Tafsir of Surah Al-Ma'idah - Verse 40

The Necessity of Cutting off the Hand of the Thief

Allah commands and decrees that the hand of the thief, male or female be cut off. During the time of Jahiliyyah, this was also the punishment for the thief, and Islam upheld this punishment. In Islam, there are several conditions that must be met before this punishment is carried out, as we will come to know, Allah willing. There are other rulings that Islam upheld after modifying these rulings, such as that of blood money for example. When Does Cutting the Hand of the Thief Become Necessary In is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, n

«لَعَنَ اللهُ السَّارِقَ يَسْرِقُ الْبَيْضَةَ فَتُقْطَعُ يَدُهُ، وَيَسْرِقُ الْحَبْلَ فَتُقْطَعُ يَدُه»

(May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg and as a result his hand is cut off, and who steals rope and as a result his hand is cut off.) Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded that `A'ishah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«تُقْطَعُ يَدُ السَّارِقِ فِي رُبْعِ دِينَارٍ فَصَاعِدًا»

(The hand of the thief shall be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) Muslim recorded that `A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«لَا تُقْطَعُ يَدُ السَّارقِ إِلَّا فِي رُبْعِ دِينارٍ فَصَاعِدًا»

(The hand of the thief shall only be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) This Hadith is the basis of the matter since it specifies (that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting the hand) is a quarter of a Dinar. So this Hadith fixes the value. And saying that it is three Dirhams is not a contradiction. This is because the Dinar in question was equal to twelve Dirhams, so three Dirhams equalled a fourth of a Dinar. So in this way it is possible to harmonize these two views. This opinion was reported from `Umar bin Al-Khattab, `Uthman bin `Affan,

When Does Cutting the Hand of the Thief Become Necessary

In is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, n

«لَعَنَ اللهُ السَّارِقَ يَسْرِقُ الْبَيْضَةَ فَتُقْطَعُ يَدُهُ، وَيَسْرِقُ الْحَبْلَ فَتُقْطَعُ يَدُه»

(May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg and as a result his hand is cut off, and who steals rope and as a result his hand is cut off.) Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded that `A'ishah said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«تُقْطَعُ يَدُ السَّارِقِ فِي رُبْعِ دِينَارٍ فَصَاعِدًا»

(The hand of the thief shall be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) Muslim recorded that `A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«لَا تُقْطَعُ يَدُ السَّارقِ إِلَّا فِي رُبْعِ دِينارٍ فَصَاعِدًا»

(The hand of the thief shall only be cut off if he steals a quarter of a Dinar or more.) This Hadith is the basis of the matter since it specifies (that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting the hand) is a quarter of a Dinar. So this Hadith fixes the value. And saying that it is three Dirhams is not a contradiction. This is because the Dinar in question was equal to twelve Dirhams, so three Dirhams equalled a fourth of a Dinar. So in this way it is possible to harmonize these two views. This opinion was reported from `Umar bin Al-Khattab, `Uthman bin `Affan, `Ali bin Abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with them - and it is the view of `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Al-Layth bin Sa`d, Al-Awza`i, and Ash-Shafi`i and his companions. This is also the view of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ishaq bin Rahwayh in one of the narrations from him, as well as Abu Thawr, and Dawud bin `Ali Az-Zahari, may Allah have mercy upon them. As for Imam Abu Hanifah and his students Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Zufar, along with Sufyan Ath-Thawri, they said that the least amount of theft that deserves cutting off the hand is ten Dirhams, whereas a Dinar was twelve Dirhams at that time. The first ruling is the correct one, that the least amount of theft is one forth of a Dinar or more. This meager amount was set as the limit for cutting the hand, so that the people would refrain from theft, and this is a wise decision to those who have sound comprehension. Hence Allah's statement,

جَزَآءً بِمَا كَسَبَا نَكَـلاً مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

(as a recompense for that which both committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah. And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise.) This is the prescribed punishment for the evil action they committed, by stealing the property of other people with their hands. Therefore, it is fitting that the tool they used to steal the people's wealth be cut off as punishment from Allah for their error.

وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ

(And Allah is All-Powerful, ) in His torment,

حَكِيمٌ

(All-Wise.) in His commands, what he forbids, what He legislates and what He decrees.

