Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/277)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

to judicial office; for if a non-Muslim assumes the judiciary, by what judgment will he rule? By other than what Allah has revealed, whereas Allah has commanded us to judge between people by what He has revealed—and that is the truth.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that it is impermissible to appoint him to judicial office even over a disbelieving community. For example, if the People of the Covenant are under Muslim authority, the ruler may not appoint one of them as a judge over them; rather, he should appoint a Muslim judge. However, if they bring their disputes before one of their own and appoint him as an arbitrator between them, we do not interfere with them. But for us to appoint a judge over them in the name of the Caliph of the Muslims—this is not permissible.

The sixth condition is that he be “upright”; its opposite is a flagrantly sinful person. This is one who persists in a minor sin, or commits a major sin and does not repent from it. Thus, if we find a person who shaves his beard but is learned and capable, we do not appoint him because of his flagrant sinfulness. If we find someone who lets his garment hang below his ankles, we do not appoint him to judicial office, because he is flagrantly sinful. And if we find someone who backbites people and consumes their flesh, we do not appoint him to judicial office, even if he is learned and capable, because of his flagrant sinfulness.

The evidence is Allah’s saying:

“O you who believe, if a flagrantly sinful person brings you any news, verify it.” [al-Hujurat: 6]

Allah commanded us to verify the report of a flagrantly sinful person. This indicates that his report is not accepted unconditionally; rather, it must be verified. It is well known that judicial office entails conveying information, for the judge says to the claimant and the defendant, “This is the ruling of Allah.” Thus, his judgment entails conveying information, and so it is not accepted.

As for the rationale, a flagrantly sinful person cannot be trusted not to act unjustly because of his sinfulness. The harmful effects of sins upon the heart, one’s orientation, and one’s conduct are exceedingly evident; therefore—

القضاء؛ لأن غير المسلم إذا تولى القضاء فبأي حكم يحكم؟ بغير ما أنزل الله، والله ﷿ أمر أن نحكم بين الناس بما أنزل، وهو الحق. وظاهر كلام المؤلف أنه لا يجوز أن يولى القضاء ولو على أمة كافرة، فمثلاً إذا كان أهل الذمة تحت ولاية المسلمين، فإنه لا يجوز لولي الأمر أن ينصب فيهم قاضياً منهم، بل ينصب قاضياً من المسلمين، أما إذا تحاكموا هم إلى واحد منهم، ونصبوا حكماً بينهم فإننا لا نتعرض لهم، لكن كوننا نولي عليهم قاضياً باسم خليفة المسلمين، فهذا لا يجوز. السادسة: قوله: «عدلاً» وضده الفاسق، وهو من أصر على صغيرة، أو فعل كبيرة، ولم يتب منها، فإذا وجدنا شخصاً يحلق لحيته لكنه عالم وقوي، فإننا لا نوليه لفسقه، وإذا وجدنا شخصاً مسبلاً ثوبه فإننا لا نوليه القضاء؛ لأنه فاسق، وإذا وجدنا شخصاً يغتاب الناس، ويأكل لحومهم فلا نوليه القضاء، وإن كان عالماً وقوياً؛ وذلك لفسقه، والدليل قوله تعالى: ﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنْ جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا﴾ [الحجرات: ٦]، فأمر الله ﷿ أن نتبين خبر الفاسق، وهذا يدل على أن خبره لا يقبل على سبيل الإطلاق، وإنما يُتَبين فيه، ومعلوم أن القضاء يتضمن الخبر؛ لأن القاضي يقول للمدعي والمدعى عليه: هذا حكم الله، فحكمه متضمن الخبر، فلا يقبل. وأما التعليل؛ فلأن الفاسق لا يؤمن أن يحيف لفسقه، وأضرار المعاصي على القلب والاتجاه والسلوك ظاهرة جداً، فلا