Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/245)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Umayyah, may Allah be pleased with him: “Would that you had done so before bringing him to me.” (1)

It is understood from his statement, “with respect to the prescribed punishment for theft,” that a settlement is valid with respect to the stolen property itself. Thus, if someone stole jewelry from another person, the jewelry was lost, and the thief admitted it, after which the two reached a settlement for compensation, the settlement is valid and there is no objection to it. But if they were to settle in exchange for the prescribed punishment for theft, it would not be valid. For example, if the thief were caught and said to the one who caught him, “Let me go, and I will give you ten thousand riyals; do not report me to the authorities,” this is not valid, and he has no right to do so. Rather, he must either report him to the ruler, or conceal his matter and let him go if he considers that to be in the public interest. As for taking compensation in exchange for this, it is not permissible. Moreover, it entails a grave harm: everyone caught for some offense would offer compensation and be let go.

His statement, “or false accusation of unchastity”: A settlement in exchange for the prescribed punishment for false accusation of unchastity is likewise not valid. Although this prescribed punishment is a right owed to a person, it also contains an element of Allah’s right. Thus, if the person who was falsely accused said to the accuser, “I will report you to the ruler,” and the accuser replied, “Do not report me; I will give you one hundred thousand in exchange for your right concerning the accusation, provided that you do not report me,” and he agreed, this is not permissible. The prescribed punishment for false accusation of unchastity belongs to Allah, Most High; one must either report him to the ruler or leave him alone—especially according to the view that the enforcement of this prescribed punishment does not require a claim by the person falsely accused. Some scholars hold that such a claim is not required for the punishment to be carried out, because it is a right of Allah, protecting the honor of the Muslims,

(1) Narrated by Ahmad (3/401); Abu Dawud in Kitab al-Hudud (Legal Punishments), chapter: “Concerning One Who Steals from a Secure Place” (4394); al-Nasai in Kitab Qat al-Sariq (Amputation of the Thief’s Hand), chapter: “What Constitutes a Secure Place and What Does Not” (8/69); and Ibn Majah in Kitab al-Hudud, chapter: “One Who Steals from a Secure Place” (2595). Al-Hakim authenticated it (4/380), and al-Dhahabi concurred. See also: al-Irwa (2317).

أمية ﵁: هلاَّ كان قبل أن تأتيني به (١). وعلم من قوله: «عن حد سرقة» أنه يصح عن المال المسروق، فلو أن شخصاً سرق من آخر حليّاً، فضاع الحلي واعترف السارق به، ثم صالح عنه بعوض، فالصلح جائز ولا بأس به، لكن لو صالح عن حد السرقة فإنه لا يصح، فلو مُسِكَ السارق، وقال للذي أَمْسَكَهُ: دعني، وأعطيك عشرة آلاف ريال، ولا ترفعني للولاة، لا يصح فليس له ذلك، فإما أن يرفعه للولي، وإما أن يستر عليه ويدعه إن كان يرى أن المصلحة في ذلك، أما أن يأخذ عوضاً عن هذا فلا يجوز، ثم فيه مفسدة عظيمة، فكل واحد يُمْسَكُ على شيء يبذل عوضاً ويترك. قوله: «وقذف» فلا يصح بعوض عن حد قذف، حد القذف للمخلوق لكنه فيه شائبة حق لله ﷿، فلو قال المقذوف للقاذف: سأرفعك إلى ولي الأمر، فقال القاذف: لا ترفعني، أنا أعطيك عن حقك في القذف مائة ألف ولا ترفعني، فوافق فلا يجوز؛ لأن حد القذف لله ﷿ فإما أن ترفعه لولي الأمر أو تتركه، لا سيما على القول بأنه لا يشترط لإقامة حد القذف مطالبة المقذوف؛ لأن بعض أهل العلم يقول: لا يشترط في إقامة الحد مطالبة المقذوف؛ لأنه حق لله، حماية لأعراض المسلمين،

(١) أخرجه أحمد (٣/ ٤٠١)، وأبو داود في الحدود/ باب فيمن سرق من حرز (٤٣٩٤)، والنسائي في قطع السارق/ باب ما يكون حرزاً وما لا يكون (٨/ ٦٩)، وابن ماجه في الحدود/ باب من سرق من حرز (٢٥٩٥)، وصححه الحاكم (٤/ ٣٨٠) ووافقه الذهبي، وانظر: الإرواء (٢٣١٧).