Repentance of the Thief is Acceptable

Allah said next,

فَمَن تَابَ مِن بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

(But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds, then verily, Allah will pardon him. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) Therefore, whoever repents and goes back to Allah after he commits theft, then Allah will forgive him. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Abdullah bin `Amr said that a woman committed theft during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and those from whom she stole brought her and said, "O Allah's Messenger! This woman stole from us." Her people said, "We ransom her." The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

«اقْطَعُوا يَدَهَا»

(Cut off her hand.) They said, "We ransom her with five hundred Dinars." The Prophet said,

«اقْطَعُوا يَدَهَا»

(Cut off her hand.) Her right hand was cut off and the woman asked, "O Messenger of Allah! Is there a chance for me to repent" He said,

«نَعَمْ أَنْتِ الْيَوْمَ مِنْ خَطِيئَتِكِ كَيَوْمَ وَلَدَتْكِ أُمُّك»

(Yes. This day, you are free from your sin just as the day your mother gave birth to you.) Allah sent down the verse in Surat Al-Ma'idah,

فَمَن تَابَ مِن بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

(But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allah), then verily, Allah will pardon him. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) This woman was from the tribe of Makhzum. Her story was narrated in the Two Sahihs from Az-Zuhri from `Urwah from `A'ishah, The incident caused concern for the Quraysh after she committed the theft during the time of the battle of the Conquest of Makkah. They said, "Who can talk to Allah's Messenger ﷺ about her matter" They then said, "Who dares speak to him about such matters other than Usamah bin Zayd, his loved one." When the woman was brought to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, Usamah bin Zayd talked to him about her and the face of the Messenger ﷺ changed color (because of anger) and he said,

«أَتَشْفَعُ فِي حَدَ مِنْ حُدُودِ اللهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ؟»

(Do you intercede in a punishment prescribed by Allah) Usamah said to him, "Ask Allah to forgive me, O Allah's Messenger!" During that night, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ stood up and gave a speech and praised Allah as He deserves to be praised. He then said,

«أَمَّا بَعْدُ فَإِنَّمَا أَهْلَكَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا إِذَا سَرَقَ فِيهِمُ الشَّرِيفُ تَرَكُوهُ، وَإِذَا سَرَقَ فِيهِمُ الضَّعِيفُ أَقَامُوا عَلَيْهِ الْحَدَّ، وَإِنِّي وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَوْ أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ بِنْتَ مُحَمَّدٍ سَرَقَتْ لَقَطَعْتُ يَدَهَا»

(Those who were before you were destroyed because when an honorable person among them would steal, they would leave him. But, when a weak man among them stole, they implemented the prescribed punishment against him. By Him in Whose Hand is my soul! If Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad stole, I will have her hand cut off.) The Prophet commanded that the hand of the woman who stole be cut off, and it was cut off. `A'ishah said, `Her repentance was sincere afterwards, and she got married and she used to come to me so that I convey her needs to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ." This is the wording that Muslim collected, and in another narration by Muslim, `A'ishah said, "She was a woman from Makhzum who used to borrow things and deny that she took them. So the Prophet ordered that her hand be cut off." Allah then said,

أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَـوَتِ وَالأَرْضِ

(Know you not that to Allah (Alone) belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth!) He owns everything and decides what He wills for it and no one can resist His judgment,

فَيَغْفِرُ لِمَن يَشَآءُ وَيُعَذِّبُ مَن يَشَآءُ وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

(He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills. And Allah is able to do all things.)

The later verse (40) says:

أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ اللَّـهَ لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْ‌ضِ يُعَذِّبُ مَن يَشَاءُ وَيَغْفِرُ‌ لِمَن يَشَاءُ ۗ وَاللَّـهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ‌ ﴿40﴾

Do you know that to Allah alone belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth? He punishes whomsoever He wills and He forgives whomsoever He wills. And Allah is powerful over everything.

This verse is linked with and homogeneous to previous verses which feature stringent injunctions of the Islamic Legal Punishments for robbery and theft. A shallow look at these injunctions could give the false impression of their being contradictory to human dignity. It is to re-move this doubt that Almighty Allah has, in this verse, initially stated that He alone is the real Master of the entire universe. Then, He says that He alone is the Absolute Power. In between, comes the statement that it is not only that He punishes. He forgives as well, and that forgiveness and punishment depend on His Wisdom, for the way He is the Absolute Master and the Absolute Power, so is He Absolutely Wise too. There is no human power which can guage the extents of His mastery and domain so shall there be no human reason which can fully fathom the countless manifestations of His Wisdom - and that which it would pass on to human beings by virtue of pondering through principles is sufficient enough to put their hearts at peace.

What is Benign and at is Savage?

People in the West and those influenced by their education and culture commonly object that Islamic punishments are harsh. And as pointed out a little earlier, there are some heedless people who do not even hesitate to say that these punishments are savage and undignified.

