How do we explain to non-Muslims that establishing the hadd punishment for theft—amputation of the hand—is better for society, despite their objection that imprisonment yields better results in some countries, and their view that amputation destroys the thief's future and affects their psyche and social standing?

"Assuming the accuracy of what our friend mentioned about the reality in Sweden, it is not necessarily true that rulings beneficial for a specific society are applicable to all societies. The Swedish reality concerning the prevalence of theft and the effectiveness of legal punishments must be studied. Swedish press reports show an increase in the phenomenon of theft, and that Sweden is the worst among the Scandinavian countries in resolving home theft cases.

Cutting off the hand of a thief in Islamic Sharia has precise controls and conditions, such as the minimum threshold [nisab], the value of the stolen item, that it must be taken from a secured place (hirz) appropriate for it, and the absence of any doubts about the thief. This punishment aims to deter and curb criminals, and it is more effective than man-made punishments like imprisonment and fines, which reality has proven insufficient in reducing theft crimes, as prisons have become meeting places for criminals to exchange experiences. Cutting off the hand of a thief, unlike imprisonment, significantly reduces theft crimes and achieves security for society."