Reformulation of the Value of Justice on the Hand amputation Penalty in QS. al-Mā’idah [5:38]: A Hermeneutical Double Movement Analysis by Fazlur Rahman

Agung Nugroho Reformis Santono,* Choirunnisa,** Choliliyah Thoha,*** Sofyan Atsauri**** & Sukataman*****

ABSTRACT

This article critically reinterprets the amputation punishment prescribed in Qur’an 5:38 by employing Fazlur Rahman’s double movement hermeneutical approach. Rahman’s method emphasizes extracting the moral-ethical thrust of Qur’anic texts through historical contextualization and applying their universal values to contemporary realities. This study contends that the command to amputate the thief’s hand is not an absolute imperative but a quasi-legal measure shaped by the socio-legal context of seventh-century Medina. Drawing on textual, historical, and ethical analyses, the article reveals that the purpose of this penal provision lies in deterring theft and upholding justice and social order, not in literal physical punishment. Using qualitative library research and comparative analysis, the paper examines how Rahman’s approach allows for a moral reinterpretation of the verse, replacing physical amputation with proportionate, rehabilitative sanctions such as imprisonment or fines, more compatible with the principles of human rights and social justice. The findings suggest that a contextual understanding of Qur’anic legal texts offers a theologically grounded yet humane alternative to the literal implementation of ḥudūd, reaffirming Islam’s moral dynamism in modern legal systems.

Keyword: Qur’an 5:38; amputation; Fazlur Rahman; double movement

INTRODUCTION

The application of the hand-cutting law against thieves as mentioned in QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38 remains a part of the criminal justice system in several countries that formally implement Islamic law. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan are still executing this punishment as a form of implementing the hudūd law.¹The most recent case occurred on February 14, 2023, in Sudan, where three men were sentenced to hand-cutting for stealing a gas cylinder.² Amnesty International even notes that more than 200 executions of hand-cutting took place in Iran between 2000–2020, most of which were carried out against individuals from economically marginalized communities³

Physical punishment practicesvarious formshave caused global controversy because they contradict internationally recognized human rights (HR) principles,particularly regarding human dignity and protection from cruel treatment. Based on Articles 1 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of the UN, which affirm the fundamental rights of every person, countries that implement hudud laws are viewed as a threat to the continuity of international law⁴ Unlike those countries, Malaysia and Indonesia,although accommodating Sharia in regions such as Aceh,adopt a more rehabilitative than punitive approach to criminal law. Even the Aceh Criminal Law does not implement hand amputation as a form of punishment.⁵This difference raises a critical question: how can we reinterpret the verse about hand amputation within a modern legal framework based on values of justice and humanity?

Conceptually, the reinterpretation of legal verses, including QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38, has garnered attention from various contemporary Muslim thinkers. One of the most influential approaches is double movement proposed by Fazlur Rahman. This approach consists of two movements: first, understanding the socio-historical context in which the verse was revealed; and second, exploring the universal moral values contained in the verse to then be applied in modern life contexts. Rahman seeks to bridge between normative texts and current social realities, emphasizing the importance of substantive justice as a foundation for contextually interpreting Islamic laws.⁶

In academic research, this approach has been widely applied. For example, Mubarok and Anam (2024) studied the implementation of the hand-cutting law in Indonesia and concluded that imprisonment is a more humane alternative.⁷ Nizhamuddin (2025) applied Rahman's approach to riba verses, emphasizing moral values and economic rationality.⁸ Yasin (2024) and Erviana (2021) specifically interpreted QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38 using the double movement method, concluding that the meaning of "hand-cutting" can be understood symbolically as a limitation on the ability to steal, not physical amputation.⁹

Thus, another study by Zahra et al. (2024) shows that Rahman's approach can unite the moral message of the text with modern demands without harming Islamic theological values.10 However, this approach has also attracted criticism. Rosy (2022), in her dissertation, considers the double movement method tends to overlook the literal message of the Quran and even proposes an alternative method called single movement to preserve the original meaning of the verse. This raises questions about the quality of Rahman's approach and the effectiveness of the double movement method in interpreting a verse. Nevertheless, there has been no specific and in-depth study that has thoroughly examined the later application of Rahman's hermeneutical approach to QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38 in the context of contemporary law..

Departing from this reality, This article aims to re-examine the relevance of the application of the hand amputation penalty as mentioned in QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38, particularly in the context of the contemporary legal system. Generally, this writing intends to test how Fazlur Rahman's double movement hermeneutical approach can be used in interpreting legal verses contextually and based on substantive justice values. The specific goal is first, to evaluate Fazlur Rahman's hermeneutical epistemology in rereading legal texts; and second, to analyze how this approach can be used to deconstruct the literal practice of the hand amputation penalty in modern contexts such as Nigeria (Northern), Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, and Iran.

Consistent with that goal, there are two main questions that this article aims to answer. First, is the hand amputation punishment still relevant in modern society? Second, to what extent can Fazlur Rahman's double movement approach provide a new reading of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38 within a legal framework that upholds social justice and human rights?

The basic argument in this text is that QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38 is not merely speaking about physical amputation, but contains a moral message to protect property and prevent crime effectively and humanely. Although some countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and several states in Nigeria still enforce the punishment of amputation based on a literal interpretation of this verse, the practice often raises controversy because it is considered to be in conflict with human rights (HR) principles. Meanwhile, in the context of modern countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, although Islamic Sharia is accommodated legally in some regions, the punishment of amputation is not enforced. In Aceh, for example, the Qanun Jinayat does not include amputation as a criminal sanction, and the criminal legal approach focuses more on rehabilitation and social justice. This approach aligns more closely with Fazlur Rahman's thinking, who in his method of double movement emphasizes the need to understand the universal moral message behind the text and adapt it to contemporary social realities.

Thus, the reinterpretation of the meaning of "cutting hands" becomes highly relevant, namely as a symbolic form of restricting access to theft or a legal sanction that delivers a strong effect without having to harm human dignity. Rahman's hermeneutical approach allows for a more inclusive and ethical reading of the legal verses, as well as bridging between normative texts and the need to reconstruct Islamic law in modern societies based on justice, human rights, and local contexts.

METODE

This research begins with a reinterpretation of the legal verses in the Quran, particularly QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38 regarding the amputation of the hand, where the author focusesonpaying attention to the contextual hermeneutical approachwhich is still very limited. Previous studies have mostly emphasized the juridical aspects in classical fiqh or the defense of the literal application of the verse, without exploring the transformation of the universal values contained within it in addressing the dynamics of modern society. This research highlights the importance of the connection between text and context in formulating an adaptive, just Islamic legal system that is relevant to the principles of humanity in a modern state such as Indonesia..

This research is a qualitative study conducted through library researchlibrary research). Data were collected from primary and secondary literary sources related to the interpretation of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38, Fazlur Rahman'sdouble movement method, and the application of Islamic criminal law in various countries, particularly Indonesia. Primary data include Fazlur Rahman's original works, especiallyIslam and Modernity andMajor Themes of the Qur’an, as well as official documents on the implementation of hudūd. Secondary data include academic journals, theses, books, popular articles, and human rights reports from international organizations. This research also accommodates the perspectives of scholars who support and critique Rahman's approach to legal interpretation.

As a text and library-based research, this study does not involve participants in the form of individual respondents. However, the "intellectual participation" in this research is manifested through critical engagement with the thoughts of figures who have studied or applied Rahman's hermeneutical approach. Names such as Mubarok and Anam, Yasin, Erviana, Zahra, etc., Rosy, as well as Nizhamuddin become representative sources in evaluating the dynamics of applying Rahman's method, both in supporting and criticizing it. Thus, the analysis is conducted through intertextuality among academic sources.

This research begins with a desk review of secondary sources discussing QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38 and the double movement method in contemporary exegesis literature. The desk review was conducted to identify research gaps and establish an analytical position within the broader academic discourse. Subsequently, a textual analysis was performed on the verse and its context of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl), as well as a thematic study of Fazlur Rahman's thought. This process was enriched with a comparative study of Islamic criminal law practices in several countries such as Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia (particularly Aceh), to understand the global relevance of the verse's contextual application..

Data in this research is analyzed using an interpretive qualitative approach through three stages as proposed by Huberman (2000): data reduction, data presentation (data display), and data verification. In the first stage, the collected data is selected and grouped based on their relevance to the research problem. The second stage systematically organizes the data within a complete argument framework. The third stage involves an interpretive approach that includes three steps: restatement (repeating the main ideas), description (elaboration within context), and interpretation (interpretation based on hermeneutic theory and social context). This approach allows for an understanding of the meaning of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38 in the context of the modern legal system..