Before we deal with this matter, it would be useful to keep what has been stated earlier in sight. We know that the Holy Qur'an has it-self determined and fixed the punishments for only four crimes which are called Hadd, in the terminology of the Islamic Shari’ ah. The punishment of robbery is the cutting of the right hand and the left foot; the punishment of theft is the cutting of the right hand from the wrist; the punishment of adultery is one hundred lashes in some situations, and stoning to death in some others; the punishment of making a false accusation of adultery is eighty lashes. The fifth Islamic Prescribed Punishment (Hadd) is that of drinking which is eighty lashes as fixed under the consensus of the Sahabah of the Holy Prophet ﷺ . With the sole exception of these five crimes, the punishment of all other crimes has been left to the discretion of the ruler of the time so that the relevant judge may award the kind and amount of punishment with due consideration of the crime, the criminal and the circumstances. This is a matter in which it is also possible that some particular system de-signed to delimit and apportion punishments is established in consultation with those fit to guide and advise, and Qadis or judges are bound with it. This is what happens these days when penal laws are generally enacted through legislative assemblies, and Qadis or judges award punishments within limits already identified. Although, in the five crimes the punishment for which has been fixed by the Qur'an, or through a consensus (Ijma`), and in which no individual or party or assembly has any right of alteration or substitution, but, in them too, if the proof of the crime is not available through the Law of Evidence prescribed by the Shari` ah, or there be the proof of the crime but conditions under which this punishment is enforced may not be complete, and the fact of the crime stands proved in the sight of the Qadi or judge, still then, in that situation too, the Hadd Punishment (حَد شرعی) will not be enforced, instead of which, the punishment given will be punitive (Ta` ziri). Along with it, there is the standing rule of Islamic Law that the benefit of doubt goes to the person accused of a crime. A doubt about anything in the proof of the crime or the conditions of the crime causes the Hadd Punishment to be dropped. But, in the event that there be the necessary proof of crime available, the punishment given will be punitive (Ta'ziri).

This tells us that there will be many more situations in which the Hadd Punishment will not be enforced and, in their place, punitive punishments will be awarded subject to the discretion of the ruler of the time. Since punitive punishments have not been predetermined by the Shari'ah, they can be changed or tailored to suit the needs of every time and every circumstance just like the general laws of the land. Therefore, at least, in this field, nobody has room for any objection. Now the 'debate' is reduced to the punishments of five crimes only, and that too, in their particular situations. For example, let us take theft and see that the punishment of cutting the hand has not been imposed by the Shari` ah on every theft, in an absolute sense - that is, theft as we know it in our common usage. This is no Sariqah. Sariqah, the crime which is punished by cutting the hand, has a peculiar definition of its own, details about which have appeared earlier (under the subheading: ` Understanding the Islamic Legal Punishment of Sariqah' ) and which can be briefly defined here as the taking out of someone's property from a secured place, by breaking the security arrangements, unlawfully and secretly. According to this definition, many forms recognized as common thefts stand eliminated from the standard definition of the Hadd of Sariqah. For instance, the condition of a secured place tells us that property stolen from commonly used public places such as Masjid, masalla of ` Id (area earmarked for the large congregational prayers on the occasion of ` Idul-Fitr and ` Idul-Adha), Park, Club, Railroad Station, Waiting Room, Train, Airplane etc., or stealing fruits hanging on trees, or stealing honey will not cause the Hadd of Sariqah to be imposed against the thief, instead of that, punitive punishment will be given to the culprit as generally done in most countries. Similarly, take the example of a person you have allowed to enter your house - whether he is your servant or maid or a worker on wages or a builder on contract or a friend or relative - now should he take some-thing away from your house, then, though he is included under the definition of common theft and is deserving of the punitive punishment for it, yet, the Islamic Legal Punishment of cutting the hand will not be enforced on him - because he entered the house with your per-mission and the arrangement of legal security is not complete as far as he is concerned.

Similarly, incidents like someone picked someone else's pocket, or snatched away cash or jewellery from someone's hand, or extracted something by fraud, or went back on his word when asked to return what he had agreed to keep in trust are all unlawful and impermissible, and definitely included under customary thefts, but, the punishment for all these is punitive which depends upon the discretion of the ruler. Since these are not included under the definition of legally culpable 'Sariqah,' no amputation of hand will take place.

Likewise, the hand of a stealer of coffin clothes will not be cut be-cause, first of all, it is in no secure place, then the shroud itself is not in the ` ownership' of the deceased, though this act of the stealer is gravely unlawful. For this, he will have his punitive punishment at the discretion of the ruler. In the same manner, if someone commits a theft in what was jointly owned property in which the stealer too had some share - whether it was a joint property from inheritance or from commercial partnership - it is a situation in which, since some part of the ownership of the stealer is also included therein, the doubt about such ownership will cause the Islamic Legal Punishment (Hadd) to be dropped and punitive punishment will be given.

