(33, 34) “The only recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land is that they be put to death or crucified, or that their hands and feet be cut off on opposite sides, or that they be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they will have a tremendous punishment—except those who repent before you gain power over them. Know, then, that Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger are those who openly oppose Him with enmity and spread corruption in the land ⦗230⦘ through disbelief, murder, seizure of property, and making the roads unsafe.
The well-known view is that this noble verse concerns the rulings applicable to highway robbers, who accost people in settlements and open country, forcibly seize their property, kill them, and terrorize them. People consequently refrain from travelling along the roads where they operate, and those routes fall into disuse.
Allah states that, when the prescribed penalty is enforced against them, their recompense and exemplary punishment is that one of these measures be imposed upon them.
The exegetes differed: Is the choice discretionary, such that the ruler or his deputy may impose upon each highway robber whichever of the measures mentioned he considers most appropriate? This is the apparent sense of the wording. Or does their punishment vary according to their crimes, with each crime receiving its corresponding penalty, as indicated by the wisdom of the verse and its consonance with the wisdom of Allah Most High? According to this latter view, if they kill and seize property, their execution and crucifixion become mandatory, so that their fate becomes widely known, they are disgraced, and others are deterred.
If they kill without seizing property, execution alone becomes mandatory. If they seize property without killing, their hands and feet must be cut off on opposite sides—the right hand and the left foot. If they merely terrorize people without killing anyone or seizing property, they must be banished from the land and not allowed to find refuge in any town until their repentance becomes evident. This is the view of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, and many leading scholars, though they differ over some of the details.
“That”—the exemplary punishment—“is a disgrace for them in this world,” meaning humiliation and shame, “and in the Hereafter they will have a tremendous punishment.” This indicates that highway robbery is among the gravest sins: it entails disgrace in this world and punishment in the Hereafter, and its perpetrator is at war with Allah and His Messenger.
Since this is the gravity of the crime, it is known that purging the land of corrupters and making roads and thoroughfares safe from murder, seizure of property, and the terrorizing of people are among the greatest good deeds and noblest acts of obedience. This constitutes reform in the land, just as its opposite constitutes corruption in the land.
“Except those who repent before you gain power over them”—that is, those among these offenders who repent—“know, then, that Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Thus, whatever pertains to the right of Allah is waived, including the mandatory penalties of execution, crucifixion, amputation, and banishment. Claims owed to other people are likewise waived if the offender was an unbeliever and then embraced Islam. If, however, the offender was a Muslim, the rights owed to other people for lives taken and property seized are not waived. The implication of the verse is that if such an offender repents after being apprehended, his repentance does not waive any of these liabilities. The wisdom behind this is evident.
If repentance before apprehension precludes enforcement of the prescribed penalty for highway robbery, then it is even more appropriate that other prescribed penalties be precluded when a person repents of the relevant offense before being apprehended.