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Quranic Exegetes' Views on the Hand amputation Punishment: Conceptual Analysis

Definition of Hand amputation Punishment in QS. Al-Mā’idah [5]: 38

Cutting off the hand in the context of Islamic lawetymologicallycan be defined asqath’ al yad¹¹ taken from the verse QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38  faqtha‘û aidiyahumâ, which means cut off their hands. It means, cutting off the hand is the amputation of a human hand or commonly referred to asthe physical amputation of a human hand¹² Meanwhile, interminologyqat‘ al-yad is understood as a form of criminal punishment in Islamic law (ḥudūd) imposed on thieves when they have met the specified criteria, such as the minimum value of stolen goods and the social circumstances of the perpetrator¹³This definition is based onThenWord of Allah in QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38whichstates,

AND THE THIEF AND THE THIEF'S WOMAN, CUT OFF THEIR HANDS AS A PUNISHMENT FOR WHAT THEY EARNED FROM ALLAH. AND ALLAH IS MIGHTY AND WISE. 38

Meaning: “Men or women who steal, cut off their hands as a recompense for what they have done and as a punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty and Wise.” (QS. al-Maidah [5]: 38)

Scholars and jurists have textually interpreted the verse as a definite legal ruling. For example, Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī explains that what is meant by aydi (hand) is the right hand by referring to the account of Muhammad bin Husain.¹⁴This interpretation is also affirmed in classical works such as Tafsir al-Qurṭubī, which states that the amputation begins at the wrist and the amputation of the foot begins at the ankle (mata kaki), then the leg bone is burned¹⁵ Imam Wahbah al-Zuhaili also affirms this, explaining that the condition for the application of this punishment is if the theft is committed against property that is in a legitimate storage place (ḥirz) and has a certain value.¹⁶This means, although the verse above appears absolute, its implementation is not carried out immediately without qualifications and contextualization. This indicates the existence of another meaning from the requirement to adhere to the qualifications of the implementation procedure.

The view on this qualification has indeed become a heated discussion in classical and contemporary interpretations, especially regarding the minimum value of stolen goods (niṣāb) that allows for the implementation of the punishment.Almost all interpretations follow the opinions of the fuqaha, which are classical legal references that have been agreed upon.Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarīstates, regardingthe thief hasthree differencesopinions of three dirhams, a quarter of a dirham, and ten dirhams. Pfirstly, Malik bin Anas and the scholars of Madinah, who established the minimum limit of three dirhams based on their statement that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ once cut off a hand due to a shield whose value was three dirhams. Then followed the opinion second, al-Awzā‘ī who mentioned a quarter of a dinar with a hadith narrated from Aisyah that she said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Cutting off the hand applies to a quarter of a dinar and above.” Swhile, third Abu Hanifah required ten dirhams, with a hadith narrated from Abdullah bin Umar and Ibn Abbas, that the Prophet ﷺ cut off a hand due to a shield whose value was ten dirhams. However, al-Ṭabarī interprets that verse to apply specifically in terms of the value of theft, namely the person who steals an amount equivalent to a quarter dinar or a silver coin of equal value.¹⁷ Ibn Kathīr asserts, this is what led most scholars (jumhur) to require a minimum value in theft.¹⁸ Where, Qurtubi mentions that the consensus (ijma’) of scholars has established a quarter dinar or three dirhams as a valid standard value as a deterrent against minor theft, since it would lead to larger thefts¹⁹ This shows that although the verse appears absolute, the scholars have restricted its application with certain conditions, including the value of the property and its social context.

Meanwhile, in the contemporary view of M. Quraish Shihab, this verse is added a historical-economic dimension. He explains that the value of four dirhams during the Prophet's time (PBUH) was equivalent to the food needs of one family, and by the end of the 20th century, its value was around 60 US dollars.This is based on the opinion of as-Sha‘râwi, when he wrote his exegesis in 1999 CE, one dirham was valued at more than twenty Egyptian pounds or about seven US dollars.²⁰ If converted now, one United Arab Emirates Dirham to Indonesian Rupiah is 4427.25 rupiah. This means, ifhadbeen measured with three dirhams, then IDR13.281.00 rupiah today. The purpose of this explanation is to highlight the importance of considering economic fluctuations in understanding the verse. Thus, both classical and contemporary expositors agree that the implementation of the hand-cutting law cannot be separated from the contextual minimum value requirement.

Understanding the definition and the basic framework of the hand-cutting law as stated in QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38, it is clear that this punishment is not implemented absolutely without conditions. Rather, it is surrounded by normative provisions and legal boundaries that show Islamic caution in establishing the punishment. Although this verse explicitly asserts the punishment of hand-cutting, its legal implementation is limited by several conditions—whether from the aspect of property value, the location of the incident, or the social condition of the perpetrator. Therefore, before delving deeper into the implementation of this punishment, it is necessary to categorize the conditions and elements that determine the application of hand-cutting as a criminal punishment in Islam.

The Debate on Categorizing the Implementation of the Punishment

The debate regarding the application of the hand amputation punishment in QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38 centers on how to categorize theft actions worthy of this sanction. Some mufasirs, particularly al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr, such as Ibn ʿAbbās and the Kufah scholars, interpret this verse in its general sense (ʿāmm), encompassing all forms of theft without distinguishing the value of the stolen item or the condition of the theft itself.²¹According to them, the wording of the verse does not explicitly mention a limit regarding the type of item or its value, thus applying comprehensively. However, the majority of fuqaha argue that the implementation of this law is not immediately applied to every act of theft but must meet a number of strict and specific conditions.²²

In the classification of stolen goods as briefly discussed in the previous discussion, the imams of the major schools of thought have differing opinions on the minimum value (niṣāb) that can lead to the imposition of the hand amputation penalty. Imam Mālik argues that the minimum threshold is three dirhams or equivalent to a quarter of a dinar. This view is also followed by Imam al-Syāfiʿī and Ahmad ibn Ḥanbal who refer to the hadith of ʿĀʾisyah RA that the hand is not cut except for stealing a quarter dinar or more.²³ Meanwhile, Abū Ḥanīfah established a higher value, namely ten dirhams dirham kaylan(measure) or one pure gold dinar, whether in currency or by weight.This view is supported byAbu Yusuf, Muhammad Hasan as-Syaibani, and Ats-Tsauri, based on the report regarding the valuation of the shield (mijn) stolen during the Prophet's time. Abū Ḥanīfah established it as higher with the argument thatthe punishment was not to judge a person, but to be cautious in law by taking the higher amount, because punishments (had) were abrogated due to doubt (syubhat).²⁴This difference indicates the presence of ijtihad in determining the minimum threshold based on the social and economic context of that time.

Furthermore, major scholars such as al-Qurṭubī and al-Baghawī, emphasize that conditions such as the value of the stolen goods (niṣāb), the proper storage place (ḥirz), and the element of concealment in theft become the primary determinants for the application of the hand amputation penalty.²⁵ Al-Qurṭubī firmly states that there are conditions that need to be considered regarding the tragedy of theft before determining the hand amputation, namely the criteria of the thief, the stolen goods, the place of theft, and its nature. First, the thief must be baligh (adult), rational, not the owner of the stolen goods, and not have guardianship over them. Secondly, the stolen item must reach the nisab (minimum value threshold), the item must be financially valuable, capable of being owned, and legally sellable; if the item can be owned but not sold, and if it was originally capable of being preserved and sold, but then made into something unusable. Thirdly, the thief does not have ownership of the item. Fourth, , hirz for stolen goods, meaning the act of theft must be committed in a place traditionally considered safe (ḥirz), such as a home, shop, or storage area. Theft that occurs in open spaces or places generally unsuitable for storage is not subject to the hand-cutting penalty. Fifth , the hidden element becomes the characteristic that distinguishes theft and robbery , because only the act performed secretly and without the owner's knowledge is categorized as theft (theft) that is punishable.²⁶

Therefore, the application of the hand amputation punishment is not absolute to every theft, but depends on the fulfillment of several substantive conditions. The differences of opinion among scholars in interpreting this verse reflect the breadth of the space for ijtihad and the complexity in applying Islamic criminal law contextually. This discussion becomes an important basis for further studying the function and wisdom behind the hand amputation punishment, which will be discussed in the next chapter in relation to the values of justice, crime prevention, and property protection in society.

Function of the Hand Amputation Punishment

As the author explained in the previous sub-chapter, the implementation of the hand amputation punishment in QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38 has an initial function as a stern measure aimed at maintaining social stability and protecting individual property rights. Ibn ‘Āshūr explains that the wisdom behind the institution of hand amputation is as a retribution for theft, retribution intended as a deterrent and to prevent repetition of the act. In other words, this retribution is not revenge but reform.²⁷Ibn Kathīr asserts that the function of this punishment contains wisdom to prevent humans from stealing hastily. Thus, when theft occurs, as a consequence they must receive retribution for their bad act, namely having their hand cut off since they took someone else's property with their hands.²⁸AAl-Qurṭubī, also mentions that this punishment was known during the Jahiliyyah era and then adopted and perfected in Islam to support the structured legal system. Thus, indicating that the function of punishment has a hidden meaning in this regard, the act against human nature. The amputation of the hand is seen as a form of“nakālan minallāh” punishment that creates a deterrent effect and prevents similar violations in the future. However, almost all the classical commentators mentioned by the author, namely, al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Kathīr, al-Qurṭubī, and al-Baghawī argue that there is no tolerance for the amputation punishment when the conditions mentioned have been exceeded, because it is a fixed retribution from Allah caused by oneself. Moreover, Ibn ‘Āshūr insists that there is no evidence showing the cancellation of the theft punishment from someone who steals, even if they repent before being punished.²⁹

Again in contemporary discourse, several researchers highlight the socio-historical dimensions of the application of the death penalty. For example, Amnesty International's report shows that some countries that still implement the death penalty often ignore the social and economic conditions of the offender,³⁰ which instead reinforces stigma and inequality.³¹ Many academics and human rights activists such as Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Mohammed Al Mhafali, and Helen Avery criticize that a literal application without considering the modern context can undermine the principles of substantive justice.³² Therefore, progressive Islamic thinkers advocate for a reinterpretation of this verse so that it is not only understood from a textual perspective but also viewed in light of the broader purpose and goals of Islamic law, which is to protect welfare, uphold justice, and uphold human dignity.³³

The application of theft punishment based on the conditions formulated by scholars has a significant impact on society. The minimum value threshold (niṣāb), the storage location (ḥirz), and the secretive nature of the act become absolute conditions that distinguish between theft punishable by amputation and theft that is not. If any of these conditions are not met, the punishment cannot be imposed. This demonstrates the carefulness of the Sharia in maintaining a balance between protecting property and protecting the perpetrator from disproportionate punishment. In a society that lacks a formal justice system, such as in the time of the Prophet, this punishment effectively maintains order. However, in a modern society with an advanced legal system, these provisions require contextual adaptation to ensure that the values of justice are still upheld.

