Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/244)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

the claimant is truthful and the denier—the defendant—is lying, then the land is unlawful for the defendant, exactly like usurped land. If the reverse is the case—the defendant is in the right and the claimant is making a false claim—then the compensation he took for the land, namely the dirhams, is unlawful for him. This is clear and accords with the principles of the Sacred Law, for whoever takes something without right, it is unlawful for him. Hence the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “You bring your disputes before me, and perhaps some of you are more persuasive in presenting his case than others, so I judge according to what I hear. Whoever, by my judgment, is awarded anything from his brother’s property, I have only awarded him a brand from the Fire; so let him take little of it or much.” (1)

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, thus showed that such a judgment has two aspects: an outward aspect, in which judgment is rendered according to what is apparent, and an inward aspect, in which a person is punished according to the false reality. Had the outward judgment overridden the inward reality, then when a person was awarded something belonging to his brother on the basis of the claim, it would not have been a brand from the Fire. But when the claim is false, it is indeed a brand from the Fire.

A settlement in exchange for compensation is not valid with respect to the prescribed punishment for theft or false accusation of unchastity, a right of pre-emption, or refraining from testimony; and the right of pre-emption and the prescribed punishment lapse.

His statement, “A settlement in exchange for compensation is not valid with respect to the prescribed punishment for theft”: This is because the prescribed punishment for theft belongs to Allah, Most High, so no human being may take compensation in exchange for it. Once prescribed punishments reach the ruler, there can be no intercession. The author mentioned theft specifically because it involves the right of another person, as evidenced by the fact that if the person whose property was stolen does not make a claim, the thief’s hand is not cut off. This is also evidenced by the statement of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, to Safwan ibn

(1) Narrated by al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Shahadat (Testimonies), chapter: “One Who Produces Evidence after an Oath” (2680); and by Muslim in Kitab al-Aqdiyah (Judgments), chapter: “Clarifying That a Judge’s Ruling Does Not Alter the Reality of the Matter” (1713), on the authority of Umm Salamah.

كان المدعي صادقاً، والمنكر ـ المدعى عليه ـ كاذباً، فالأرض حرام على المدعى عليه كالأرض المغصوبة تماماً، وإن كان بالعكس، المدعى عليه هو المحق والمدعي هو المبطل، فالعوض الذي أخذه عن الأرض وهو الدراهم تكون حراماً عليه، وهذا واضح ويتمشى مع القواعد الشرعية؛ لأن كلَّ من أخذ شيئاً بغير حق فهو حرام عليه؛ ولهذا قال النبي ﵊: إنكم تختصمون إليَّ ولعلَّ بعضكم أن يكون ألحن بحجته من بعض فأقضي له، وإنما أقضي بنحو ما أسمع، فمن اقتطعت له شيئاً من مال أخيه فإنما أقتطع له جمرة من النار فليستقل أو ليستكثر (١)، فجعل النبي ﷺ هذا الحكم له جهتان، جهة الظاهر يحكم بحسب الظاهر، وجهة الباطن يعذب على حسب الباطل، لو كان الحكم الظاهر يقضي على الحكم الباطن، لكان إذا حكم لأخيه بشيء حسب الدعوى لا تكون قطعة من النار، لكنها إذا كانت دعوى باطلة كانت قطعة من النار. وَلَا يَصِحُّ بِعِوَضٍ عَنْ حَدِّ سَرِقَةٍ وَقَذْفٍ، وَلَا حَقِّ شُفْعَةٍ وَلَا تَرْكِ شَهَادَةٍ، وَتَسْقُطُ الشُّفْعَةُ والحَدُّ. قوله: «ولا يصح بعوض عن حد سرقة» لأن حد السرقة لله ﷿ فلا يمكن أن يأخذ المخلوق عوضاً عنه، وإذا بلغت الحدود السلطان فلا شفعة، وإنما مثل المؤلف بالسرقة؛ لأنها تتعلق بالآدمي، بدليل أن المسروق منه لو لم يطالب لم تقطع يد السارق، بدليل قوله ﵊ لصفوان بن

(١) أخرجه البخاري في الشهادات/ باب من أقام البينة بعد اليمين (٢٦٨٠)، ومسلم في الأقضية/ باب بيان أن حكم الحاكم لا يغير الباطن (١٧١٣) عن أم سلمة ﵂.