A man who worked for a group in digging a well said, "My account is two thousand and five hundred," and they said, "Your account is two thousand," so they gave him two thousand and five hundred by mistake; does he take it?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : There is a case where a man worked for a group in digging a well. After he finished the work, the accounting took place between him and the employers. He said he was owed two thousand and five hundred pounds by them. They argued, saying there was only two thousand pounds in it... their calculation was theirs, so they were not willing to give him anything but two thousand pounds. He took the two thousand. They counted him two [thousand] based on two thousand pounds. They handed him money according to the accounts. After that, he found it to be two thousand and five hundred. He was owed two thousand and five hundred by them. A five-hundred note was stuck to the second [thousand], making it two thousand and five hundred. So he sent them a message informing them that his right was two thousand and five hundred. They disputed with him. Is it permissible for him to take this five hundred, or is it obligatory for him to return it, given that he was not satisfied with the two thousand from the start?
Another questioner: I mean, they forced him.
The Shaykh : Who ruled that he was owed two thousand and five hundred?
The questioner : He calculated it based on the terms of the agreement between him and them regarding the work, for example, such-and-such meters, the meter at such-and-such [rate].
The Shaykh : This is not an answer. Who ruled that they owed him two thousand?
The questioner : They ruled [it] and paid him only two thousand, meaning that according to their calculation, they said he was owed two thousand.
AThe Shaykh : This is also an answer to the first question: Who ruled that he was...?
The questioner : He.
The Shaykh : Do not say "according to the terms," because they also say "according to the terms." So who makes this worker secure and certain that he is owed two thousand and five hundred? What you say about this person, others would say about those people. Is that correct or not?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Therefore, the issue does not depart at all from the previous discussion. This man has two thousand with the consent of these people. If he proves that they owed him two thousand and five hundred, not by his own ruling, but by the ruling of another group of people who have no interest in him or in them, then in this case, since he informed them of the reality, even if there is still something in the matter, this information removes from him the ugliness of embezzlement or theft or something similar. But merely because he believes he is owed two thousand and five hundred, and he takes advantage of this counting error to add the five hundred to his share, this does not make it a right or lawful for him.
The questioner : I mean, if he seizes this money and then rules...
Another questioner: I mean, he said, "I am ready for arbitration. If you accept arbitration, please proceed. If you do not accept arbitration, it means..."
The Shaykh : If they do not accept arbitration, it means... it is permissible in this case, and he informs them and tells them.
Another questioner: I mean, they forced him.
The Shaykh : Who ruled that he was owed two thousand and five hundred?
The questioner : He calculated it based on the terms of the agreement between him and them regarding the work, for example, such-and-such meters, the meter at such-and-such [rate].
The Shaykh : This is not an answer. Who ruled that they owed him two thousand?
The questioner : They ruled [it] and paid him only two thousand, meaning that according to their calculation, they said he was owed two thousand.
AThe Shaykh : This is also an answer to the first question: Who ruled that he was...?
The questioner : He.
The Shaykh : Do not say "according to the terms," because they also say "according to the terms." So who makes this worker secure and certain that he is owed two thousand and five hundred? What you say about this person, others would say about those people. Is that correct or not?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Therefore, the issue does not depart at all from the previous discussion. This man has two thousand with the consent of these people. If he proves that they owed him two thousand and five hundred, not by his own ruling, but by the ruling of another group of people who have no interest in him or in them, then in this case, since he informed them of the reality, even if there is still something in the matter, this information removes from him the ugliness of embezzlement or theft or something similar. But merely because he believes he is owed two thousand and five hundred, and he takes advantage of this counting error to add the five hundred to his share, this does not make it a right or lawful for him.
The questioner : I mean, if he seizes this money and then rules...
Another questioner: I mean, he said, "I am ready for arbitration. If you accept arbitration, please proceed. If you do not accept arbitration, it means..."
The Shaykh : If they do not accept arbitration, it means... it is permissible in this case, and he informs them and tells them.