Therefore, the primary function of the hand cutting punishment in Islam is not merely as retribution for violations, but even broader, as a tool for maintaining social order and protecting property rights. This provision reflects the ethical values in Islamic law, which always considers welfare. To understand more about the moral dimension and social purpose of this verse in the contemporary context, the following discussion will explore Fazlur Rahman's hermeneutical double movement approach as a tool for uncovering the transformative meaning of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38.hermeneutical double movement from Fazlur Rahman as a tool for digging into the transformative meaning of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38.

Fazlur Rahman: Brief Biography and His Works

Fazlur Rahman was one of the great thinkers and innovators of Islam in the 20th century. He was born on Sunday, September 21, 1919, in Hazara, a region in the northwestern part of Pakistan. Rahman grew up in a religious and devout family. His father, Maulana Syahab al-Din, was a Hanafi scholar who received his education from Madrasah Deoband—a highly influential traditional Islamic educational institution in the Indo-Pakistan region at that time.³⁴In a family steeped in Islamic values, Rahman memorized the Quran by the age of ten. His early education and family background shaped his deep intellectual and spiritual character.

After completing his secondary education, Fazlur Rahman continued his studies at the University of the Punjab, Lahore, and earned a Master's (M.A.) degree in Arabic literature in 1942. He then pursued his doctoral studies at the University of Oxford, England, in Islamic philosophy, and successfully achieved a Ph.D. in 1949. During the 1950s, Rahman became a lecturer at Durham University (1950–1958), as well as an associate professor at the Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University. This academic experience shaped Rahman's thinking to become more open, rational, and progressive.³⁵

Fazlur Rahman is known as a productive writer and a multidisciplinary thinker. His first influential work was Avicenna’s Psychology (London, 1952), which examines the influence of Ibnu Sina on the thought of the medieval Christian philosopher, Thomas Aquinas. He later wrote Avicenna’s De Anima (London, 1959) and Prophecy in Islam (Chicago, 1985), which solidified his position as a leading scholar in classical Islamic philosophy. In the field of Islamic historical methodology, Rahman wrote Islamic Methodology in History (1965), while in the field of exegesis, he compiled the monumental work Major Themes of the Qur’an (Minneapolis, 1979). This book later became one of the important references in thematic Qur’anic studies.³⁶

Moreover, Rahman also wrote Islam and Modernity: Transformation of the Intellectual Tradition (1984), a significant work in explaining the relationship between the Islamic intellectual tradition and modernity. In the field of philosophy, he wrote The Philosophy of Mulla Sadra (Albany, 1975) and Islam (Chicago, 1979), while in the field of medical studies, he produced Health and Medicine in the Islamic Tradition: Change and Identity (New York, 1987).³⁷ Some of these works have been translated into Indonesian, such as Tema-Tema Pokok al-Qur’an (Pustaka, 1996) and Islam (Pustaka, 2010), Islam and Modernity On Intellectual Transformation (Pustaka, 1985), Shadra’s Philosophy (Pustaka, 2010), Opening the Door of Ijtihad (Pustaka, 1995) and continue to be important readings in various Islamic institutions of higher learning to this day.

The works of Rahman demonstrate his consistency in bridging between classical Islamic values and the challenges of modernity. He not only offers criticism of the rigidity of traditional Islamic thought but also provides new methodologies for understanding and interpreting sacred texts contextually and ethically. In this context, the method double movement developed by Rahman becomes a significant methodological foundation in modern exegesis studies.

Rahman's Double Movement Hermeneutics: The Reason for Its Emergence

The double movement method (gerakan ganda) developed by Rahman stems from the awareness that the Quran is a response to the specific situation of the Arab community in the 7th century, yet it carries universal moral values. The first movement in this method is to return to the time of the revelation, tracing the historical, social, cultural, and motivational contexts in which a verse emerged. Through the study of asbāb al-nuzūl and the analysis of pre-Islamic society, the original meaning of a verse can be understood accurately.³⁸

Step two is to generalize the moral values from the verse and apply them in the current socio-cultural context. Principles such as justice, protection of property rights, and the elimination of social disparities must be actualized in the modern legal system.³⁹ As demonstrated by Rahman, the hand amputation penalty does not necessarily have to be implemented literally if the moral value it contains can be realized through other more humane and contextual sanctions.

This method rejects the rigid textual approach without ignoring the contributions of classical scholars. Instead, Rahman invites to integrate their judicial rulings into an ethical exegesis framework based on maqāṣid al-syarī‘ah.40 Therefore, the double movement becomes a method that supports the reconstruction of Islamic law in a relevant and morally accountable manner.  

Ratio Legis and Quasi Legal: Understanding HAM as Legal Coherence

Rahman believes that Islamic law should serve as a means to uphold human rights. He emphasizes that the Quran guarantees the right to life (QS. al-Maidah [5]: 32), the right to freedom of religion (QS. al-Baqarah [2]: 256), the right to own property (QS. al-Baqarah [2]: 30), and the right to human dignity (‘irdh). In his view, human rights can only be upheld if accompanied by moral obligations and social responsibility.⁴¹ Therefore, the concept of justice in Islam is not permissive but is based on collective responsibility.

Rahman distinguishes between legal prescription (legal prescription) and moral purpose (moral purpose) in the Al-Qur’an. He evaluates that many laws in the Al-Qur’an are quasi-legal, meaning they have a specific ratio legis but are not absolute. If the social context changes and the law no longer reflects its ratio legis, then the law can be reconsidered. This provides a theological and methodological basis for reinterpreting hudūd verses, such as QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38, in the context of human rights (HAM) and substantive justice today.

For example, the provision regarding the testimony of two women replacing one man in QS. al-Baqarah [2]: 282 has a legislative ratio that at that time women were not accustomed to economic transactions. Rahman states that if this context changes—women becoming active subjects of the economy—then the equality of testimony becomes valid and ethical.⁴³ This approach is highly relevant for reinterpreting legal verses with a human rights approach as a coherent legal framework that consistently maintains the values of the Al-Qur’an.

First Movement: Capturing the Legislative Ratio in Quasi Legal Law

Micro-context of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38

First Movement hermeneutics Fazlur Rahman demands that the author seek ratio-legis (ideal moral) from quasi-legal (legal nature) micro and macro contexts QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38.⁴⁴ Meanwhile classical exegetes explicitly establish the physical punishment of amputation of the hand for thieves. Under the guise of the command form (fi‘l amr) in the redaction "faqṭa‘ū aydiyahumā", which grammatically contains the meaning of a stern and final.⁴⁵ Another reading by Rahman, which attempts to transcend that interpretation. When reading this verse from a micro perspective, the author's attention first focuses on the connection (munasabah) between the verse and the preceding verses, the historical and social context surrounding the revelation of the verse (asbāb al-nuzūl), then the historical and social context surrounding the revelation of the verse (asbāb al-nuzūl), as well as the linguistic and grammatical structure of the Arabic language to strengthen the argument in order to grasp the deep normative meaning of the ratio legis of the text, thereby finding the legal urgency within the early Islamic moral and social system.

First, regarding the munasabah letter 'waw' in this verse is a harfu a’thaf (connecting word), indicating the continuity between QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 and the preceding verse, QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 33.⁴⁶ Where, this verse serves as a transition to the establishment of a ruling against muharribin (people who fight/rob), which is a type of homicide. QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 33 was revealed concerning the decision of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ regarding the Banu 'Uranin. He ordered that their hands and feet be cut off crosswise, their eyes be gouged out with hot irons, and that they be imprisoned until they died. This order was given because they apostatized after embracing Islam and committed murder on a Muslim shepherd of the Banu 'Ukl and 'Urainah.⁴⁷ Interestingly, this event occurred in the sixth year of Hijriyah, meaning it happened before the revelation of QS. al-Ma'idah, so the descent of this verse is considered to abrogate the ruling applied by the Prophet ﷺ to this event and any event before it.

Similarly, when the author analyzes the verses related to the hand amputation punishment, he finds that there are likely three verses related to this, but all three fall outside the framework of the discussion on the procedural Sharia punishment of hand amputation carried by Islam. Where, QS. al-A‘rāf (7): 124, QS. Ṭāhā (20): 71, QS. Asy-Syu‘arā’ (26): 49 clearly indicate that these verses are related to the story of Bani Israel, particularly the story of Prophet Moses alaihis salam and Pharaoh. Thus, it can be said that the hand amputation punishment was implemented in the tradition of Bani Israel, which the Quran refers to as an explanation of the story of the Prophet before ﷺ to strengthen the heart of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. The redaction “la-uqaṭṭi‘anna aydiyakum wa arjulakum” which is the expression of Pharaoh for giving the punishment to the person who rebels against him is clear that the Quran attempts to explain that the hand amputation punishment already existed in the time of Pharaoh. Then, in the pre-Islamic Arab tradition, they adopted that punishment as it was continued by the punishment decided by the Prophet ﷺ upon the 'Urain tribe. Moreover, the three verses belong to the classification of Makkiyyah, while QS. al-Mā’idah belongs to the group of Madaniyyah surahs. This means, QS. al-Mā’idah, both verse 33 and 38 are a new law that abrogates the three verses, which law is applied according to the condition of the Islamic community in Madinah that has become strong.

