Cutting off the hands is not necessarily amputation
Editorial verification status: this atom is extracted from an explanatory audiovisual source, and has now been linked to the closest books within the Shahrur project at the book level. For precise academic citation, consult the original book and the original episode together.
Statement of the claim
Shahrur interprets “cut off their hands” as not a physical severing of the hand, but rather the removal or disabling of the thief’s capacity within society.
Explanation
He maintains that the verb “cut” in the Qur’an does not always require a sharp instrument or bodily amputation. He cites other Qur’anic expressions such as cutting off the tail and severing kinship ties to show that cutting may be moral or social in nature. He sees the punishment of the thief here as belonging to the category of exclusion or disabling of action, not physical destruction. In this way, he offers a non-literal reading of the verse.
Its place in the episode’s argument
This atom marks the peak of his transition from bodily punishment to regulatory punishment, and serves his broader project of reducing legislative violence.
Scope of the claim
It does not deny that some jurisprudential readings understood it as physical amputation.
Brief witness
“The cutting here is not the physical cutting… I removed them from society.”
Related links
- Shahrur - the Qur’an
- Shahrur - the Muḥkam
- Shahrur - the civil state