Theft Falls Under Transgression Without Right
Editorial verification status: This atom is extracted from an explanatory audiovisual source, and it 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.
Formulation of the claim
Shahrur holds that theft is not an independent title of prohibition, but rather falls under “transgression without right” and what is connected to it in terms of fraud and assault.
Explanation
He explains that the Qur’an did not isolate theft with an explicit prohibition, but instead set a broader heading: “transgression without right.” Under this heading, multiple forms of financial assault and fraud can be included. He therefore considers that the Qur’anic text addresses the act within a broader framework, not as a narrow nominal crime. This explains why he reads the verse on theft within a broader system of social regulation.
Its place in the episode’s argument
This atom prepares the way for interpreting the verse “cut off their hands” as a severing from society or the system, not necessarily as bodily amputation.
Limits of the claim
It does not say that theft is not prohibited, but rather that it is not set apart in the text in the same juristic manner commonly found.
Brief citation
“Transgression without right… this includes theft.”
Related links
- Shahrur - the Qur’an
- Shahrur - jurisprudence
- Shahrur - the civil state