by anyone concerning them. Testimony concerning them is likewise to be received without anyone bringing a claim. Jurists have differed, however, as to whether cutting off a thief’s hand requires the victim to claim his property. There are two positions on this in the school of Ahmad and elsewhere. They agree, however, that it does not require the victim to demand the prescribed punishment; rather, some of them stipulated that the property be claimed (1), lest there be any legal doubt in the thief’s favor concerning it.
This category must be enforced against those of high and low standing alike, and against the strong and the weak. Its enforcement may not be suspended because of intercession, a gift, or anything else, and intercession in such matters is unlawful. Whoever suspends it for any such reason, despite being capable of enforcing it, incurs the curse of Allah, the angels, and all mankind. Allah will accept from him neither repentance nor ransom, and he is among those who have exchanged Allah’s signs for a paltry price.
Abū Dāwūd narrated in his Sunan (2), from Abd Allah ibn Umar—may Allah be pleased with them both—that the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said: “Whoever’s intercession prevents one of Allah’s prescribed punishments from being enforced has opposed (3) Allah in His command. Whoever knowingly argues in support of a false claim remains under Allah’s wrath until he desists. Whoever ascribes to a Muslim something that is not true of him will be confined in the mire of corruption until he retracts what he said.” It was asked, “O Messenger of Allah, what is the mire of corruption?” He replied, “The discharge of the inhabitants of the Fire” (4).
(1) Manuscripts (ف، ب، ل) add *lahu* (“for him”).
(2) Abū Dāwūd (3597). It was also related by Ahmad (5385), al-Hākim (2:27), al-Bayhaqī (6:82), and others. Al-Hākim stated, “Its chain of transmission is sound.” Its chain was also deemed good by al-Mundhirī in *al-Targhīb* (3:198), Ibn al-Qayyim in *Ilām al-Muwaqqiīn* (5:463), and al-Dhahabī in *al-Kabāir* (p. 477). Ahmad Shākir graded it sound in his notes on *al-Musnad* (7:204).
(3) Manuscript (ظ) reads *hādda* (“opposed”); the original reads *dārra* (“contended against”).
(4) This hadith, in the form quoted here, combines two hadiths. The final portion cited by the author—including the question posed to the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—about the mire of corruption—is not part of this hadith of Ibn Umar. Rather, it comes from another hadith narrated by Abd Allah ibn Amr.
The sources for Ibn Umar’s hadith were given above. As for the hadith of Ibn Amr, Ibn Mājah related it as a *marfū* report—attributed to the Prophet—(3377), with the wording: “Whoever drinks wine and becomes intoxicated will have no prayer accepted from him for forty mornings. If he dies, he will enter the Fire; but if he repents, Allah will accept his repentance. If he drinks again and becomes intoxicated, he will have no prayer accepted from him for forty mornings. If he dies, he will enter the Fire; but if he repents, Allah will accept his repentance. If he drinks yet again and becomes intoxicated, he will have no prayer accepted from him for forty mornings. If he dies, he will enter the Fire; but if he repents, Allah will accept his repentance. If he returns to it once more, Allah has bound Himself to give him drink from the mire of corruption on the Day of Resurrection.” They asked, “O Messenger of Allah, what is the mire of corruption?” He replied, “The discharge of the inhabitants of the Fire.” A report with the same wording is found in the hadith of Iyād ibn Ghanm, related by Abū Yalā in his *Musnad* (6827).
A similar report from Ibn Abbās appears in al-Tabarānī’s *al-Mujam al-Kabīr* (12:249): They asked, “O Abū al-Abbās, what is the mire of corruption?” He replied, “The fat and pus of the inhabitants of the Fire.” This explanation is *mawqūf*—attributable to Ibn Abbās rather than to the Prophet.