wealth unlawfully. For the judge has no right to take anything in return for his judgment. We say: what the judge takes will either induce him to judge according to the truth—and judging according to the truth is something for which he may not take worldly compensation—or it will induce him to judge contrary to the truth, which is even more grave. Thus, accepting a bribe is consuming wealth unlawfully, and offering it is aiding in the unlawful consumption of wealth.

Sixth: it results in the betrayal of trusts: a person can no longer be trusted, and people do not know whether he will rule for them on the basis of the right they possess or rule against them. This is a tremendous corruption. For this reason, the briber and the recipient of the bribe deserve the curse of Allah—we seek Allah’s protection.

But if a person entitled to a right cannot obtain it except by paying money, does this fall under bribery or not? We say: yes, it is bribery, but its sin rests upon the recipient rather than the giver, because the giver pays it only to obtain his right; his right would be lost if he did not pay it. The curse is upon the recipient—the one who takes it. The scholars have explicitly stated this and explained that whoever gives something in order to obtain his right incurs no blame.

Nowadays, one finds people who say to a person claiming his right: “Either give me such-and-such”—openly—“or wait.” They continue in this manner until he grows weary and gives it against his will. In reality, this is a bitter matter, one that corrupts people in their religion and their bodies, because they consume illicit gains—we seek Allah’s protection.

If the judge has no provision—that is, no salary—from the public treasury, from the state, and he is a person with no wealth, and he says to the two litigants: