Even today, many Muslims are convinced that:
- Islam’s harsh punishments are the only way to build a crime-free society.
- They believe these laws carry divine wisdom and that no human-made system could ever produce better results.
- They also believe that these harsh Islamic punishments are compatible with all eras.
Our Response:
This belief is deeply mistaken and ignores the obvious flaws in these terrifying punishments.
Let us analyse the flaws in Islamic punishment system, which these Muslims overlook.
Flaw #1: Muhammad COPIED all these Islamic punishments from pre-Islamic Jahiliyyah Era
When you look at Islamic Sharia, one thing immediately stands out that there is no concept of imprisonment as a punishment.
Every punishment in Islam is physical, starting from flogging, moving to mutilation (cutting hands and feet), then torture with heated iron rods, and finally ending with execution or stoning.
Why is that?
The simple answer is that in pre-Islamic Arabia, during the so-called Age of Ignorance, prisons did not exist. Their justice system relied on quick, brutal punishments. A thief’s hand was cut off, an adulterer was stoned, an enemy was beheaded. There was no system of long-term incarceration.
And Muhammad simply adopted these very same barbaric methods and declared them as divine law for all times. Muslims now repeat that these punishments are “valid until the Day of Judgment”, yet in reality, they are nothing but a copy of the cruel traditions of seventh-century Arabia.
Take theft, for example. The Qur’an (5:38) commands:
As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hand: a retribution for what they committed, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Almighty, Wise.
In the commentary of this verse, Ibn Kathir writes (link):
وقد كان القطع معمولاً به في الجاهلية، فقرر في الإسلام ۔۔۔
“Cutting off hands was already practiced in the Age of Ignorance, so Islam confirmed it.”
This alone exposes the truth that these laws are not heavenly revelations, but the continuation of a primitive tribal culture. If Islam truly came from an all-wise God, why would it simply copy the punishments of the Age of Ignorance?
History shows us that this kind of cruelty was never unique to Islam. Genghis Khan and the Mongols also practiced exactly such punishments like flogging, mutilation, execution for even small crimes. Did they too receive “divine wisdom”? Of course not.
The problem goes deeper that these punishments are not only bound by time but also by place. Even in Muhammad’s own era, more advanced civilizations (such as the Byzantines and Persians) already had prisons and more structured systems of justice. Islam, however, remained trapped in the brutality of the desert tribes.
How then can anyone claim that these punishments are universal and valid “until the Day of Judgment”?
Flaw #2: No chance for reform after the crime is committed
- Humans are not perfect.
- Even the most pious person can slip, make a mistake, or commit a crime.
- But humans also carry within them the ability to feel remorse, to regret, and to seek reform. And for this process of self-realization, what a human being truly needs is time.
Thus, an important purpose of punishment is to make the person reflect on their crime, feel remorse, and spend “time” in prison to reform themselves.
Just think!
The purpose of punishment is not only to create fear, but also to provide an opportunity for reform. But if, after brutal physical punishments, a person becomes permanently disabled and a burden on society, can that ever be called wisdom?
- If you cut off a person’s hand without giving them a chance for reform, their chances of employment drop by 80–90%.
- If, along with the hand, the opposite foot is also cut off and no chance of reform is given, then how can this person work and feed their children?
- You are actually forcing such disabled people to turn back to crime to survive, instead of reforming themselves.
- If you stone a mother and father to death for adultery, then you have orphaned their child, deprived them of love, and condemned them to suffering.
According to human psychology, one aspect of punishment is fear (which exists in prison), and the other aspect is the chance for reform (also possible in prison). But in Islam’s system of terrifying physical punishments, the aspect of reform is completely absent.
Flaw #3: Fear of bloody punishments pushes people to commit further crimes to erase evidence
When punishments are built only on fear and physical brutality, human psychology reacts in a dangerous way, i.e. people try to erase evidence of their crimes by committing even worse crimes.
Case 1:
For example, in Pakistan, because of Islam’s brutal punishments for adultery, women who give birth outside of marriage are often forced to strangle their newborns and throw them in garbage dumps to protect themselves and their families from punishment.
Edhi Foundation found 375 dead newborns in garbage dumps. These numbers are from 2019 alone, and only in Karachi (Dawn News).
After seeing these innocent dead babies, can anyone still say that there is heavenly wisdom in these brutal punishments that humans cannot match with rational laws?
Unlike Islamic societies, in the West this does not happen. Parents are not forced to kill their newborns. Even if the baby was unplanned, they can adopt the child or give it up for adoption.
This is not a coincidence but a harsh reality. In Islamic societies, unnatural restrictions on male-female interactions create suffocating environments that hollow society from within. Sexual desire, when chained, bursts out in distorted forms. As a result, these societies have most likely the highest rates of incest.
Pakistani Parliamentarian Shandana Gulzar (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) cited a study conducted in hospitals and gynecology clinics. It showed how many young girls were being raped inside their homes by fathers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, etc., and how these cases remained unreported until pregnancies forced families to seek medical help.
Similarly, the Population Council reported that in 2012 alone, 2.25 million illegal abortions were carried out in Pakistani hospitals and clinics (link).
Who were these women?
They were unmarried girls or too young to handle motherhood. But harsh Islamic punishments, honor killings, and social humiliation cornered them so much that their only way out was unsafe, illegal abortion.
This system does not only criminalize the woman but also her innocent baby. That child, born into the world, is branded from the first day as “illegitimate,” cannot bear the father’s name, and spends life in humiliation.
In reality, it is a blessing that Pakistani hospitals perform abortions despite their illegality. Otherwise, thousands more newborns would be found dead in garbage dumps.
Case 2:
The same psychology applies to rape cases. Because Islamic punishments are so terrifying, rapists often kill their victims to eliminate witnesses. In one horrifying case, a grandfather was caught in an affair with his daughter-in-law. When children accidentally discovered him, he slaughtered his own grandchildren and daughter-in-law to cover up his crime (link).
Now compare: In a secular Western society, the punishment for adultery is maximum divorce, not mutilation or stoning. A husband may cut ties with his wife or his father, but children are not murdered to hide “evidence.”
In short, these brutal punishments don’t protect society, but they destroy it. They may turn private sins into public tragedies, and push people to crimes far worse than the original act.
Flaw #4: Crime Prevention Through Fear vs. Human Ethics
Question for Islamists: Do you admit that Genghis Khan was wiser and more intelligent than Allah?
Why?
According to Islamist logic, Genghis Khan would indeed prove wiser and more intelligent than Allah because he imposed even bloodier punishments than Islam and eradicated more crime than Islamic law did.
Yes, Genghis Khan’s system of punishments was even more fearsome and bloody than Islam’s, and his harsh penalties transformed the extremely criminal Mongol society, effectively eliminating crime.
Historical sources (Juvaini, Rashid al-Din, and Chinese and Iranian historians) describe the Mongol “Yasa” system in these words that even minor thefts were punished with lashes or fines, while serious crimes such as stealing horses or livestock often resulted in death or extreme torture. Sometimes entire families, or even entire tribes were punished to keep people in line.
The result was extraordinary and crime in the Mongol Empire became almost nonexistent. Previously rampant crimes like theft and murder were virtually eliminated. Travelers and merchants could leave treasures on the road without fear. Stories even claim that a golden chest would remain untouched.
If one measures the success of a justice system solely by crime rates, Genghis Khan’s approach is even more effective than Islam’s. His terrifying punishments reduced crime more than any Islamic state ever did.
However, this success came not from morality, compassion, or ethical education, but from sheer fear and absolute control.
This leads to another critical flaw, i.e. systems based purely on fear are inherently unstable and work only temporarily. Officials entrusted with such immense power inevitably become corrupt.
This is precisely what happened with the Mongol Empire. Despite the harsh punishments, corruption emerged, and crime returned.
Islam’s system of terrifying punishments suffers the same weakness. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, Sharia’s strict penalties are officially enforced (like cutting hands and stoning etc.), yet crime persists. Adultery occurs, corruption thrives, and even women performing tawaf during Hajj face harassment. All Islamic punishments are in place in Saudi Arabia, but corruption and crime still exist.
