Returning to the tribal chiefs for reconciliation among people
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner:
So write to her, and when some of the truth was with them, they were disputing with her, Blessed and Exalted is He.
The Shaykh:
[Al-Fatihah 1:1-2] and blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah
The questioner:
Returning to the tribal chiefs for reconciliation among people.
The Shaykh:
There is nothing wrong with it for the sake of reconciliation among people, provided they act as intermediaries in the reconciliation, present the settlement to the disputing parties, and both parties agree to it. This is a good matter. Allah the Exalted commanded reconciliation among people,[An-Nisa 4:114], and Allah the Exalted says, "And reconciliation is best." And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, Sunan al-Bayhaqi 6:54.
And when Abu Shurayh came to him—and he was originally called Abu al-Hakam—the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him,Sunan an-Nasa'i 5387Hasan (Darussalam). Abu Shurayh said, "My people used to come to me when they disputed or quarreled over something, and I would reconcile them, and everyone would be satisfied with that." He said, (peace and blessings be upon him), , meaning if both parties are satisfied and it is not coercion of the refusing party. There is no coercion; rather, it is by mutual consent and conviction of both parties. This is a good thing. However, if one does not submit to the reconciliation, it is necessary to return to the court to clarify who has the right and who is obligated. Allah the Exalted said, [An-Nisa 4:59]. If we want to know who is in the right and who is not, it is necessary to return to the court.
As for if we want to name the dispute and settle it by mutual consent among people, this is a good thing, and this precedes going to the court if it happens. So the result is that it must be by mutual consent. Also, it must be in a permissible matter; it must not be in making lawful what Allah has forbidden or forbidding what Allah has made lawful. The reconciliation must be in a permissible matter, and it must be by mutual consent of both parties. One does not coerce the refusing party. This is fine. However, if it is such that it makes lawful what is forbidden or forbids what is lawful, it is necessary to return to the court. Or if it is necessary to coerce one of the parties, meaning to force the second party, this is not permissible from the court. It is the court that settles the dispute in this case and obliges the aggressor to stop. This does not happen except from the court.
The questioner:
If they do not agree to the reconciliation before it, we said this from the beginning: if they do not agree to the reconciliation, there is nothing but the court. Do we coerce them?
The Shaykh:
No. Once the ruling is issued by the court, it is necessary to execute it,[An-Nisa 4:65]. [An-Nisa 4:65]. If the ruling is issued by the court, it is necessary to execute it. If there is an objection, it is raised to the competent authorities, not to the tribes. It is raised to the competent authorities, to the Court of Cassation, to the Council of Judiciary. There are competent authorities that look into it. Hmm?
By mutual consent, it does not contradict. By mutual consent, it does not contradict if the one obligated agrees. We said if he agrees, it does not contradict. But compelling him, no. Compelling him does not happen except from the Sharia judge. Do not repeat the question to us. The question: I gave you the rule and the answer. Reconciliation by mutual consent in a permissible matter is fine. Reconciliation by a forbidden matter is not permissible. Reconciliation by coercion is not permissible. It must be by mutual consent, and it must not make lawful what is forbidden or forbid what is lawful. If the reconciliation is not achieved in this manner, it is necessary to return to the court. And if the ruling is issued by the court, it is necessary for one to accept it except through the competent authorities, the Court of Cassation, or the Supreme Council of Judiciary, competent authorities. Yes.
Hmm? By mutual consent, it does not contradict. If this is by a willing heart and by consent, it does not contradict. There is nothing wrong with it. However, if it is by compulsion and coercion, it is not permissible.
The questioner:
Shaykh, he will be forced to do this. If he does not do it, they might say it is obligatory from the Qur'an or something like that?
The Shaykh:
I say to you, by mutual consent and a willing heart, there is nothing wrong with it.Sunan ad-Daraqutni 13:78. By the goodness of his own heart, if his heart is pleased, praise be to Allah. If he gives you all his wealth, it does not contradict. However, if he does not agree, you do not take from him, and you do not compel him except with his consent.
