Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (14/354)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

a dirham is still outstanding against him.” (1) Thus, the contractually emancipated slave does not become free until he has paid in full what he owes.

Or if a free Muslim steals from the public treasury, or from war booty that has not yet been apportioned into fifths, or if a poor person steals from the proceeds of an endowment designated for the poor, or if someone steals from property in which he has a share, or from someone from whom theft does not incur amputation, his hand is not amputated. Amputation is established only by the testimony of two upright witnesses, …

His statement, “Or if a free Muslim steals from the public treasury,” means that if he steals, his hand is not amputated because of the element of doubt: every Muslim has an entitlement in the public treasury. If he is wealthy and does not serve in any capacity benefiting the Muslims, then he has no entitlement in the public treasury. This differs from the poor person, who does have an entitlement in it. Likewise, one who serves in a capacity benefiting the Muslims—such as teaching, leading the prayer, giving the call to prayer, and the like—has an entitlement. But if he is wealthy and performs no service benefiting the Muslims, what entitlement does he have?

They say: he may one day become among those entitled to it, and thus there is an element of doubt.

But does this mean that a free Muslim may steal from the public treasury?

The answer is no; it is forbidden for him. This is contrary to those who say, “The public treasury is permissible: lie to the state, steal from your job, do whatever you wish—none of this is forbidden,” on the grounds that it is the Muslims’ public treasury. We say: the Muslims’ public treasury is more sacrosanct than the property of one particular individual, because stealing from it is a betrayal of every Muslim. By contrast, if one steals from or betrays a particular person, it is possible to seek his pardon and settle the matter with him.

The phrase “a free Muslim” indicates that if a disbeliever steals from the public treasury

(1) Narrated by Abu Dawud, Book of Manumission, chapter on a mukatab (contracted slave) who pays part of his manumission contract (no. 3926); and by al-Bayhaqi, 1:324, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Umar. See: al-Talkhis, no. 2156.

عليه درهم» (١) فهذا المكاتب لا يعتق إلا إذا سَلَّمَ ما عليه. أَوْ حُرٌّ مُسْلِمٌ مِنْ بَيْتِ الْمَالِ، أَوْ مِنْ غَنِيمَةٍ لَمْ تُخَمَّسْ، أَوْ فَقِيرٌ مِنْ غَلَّةِ وَقْفٍ عَلَى الْفُقَرَاءِ، أَوْ شَخْصٌ مِنْ مَالٍ فِيهِ شَرِكَةٌ لَهُ، أَوْ لأَِحَدٍ مِمَّنْ لَا يُقْطَعُ بالسَّرِقَةِ مِنْهُ لَمْ يُقْطَعْ، وَلَا يُقْطَعُ إِلاَّ بِشَهَادَةِ عَدْلَيْنِ، ......... قوله: «أَوْ حُرٌّ مُسْلِمٌ مِنْ بَيْتِ الْمَالِ» أي: إذا سرق فإنه لا يقطع لوجود الشبهة، وهي أن كل مسلم له حق في بيت المال، فإذا كان غنياً ولم يتولَّ مصلحة من مصالح المسلمين فليس له حق في بيت المال، بخلاف الفقير فله الحق في بيت المال، فالذي يتولى مصلحة من مصالح المسلمين، كالتعليم، والإمامة، والأذان، وما أشبهه له حق، لكن إذا كان غنياً ولم يقم بمصلحة من مصالح المسلمين، فما حقه؟! يقولون: قد يكون في يوم من الأيام من ذوي الحقوق فله شبهة. لكن هل معنى ذلك أنه يجوز للإنسان المسلم الحر أن يسرق من بيت المال؟ الجواب: لا، وهو حرام عليه، خلافاً لمن قال: إن بيت المال حلال، اكذبْ على الدولة، اسرق من العمل، اعمل ما شئت، فليس هذا حراماً؛ والسبب أنه بيت مال المسلمين، فنقول: بيت مال المسلمين أعظم من ملك واحد معين؛ وذلك لأن سرقته خيانة لكل مسلم، بخلاف سرقةِ أو خيانةِ رجلٍ معينٍ فإنه بإمكانك أن تتحلل منه وتسلم. وقوله: «حر مسلم» فهم منه أنه لو سرق كافر من بيت المال

(١) أخرجه أبو داود في العتق باب في المكاتب يؤدي بعض كتابته … (٣٩٢٦)، والبيهقي (١/ ٣٢٤) عن عبد الله بن عمر ﵄، انظر: «التلخيص» (٢١٥٦).