Islam’s historical record consistently shows the failure of fear-based punishments. During Umar ibn al-Khattab’s reign, harsh penalties temporarily reduced crime. But by Uthman ibn Affan’s era, corruption, especially among officials from his Umayyad family, was so widespread that Uthman was assassinated in Medina. His body lay unburied for three days and nights, and none of the city’s companions performed funeral rites. Eventually, four Umayyads secretly buried him in an abandoned Jewish cemetery.
After Uthman, whether under Umayyad or Abbasid caliphs, Sharia’s harsh punishments remained officially in force, enforced by judges like Abu Yusuf. Yet they failed to stop corruption and crime.
In a scientific study conducted in China (link), it was observed that as punishments became harsher, corruption among officials kept increasing. This happened because people became completely dependent on the mercy of the authorities, and it became easier for officials to blackmail them into paying large amounts of money as bribes in order to escape severe punishments — regardless of whether they had actually committed a crime or not.
The Japan Model: Moral Education Over Fear
Contrast this with Japan.
Research by global organizations shows that Japan’s citizens are the most honest in the world. If someone leaves valuables on trains or in public spaces, Japanese citizens return them to the police. Every year, Tokyo residents hand over millions of yen to authorities. Please read:
In Japan, there are no amputations or lashings, yet the country has the lowest theft and crime rates in the world.
Actually, almost all of Japanese citizens are non-religious and atheists (i.e. they became honest without any God or religion).
This system is based not on fear but on moral education and human empathy. From childhood, people are taught that:
- Caring for others is a moral responsibility.
- Taking someone else’s property is shameful and a loss of honor.
- Research shows that Japanese children are trained from an early age to see honesty as part of being human, not out of fear of the law.
The result is that Japanese people avoid crime not because of fear of brutal punishment, but because their moral upbringing and humanity prevent them from doing so.
Transparency International ranks the least corrupt countries, and the top 20 are all non-Muslim, again with secular and mostly non-religious Scandinavian and European nations at the very top (link).
Conclusion: Fear vs. Ethics
Bloody punishments can reduce crime temporarily, as Genghis Khan’s and Umar/Uthman's examples show, but they are neither permanent nor sustainable. Fear-based systems concentrate power in the hands of officials, fostering corruption and eventual failure.
In contrast, ethical societies like Japan demonstrate that human morality, empathy, and cultural values can prevent crime more effectively and sustainably than any system of terror. True crime prevention comes from nurturing ethical behavior, not inflicting fear and bloodshed.
Flaw # 5: What Kind of “Fear” Does Islam’s Diyah (Blood Money) System Create?
Islamists object that:
- Without harsh penalties, fear disappears and people commit crimes more boldly.
- They cite the example that murderers are not executed in some western countries, but only imprisoned for life.
But do they not see the flaws in Islam’s diyah system, where wealthy Muslims can pay blood money and avoid punishment after killing? What kind of "Fear" then this Diyah system create?
Islamists argue that this fear remains because it is up to the victim’s family to accept diyah or qisas. But this excuse does not apply when slaves or concubines are killed or mutilated, because Islam prescribes only diyah, and even half of blood money.
Consider Muhammad’s own practice.
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Hadith 6671:
أن زنباعا أبا روح وجد غلاما له مع جارية له فجدع أنفه وجبه فأتى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال من فعل هذا بك قال زنباع فدعاه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال ما حملك على هذا فقال كان من أمره كذا وكذا فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للعبد اذهب فأنت حر فقال يا رسول الله فمولى من أنا قال مولى الله ورسوله فأوصى به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المسلمين قال فلما قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جاء إلى أبي بكر فقال وصية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال نعم نجري عليك النفقة وعلى عيالك فأجراها عليه حتى قبض أبو بكر فلما استخلف عمر جاءه فقال وصية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال نعم أين تريد قال مصر فكتب عمر إلى صاحب مصر أن يعطيه أرضا يأكلها
Translation (link):
Zanba Abi Rawh found his servant boy with a servant girl, so he maimed his nose and castrated him. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, came and he said, “Who did this to you?” The boy said, “Zanba.” The Prophet summoned him and he said, “What made you do this?” Zanba said, “He was misbehaving in such a way.” The Prophet said to the slave, “Go, for you are free.”