Secondly, regarding the specific reasons for the revelation in QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 33, there are differing opinions among scholars, at least two narrations can be attributed. . The narrationof al-Kalbīas presented byal-Wāḥidīexplains that this verse was revealed concerning the theft of an iron garment by Thu‘mah bin Ubayriq from his neighbor, Qatadah bin al-Nu‘mān.⁴⁸This crime had not only economic consequences but also disrupted social cohesion because the perpetrator tried to shift the blame onto a Jew, who was later defended by evidence and the testimony of the community. The Thu‘mah tribe, namely Bani Zhafar, urged the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to defend them to preserve the honor of their tribe. The Prophet even initially leaned toward the defense, until ultimately Allah revealed revelation as clarification of the principle of justice and the necessity of maintaining legal integrity without being influenced by tribal pressure. can be said that the event of amputating the hand in this context is not just a reaction to theft, but also a symbolic representation of moral betrayal and a threat to public justice.

As-Suyūṭī narrates in Al-Durr Al-Manthūr that the first punishment had enacted in Islam was when a man named thief Al-Khiyar bin Adi bin Naufal bin Abd Manaf was brought before the Prophet ﷺ. Then, some people testified that he committed theft, and the Prophet ﷺ ordered that his hand be cut off. Strangely, when the man was being led away, the Prophet's ﷺ face turned pale with concern, as if the amputation of the hand felt heavy to him. Then the companions tried to persuade him to free the man or to still punish him. The Prophet ﷺ said: "Why did you not bring him to me before?" In fact, a priest, if a had (punishment) has reached him, it is not permissible for him to cancel it."⁴⁹ This means, when a person who has clearly committed a crime is brought before a judge to be sentenced, and witnesses and evidence strongly point to the suspect, it is forbidden for a judge to cancel his decision. However, there is compassion in the heart regarding this, as it would result in the loss of a law. On the other hand, the leniency of the law will become a threat to its legality in maintaining the dignity or integrity of a legal implementation. Therefore, if a clear legal decision is canceled, then the community at that time will belittle the law of Islamic Sharia.

Then, another account was added by As-Suyūṭī in Lubāb An-Nuqūl Fī Asbāb an-Nuzūl, about the depth of the normative meaning of this verse by mentioning the event of a female Makhzumiyah thief named Murrah bint Sufyan bin Abdil Asad from Bani Makhzum whose hand had been cut off during the time of the Prophet ﷺ. When she asked about the possibility of repentance, the following verse descended (QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:39), which explains that the door of repentance remains open for criminals who reform themselves.50 Ibn Kathīr mentions that the implementation of the hudūd law can also be part of the atonement (kaffārah) if the perpetrator repents sincerely.51 This dimension adds moral weight to the hand-cutting law, namely that it is not mechanistic but closely related to the value of repentance and acknowledging the error as a form of social restoration.

Third, the linguistic and grammatical structure of the Arabic language in the verse QS. al-Mā’idah [5:38] which is felt to support the moral weight in the micro-legal context of the hand cutting is the editorial structure of this verse which shows the general nature (‘ām) in the phrase "al-sāriq wa al-sāriqah", which in ushul fiqh requires further technical elaboration.⁵²The term al-sāriq (and the male thief) as the subject, then its predicate is removed, so it means ""Among those read to you is the law of the male thief and the female thief, so cut off their two hands."". Meanwhile, the term Faqṭa‘ū aydiyahumā, namely dhamir khitab (second-person pronoun) is directed to the rulers (ulil amri) based on the context. Phrase aydi is pluralized (plural) by considering the individuals of the thief's gender. Meanwhile, dhamir tasniyah (dual) is used to consider two types: male and female. Thus, the plural here refers to tasniyah. Therefore, the reason stated is "al-sāriqah " (female thief) together with "al-sāriq " (male thief) is to dispel the assumption that the mudzakkar (masculine) form in “al-sāriq” is a limitation so that the hand-cutting law only applies to males. Because previously, Arab people did not consider women to have the same value, they did not apply the hudud punishment to them. That is, the legal nature in the linguistic structure of this verse is generally established for the entire community at that time, both men and women. Therefore, Islam came to assert that there is no difference before the law, which is now made a principle of the modern system known as "equality before the law" or "kesamaan di hadapan hukum".

While the procedure for considering the decision to impose the hand amputation punishment with strict requirements such as the minimum value threshold for stolen goods (niṣāb) as well as additional conditions including the presence of ḥirz (a secure storage place) clear evidence, and classification for the thief must be established before the punishment can be imposed, it indicates a quasi-legal gap that there is consideration by scholars to avoid the implementation of this punishment. Thus also, al-Qurṭubī and al-Baghawī explain, although this verse takes the form of a general command, its implementation is selective and contextual.¹⁵⁵ In other words, the command text does not rule out the possibility of legal discretion based on maqāṣid (legal purposes).¹⁵⁶ Therefore, the hand amputation punishment cannot be applied arbitrarily and must meet specific criteria established. Moreover, the quasi-legal hand amputation punishment at that time was based on the legal practices that had been in place in the community. Thus, Islamic legal practice seems to follow the tradition of the Arab community, where amputation was a tradition of punishment for theft as retribution for violating the values rooted in the community.

This is whyit isthe mostsignificantas aquasi, namely an understanding of theft as an offense against the community's value system, not merely an offense against property. As in the context of the Thu‘mah case, theft does not only harm private property but also damages social trust and relationships between-communities, especially between Muslims and Jews in Madinah.⁵⁷ Therefore, the hand amputation here appears as an instrument that goes beyond the physical aspect it is a normative statement against dual offenses, namely the seizure of rights and manipulation of law that can damage social order.

Conclude this verse with two attributes of Allah, namely‘Azīz (Maha Perkasa) and Hakīm (Maha Bijaksana), emphasizing that the legal command in Islam does not stand on mere force, but is framed within a divine principle that combines power with wisdom.⁵⁸ This becomes a key point in grasping the ratio legis of this verse that the law of hudūd should not be understood as an expression of absolute power, but as an expression of transcendental justice aimed at protecting society while guiding individuals toward repentance and self-improvement.⁵⁹ Therefore, every reading of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 must microscopically consider the moral and spiritual dynamics that form the foundation of Islamic law, before its reading is developed into a macro social-political context.

Macro Context of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]: 38

If viewed from a macro context, QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 is part of the Islamic criminal law construction revealed in Madinah, a phase where the Muslim community had evolved from a religious community to a complete political entity.⁶⁰The establishment of the hand cutting law for thieves in this verse cannot be separated from the socio-political context of Madinah, which demanded a stable, just, and impartial legal system that did not favor certain groups or factions.⁶¹A case of theft involving Thu‘mah bin Ubayriq from the Bani Zhafar tribe, who later hid the stolen goods in a Jewish person's house, shows the conflict between pre-Islamic tribalistic values and the universal justice principle that Islam sought to establish.⁶²When social pressure demanded that the Prophet ﷺ defend the perpetrator due to kinship ties, revelation came to emphasize that justice should not be compromised for group loyalty.⁶³

In socio-historical perspective, Arab society before Islam was formed within a strong tribal structure.⁶⁴In this system, criminal acts were often viewed through the lens of social relationships rather than through objective legal principles. The practice of the hand amputation for actual theft was known during the Jahiliyyah period, even before the arrival of Islam, as in the case of al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīrah.⁶⁵The Quran, in this context, does not introduce the hand amputation as a new practice, but rather takes over the practice and regulates it strictly within the new moral and social framework. In Qurtubi's interpretation, it is emphasized that although the text of the verse indicates a general nature (ʿumūm), the implementation of the punishment hudūd is very limited and its conditions are strict, including the value of stolen goods, the place of storage (ḥirz), and strong evidence.⁶⁶ This means, the socio-historical punishment of pre-Islamic society formed a legal culture that was accommodated by Islamic law. The strict requirements provide a great opportunity for the community to avoid theft, thus preventing them from being subjected to the punishment of having their hand cut off.

Furthermore, the context in which this verse was revealed in Medina also marks the transformation of early Islamic politics.⁶⁷ The Muslim community in Medina was no longer just a religious group but had formed a social structure that recognized the rights of minorities, such as the Jewish community.⁶⁸ With this verse, the Quran rejects the intervention of the majority group in the judicial system that threatens substantive justice. The command to cut the hand in this case is not merely a reaction to theft but also a strong statement against the manipulation of truth, betrayal of trust, and social pressure that endangers the newly emerging legal system.⁶⁹

If pulled further into the course of human history, hand amputation as a form of punishment has long been known in various civilizations. In Code of Hammurabi (1750 BC), the punishment of hand amputation was applied to slaves who rebelled against free citizens.⁷⁰ In Roman and Byzantine traditions, hand amputation became a means to control crime and enforce social order.⁷¹ However, the understanding of hand amputation as a symbol of justice gradually shifted from physical retribution toward a more humanistic approach in the Enlightenment era.⁷² In this context, the Quran adopts old legal elements but rearranges them with higher moral values: not merely punishing, but restructuring society through principles of justice and respect for property rights.

