Continuation of the benefits of the hadith: (The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) cursed the one who eats riba and the one who feeds it to another . . . ).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Regarding the triple divorce, or concerning the triple divorce, does a person testify or does he not testify?
The student: There is a distinction in this.
The Shaykh : Yes? And what is the distinction?
The student: If he believes that the three count as one.
The Shaykh : No, even those who believe that the three count as one consider it forbidden. Yes?
The student: He is a witness.
The Shaykh : A man divorced his wife three times, then she claimed against her husband that he divorced her three times, and the husband denied it, and there is someone who can testify, someone who was present at her divorce. Does he testify to this divorce or does he not testify because it is forbidden? Yes?
The student: He testifies.
The Shaykh : The answer is that he testifies. Why? Because a major matter depends on it. And I am not testifying to it as an approval of it, but because of the major separation that results from it according to those who hold that the three divorces separate the woman, or because of the disciplinary punishment according to those who hold that the woman is not separated by it, but it is forbidden.
The important point is that if a person hears someone divorce his wife three times and the need arises for him to testify to it before the judge, then he testifies, because this is a matter that has already occurred, and all that remains is for us to testify to it in order for the consequences to be established upon it. This is unlike testifying to a sale of intoxicants, for example, in which case he does not testify, because the sale of intoxicants is forbidden and it must be returned to the seller; rather, it must be destroyed, and the seller has no compensation for this intoxicant. However, the stronger opinion in this issue is that the buyer is compelled to give this price, which he set as the price for the intoxicants, in charity, so that he does not combine the consideration and the thing considered.
And among the benefits of the hadith is that the one who facilitates the forbidden is equal to the one who directly engages in it, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):, but this is problematic. What is the aspect of the problem?
That the witness, the scribe, and the one who employs the usurer are not like the one who directly benefited from the riba. However, it is possible that we can say: the hadith is to be understood as equating them in the original sin or in the original curse, even if they differ in its manner. And equality in the origin does not necessitate equality in the manner.
And we only said that this is possible because we know that the recompense of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) is based on justice, perfect justice. Yes, if the riba were not established for the eater except by the testimony of these people, then perhaps we could say that they are equal even in the manner of the curse and the description of the punishment.
The student: There is a distinction in this.
The Shaykh : Yes? And what is the distinction?
The student: If he believes that the three count as one.
The Shaykh : No, even those who believe that the three count as one consider it forbidden. Yes?
The student: He is a witness.
The Shaykh : A man divorced his wife three times, then she claimed against her husband that he divorced her three times, and the husband denied it, and there is someone who can testify, someone who was present at her divorce. Does he testify to this divorce or does he not testify because it is forbidden? Yes?
The student: He testifies.
The Shaykh : The answer is that he testifies. Why? Because a major matter depends on it. And I am not testifying to it as an approval of it, but because of the major separation that results from it according to those who hold that the three divorces separate the woman, or because of the disciplinary punishment according to those who hold that the woman is not separated by it, but it is forbidden.
The important point is that if a person hears someone divorce his wife three times and the need arises for him to testify to it before the judge, then he testifies, because this is a matter that has already occurred, and all that remains is for us to testify to it in order for the consequences to be established upon it. This is unlike testifying to a sale of intoxicants, for example, in which case he does not testify, because the sale of intoxicants is forbidden and it must be returned to the seller; rather, it must be destroyed, and the seller has no compensation for this intoxicant. However, the stronger opinion in this issue is that the buyer is compelled to give this price, which he set as the price for the intoxicants, in charity, so that he does not combine the consideration and the thing considered.
And among the benefits of the hadith is that the one who facilitates the forbidden is equal to the one who directly engages in it, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
They are all the same.
هم سواءThat the witness, the scribe, and the one who employs the usurer are not like the one who directly benefited from the riba. However, it is possible that we can say: the hadith is to be understood as equating them in the original sin or in the original curse, even if they differ in its manner. And equality in the origin does not necessitate equality in the manner.
And we only said that this is possible because we know that the recompense of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) is based on justice, perfect justice. Yes, if the riba were not established for the eater except by the testimony of these people, then perhaps we could say that they are equal even in the manner of the curse and the description of the punishment.