Brothers, one upright and the other not, visited a relative of theirs, and the non-upright brother stole a piece of gold from this relative’s house, and after they

The questioner: ... One of the brothers asked me to ask a question from someone in the Emirates who called. The question is as follows: He and his brother went to the house of one of their relatives. This brother of his is not committed to the religion, so his non-committed brother stole a piece of gold from this man’s house that was placed on a table. When he went home, his brother learned of this matter and took it from him. Naturally, he spoke to him in a manner befitting this non-committed brother. He asks that he himself, this person, wants money from the same person from whose house it was stolen. The person from whose house this piece of gold was stolen denies this money to this person. The piece of gold has been with this man for two years, and he does not know how to deal with it. Should he sell it and take his money and return the remaining money to him if there is more, in one way or another? Or should he return this bracelet to his house, meaning he should be patient and seek reward from Allah for the money that the owner of the house has denied him?

The Shaykh: Some of the matter is mixed up for me. The stolen money belongs to

The questioner: He does not know who stole from whom stole it from him

The Shaykh: So who is the one who spoke to him in a manner befitting him?

Another questioner: The thief’s brother

The questioner: Two brothers went to the house of a relative of theirs. One brother prays and we consider him to be on good, and the second brother does not pray and has bad habits. One of these bad habits is that he found a piece of gold on the table placed in this relative’s house and took it

The Shaykh: Okay

The questioner: When they went to the house

The Shaykh: He took it with his brother’s knowledge

The questioner: No, his brother does not know. This is his brother, he does not know. They were in the house

The Shaykh: Even though they were together

The questioner: Yes, they were together, but he did not know by his manner that he took it

The Shaykh: Okay

The questioner: When they went to the house, the group naturally started looking for the piece of gold. They told them so and so, and he learned that it was his brother who took it. His brother has a history of theft, so he deduced that it was his brother who took it. He took it from him and spoke to him in a manner befitting him, naturally. And this brother who prays has an amount with the same

The Shaykh: This one who took the piece of gold from the thief, from his brother the thief, has with the owner of the gold

The questioner: Money

The Shaykh: A debt, for example

The questioner: Yes, and this man denies the debt that he wants from him. This man says: Should I sell this piece of gold and take my right from it and return the remainder to him in one way or another so that it reaches him? Or should I return this piece of gold to his house, visit him, put it in any place, and leave, and seek reward from Allah for this money that this man has denied?

The Shaykh: Here we usually cite, in front of such an answer, the saying of the one upon whom is peace and blessings: The thief is the brother of the creditor. If the thief himself wanted such a right as you mentioned regarding his brother, stealing this golden piece under the claim that he has a right with the one from whom it was stolen, and he denies it. It is not permissible for him to counter the denial of the one from whom it was stolen by stealing his money, because this is contrary to the hadith mentioned above: Return the trust to the one who trusted you, and do not betray the one who betrayed you. In reality, the thief here is not the creditor, but the brother of this thief. So he is speaking, as I said, in a manner befitting this thief. But I fear that he may fall into what the thief fell into, because if a thief steals some money or some goods, as is happening now in Kuwait, and there is a market in Baghdad and Kuwait where perhaps things are sold for the lowest prices, if it is known that a certain item is stolen and a person buys it for a price, then he is a partner of the thief if he did not know that this money was stolen
So here, this example or this situation applies exactly to this brother who informed his thief brother of his theft, and then he took what was stolen as a mouthful of food. He is his partner in the theft in this case, and it does not benefit him or justify his theft that he has a right with the one from whom it was stolen. This does not benefit him, as we said, if the first thief had a right, it is not permissible for him to reach the violated right by a method contrary to the Shari'ah, because the end does not justify the means. This rule is not an accepted rule, but rather a disbeliever’s rule. This is one thing. And all of this is said in the case where the second man, who took the golden piece from his brother, had a legal proof that this so-and-so has a right from him. But it is nothing but a mere claim from him. And if we opened such a door, whenever one claims that he has a right with so-and-so, he would go around him and take the right in full without increase, but secretly from him, and the matters would be completely disrupted. Because we know that it is not the case that whenever Zayd from among people claims that he has a right against him, this right is established, correct? It is necessary to establish the proof and evidence and bring witnesses, as is known. Here, there is nothing of that except that he is claiming. This claim may, in the best of possibilities, be that he is mistaken, or that this is a denial of the right, or that the right he claims is much less than what he claims, etc. Therefore, it is not permissible for this brother to do what he was about to do. He must return this golden piece to the one from whom it was stolen and remind him that I did not treat you as you treated me, in order to avoid violating the Shari'ah. And he should mention this hadith to him, and perhaps in this reminder there is a movement for him to present his violated right.

The questioner: But he fears problems, so he says: If you want me to return it to him, I will return it to him in a good way so that he does not suspect me

The Shaykh: No problem, by any method, the important thing is that the right returns to its owner. Choosing the method is a necessary matter.