The legal punishment of the hand in QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 is more than just physical punishment. It is a manifestation of Islam's firmness in maintaining a just and decent social order. In the context of Madinah's pluralistic society, which is in the process of building a new social system, this verse serves as a boundary for criminal acts and a warning that Islam does not tolerate the manipulation of law and social slander.⁷³ This punishment also has an educational aspectshowing that in Islam, property is not just a private matter but part of the social honor that must be upheld by the entire community.⁷⁴

In the modern era, the interpretation of these verses needs to go beyond a literal approach. Fazlur Rahman used by the author for example, emphasizes that verses like these must be understood within a moral and social framework, not merely as formal legal texts.⁷⁵ The hand-cutting can be understood metaphorically, namely removing social access to the possibility of theft by meeting the basic needs of society, strengthening economic distribution, and upholding collective ethics.⁷⁶ Thus, the implementation of “hand-cutting” does not necessarily mean physical hand-cutting but “cutting” the social conditions that allow theft to occur, namely poverty, inequality, and the neglect of social justice.

Quasi Legal and Ratio Legis of Hand-Cutting Punishment

As the framework of Islamic legal construction previously, QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 is often understood as an absolute command establishing the punishment of amputation of the hand for thieves. However, after an in-depth reading of the micro and macro context of this verse, it actually shows that it cannot be interpreted solely as a positive legal norm that must be applied literally at all times and places. Instead, this verse retains a quasi-legal character, meaning it is normative but open to social contextualization and historical change.⁷⁷ This is evident from the process of the verse's revelation, which is closely related to the dynamics of the Madinah society, where social pressure and conflict between -groups demanded legal rigor to maintain stability and collective justice.⁷⁸

Quasi-legal characteristics arise from the fact that the Al-Qur’an adopts the practice of hand cutting that has lived in pre-Islamic Arab culture and other ancient civilizations, but does not merely repeat it.⁷⁹ Islam provides strict ethical and procedural dimensions, such as determining the minimum value of stolen goods (niṣāb), the necessity of having ḥirz, and exceptions for those who steal due to hunger. This shows that the verse does not merely offer a legal formulation, but becomes a solution to certain urgent social conditions, namely when theft has become a clear threat to communal stability. Therefore, the command of hand cutting in QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 must be understood as part of a social control system that is very closely related to the spatial and temporal situation.

In the Madinah community, theft is not merely a criminal act against property but an act that damages social networks and fosters suspicion among-groups,⁸⁰ as shown in the case of Thu‘mah bin Ubayriq.⁸¹ Thus, the revelation of this verse is not only to establish retribution for violations but also to correct social dysfunction arising from economic disparity, poverty, and the dominance of majority groups over minorities. This is reinforced by the following verse (QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:39), which opens the way for repentance, showing that the law ofhudūd is not finalistic or canceling the possibility of improvement, but rather a corrective instrument that must be grounded in divine values such as mercy and wisdom.⁸²

Therefore, ratio legis of this verse does not lie in the physical act of amputation, but in the social goal that the law aims to achieve. This goal includes, among others, preventing crime systematically, protecting property rights as the basis of social honor, and maintaining the integrity of the law from political manipulation or group pressure. Within this framework, the punishment of amputation is a symbol of the state's firmness in upholding social order, but not the only method. The realization of these values in a modern context can take different forms, such as rehabilitation systems, social guarantees, and a criminal justice system more oriented toward restorative justice.⁸³

Adopting Fazlur Rahman's perspective, the author understands this verse not merely within a legal-formal framework, but as a reflection of the Quran's commitment to social justice. In his view, the term “faqṭa‘ū aydiyahumā” can be read metaphorically, namely as a call to cut off access to and opportunities for crime by meeting basic human needs, creating a just distribution of wealth, and closing systemic gaps that allow criminal acts to occur.⁸⁴ In other words, the effort to uphold maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah, such as preserving property and preventing harm can be achieved through more contextual and progressive means in line with the demands of the times.

Therefore, understanding QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 as a quasi-legal text provides broad hermeneutic space to reread legal texts while still respecting its fundamental principles. The hand-cutting is not the legal goal, but a means to achieve welfare. It is not an instrument of force, but a representation of justice that can be manifested through other legal instruments as long as it does not deviate from the core values of the syariah. In this context, scholars and policymakers are not just required to memorize the legal form, but to挖掘 the spirit and purpose behind it, so that the syariah remains living and responsive in every era of change.

Second Movement: Implementing Ratio Legis in Modern Context

Ideal Moral Generalization: Application of Ratio Legis to Verses

Within the hermeneutical framework of Fazlur Rahman's double movement, the second step, termed generalization of moral ideas, is the process of translating normative values of the verses into the context of modern times. ⁸⁵ QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38, which literally commands the amputation of hands for thieves, is no longer understood merely as a rigid rule demanding physical implementation. Instead, this verse contains universal values such as the protection of property, the prevention of crime, and the enforcement of social justice. These values transcend time and can be actualized in a more contextual and humane legal system in the contemporary era. ⁸⁶

In the modern context, the legal system no longer relies solely on the retributive aspect but also on the rehabilitative and preventive dimensions.⁸⁷ Therefore, ratio legis of this verse, namely maintaining social stability and preventing moral disintegration due to theft, is better embodied in the form of a legal system that emphasizes restorative justice.⁸⁸ Prisons,⁸⁹ social work,⁹⁰ proportional fines,⁹¹ even electronic surveillance⁹² are contemporary legal instruments that can fulfill the functions of prevention and protection without harming human dignity.⁹³ In this case, amputation as a literal form of punishment becomes unnecessary, as its legal value has been implemented through mechanisms more consistent with human rights principles.

Fazlur Rahman in his work Islam & Modernityemphasizes that all Islamic law is ethical, and therefore law should not be detached from its moral purpose.94 ^{He states that the Quran uses specific legal forms in the context of 7th-century society, but what is more important is the} moral purpose of that law.95 ^{In this context, justice and crime prevention remain the primary orientation. Thus, a literal understanding of the text of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 is not sufficient to produce an just legal system in modern society without understanding the social and economic rationale of societies that are very different from early Medina.}

The moral generalization from this verse also points to the awareness that crimes such as theft do not arise in a vacuum, but are often the result of a flawed social structure, such as poverty, unemployment, economic inequality, and social marginalization.⁹⁶ Therefore, legal solutions to theft must include structural improvements within the social system.⁹⁷ Quranic verse al-Mā’idah [5]:38 can be understood as a call to combat the root causes of theft, not just punish the perpetrator. In this context, fulfilling basic rights of the community, economic equality, and social security become part of the moral implementation of the verse.

In the experience of modern countries, many legal systems have attempted to integrate this principle through criminal law reforms, emphasizing prisoner education, vocational training, and social reintegration programsl, such as the model implemented in South Africa⁹⁸ All of this aligns with maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah, particularly in preserving the soul (ḥifẓ al-nafs), property (ḥifẓ al-māl), and human dignity (ḥifẓ al-‘irḍ).⁹⁹vWithin this framework, “cutting the hand” does not necessarily mean the literal cutting the hand but can be translated as preventing access to criminal acts through a just and comprehensive legal system. This makes the verse not only remain relevant but also serve as a source of value in national and global legal systems.

Therefore, the second movement in the double movement is not a form of rejection of the text, but rather a more ethically and socially responsible rereading. As emphasized by Rahman, the Quran is a guide that brings progressive moral change, and the task of the Muslim ummah is to safeguard the spirit of progressiveness and keep it alive.¹⁰⁰ QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 in this context becomes the foundation for designing legal policies that not only punish but also build, empower, and heal the social wounds that give birth to crime. Thus, generalizing the moral idea of this verse opens the way for new ijtihad that upholds humanity, without rejecting the basic principles of revelation.

Modern Legal Context: Kontextualization Quasi Legal LawIslamic State

In the context of Islamic countries, the literal application of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 still remains a legal reality in several contemporary Islamic countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, and some northern regions of Nigeria. These countries maintain the practice of amputation as the implementation of hudud for cases of theft, although in many cases, the legal procedures do not guarantee substantive justice.¹⁰¹ For example, in Iran, 237 sentences were recorded between 2000 and 2020, with the majority of the offenders coming from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.¹⁰² In Sudan, in 2023, three men were sentenced to amputation for stealing gas cylinders,¹⁰³ indicating that the law is applied with a rigid textual approach and without re-reading its social dynamics. This means that some Muslim countries still interpret the verse in a normative-dogmatic way and reject the progressive reading of ratio legis that considers the universal values of the Al-Qur’an.

Criticism of this approach comes not only from the international community through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),¹⁰⁴ but also from progressive Muslim intellectuals. Practicalhand cutting is viewed as a form of cruel, inhumane, and degrading punishment to human dignity.¹⁰⁵ Similarly, Sudanese Muslim intellectuals such as Abdullahi an-Na’im strongly reject the literal application of hudud law because it is deemed to contradict the maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah that upholds the protection of life and honor.¹⁰⁶ Furthermore, in many cases, the application of hudud is not free from social inequality and the weakness of the justice system.¹⁰⁷ Perpetrators from lower classes tend to be the primary targets, while political and economic elites often escape punishment.¹⁰⁸ This creates structural injustice that contradicts the principles of social justice in Islam.