Grade: Sahih (Ahmad Shakir)
Muhammad did not punish the owner physically for mutilating his slave, and at most required freeing the slave, which was no hardship for a wealthy owner.
In Islam, the owner is not required to marry off the slave. If the slave engages in sexual activity, Islam punishes them as for adultery. Even if the owner mutilates the slave, no physical punishment is given to the owner.
- All four Sunni Imams agree that if an owner kills his slave, there is no qisas or diyah.
- If a free Muslim kills another person’s slave, the free person is not executed due to the rank difference between free and slave.
- The maximum penalty in this case is paying half of diyah, which goes to the owner, not the victim’s family.
And Imam Abdullah Ibn Abi Zayd writes in his book (link):
ولا يقتل حر بعبد ويقتل به العبد ولا يقتل مسلم بكافر ويقتل به الكافر ولا قصاص بين حر وعبد في جرح ولا بين مسلم وكافر ۔۔۔ ومن قتل عبدا فعليه قيمته
A free man should not be put to death for murdering a slave, although a slave should be put to death for murdering a free man. And a Muslim should not be put to death for murdering a Kafir, although a Kafir should be put to death for murdering a believer …
Imam Shafi’i wrote in his book al-Am (link):
وكذلك لا يقتل الرجل الحر بالعبد بحال
A free person will not be killed for the crime of killing a slave.
Thus, the question remains: Even if a free Muslim is not executed for killing a slave, at least some minor physical punishment should exist to maintain fear.
However, Islam’s diyah system creates no fear against killing an innocent slave man or a slave woman. This diyah not only ends the crime in this world, but also made those rich Muslim owners free of any SIN in the hereafter (i.e. no fear even of hereafter if a Muslim owner decides to mutilate his slave by cutting his organs.
Moreover, this Islamic diyah system plays a vital rol in "Ghairah (Honour) Killings" too, where if a father or brother kills a girl, then rest of the family forgives the murderer in the name of diyah.
Flaw #6: Some Islamic punishments are so illogical and cruel that they should never have been applied, not just in our era, but in any era
Please have a look at this Islamic Ruling:
Muwatta Malik Book 41, Hadith 15:
Malik said, "The position with us about a woman who is found to be pregnant and has no husband and she says, 'I was forced,' or she says, 'I was married,' is that it is not accepted from her and the hadd is inflicted on her unless she has a clear proof of what she claims about the marriage or that she was forced or she comes bleeding if she was a virgin or she calls out for help so that someone comes to her and she is in that state or what resembles it of the situation in which the violation occurred." He said, "If she does not produce any of those, the hadd is inflicted on her and what she claims of that is not accepted from her."
And the largest Fatwa Website (run by Saudi Salafi Muftis) Islam Q&A writes in its fatwa (link):
Rape is essentially zina (fornication or adultery) and is proven in the same way as zina is proven, which is with four witnesses. The punishment is one hundred lashes if the man was a virgin and stoning if he was previously married ... Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: She is not to be punished if it is proven that he forced her and overpowered her. That may be known from her having screamed and shouted for help. (Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146 ) ...
These rulings are not only illogical, but they are profoundly cruel. Expecting a rape victim, or even a small girl, to present such evidence is nearly impossible. Most assaults occur in private, with no one to hear her cries. Bleeding may not occur, especially if she is young, a virgin, or due to medical reasons. Many (almost all) Muslim women do not even know these rules exist that they have to immediately show their blood to public. Their natural response is to hide the assault and remain silent out of fear and shame. Tragically, families may even kill the victim in the name of honor, making an already impossible situation even deadlier.
Can we honestly expect a child to follow these rules if her abuser is her father, brother, uncle, or a Quran school cleric? Absolutely not. The power imbalance, fear, ignorance, and psychological pressure make it nearly impossible for her to collect evidence or meet legal requirements. These laws are challenging even for adults; for children, they are nothing short of a trap.
The horrifying truth is that these so-called divine punishments do not protect the innocent, but they endanger them. They punish victims for the crimes committed against them, while providing impunity to abusers.
Instead of being enforced in all eras, these laws should have been discarded entirely and should have not been implemented in any era.
They are a moral failure, a danger to children and women, and a shameful stain on the claim that Islamic law is perfectly just for all eras.
