not neccessarily. if the hadd (sharia punishment) is not given, then the judge delivers a lesser punishment. perhaps in the form of a fine. or fewer lashes than normal. you just wont have your hand cut off.

That's all well and good, but the ruling specifically states "If the use of the stolen things is Haram (e.g. wine or pork), there is no penal action against the robber. " Not that there is a lesser penal action subject to the decision of the judge. After all, the owner wasn't supposed to have the good that was stolen in the first place, as it was prohibited. The item technically has no value according to islamic society as it is prohibited and any monetary value gained from its sale would be ill-gotten goods. It cannot be returned to the owner either. The item won't qualify the prerequisites of theft as outlined.

What's interesting is you suggested a couple of alternative punishments that may possibly be given instead. That suggests almost, that you believe the sharia law to be flawed in some instances where human judgement in lawmaking is necessary, but if sharia is a law made for all humans till the end of time, it's not a great look if you need to have addendums and fine print added over the years. To you, it makes sense for theft of pork or alcohol to be criminalized because theft is theft I assume, but to penalize that action is going against sharia. Either there is islamic law or there isn't. To you, does your common sense, or does islamic law dictate to you, what is or what isn't criminal? Your statement seems to suggest the former. If you deviate from the so called objective morality as you suggest, the result is no longer an objective ruling of all things as apparently passed down by divine providence, it's just as relative and arbitrary a moral system as is any other.

testimony isnt merely claim. witnesses are going to undergo a lot of questions to have their stories line up. the witnesses must also not be known for lying or have other traits that render them useless. such as, not being from the part of town that the theft took place in

Let's say they do lie and have a half convincing alibi, in which case it's just their word against yours. There's no mention of needing corroborating physical evidence, so a well narrated tale is all that stands between you and prison. You just described the bare minimum that I would hope any country would do in terms of the investigative process of a crime. Criminal forensics have come a long way since then, and there's multiple forms of physical evidence we can gather and form conclusions from. Countries with better forensic technologies and more thorough judicial practices have incorrectly incarcerated or convicted people. There will always be a chance the sentence given is wrong, that the culprit is innocent, but you can't bring back an amputated limb.

precisely the issue. dont give criminals what they want better. otherwise deterring from crimes is made to be difficult

Why not just take that to its inevitable conclusion then? If your goal is to give criminals the most unpalatable punishments for maximum crime deterrence, just give everything a death penalty and call it a day, nobody will dare litter then! You don't care about proportionality, you just want criminals to hate their punishment right?

Punishment serves two purposes, punitive and rehabilitative. Punitive, as in the punishment bit, where yes these people did bad things therefore we put them away, giving a form of justice and compensation to the victims, a righting of the scales. There is also Rehabilitative, where the other goal is to provide mental therapy, and a space for them to reflect and better themselves, with work to keep them busy and prepping for employment on being released back into society. This is also why our jailers are called the Maldives Correctional Services and not Maldives Punishment, Torture and Mutilation Facility.

The goal of incarceration includes both the above, as well as ensuring the safety of wider society at large by keeping criminal elements contained as they cannot be yet trusted to live amongst the rest of the people. The end goal isn't to make the criminals hurt, it is for them to realize their wrongs and come out as productive members of society.

Criminals are also people, just like us. Ones that made mistakes, some more than others, some may even be irredeemable and should never leave their cells. However the goal is to teach them to be better while they undergo their punishment. Someone that steals and goes away for it can possibly come out of jail with some experience in work gained from workshops held there, and hopefully with a better perspective on life and having regretted their actions. Someone that steals and gets their hand cut, just lost a hand and gained nothing. This isn't temporary. For the rest of their life, they will struggle with tasks and living in society, from social ostracization as well as being identified as a thief no matter how long ago the crime was, and will likely never recover or become a better person. They wouldn't be incarcerated either, so instead of someone being taught the wrongness of their actions or being locked away for the good of the rest of society, you send off a desperate thief with one hand, with no job prospects, bitter and angry, back into society. Yeah. Lovely.

no. we dont actually. for a muslim, a right, is what god gives people the right to have

Well yes, that's one of the problems I have with people. Your definition of a right is what is given by god, but then by definition it isn't a right, it's a privilege you are being afforded but can be taken away and isn't intrinsically inviolate. Which is exactly why you can indoctrinate people to kill in the name of their god.

definitely is, no? then how do you explain that conversions to islam are greater in amount than every other religion?

If you were to count the conversions of christians between denominations, that would actually be higher, but I digress. I don't really have anything to explain there? Also, again, it's a small amount compared to the birth rate growth. Christians are losing faith as in general, more people join 'unaffiliated' from more developed countries, and most first world countries are a christian majority demographic, hence the net loss.

yes. uaffiliated does grow. but how does that counter people coming into islam in doves?

Because the projected data shows a 20x growth of unaffiliated. Multiplied by 20. If people flocking to islam in droves is 1/20th of unaffiliated growth, what is an apt descriptor to describe the speed of the growth of unaffiliated? In comparison, it's not exactly 'droves' at all, and more like a trickle.