This article examines the interpretive differences between Wahbah al-Zu?ayl? and Fazlur Rahman regarding Qur'an 5:38–40, which addresses the punishment of hand amputation for theft, while exploring the methodological implications of their approaches for the development of contemporary Islamic criminal law. The study employs a qualitative library research method using descriptive-analytical, hermeneutical, and comparative approaches. The primary sources consist of al-Tafs?r al-Mun?r by Wahbah al-Zu?ayl? and Fazlur Rahman's major works on Qur'anic hermeneutics and methodology. These sources are analyzed by comparing their epistemological paradigms, interpretive methods, and legal implications. The findings reveal that the divergent interpretations stem from fundamentally different epistemological frameworks. Wahbah al-Zu?ayl? understands Qur'an 5:38 as a normative and legally binding provision within the Islamic ?ud?d system, although its implementation is subject to stringent juristic conditions, including the fulfillment of the minimum value (ni??b), the existence of secure custody (?irz), clear ownership of the stolen property, sufficient legal evidence, and the absence of legal ambiguity (shubha). In contrast, Fazlur Rahman approaches the verse through his historical-ethical framework and the double movement theory, arguing that hand amputation represents a historical application of the Qur'an's moral objectives of safeguarding justice, protecting property rights, and preventing crime rather than a literal and immutable legal sanction. The study concludes that the debate over the punishment for theft essentially reflects competing paradigms of Qur'anic legal interpretation concerning the relationship between the Qur'anic text, historical context, and the objectives of Islamic law (maq??id al-shar??ah) in addressing the challenges of contemporary society.