Islamic moral teaching and the atmosphere of high moral standard which Islam endeavours to establish in a society. When that happens, then the society rises to such heights as crimes become very rare and unnatural.
Without creating that society, if you go for criminal punishments, you will be doing great injustice to Islam. For example, it is also established that anybody who steals because the hunger compels him, his hand will never be severed. So in a society where millions of people are left unattended and many of them die of hunger and their basic needs are not provided by that society, however big loud their claim be to Islamization, they do not deserve and they have no right to introduce Islamic system of punishment. Because Islamic system of provision has not been produced. And Islamic system of morality has not been introduced. So to go for Islamic punishment without all these prerequisites is totally wrong.
This is why it looks so strange. And then there is Islamic standard of evidence and the whole society is turned into a truthful society. Without that, if you, for example, introduce the Islamic system of punishment for fornication or adultery in a country, I shall not name any country because they would be hurt, maybe. But there are certain countries where it is a common crime. And it’s a common crime to tell lies. And for five rupees or so, you can buy evidence. So if Islamic system of punishment is introduced in such a country, what would happen that the few people who do not indulge in fornication, they would be killed and they would be left by those who indulge in fornication. And it’s so easy for them to produce false evidence. So if the standard of evidence is totally un-Islamic, how can you introduce Islamic system of punishment? It is putting the cart before the horse.
First create the prerequisites which Islam creates with effort and labour. And Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa sallallahu alaihi wasallam created with great endeavour. Then you have a right to introduce the punishment part which will come in the end, not before.
