Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Does Saudi Arabia still remove hands for theft?
Executive summary
Saudi Arabia’s legal framework still allows judicial amputation as a punishment for certain offenses, and human-rights groups and academic reviews document occasions when hands have been amputated for theft or “hiraba” (armed/highway robbery) — Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch highlighted a 2011 cross-amputation case and Human Rights Watch recorded at least four court-ordered hand amputations in the prior decade [1] [2]. Reporting and scholarly reviews also note the practice has been relatively rare in modern practice but not abolished [3] [2].
1. Law on the books: hudud punishments and hiraba
Saudi law applies some hudud-style punishments derived from its interpretation of Sharia; the Qur’an’s text that courts sometimes invoke lists amputation among possible penalties for hiraba (waging war/armed robbery), and Saudi courts have statutory or case-law routes to impose amputation for theft or highway robbery (right-hand amputation for theft; “cross‑amputation” for highway robbery) [2] [1].
2. Human-rights groups: documented sentences and appeals
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch publicly campaigned against a 2011 case in which six men were sentenced to cross amputation (right hand and left foot) for “highway robbery,” urging commutation while the case was before the Supreme Court and the King [1] [4]. Human Rights Watch’s correspondence records four court-ordered hand amputations in the decade before its 2011 letters, showing instances occurred though they were not quotidian [2].
3. How often? Reporting describes rarity, not abolition
Multiple sources describe amputations as “rare” or “unusual” in recent decades rather than routine practice. Amnesty, HRW and medical-historical reviews say there have been isolated cases across years (e.g., hand amputations reported in 1986, the 1990s, 2002, 2007 and sentences in 2011), indicating sporadic enforcement rather than a systematic, high‑volume program [3] [5] [6] [2].
4. Medical and procedural notes: involvement of healthcare professionals
Academic and historical accounts of punitive amputation note that when such penalties are carried out in modern times they are often performed in hospitals with doctors managing bleeding and pain — a fact that has provoked ethical outcry from medical associations and human-rights groups [7] [3]. These sources document controversy over clinicians’ roles and violations of medical ethics.
5. Who is affected — nationality, legal safeguards, and criticisms
Reporting indicates that both citizens and foreigners have been among those sentenced or reportedly subjected to amputation; human-rights groups also flagged procedural problems such as coerced confessions and lack of legal representation in high‑profile cases [2] [4]. Human Rights Watch argued some verdicts amounted to judicially sanctioned torture and called for commutations and legal reform [2].
6. Historical and scholarly context: punishments in comparative perspective
Scholarly reviews of punitive limb amputation place Saudi incidents in a broader historical and regional context: punitive amputation has been practiced in a number of jurisdictions historically and sporadically in some contemporary states, and academic papers note that Saudi Arabia’s punishments are unusual but documented across decades [3] [7].
7. Limits of available reporting and gaps
Available sources do not provide comprehensive, up-to-date statistics on how many amputations — if any — the Saudi judiciary or state carried out in the last five years; more recent government data or official legal reforms are not present in the provided material, so current frequency or any policy changes after the latest cited reports are not documented here (not found in current reporting). Some web summaries and later articles assert cases into the 2020s, but these are not corroborated by the core human-rights and academic sources provided (p1_s13 is an uncited commercial post and not corroborated by Amnesty/HRW excerpts in this set).
8. Competing narratives and agendas to note
Human-rights organizations (Amnesty, Human Rights Watch) frame judicial amputation as torture and urge abolition and legal safeguards, emphasizing coerced confessions and procedural unfairness [2] [1]. Historical and medical reviews describe the practice’s existence and rarity but are more descriptive than advocacy-oriented [3]. Government or official Saudi perspectives are not present among the supplied sources, so explanations offered by state authorities or recent legal reforms are not documented here (not found in current reporting).
9. Bottom line for the question “Does Saudi Arabia still remove hands for theft?”
Based on the provided reporting and NGO documentation, Saudi law continues to permit amputative corporal punishment and there have been documented cases and sentences in the modern era, though such sentences appear to be relatively uncommon rather than routine; definitive, current-year counts or evidence of formal abolition or systematic practice are not present in the supplied sources [2] [3] [1].
If you want, I can: (a) search for official Saudi government statements or recent court statistics beyond these sources; (b) compile a timeline of documented amputation cases from these and additional reports. Which would you prefer?