Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/304)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

is enforceable; for the effective cause on account of which it was prohibited is no longer present, since he has reached the correct judgment. But if he does not reach the truth, then it is not enforceable, because it is contrary to the judgment of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ. Thus, this man has acted wrongly by judging while angry, hungry, or in a similar state, and he has not reached the truth. He was correct neither in proceeding to judge nor in his judgment itself; therefore, his judgment is invalid.

May either of the two litigants demand evidence from the judge? We say: Neither litigant has the right to demand evidence from the judge, for if this door were opened, no judgment whatsoever could be enforced.

His statement, “It is forbidden to accept a bribe”: the word for “bribe” may be pronounced with any of the three vowelings of its initial letter: rishwa, rasha, or rusha. It is derived from rishā’, the rope by which a bucket is tied in order to draw water. By means of this rope, a person reaches his objective, namely water. Likewise, a bribe is something given by which a person reaches his objective. Thus, whoever gives something in order to attain his objective is a briber.

However, bribery in judicial matters is not permissible. It is when a litigant gives the judge something in order to secure a judgment in his favor concerning what he claims, or to have a judgment against him set aside. This is because the briber—namely, the one who gives the bribe—may sometimes wish for judgment to be rendered in his favor concerning what he claims, and at other times may wish to have set aside what has been claimed against him. There is a difference between the two. If a litigant claims that So-and-so owes him one hundred thousand, and he pays the judge a bribe, then he wants the judge to rule for him regarding his claim. But if a litigant is claimed against for one hundred thousand and gives the judge money, then he wants the judge to dismiss what has been claimed against him. In both cases, bribery is forbidden for the following reasons:

يصح؛ لأن العلة التي من أجلها حرم انتفت، حيث إنه أصاب الصواب، فإن لم يصب الحق فإنه لا ينفذ؛ لأنه على غير حكم الله ورسوله ﷺ، فهذا الرجل أساء فحكم في حال الغضب، أو الجوع أو ما أشبه ذلك، ولم يصب الحق، فهو ليس مصيباً لا في إقدامه على الحكم ولا في حكمه، فيكون حكمه باطلاً. وهل لأحد الخصمين أن يطالب القاضي بالدليل؟ نقول: ليس لأحد الخصمين أن يطالب القاضي بالدليل لأنه لو فتح هذا الباب لم ينفذ أي حكم من الأحكام. قوله: «ويحرم قبول رشوة» وهي مثلثة الراء، يقال: رِشوة، ورَشوة، ورُشوة، وهي مأخوذة من الرشاء وهو الحبل الذي يعقد به الدلو لاستخراج الماء، والرشاء يتوصل به الإنسان إلى مقصوده وهو الماء، والرِّشوة بذل شيء يتوصل به الإنسان إلى المقصود، فكل من بذل شيئاً يتوصل به إلى المقصود فهو راشٍ، لكن الرشوة في الحكم لا تجوز، وهي أن يبذل الخصم للقاضي شيئاً يتوصل به إلى أن يحكم له القاضي بما ادعاه، أو يرفع عنه الحكم فيما كان عليه؛ لأن الراشي ـ الذي يعطي الرشوة ـ تارة يريد أن يُحكم له بما ادعاه، وتارة يريد أن يرفع عنه ما ادعي عليه، وبينهما فرق، إذا كان الخصم يدعي أنه يطلب فلاناً مائة ألف، ودفع إلى القاضي رشوة، فهذا يريد من القاضي أن يحكم له بما ادعاه، وإذا كان الخصم قد ادعي عليه بمائة ألف وأعطى القاضي دراهم، فهذا يريد من القاضي أن يرفع عنه ما ادعي عليه، وفي كلتا الصورتين الرشوة محرمة للتالي: