What does Shahrur say?
The available evidence states that Qur’anic punishments fall within “limits open to interpretation and codification according to the age,” rather than fixed literal bodily procedures. He applies this to theft: its verse is not understood as the physical cutting of the hand, but as restraining it from theft through prevention or imprisonment.
Atlas explanation
This atom brings together the rule and its immediate example: the capacity of punishments for interpretation and codification is the rule, while theft is the example that clarifies the practical meaning of non-literal bodily treatment. For a fuller account without repetition, see Qur’anic punishments are civil limits open to regulation, not fixed bodily procedures.
Synthetic inference
In the case of theft in particular, this understanding departs from physical cutting and moves toward restraining the hand from the act through prevention or imprisonment. This explains the connection between the general rule and the example, but does not by itself establish a single function or legal alternatives for all punishments.
Open question and limits of the evidence
The evidence does not specify the criteria for interpretation and codification, nor does it explain the extent to which this understanding applies to other punishments. Prevention or imprisonment are also mentioned in the example of theft, and should not be generalized without further evidence. This discussion is connected to the context of the book The Mother of the Book and Its Elaboration and to the theme Legislation, Limits, and Prohibition.
Muhammad Shahrur: The Mother of the Book and Its Elaboration · Qur’anic punishments are civil limits open to regulation, not fixed bodily procedures