So write to her, and when some of the truth was with them, they were disputing with her, Blessed and Exalted is He.
The Shaykh:
(1) In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. (2) [All] praise is [due] to Allah, Lord of the worlds -
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِThe questioner:
Returning to the tribal chiefs for reconciliation among people.
The Shaykh:
There is nothing wrong with it for the sake of reconciliation among people, provided they act as intermediaries in the reconciliation, present the settlement to the disputing parties, and both parties agree to it. This is a good matter. Allah the Exalted commanded reconciliation among people,
No good is there in much of their private conversation, except for those who enjoin charity or that which is right or conciliation between people. And whoever does that seeking means to the approval of Allah - then We are going to give him a great reward.
لَّا خَيْرَ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِّن نَّجْوَاهُمْ إِلَّا مَنْ أَمَرَ بِصَدَقَةٍ أَوْ مَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ إِصْلَاحٍ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ وَمَن يَفْعَلْ ذَٰلِكَ ابْتِغَاءَ مَرْضَاتِ اللَّهِ فَسَوْفَ نُؤْتِيهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًاReconciliation is permissible among Muslims, except for a reconciliation that makes lawful what is forbidden, or forbids what is lawful.
الصلح جائز بين المسلمين إلا صلحا أحل حراما، أو حرم حلالاAnd when Abu Shurayh came to him—and he was originally called Abu al-Hakam—the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him,
Allah is Al-Hakam (the Judge) and judgment is His
إن الله هو الحكم وإليه الحكمHow good this is
ما أحسن هذاAnd if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day
فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِAs for if we want to name the dispute and settle it by mutual consent among people, this is a good thing, and this precedes going to the court if it happens. So the result is that it must be by mutual consent. Also, it must be in a permissible matter; it must not be in making lawful what Allah has forbidden or forbidding what Allah has made lawful. The reconciliation must be in a permissible matter, and it must be by mutual consent of both parties. One does not coerce the refusing party. This is fine. However, if it is such that it makes lawful what is forbidden or forbids what is lawful, it is necessary to return to the court. Or if it is necessary to coerce one of the parties, meaning to force the second party, this is not permissible from the court. It is the court that settles the dispute in this case and obliges the aggressor to stop. This does not happen except from the court.
The questioner:
If they do not agree to the reconciliation before it, we said this from the beginning: if they do not agree to the reconciliation, there is nothing but the court. Do we coerce them?
The Shaykh:
No. Once the ruling is issued by the court, it is necessary to execute it,
But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute
فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّىٰ يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْand then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.
ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًاBy mutual consent, it does not contradict. By mutual consent, it does not contradict if the one obligated agrees. We said if he agrees, it does not contradict. But compelling him, no. Compelling him does not happen except from the Sharia judge. Do not repeat the question to us. The question: I gave you the rule and the answer. Reconciliation by mutual consent in a permissible matter is fine. Reconciliation by a forbidden matter is not permissible. Reconciliation by coercion is not permissible. It must be by mutual consent, and it must not make lawful what is forbidden or forbid what is lawful. If the reconciliation is not achieved in this manner, it is necessary to return to the court. And if the ruling is issued by the court, it is necessary for one to accept it except through the competent authorities, the Court of Cassation, or the Supreme Council of Judiciary, competent authorities. Yes.
Hmm? By mutual consent, it does not contradict. If this is by a willing heart and by consent, it does not contradict. There is nothing wrong with it. However, if it is by compulsion and coercion, it is not permissible.
The questioner:
Shaykh, he will be forced to do this. If he does not do it, they might say it is obligatory from the Qur'an or something like that?
The Shaykh:
I say to you, by mutual consent and a willing heart, there is nothing wrong with it.
The wealth of a Muslim man is not lawful except
لا يحل مال امرئ مسلم إلا
Source
الفوزان -أشرطة- أسئلة وأجوبة من دروس التوحيد - الفوزان - أسئلة وأجوبة - 04 — archive.org (41:16)
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.