1. The Qur’ān does not define “yad” as “up to the wrist.”
In al-Mā’idah 5:38, the word يَد is not redefined by the Qur’ān.
Rather, fiqh determines how much is cut when the Qur’ān commands the ḥadd.
Important distinction
Linguistic meaning (lugha) of yad = from fingers → wrist → forearm → even upper arm, depending on context.
Legal ḥadd ruling (fiqh) = jurists specify what portion is amputated.
The fiqh ruling does not redefine the word.
It only specifies the extent of the punishment.
This is why all major schools say:
Yad in Arabic remains broad in meaning.
The ḥadd is delimited by juristic evidence, not linguistic restriction.
2. Classical Arabic usage proves that “yad” can mean:
The full hand
The hand including wrist
The hand plus forearm
Power, generosity, control (figurative)
This is attested in:
Sibawayh
Ibn Fāris (Maqāyīs al-Lugha)
Ibn Manẓūr (Lisān al-Arab)
Al-Azharī
Al-Farrā’
None of them say “yad = up to the wrist” as a universal definition.
3. Therefore: Qur’ān 5:38 does not fix the meaning of yad in all contexts.
The verse is simply commanding a legal punishment.
The jurists then determined the mabtar (cutting point) from:
Sunnah indications
Companion practice
Legal reasoning
Thus, Qur’ān 5:38 cannot be used to linguistically restrict “yad” in prophetic ḥadīth.
4. Now apply this to the ḥadīth of Wā’il ibn Ḥujr
Narrations say:
The Prophet ﷺ placed his yad on ẓahr al-kaff (back of palm).
Other narrations mention al-rusgh (wrist) and al-sa‘id (forearm).
What does this show?
The ḥadīth itself is already delimiting which part of the arm is involved.
Therefore the internal context of the narration determines meaning, not Qur’ān 5:38.
Key principle in uṣūl al-fiqh & linguistics
A word is interpreted according to its usage in its immediate context,
not by importing an external legal definition from another āyah.
Thus:
Yad in the ḥadīth = whatever portion is directly indicated by the textual description (palm, wrist, forearm).
The report specifically contrasts between palm, wrist, and forearm — proving that yad was not being used with a fixed technical limit (such as “up to the wrist”).
If “yad = up to the wrist” by default, there would be no need for the ḥadīth to separately mention:
ẓahr al-kaff
al-rusgh
al-sa‘id
This differentiation only makes sense if yad is broader in meaning.