As for all these conditions, they relate to the actual completion of the crime, a brief outline of which you have seen above. Now what comes next is the completion of the proof. In this matter of enforcing Hudud, the Shari'ah has also made its Law of Evidence unmistakable by keeping it very distinct and cautious as compared to what concerns other common matters. In the punishment of adultery, imposed there is the condition of four witnesses in place of two - and that too, while they give such eye witness as would not leave any word doubtful there-in. Though, in the case of theft, only two witnesses are sufficient, yet, even for these two, some additional conditions, other than those commonly required in witnessing, have been imposed. For example, there are other matters in which, if needed, the Qadi or judge has the option to accept the witness of a sinning person if he is satisfied that the per-son, despite his being a sinner practically, does not lie. But, in the case of Hudud, the Qadi or judge does not have the right to accept his witness. Common matters can be judicated based on the evidence given by one man and two women. But, in Hudud, the evidence of two men is necessary. In common cases, the Shari'ah does not consider Ta-madi (being time-barred) as valid excuse - a witness given by someone can be accepted irrespective of the time lag since the event occurred. But, in Hudud, if a testimony is not given immediately, instead of that, was given after one month or was delayed more than that, then, it will not be acceptable.

This brief outline of the conditions of the enforcement of the Hadd of Sariqah appearing above has been taken from the highly authoritative book of the Hanafi Fiqh, Bada'i` al-Sana'i`.

The outcome of all these conditions is that the Hadd of Shari’ ah, the Islamic Prescribed Punishment, will be enforced only in a situation when it is strictly in accordance with the rules of procedure determined by the inviolable Shari’ ah of Islam that the crime, as well as, its proof are found conclusively complete - and so complete too as would leave no aspect of it doubtful. This tells us that the Shari'ah has done two things simultaneously - it has, on the one hand, fixed the punishment of these crimes, as required in its wisdom, being strict as they are; but, on the other hand, it has also taken extreme precaution in the enforcement of the Hudud of Islamic Law. The Law of Evidence as applicable to Hudud is also different from the Law of Evidence as applicable to common matters, and is certainly based on extreme precaution. The slightest shortfall in it renders the Hadd of the Shari` ah to be changed into punitive punishment. Similarly, in the event of any shortcoming being found in determining the completion of the crime, the Hadd of the Shari’ ah is dropped and punitive punishment gets activated in its place. The practical outcome of this is that the far-out occasion of enforcing the Hudud of the Shari` ah would present itself only very rarely ( or, as they would say in charged English, only once in a blue moon! ) Under normal conditions, even in crimes which fall under Hudud, the punishments given are punitive. But, in a case, where the completion of the crime and the completion of the proof con-join, even though in one per cent cases, the punishment given is very stringent, something which would inspire awe, something mindboggling and heart-rending, something which would cause the next as-pirant cold feet before even touching a crime like that. This kind of punishment, notwithstanding objections, becomes the source of eradication of crimes and the blessing of public peace for ever. This stands in stark contrast against societies built around penal laws with which hardened criminals keep playing as some sort of sport they enjoy.

They sit in jails making programs to do what they have been doing all along much better next time they are out there. There are countries where the Hudud of the Shari` ah are imposed even now. A look at conditions which prevail there would bring the reality in the open. You do not see there a lot of people with amputated hands, nor is there an event of stoning to death (Rajm) for years and years together. But, such is the standing awe and dread and fear of these punishments in arts that theft, robbery and immodesty do not seem to exist there. Muslims have the first-hand and direct knowledge about conditions in Saudi Arabia because Muslims of all classes and countries have the good fortune of being there in connection with Hajj or ` Umrah. Five times every day, everyone sees that shops and stores are open. Merchandise worth millions is lying there and their owner leaves for the Sacred Mosque at prayer time without closing them - and comes back from there only after having made his prayers in perfect peace. He never has any scruples about anything having disappeared from where he had left it. Then, this is not a matter of one day. This is a matter of whole life and how it goes on. Do this in any ` civilized' country of the world, you will end up with hundreds of thefts and robberies in a single day. Strange are the ways of those who claim to be the standard bearers of civilization and human rights. They are compassionate to professional criminals but they have no mercy for the whole humanity harassed by them. In cold reality, showering mercy on one criminal amounts to being tyrannical to the whole humanity. This attitude is the greatest cause of disturbing public peace and tranquility. This is the reason why He, who is the Lord of all universes and worlds, and who provides sustenance to the virtuous and the vicious, the pious and the polytheists, the saints and the sinners, and who gives to snakes, scorpions, lions and wolves their livelihood, and whose mercy extends to all, it was He who, when He revealed the religious laws of Hudud in the Qur'an, also said along with it: وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَ‌أْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّـهِ that is, ` do not show mercy to these criminals in enforcing the Hudud of Allah.' On the other hand, He declared Qisas (the Law of Even Retaliation) to be the life of humanity: وَلَكُمْ فِي الْقِصَاصِ حَيَاةٌ يَا أُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ that is, ` for you in Qisas there is life, 0 people of understanding.' It appears that those who oppose and obstruct the institution of Islamic Hudud, just do not wish that crimes be eradicated. Otherwise, as far as mercy is concerned, who else, if not Islam, can be the teacher? It is Islam which has recognized the right of even enemies and killers in the heat of the battlefield where it demands: Hold your hands before women, hold your hands before children, hold your hands before the aged, and do not kill the religiously observing not fighting against you on the battlefield but are busy with worship in their way.

What is most astonishing is the cold fact that objections against Islamic punishments are raised by, of all the people, those have their hands red with the blood of hundreds and thousands of innocent and blame-free human beings of Hiroshima even to this day, human beings who may have never dreamed of fighting and killing in a battlefield and included among them are women and children and old people, a whole lot of human beings indeed! And these are the people whose fury has still not subsided even after the tragedy of Hiroshima and who are still going ahead with all sorts of goals and projects and exper-iments to build and stock nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Other than this, there is not much we can say, except raise our hands in prayer - May Allah remove the curtains of selfishness from their eyes and may He guide them towards the true Islamic methods of establishing peace in the world.l

1\. This is the basis of the nuclear conflict among nations. The haves want to keep what they have and stop others from having it. If others have it, that will be ` proliferation'. The power to destroy must stay with the powerful. Because, powerful is responsible. But, was it? So, being powerful, or mutually cooperating powerful, is no guarantee that nuclear weapons will not be used. Human beings of one country sitting on their nukes and talking about world peace is hardly believable.

Let's say Amen to the prayer.

A word about the use of the word, ` deterrent' with nuclear weapons. They are there, just in case ... They are supposed not to be used first. They are for retaliation. The having of nuclear weapons means that everybody should behave, or else! So, they are ` deterrents', telling people to be careful and not mess around. So human beings can have deterrents to check the irresponsible behaviour of others, the behaviour of ` rogue' states, for example. Now, if God were to enforce His own deterrent against criminals, robbers and thieves and fornicators, in His wisdom, how could that become ` savage' overnight? Or, is it that what a set of human beings can do in their ` self-interest', cannot be done by God, in His Wisdom? ... Mercy! (Tr.)

The greatest achievement for a man is his nearness to God. This nearness in its real and perfect shape will be his in the Hereafter. However, when a man’s righteous action brings him nearness to God, he experiences this in this world purely in the form of heavenly feeling. The way to attain this nearness is through taqwa (fear of God) and jihad (struggle) i.e. becoming a worshipper or devotee of God through fear of God and struggling to make efforts for His cause. There are some moments in the life of a man when he finds himself in between Truth and untruth. In taking the direction of Truth, he has to surrender his ego and the structure of his worldly considerations seems to become insecure, while in adopting the way of untruth, his ego remains intact and his worldly considerations seem to be perfectly safe. In the former case, a man fears God and, overlooking all other considerations sticks to God; tolerating every difficulty and unpleasantness, he moves ahead towards God—these are the things which bless him with nearness to God. First hand experience of this nearness at that time takes the shape of aesthetic heavenly realization. On the contrary, the person who is not ready to adopt the path of fearing God and struggling to make efforts for the cause of God, drifts away from Him, and brings upon himself afflictions from which he can never get relief. The punitive system in Islam for social crimes has been formulated keeping in view two special aspects—one is punishment for a man’s crime and the other is the deterrent effect of that punishment. However, if a criminal is truly repentant after committing a crime, seeks God’s pardon and completely refrains from such misdemeanours in future, then it may be hoped that God will forgive him in the Hereafter. The matter of reward is entirely in the hands of God. There is no cause to fear, however, that despite an individual having reformed only later in his life, his earlier transgressions will not be pardoned. Nor is it true that there is some force, other than God’s will which, by recommendation or intervention, can change one’s destiny. Everything rests with God and He alone in His perfect wisdom and power decides the fate of everyone.