"Like an act of enjoyment for which there is no hadd, a theft for which there is no amputation, and a crime for which there is no retaliation"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Examples: "Like an act of enjoyment for which there is no hadd". Naturally, this refers to a forbidden act of enjoyment for which there is no hadd, such as a man kissing a non-mahram woman, embracing her, or touching her for the sake of desire, or something similar. This is a forbidden act of enjoyment for which there is no hadd, so the obligatory ruling is ta'zir. A theft for which there is no amputation is one in which a condition for the obligation of amputation is not met, as will be mentioned, if Allah wills. For example, if someone steals a dirham, this is a theft for which there is no amputation, so he is subject to ta'zir. Or if he steals from a place that is not a secure storage, for example, if he finds dirhams on the threshold and steals them, this also does not involve amputation, but it does involve ta'zir. Is that right? It involves ta'zir. The important point is that when asked what is the criterion for a theft for which there is no amputation, we say: it is the one in which the conditions for amputation mentioned in the following chapter are not fulfilled.
"And a crime for which there is no retaliation". The author benefited us with his statement "and a crime for which there is no retaliation" by providing two benefits. The first benefit is that the author informed us that a crime involving retaliation does not involve ta'zir. Why? Because the retaliation suffices. He also provided another benefit: that a crime involving blood money does involve ta'zir, because he said "for which there is no retaliation". As mentioned before, crimes are of two types: a crime involving retaliation and a crime not involving retaliation. The important point is that the one involving retaliation does not involve ta'zir, as the retaliation suffices. What is retaliation? It is qisas. As for the crime involving blood money, the apparent meaning of the author's words is that it involves ta'zir, which is one of the two opinions on this issue. The second opinion is that there is no ta'zir, as the blood money suffices. Now, what about a crime that involves neither retaliation nor blood money nor expiation, such as if he inflicts a wound that does not warrant retaliation, and the victim recovers and it leaves no effect? It has been mentioned to us previously that this involves the judgment of the judge, and if it does not cause a deficiency, then there is nothing in it. For example, if a man wounds another man on the forehead with a wound that does not reach the bone, and the wound heals and closes up without leaving any effect, is there anything required of him? There is nothing: no retaliation, and no blood money because it had no effect, and no judgment of the judge because it had no effect. We say that this involves ta'zir because there is no retaliation and no blood money, so it involves ta'zir. Now, does a crime against property involve ta'zir, or is compensation sufficient? We may say that a crime against property involves two rights: a public right and a private right. What is in the private right? Compensation. And the public right, which is preventing chaos, corruption, and evil among people, requires ta'zir. So if the matter reaches the judge and he sees that he should punish this criminal with compensation to the victim and with ta'zir for the public right, then there is no harm in that. Now, what about a crime against honor, such as insult, abuse, and the like?
The questioner : There is a hadd.
The Shaykh : There is a hadd and there is ta'zir. The one involving a hadd is qadhf (falsely accusing someone of zina), as mentioned before. And what does not warrant a hadd from qadhf and insult involves ta'zir. That is fine.
"And a crime for which there is no retaliation". The author benefited us with his statement "and a crime for which there is no retaliation" by providing two benefits. The first benefit is that the author informed us that a crime involving retaliation does not involve ta'zir. Why? Because the retaliation suffices. He also provided another benefit: that a crime involving blood money does involve ta'zir, because he said "for which there is no retaliation". As mentioned before, crimes are of two types: a crime involving retaliation and a crime not involving retaliation. The important point is that the one involving retaliation does not involve ta'zir, as the retaliation suffices. What is retaliation? It is qisas. As for the crime involving blood money, the apparent meaning of the author's words is that it involves ta'zir, which is one of the two opinions on this issue. The second opinion is that there is no ta'zir, as the blood money suffices. Now, what about a crime that involves neither retaliation nor blood money nor expiation, such as if he inflicts a wound that does not warrant retaliation, and the victim recovers and it leaves no effect? It has been mentioned to us previously that this involves the judgment of the judge, and if it does not cause a deficiency, then there is nothing in it. For example, if a man wounds another man on the forehead with a wound that does not reach the bone, and the wound heals and closes up without leaving any effect, is there anything required of him? There is nothing: no retaliation, and no blood money because it had no effect, and no judgment of the judge because it had no effect. We say that this involves ta'zir because there is no retaliation and no blood money, so it involves ta'zir. Now, does a crime against property involve ta'zir, or is compensation sufficient? We may say that a crime against property involves two rights: a public right and a private right. What is in the private right? Compensation. And the public right, which is preventing chaos, corruption, and evil among people, requires ta'zir. So if the matter reaches the judge and he sees that he should punish this criminal with compensation to the victim and with ta'zir for the public right, then there is no harm in that. Now, what about a crime against honor, such as insult, abuse, and the like?
The questioner : There is a hadd.
The Shaykh : There is a hadd and there is ta'zir. The one involving a hadd is qadhf (falsely accusing someone of zina), as mentioned before. And what does not warrant a hadd from qadhf and insult involves ta'zir. That is fine.