The Ruling on Offering Pardon for the Punishment of the Usurper

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : This demand and punishment are a right belonging to the owner of the property. If he wishes to give them the money, or to settle with them, or to pardon them from their punishment, he has that right. This is unlike establishing the hudud (fixed Qur'anic punishments) against them, for there is no way to pardon that in any case. The Imam does not have the right to compel the owner of the property to relinquish any part of his right. And if it was

The Shaykh : not permissible for him to compel him, is it permissible for him to offer it to him and encourage and urge him to relinquish some of his right? The answer to this requires a distinction. If there is a benefit in it, he may encourage him and say, "This is a sum that was taken, so leave it," or for example, he may say, "We promise you that when the zakat camels come to us, we will give you [this amount] or something similar." However, if it is better to take the right from them, he does not offer this to him.

The questioner : And if the properties were destroyed by consumption or otherwise while in their possession, or in the possession of the thief, it was said that they are liable to compensate their owners.

The Shaykh : They are liable to compensate. They are liable to compensate.

The questioner : It was said that they are liable to compensate their owners, just as they are liable to compensate

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : Just as they are liable to compensate. Just as they are liable to compensate the other usurpers, and this is the statement

The Shaykh : No, it is obligatory for the usurpers. We will make it a copy. No, for the usurpers. I say we will make it a copy because it is closer to the truth.

The questioner : And we will make a copy for those in debt.

The Shaykh : Make it with us.

The questioner : It was said that they are liable to compensate their owners, just as the other usurpers are liable to compensate, and this is the statement of al-Shafi'i and Ahmad (may Allah be pleased with them both), and it remains a debt in their liability until they are able to pay. It was also said that debt and amputation do not occur together, and this is the statement of Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him). It was also said that they are liable to compensate only when they are wealthy, not when they are in debt, and this is the statement of Malik (may Allah have mercy on him).

The Shaykh : The correct view is the first one, the statement of the two Imams, Ahmad and al-Shafi'i, that it remains a debt in their liability if they are in debt, or they pay it immediately if they are wealthy. As for