Flaw #7: Cutting off the hand for theft
The Qur’an prescribes that anyone who steals property worth as little as ¼ dinar should have their hand cut off.
No time for reflection. No chance for repentance. No hope for reform.
Once the hand is gone, nothing can bring it back.
The famous Arab poet and philosopher Abu al-Ala al-Ma’arri was deeply disturbed by this law. He wrote in verse (translated into Urdu as):
“The blood money for a hand is 100 dinars, but what justice is this?
That you cut off the hand for theft worth only ¼ dinar.”
Think about this contradiction:
-
If someone cuts off another person’s hand, Islamic law demands 100 dinars as blood money.
-
But if someone steals just ¼ dinar’s worth of property, their hand is cut off.
Is this justice? Is this wisdom?
Flaw #8: Contradiction in Islamic Sharia that Punishment for Killing is reversible, but the Punishment of Stealing is irreversible
If there occurs a CONTRADICTION in the Sharia, then it is automatically a PROOF that the Sharia didn't come from any Allah in heaven, but Muhammad was making it on his own.
According to Sharia:
-
If a person deliberately and mercilessly kills another human being, he can still be freed by paying diyah (blood money), or by simply forgiving him, whether the case is in court or even after the court has issued a verdict.
-
On the other hand, if someone merely steals property worth as little as one-quarter of a dinar, there is no concept of compensation (diyah) or forgiveness. As soon as the case reaches court, the judge is required to order the cutting off of the thief’s hand.
Narrated Safwan bin Umayyah: I was sleeping in the mosque on a cloak of mine whose price was thirty dirhams. A man came and pinched it away from me. The man was seized and brought to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He ordered that his hand should be cut off. I came to him and said: Do you cut off only for thirty dirhams? I sell it to him and make the payment of its price a loan? He said: Why did you not do so before bringing him to me?
The punishment for theft is absolute, with no flexibility, while the punishment for the grave crime of murder can be waived through blood money or simple forgiveness.
This contradiction raises the question: can such a Sharia truly be divine? The presence of such logical inconsistencies in a so-called divine law reveals it to be man-made, for contradictions are only the result of human error.
Flaw #9: Changes in the Theft Threshold Show That Allah Is Not All-Wise
When an Islamic state alters the punishment for theft or adjusts the 1/4 dinar threshold, it is effectively admitting that the original law is impractical for their society and era.
Even a single change like this undermines the entire ideological foundation of Islam, which claims that religious laws are perfectly wise and compatible for all times until the Day of Judgment.
Whether they acknowledge it or not, Pakistan has already modified this law, and theft of 1/4 dinar no longer results in hand amputation, instead, the punishment is imprisonment.
Today, Saudi Arabia and Iran are the most devout countries that still practice hand-cutting for theft. Yet, even there, the 1/4 dinar threshold is ignored. Only theft of substantial value leads to amputation.
In fact, throughout the 1,400-year history of Islam, no state has ever consistently enforced the 1/4 dinar threshold in practice. This demonstrates that the law was never truly divine or universally applicable, as it was a human creation tied to a specific time and society.
A reader made the following comment:
Science and Crime Prevention
For the past 40 years, U.S. crime policies haven't focused on what science says. Instead of being "tough on crime," experts now say it's smarter to use evidence-based sentencing, which means we should look at what's most likely to stop an individual from committing another crime.
“The evidence provided by social science on the effects of punishment has been systematically ignored by US criminal justice policy for at least 40 years”
The U.S. has a history of ignoring scientific evidence in favor of its own ideas about crime and punishment.
Punishment vs. Deterrence
Studies show that simply making punishments harsher doesn't always stop people from committing crimes. In some cases, it can even lead to more serious offenses. The real key to reducing crime is not how severe the punishment is, but how likely it is that a person will get caught.
Incarceration's Long-Term Effects
Putting people in jail might prevent crime in the short term, but it often increases a person’s chances of committing a crime after they are released. This means society gets little to no long-term benefit from it.
Rehabilitation Reduces Recidivism
When we focus only on punishment, people are more likely to commit crimes again. Research shows that well-designed prison programs—which offer education and support—are much better at preventing people from re-offending.
Hassan Radwan