Slaughter in Arbitration in Disputes
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Fatwa No. ( 200 ):
Q: In the event of a dispute or fight between two, three, or more people over any matter, the elders of the village or the Shaykh of the tribe attend to look into the matter between the disputants. After completing the examination of the case and identifying the core of the dispute and who is at fault, they impose on the person
with the greater fault two or three sacrificial animals, or more in some cases, and on the other, the one with the lesser fault, one sacrificial animal, in addition to some items they may obtain from the disputants. Each of them slaughters the animals required of him, and the group and the judges who ruled on the case attend to eat the meat. Whether the disputants are poor or rich, they have no choice but to abide by these rulings. This custom is called al-Barhah or al-'Atamah, as they say. In most cases, they do not contact the government courts there to settle their disputes. The matter that concerns me is knowing the ruling on such customs regarding their permissibility or impermissibility, and whether the one who performs such actions falls under the saying:Sahih Muslim 1978b or not, knowing that he slaughters and sheds blood in the satisfaction of a person or persons, and in the satisfaction of a chief or chiefs of the tribe? I ask for guidance on this.
A: Arbitration in disputes to expose the error of the one who erred, to support the one who was wronged, to reconcile between people, and to settle disputes with the truth brought by the Shari'ah of Islam is a prescribed right by the Book and the Sunnah. Allah the Exalted said:[Al-Hujurat 49:9]
And He said:[An-Nisa 4:114] As for the sacrificial animals that the two disputing parties slaughter, whether few or many, after the dispute is settled by reconciliation, if it is a voluntary act by the one who slaughtered them, thanking Allah for being saved from the dispute peacefully and for returning to the previous state of clarity and brotherhood, then it is good and encouraged by the Shari'ah. It is covered by the general texts encouraging doing good and thanking for blessings, and the Companions acted upon it, such as Ka'b ibn Malik , provided that it is not made a custom and adhered to with the commitment of temporary obligations with their times and causes, or that it exceeds a person's financial capacity and burdens him. Otherwise, it is prohibited. If the one who conducted the investigation and reconciliation compels both parties to do so, with no escape for them, such that if the one compelled fails to carry it out, it is considered a defect and a disgrace, and the reconciliation may fail, the ruling may be annulled, and the dispute may return as it was or worse, then this is a legislation that Allah has not permitted. Except if it is a discretionary punishment (ta'zir) for the aggressor or the one who erred only, to the extent of the aggression or error committed, as a discipline for him and to soothe the hearts of those who were wronged. In that case, it is permissible according to the opinion of those jurists who permit discretionary punishment with money.
And the money of the discretionary punishment is placed where the two judges see fit according to the Shari'ah, in the public treasury or in a form of charity and good, without the obligation of slaughtering it for the judges and those who attended the reconciliation session. The ruling on these sacrificial animals is not the ruling of offerings slaughtered for other than Allah, such as idols, at the graves of the righteous, or slaughtered for the jinn to draw near to them, or hoping for the fulfillment of a need, or the removal of harm, or the bringing of benefit. Rather, in the case of prohibition, it is an innovation in religion and acting upon a legislation that Allah has not permitted. Therefore, it is closer to falling under the meaning of the saying of Allah the Exalted:[At-Tawbah 9:31] than to falling under the meaning of the hadith: Sahih Muslim 1978b, even though both actions are misguidance and falsehood. And success is from Allah. May Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his Companions.
Q: In the event of a dispute or fight between two, three, or more people over any matter, the elders of the village or the Shaykh of the tribe attend to look into the matter between the disputants. After completing the examination of the case and identifying the core of the dispute and who is at fault, they impose on the person
with the greater fault two or three sacrificial animals, or more in some cases, and on the other, the one with the lesser fault, one sacrificial animal, in addition to some items they may obtain from the disputants. Each of them slaughters the animals required of him, and the group and the judges who ruled on the case attend to eat the meat. Whether the disputants are poor or rich, they have no choice but to abide by these rulings. This custom is called al-Barhah or al-'Atamah, as they say. In most cases, they do not contact the government courts there to settle their disputes. The matter that concerns me is knowing the ruling on such customs regarding their permissibility or impermissibility, and whether the one who performs such actions falls under the saying:
Allah cursed him who sacrificed for anyone besides Allah
لعن الله من ذبح لغير اللهA: Arbitration in disputes to expose the error of the one who erred, to support the one who was wronged, to reconcile between people, and to settle disputes with the truth brought by the Shari'ah of Islam is a prescribed right by the Book and the Sunnah. Allah the Exalted said:
And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
وَإِنْ طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا فَإِنْ بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الأُخْرَى فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّى تَفِيءَ إِلَى أَمْرِ اللَّهِ فَإِنْ فَاءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَAnd He said:
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.
لاَ خَيْرَ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِنْ نَجْوَاهُمْ إِلا مَنْ أَمَرَ بِصَدَقَةٍ أَوْ مَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ إِصْلاحٍ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذَلِكَ ابْتِغَاءَ مَرْضَاةِ اللَّهِ فَسَوْفَ نُؤْتِيهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًاAnd the money of the discretionary punishment is placed where the two judges see fit according to the Shari'ah, in the public treasury or in a form of charity and good, without the obligation of slaughtering it for the judges and those who attended the reconciliation session. The ruling on these sacrificial animals is not the ruling of offerings slaughtered for other than Allah, such as idols, at the graves of the righteous, or slaughtered for the jinn to draw near to them, or hoping for the fulfillment of a need, or the removal of harm, or the bringing of benefit. Rather, in the case of prohibition, it is an innovation in religion and acting upon a legislation that Allah has not permitted. Therefore, it is closer to falling under the meaning of the saying of Allah the Exalted:
They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah
اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِAllah cursed him who sacrificed for anyone besides Allah
لعن الله من ذبح لغير الله
Source
www.alifta.gov.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.