In Fazlur Rahman's perspective, this approach overlooks the quasi-legal character of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38. He indirectly asserts that the command "cut off the hand" is not the ultimate goal itself, maqṣūd li-dhātih (the very objective), but rather a contextual legal instrument that can change according to social circumstances. The punishment is intended to maintain social order and prevent theft in societies that lack strong public safety systems and social guarantees. In modern society, the value that must be upheld is the protection of property rights and social justice. ¹¹¹ Therefore, a literal approach without considering the socio-political context, such as poverty, unemployment, and economic inequality, actually contradicts the ethical and progressive spirit of the Al-Qur’an.

Conversely, the legal approach in countries such as Malaysia¹¹²Brunei Darussalam¹¹³ and Indonesia (particularly Aceh)¹¹⁴ reflects a serious effort to translate Islamic Sharia in a contextual andoriented toward substantive justice. In Malaysia, the national criminal justice system does not recognizeamputating hands as a form of punishment, and thieves are more often sentenced to fines, imprisonment, or rehabilitation programs.¹¹⁵ In Aceh, although Sharia law is implemented through the Qanun Jinayat, the sanctions applied are more symbolic and educational, such as caning or confinement, taking into account the social and psychological conditions of the offender.¹¹⁶This indicates that Islamic law can still be enforced without necessarily conflicting with human rights principles and the modern legal system.

Malaysian and Aceh models align with the principle of maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah which places greater emphasis on the protection of soul, intellect, wealth, and honor. This approach also shows that the hand cut (potong tangan) does not necessarily have to be interpreted physically, but as a symbol of severing access to criminal acts through fair and comprehensive social mechanisms. Within this framework, an understanding of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 becomes more functional and ethical not in legal form, but in the social and moral impacts it aims to achieve. This is also consistent with double movement Fazlur Rahman, which distinguishes between legal form (form) and the underlying moral value (spirit).¹¹⁷

Crucial interpreters like Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd add an important dimension to this reading by introducing the concept al-maskūt ‘anhu, which refers to aspects not mentioned in the text but important to uncover through contextual reading.¹¹⁸ In this case, structural injustice, the economic causes of crime, and the dominance of elites in the legal process are elements that must be considered before deciding on the form of punishment. Indirectly, Abu Zayd evaluates, that a literal reading of QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 is the same as freezing revelation and rejecting the progressive nature of Islam as a religion of mercy and justice.¹¹⁹

Tariq Ramadan also argues that syariah must be interpreted within the context of modern civilization.¹²⁰ According to him, hudud in its literal form cannot be implemented justly in a system that is not free from corruption, poverty, and inequality. He urges Muslims to impose a moratorium on the implementation of hudud until a truly just justice system that is free from pressure is in place.¹²¹ This criticism shows that the literal implementation of law is not only problematic from an ethical perspective but also from procedural and epistemological perspectives.

Therefore, the contextualization of the quasi-legal QS. al-Mā’idah [5:38] proves that this verse still holds universal relevance, not because of the legal form it carries, but because of the moral value it contains. Modern Islamic countries can and should engage in collective ijtihad to formulate alternative forms of punishment that still uphold the spirit of justice, but without necessarily violating humanitarian principles. Thus, a contextual and progressive approach to the death penalty is not only theologically valid but also morally and socially urgent.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 cannot be understood rigidly within the framework of literal positive law, but must be interpreted dynamically through the hermeneutic approach of Fazlur Rahman's "double movement." Through micro-reading of the linguistic structure and asbāb al-nuzūl, as well as macro-analysis of the socio-historical context of the Madinah community, it is found that the hand-cutting law has a quasi-legal nature, meaning it is a norm tied to context and not absolute in form.double movement ala Fazlur Rahman. Through micro-reading of the linguistic structure and asbāb al-nuzūl, as well as macro-analysis of the socio-historical context of the Madinah community, it is found that the hand-cutting law has a quasi-legal nature, meaning it is a norm tied to context and not absolute in form.quasi-legal, i.e., a norm bound to context and not absolute in form. Ratio legis of this verse lies in its moral mission to prevent crime, protect property, and uphold social justice in a society vulnerable to moral disintegration. Therefore, the literal application of the hand-cutting punishment in various Muslim countries today is not in line with the normative intent of the verse and risks contradicting the spirit of Islamic justice.potong tangan in various Muslim countries today is not in line with the normative intent of the verse and risks contradicting the spirit of Islamic justice.

This research provides an important contribution to the discourse of contemporary Qur'anic legal interpretation by emphasizing the importance of the moral-proportional and contextual approach to hudud verses. By reconstructing QS. al-Mā’idah [5]:38 as a quasi-legal text, this study opens up space for a reinterpretation of Islamic law that is more oriented toward values rather than mere form. This reinforces the argument that the Islamic legal system can be applied relevantly in modern society without losing its normative integrity. This study also enriches the hermeneutic literature of the Qur'an by demonstrating how the thought of Fazlur Rahman, reinforced by figures such as Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd and Tariq Ramadan, can be used as a methodological foundation in responding to the tensions between the text of revelation and contemporary socio-human realities.quasi-legal

Although this study has elaborated on the micro, macro, and contextualization analysis of QS. al-Mā’idah [5:38] in various Islamic legal systems, limitations still persist, particularly in the comparative aspect between the practice of the hand cutting law and its effectiveness in preventing crime. Additionally, this approach is more normative-hermeneutic and has not been accompanied by field data or the perspectives of victims and perpetrators directly affected by the implementation of this law. Therefore, further research with a sociological or empirical approach is very needed to strengthen the argumentation about the urgency of reformulating Islamic criminal law within the framework of maqāṣid al-sharī‘ah and global human rights (HAM) more comprehensively.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdurrachman, Hamidah, Achmad Irwan Hamzani, Nayla Majestya, and Havis Aravik. “From Judge’s Decision to Justice: The Role of Transcendental Law to Reinforce Judicial Independence.” Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 24 (2021). https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jnlolletl24&id=536&div=&collection=.

Afzal, Muhammad, and Muhammad Khubaib. “Flexibility in the Implementation of Islamic Criminal Law in Modern Islamic Society in the Light of Qur’ān and Sunnah.” Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization 11, no. 1 (May 20, 2021): 396–410. https://doi.org/10.32350/JITC.111.21.

Ahmad, Nadzriah. “Teaching Criminal Law Procedure in Universities: Meeting the Needs of Juveniles in Criminal Legal Practice.” Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH) 8, no. 1 (January 31, 2023): e002068–e002068. https://doi.org/10.47405/MJSSH.V8I1.2068.

Ahmadi Roozbeh, Amir, Roohollah Forouzesh, and Masoud Ghasemi. “Investigating the Method of Social Prevention of Theft in Natural Disasters in Kermanshah Province, 2023.” Quarterly Scientific Journal of Rescue and Relief 16, no. 2 (March 1, 2024): 89–99. https://doi.org/10.61186/JORAR.16.2.3.

al-Baghawī, Muḥyī as-Sunnah Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥusayn ibn Mas’ūd ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Farrā’. Ma’ālim at-Tanzīl Fī Tafsīr Al-Qur’ān. Edited by ’Abd ar-Razzāq al-Mahdī. Al-Ūlā. Vol. 2. Bayrūt: Dār Iḥyā’ at-Turāth al-’Arabī, 1999.

al-Qurṭubī, Abū ’Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Anṣārī. Al- Jāmi’ Li- Aḥkām Al- Qur’ān. Edited by Aḥmad al-Bardūnī and Ibrāhīm Aṭfīsh. Al-Thāniyah. Vol. 6. al-Qāhirah: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyyah, 1964.

Al-Qurṭubī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Al-Jāmi’ Li-Aḥkām Al-Qur’ān. Edited by Aḥmad Al-Bardūnī. Ath-Thāniy. al-Qāhirah: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyyah, 1964.

al-Suyūṭī, ’Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Bakr, Jalāl al-Dīn. Al-Durr Al-Manthūr. Vol. 3. Bayrūt: Dār al-Fikr, n.d.

al-Ṭabarī, Abū Ja’far Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. Jāmi’ Al-Bayān ’an Ta’wīl Āy Al-Qur’ān. Edited by ibn ’Abd al-Muḥsin. Al-Ūlā. Vol. 8. Turkī: Dār Hajr , 2001.

al-Wāḥidī, Abū al-Ḥasan ‘Alī bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin ‘Alī. Asbāb Nuzūl Al-Qur’ān. Edited by Kamāl Basyūnī Zaghlūl. Al-Ūlā. Bairūt: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1990.

Alak, Alina Isac. “The Impact of the Islamic Theories of Revelation on Humanist Qurʾanic Hermeneutics.” Studia Islamica 119, no. 1 (April 3, 2024): 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1163/19585705-12341484.

Allen, Douglas, and Suleyman Sertkaya. “What Changed in Medina: The Place of Peace and War in the Life of Prophet Muhammad.” Religions 2023, Vol. 14, Page 193 14, no. 2 (February 1, 2023): 193. https://doi.org/10.3390/REL14020193.

Almahfali, Mohammed, and Helen Avery. “Human Rights from an Islamic Perspective: A Critical Review of Arabic Peer-Reviewed Articles.” Social Sciences 2023, Vol. 12, Page 106 12, no. 2 (February 16, 2023): 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/SOCSCI12020106.

Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Director. “Yemeni Man Sentenced to Hand and Foot Amputation for Armed Robbery - Amnesty International.” amnesty.org, September 16, 2013. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2013/09/yemeni-man-sentenced-hand-and-foot-amputation-armed-robbery/?utm.

An-Na’im, Abdullahi Ahmed. “Islam, Islamic Law and the Dilemma of Cultural Legitimacy for Universal Human Rights.” Asian Perspectives On Human Rights, January 1, 2021, 31–54. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429033674-5/ISLAM-ISLAMIC-LAW-DILEMMA-CULTURAL-LEGITIMACY-UNIVERSAL-HUMAN-RIGHTS-1-ABDULLAHI-AHMED-NA-IM.

Arandjelović, Ognjen. “Crime and Punishment: A Rethink.” Philosophies 2023, Vol. 8, Page 47 8, no. 3 (May 26, 2023): 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/PHILOSOPHIES8030047.

as-Suyūṭī, ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān bin Abī Bakr, Jalāl ad-Dīn. Lubāb An-Nuqūl Fī Asbāb an-Nuzūl. Bairūt: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, n.d.

az-Zuḥaylī, Wahbah. At-Tafsīr Al-Munīr Fī Al-’Aqīdah Wa Ash-Sharī’ah Wa Al-Manhaj. Al-Ūlā. Bayrūt: Dār al-Fikr, 1991.

Bessler, John D. “The Philosophy of Punishment and the Arc of Penal Reform: From Ancient Lawgivers to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and through the Nineteenth Century,” 2023, 23–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11874-6_2.

Bhat, Dr. Arshad Hussain, and Durgeshwary Kolhe. “Crime and Fraud at the Community Level: Social Networking Understanding into Economic Crimes and Psychology Motivations.” Journal of Social Sciences and Economics 3, no. 2 (October 31, 2024): 109–28. https://doi.org/10.61363/G0KB2S44.

Chikkala, Pallavi. “Community Service as a Part of Sentencing.” Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 5 Issue 2 (2023). https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/injlolw11&id=1785&div=&collection=.

Embong, Zaleha, Nazri Muslim, Nik Yusri Musa, Amaal Fadhlini Mohamed, and Lina Mastura Jusoh. “Principles of Social Integration in the Constitution of Medina.” Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 10, no. 1 (2021): 382–90. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2021-0032.

Erviana, Pita Ria. “Potong Tangan Dalam Al-Qur’an (Studi Pemikiran Fazlur Rahman).” Institut Agam islam Negeri Ponorogo, 2021.

Felsenthal, Iddo, and Ayman Agbaria. “‘Justice before God’: Critical Islamic Education Based on the Work of Tariq Ramadan.” British Journal of Religious Education, March 19, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2025.2480655;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION.

Ghadermarzi, Mobin, and Rahman Mohamadi. “Prejudice in the Tribal Structure of the Arabs and Its Role in Islam.” Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research 9, no. 4 (2021): 114–19. https://doi.org/10.24200/jsshr.vol9iss04pp114-119.

Hakim, Hashom Mohd, Japareng Lalung, Hussein Omar Khan, Hafezul Helmi Hamzah, Mohammad Faiz Othman, Nur Syahmina Rasudin, Siddhartha Pati, et al. “PROPERTY CRIME INCIDENCE AND PATTERNS IN MALAYSIA FROM 2007 TO 2017.” PLANNING MALAYSIA 20 (April 18, 2022): 25–35. https://doi.org/10.21837/PM.V20I20.1076.

Halkos, George E., and Panagiotis Stavros C. Aslanidis. “Causes and Measures of Poverty, Inequality, and Social Exclusion: A Review.” Economies 2023, Vol. 11, Page 110 11, no. 4 (April 4, 2023): 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/ECONOMIES11040110.

Haq, Islamul. “Clarifying Misconceptions Understanding Hand-Cutting Punishments in the Al-Sariqah Crime Context.” Media Syari’ah : Wahana Kajian Hukum Islam Dan Pranata Sosial 26, no. 1 (January 1, 2024): 18. https://doi.org/10.22373/JMS.V26I1.22206.

Hartoyo*, Rudi, and Sulistyowati Sulistyowati. “The Role Of The Legal Aid Post Is In Providing Legal Assistance To Disadvantaged People In Order To Obtain Justice In The Courts Of The Holy Land.” JIM: Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Pendidikan Sejarah 8, no. 3 (June 18, 2023): 1599–1611. https://doi.org/10.24815/JIMPS.V8I3.25236.

Helmina, Helmina, Hermanto Harun, Doli Witro, Muh Zaitun Ardi, and Darti Busni. “Compromising and Repositioning the Meaning of Corruptors as Thieves in Applying the Provisions of Shara’ into the Modern Era Context.” Al-’Adalah 21, no. 1 (June 17, 2024): 25–52. https://doi.org/10.24042/ADALAH.V21I1.21251.

Ibn ’Āshūr, Muhammad aṭ-Ṭāhir ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad aṭ-Ṭāhir. At-Taḥrīr Wa at-Tanwīr. Vol. 6. Tūnis: Ad-Dār at-Tūnisiyyah, 1984.

ibn Kathīr, Abū al-Fidā’ Ismā’īl ibn ’Umar. Tafsīr Al-Qur’ān Al-’Aẓīm. Edited by Muḥammad Ḥusayn Syams al-Dīn. Al-Ūlā. Vol. 3. Bayrūt: Dār al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah, 1998.

International Law Making. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.” Indonesian Journal of International Law, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

iranintl.com. “Eight Men in Iran Face Amputation for Theft as Islamic Practice Persists | Iran International,” February 14, 2024. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202410139012?utm.

Izharsyah, Jehan Ridho, Jabal Tarik Ibrahim, Oman Sukmana, and Dadang Hartanto. “The Social Interaction Pattern in the Indonesian City of Medan’s Deli Malay Coastal Community.” European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3, no. 1 (February 17, 2023): 66–75. https://doi.org/10.24018/EJSOCIAL.2023.3.1.390.

Izwany, Bonita, and Ema Diana. “DISKRESI POLISI DALAM PENANGANAN TINDAK PIDANA PENCURIAN.” Jurnal Tahqiqa : Jurnal Pemikiran Hukum Islam 17, no. 2 (July 31, 2023): 114–33. https://jurnal.stisalhilalsigli.ac.id/index.php/tahqiqa/article/view/289.

Kadir, Faqihuddin Abdul, Nor Ismah, Samia Kotele, Wakhit Hasyim, and Fadzila Din. “Maqāṣid Cum-Mub ā Dalah Methodology of KUPI : Centering Women ’ s Experiences in Islamic Law for.” Al-Ihkam: Jurnal Hukum Dan Pranata Sosial 19, no. 2 (2024): 519–45.

Kamaruddin, Kasimah, Nur Sakiinah Ab. Aziz, and Rosmalizawati Ab. Rashid. “Analisis Lafaz ‘Am Menurut Imam Al-Shafi’i Dalam Al-Risalah [Analysis Lafz ‘Am According to Imam Al-Shafi’i in Al-Risalah].” BITARA International Journal of Civilizational Studies and Human Sciences (e-ISSN: 2600-9080) 4, no. 1 (February 1, 2021): 53–61. https://bitarajournal.com/index.php/bitarajournal/article/view/178.

Karim, Dilshad Muhammad. “Demographics of Medina- Yathrib- (Jews as a Model).” Journal of Garmian University 10, no. 2 (July 1, 2023): 723–33. https://doi.org/10.24271/GARMIAN.2023.10258.

Kassab, Rim Yassine. “Voices of Rabat ’ s Medina during the City of Lights Era A Holistic Exploration of Institutional and Communities ’ Representations.” University of Liverl Pool, 2024.

Khan, Muhammad Imran, Saeedah Shah, and Sidra Kanwel. “Rehabilitation Reconsidered: A Comprehensive Legal Analysis.” Journal of Asian Development Studies 12, no. 3 (September 30, 2023): 1075–81. https://doi.org/10.62345/.

Kühne, Olaf. “Life Chances in an Open Society: Operationalization of Normative Neopragmatic Content,” 2024, 119–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59124-2_7.

Kurnia, Ryzka Dwi. “Pemikiran Fazlur Rahman Mengenai Politik Islam.” Politica: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara Dan Politik Islam 8, no. 2 (December 1, 2021): 25–41. https://doi.org/10.32505/POLITICA.V8I2.3542.

Lesyaina Az Zahra, Priyantika, Aniatul Fukoroh, and Andi Rosa. “TEORI DOUBLE MOVEMENT PADA PENAFSIRAN FAZLURRAHMAN.” Jurnal Intelek Insan Cendikia 1, no. 10 (2024): 7704–15. https://jicnusantara.com/index.php/jiic/article/download/2049/2085.

Mansur, Ali. Contemporary Qur’anic Studies: New Perspectives on Various Exegetical Methodologies. Yogyakarta: Tiara Wacana, 2002.

Mavroforou, Anna, Konstantinos Malizos, Theofilos Karachalios, Konstantinos Chatzitheofilou, and Athanasios D. Giannoukas. “Punitive Limb Amputation.” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 472, no. 10 (February 13, 2014): 3106. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11999-014-3480-6.

Medina, José, Mihaela Mihai, Lisa Guenther, Andrea Pitts, and Robin Celikates. “José Medina, The Epistemology of Protest: Silencing, Epistemic Activism, and the Communicative Life of Resistance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023).” Contemporary Political Theory 23, no. 2 (June 1, 2024): 284–310. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41296-023-00650-4/METRICS.

