THEFT 2️⃣ – Punishment Within the Abrahamic Tradition

✒️

THEFT 2️⃣ – Punishment Within the Abrahamic Tradition
The Ruling in Surah Yusuf and Alternative Approaches to Justice in the Qur’an

The issue of theft in the Qur’an is not addressed solely in Surah al-Ma’idah (5:38). A significant episode appears in Surah Yusuf (12:70–76), where the crime of theft and its punishment are framed within Abrahamic custom—reflecting the moral and customary legal context of that time.

---

📖 Relevant Verses (Yusuf 12:70–76)

Brief Summary:
Prophet Yusuf (Joseph) devises a plan to keep his brother Benjamin with him by placing a royal cup in Benjamin’s saddlebag.

Then, his men proclaim: “O people of the caravan! You are thieves!”
The brothers deny the accusation and proclaim their innocence.

Yusuf’s men ask: “What is the punishment for theft according to your law?”
The brothers respond: “The thief shall be held back (as a slave or servant).”

The cup is then found in Benjamin’s bag, and this penalty is carried out.

The Qur’an says:

“So he began the search with their bags before his brother’s, then pulled it out of his brother’s bag. That is how We inspired Joseph with this plan. He could not have taken his brother under the king’s law unless Allah so willed.”
(Qur’an 12:76)

---

🧠 Key Takeaways:

1. The Ruling Was Based on Custom and Tradition

Yusuf did not apply the Egyptian king’s law, but rather the customary law of his brothers’ tradition. He asks:

“What is the punishment according to your tradition (sharīʿah)?”

This shows that legal rulings in the Qur’an can be contextual and responsive to societal norms, demonstrating flexibility in their application.

2. Punishment: Restriction of Personal Freedom

Instead of cutting off a hand, the punishment was the detainment of the person. That is:

• Exclusion from society

• Limitation of liberty

• Suspension of responsibility

This supports the idea that the command in Ma’idah 38 (“cut off the hand”) may, in certain contexts, be implemented through non-physical means that align with restorative justice.

3. The Crime is Symbolic, the Punishment is Real

In this case, the theft did not actually occur—it was a strategic plan. Yet, the punishment was enacted as if real. Why?

• To provoke inner reflection among the brothers

• To remind them of Abrahamic moral principles

The Qur’an presents this as a pedagogical and strategic move:

“Thus We taught Joseph.”

---

⚖️ Comparison: Surah Yusuf vs. Surah Ma’idah

Criterion	Yusuf 12:70–76	Ma’idah 5:38
Reality of the Crime	Symbolic, with a moral lesson	Actual offense
Punishment Type	Detention / limitation of freedom	“Cutting off the hand” (disputed)
Legal Basis	Abrahamic custom/tradition	Divine revelation-based societal law
Social Context	Family test, moral instruction	Public deterrence, societal order
Purpose	Strategic moral teaching	Legal deterrent

---

📌 Conclusion: Qur’anic Punishments Are Principle-Based, Not Fixed

Punishments in the Qur’an:

• Are not absolute physical mandates,

• Are shaped in harmony with social, moral, and customary frameworks,

• Are grounded in reform, deterrence, and justice.

Yusuf’s ruling shows how penalties gain meaning within conscience-based, educational, and strategic contexts. This highlights that the Qur’anic concept of justice is not rigid or mechanical, but principled and contextual.

---

✍️ Final Thought

This episode in Surah Yusuf stands in contrast to the literalist readings of Ma’idah 38. It reveals how punishments can be community-based, morally balanced, and flexible in application.

The true aim in the Qur’an is not to harm the wrongdoer, but to protect society and rehabilitate the individual.