Mubarok, Iklil Nabil Iklil, and Saichul Anam. “Challenges in Implementing the Law of Cutting Hands for Thieves in Indonesia.” Ta’wiluna: Journal of Islamic Science, Qur’anic Exegesis, and Islamic Thought 5, no. 3 (December 30, 2024): 666–77. https://doi.org/10.58401/TAKWILUNA.V5I3.1739.

Mufid, Abdul, Abd Kadir Massoweang, Mujizatullah Mujizatullah, Abu Muslim, and Zulkarnain Yani. “Rereading Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd’s Method of Interpreting Religious Texts.” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 79, no. 1 (2023): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v79i1.8102.

Mwanza, Tobius. “Role of Vocational Education and Training in Community Re-Entry and Social Re-Integration of Ex-Inmates: A Case Study of Ex-Inmates in the Kabwe District of Zambia.,” 2021. https://dspace.unza.zm/handle/123456789/8980.

Nagori, Aqueela. “Unlocking Justice : Exploring the Evolution and Enforcement of Prisoner Rights in Contemporary Legal Systems.” Aalochan Drishti 10, no. 3 (2021): 129–41.

Najdowski, Cynthia J., Stevenson, and Margaret C. “A Call to Dismantle Systemic Racism in Criminal Legal Systems.” Law and Human Behavior 46, no. 6 (December 2022): 398–414.

Nasution, Nurul P A, Fathul Hamdani, and Ana Fauzia. “The Concept of Restorative Justice in Handling Crimes in the Criminal Justice System.” European Journal of Law and Political Science 1, no. 5 (November 28, 2022): 32–41. https://doi.org/10.24018/EJPOLITICS.2022.1.5.37.

Nasution, Nurul P A, Abdul Wahid, N P A Nasution, and A Wahid. “The Concept of Restorative Justice in Handling Crimes in the Criminal Justice System.” European Journal of Law and Political Science 1, no. 5 (November 28, 2022): 32–41. https://doi.org/10.24018/EJPOLITICS.2022.1.5.37.

Niaser, Masoud Asgari, Mahmoud Habibitabar, and Sadegh Moradi. “Electronic Monitoring of Imprisonment in the Law and Judicial Practice of England.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics 3, no. 3 (August 24, 2024): 105–19. https://doi.org/10.61838/KMAN.ISSLP.3.3.13.

Nizhamuddin, Muhammad. “Eksplorasi Kritis Hermeneutika Fazlur Rahman Dalam Interpretasi Ayat Riba.” Journal of Islamic Scriptures in Non-Arabic Societies 2, no. 1 (January 31, 2025): 17–39. https://doi.org/10.51214/JISNAS.V2I1.1138.

Nur, Iffatin, Haniefa Nuruddienil Fithriy, Divia Nur Alan Nur Ilmas, and Ali Abdul Wakhid. “Human Rights, Gender, and Science in the Perspective of Maqāṣid Sharī’ah.” Analisis: Jurnal Studi Keislaman 23, no. 2 (December 20, 2023): 311–40. https://doi.org/10.24042/AJSK.V23I2.18123.

Panova, Natalya, Iryna Shapovalova, Ivan Ishchenko, Vita Moroz, and Iryna Kurbatova. “Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms as a Component of the Preventive Function of the Police Force.” Political Issues 40, no. 74 (2022): 383–92. https://doi.org/10.46398/polit.4074.20.

Rahman, Fathor, Thohir Luth, Abdul Madjid, and Setiawan Noerdajasakti. “The Adaptability of Islamic Criminal Values to the Reformulation of Corruption Criminal Sanctions in Indonesia from Human Rights Perspective.” Technium Social Sciences Journal 19 (2021). https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/techssj19&id=268&div=&collection=.

Rahman, Fazlur. Islam & Modernity, Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition. Edited by Ahsin Muhammad. I. Bandung: Penerbit Pustaka, 1985.

———. Major Themes of the Qur’an. Edited by Anas Mahyuddin. II. Bandung: Penerbit Pustaka, 1996.

Matthew Rhodes-Purdy. “Lock Them up! Punitive Aggression and Populism as Political Vigilantism.” Electoral Studies 74 (December 1, 2021): 102415. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ELECTSTUD.2021.102415.

Ebony L. Ruhland, Amber A. Petkus, Nathan W. Link, Jordan M. Hyatt, Bryan Holmes, and Symone Pate. “Monetary Sanctions in Community Corrections: Law, Policy, and Their Alignment With Correctional Goals.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 37, no. 1 (February 1, 2021): 108–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986220971393.

Zeinab Mohammed Salih. “Sudan Court Sentences Three Men to Hand Amputation for Stealing | Global Development | The Guardian.” theguardian.org, February 14, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/feb/14/sudan-sentences-three-men-hand-amputation-stealing-theft?utm.

Salma. “Kedudukan Lafadz Qath’ Al Yad Dalam Kajian Usul Dan Pengaruhnya Terhadap Hukuman Potong Tangan.” Ijtihad: Jurnal Wacana Hukum Islam Dan Kemanusiaan 13, no. 1 (2013): 85–104.

Samigullin, Venir K., Marat S. Shaikhullin, and Sergey V. Aleshin. “The Rule of Law in Social Systems as the Manifestation of Humanistic Law.” Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems 365 (2023): 487–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23856-7_43.

Saputra, Beny, Olivér Bene, and David Aprizon Putra. “Analyzing the Code of Hammurabi: Exploring Ancient Legal Principles and Their Relevance in Modern Law.” NEGREI: Academic Journal of Law and Governance 4, no. 1 (June 28, 2024): 1–34. https://doi.org/10.29240/NEGREI.V4I1.9965.

Setyo, Aji. “The Application of Theft Penalties in the Legal Perspective of Indonesia and Brunei Darussalam.” Ratio Legis Journal 1, no. 4 (February 25, 2023): 576–88. https://doi.org/10.30659/RLJ.1.1.

Shihab, M. Quraish. Tafsir Al Misbah. Tangerang Selatan: Lentera Hati, 2021.

Sinaga, Ali Imran, Mohd Nizam Sahad, and Mohammad Amir Wan Harun. “THE CONTRIBUTION OF TAKZIR PUNISHMENT OF ’UMAR BIN AL-AL-KHATTAB IN THE QANUN ACEH IN INDONESIA.” Malaysian Journal of Syariah and Law 12, no. 2 (August 31, 2024): 471–89. https://doi.org/10.33102/MJSL.VOL12NO2.545.

Skoczeń, Izabela. “Modelling Perjury: Between Trust and Blame.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 35, no. 2 (April 1, 2022): 771–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11196-021-09818-W/FIGURES/5.

Sumantri, Rifki Ahda. Hermeneutika Al-Qur’an Fazlur Rahman Metode Tafsir Double Movement, 2013.

Syarafi, Teuku, and Mahdi Syahbandir. “Confiscation of Corruption Asset in The Indonesian Legal System: A Study of Criminal Law in Aceh.” Samarah: Jurnal Hukum Keluarga Dan Hukum Islam 8, no. 2 (May 7, 2024): 665–86. https://doi.org/10.22373/SJHK.V8I2.20045.

Taqiyuddin, Hafidz, Mus’Idul Millah, and Hikmatul Luthfi. “Instruments of Property Ownership in Islam: The Study of Inheritance Law.” Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization 13, no. 1 (June 20, 2023): 157–71. https://doi.org/10.32350/JITC.131.11.

Thakur, Ramesh. “Human Rights: Amnesty International and the United Nations.” Journal of Peace Research 31, no. 2 (1994): 143–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343394031002003.

Trini Hastuti, Luthfiyah. “Navigating Legal Boundaries: A Cross-Jurisdictional Comparison of Qanun Jinayat on Non-Muslims in Aceh and Brunei Darussalam.” DIKTUM: Jurnal Syariah Dan Hukum 21, no. 2 (December 25, 2023): 147–58. https://doi.org/10.35905/DIKTUM.V21I2.5339.

Usman, Abur Hamdi, Mohd Farid Ravi Abdullah, Muhd Najib Abdul Kadir, and Azwar Iskandar. “The Concept of an Ideal Society: A Review of Fazlur Rahman’s Perspective.” International Journal of Islamic Thought 21 (2022): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.24035/ijit.21.2022.220.

Vago, Steven, and Steven E. Barkan. “Law and Society Twelfth Edition.” Law and Society, April 26, 2021, 1–298. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003024194/LAW-SOCIETY-STEVEN-VAGO-STEVEN-BARKAN/RIGHTS-AND-PERMISSIONS.

Yan, Dong, Longzhen Li, and Hyangsuk Jeon. “Does Self-Sacrificial Leadership Reduce the Subordinate’s Organizational Cynicism? The Mediating Role of Distributive Justice and Ethical Corporate Social Responsibility.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal 45, no. 8 (October 9, 2024): 1401–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2024-0040/FULL/XML.

Yasin, Moh. “Teori Hermeneutika Double Movement Dalam Penafsiran Ayat Potong Tangan (Telaah Panadangan Fazlur Rahman Atas QS. Al-Maidah: 38).” Universitas Islam Negeri Datokarama , 2024.

Zehani, Abdeladim, and Mustapha Lahrouz. “Religious Reforms in Islam in Tariq Ramadan’s Theology.” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 14, no. 8 (2024): 506–15. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v14-i8/21685.