What is the difference between embezzlement and plunder?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : ... For example, if someone takes money, he comes to a person and takes his money, and we call that embezzlement?
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : If someone comes to a person who has money, takes it, and runs away, do we call that embezzlement? Is it called embezzlement?
The Shaykh : This is how the jurists described it.
The questioner : Is this considered plunder?
The Shaykh : No, plunder is said to be based on one's strength.
The questioner : Is it not considered usurpation?
The Shaykh : Usurpation covers all of this if it is by force, whether he takes it and runs away, or takes it and stays, or relies on his strength; it is all usurpation. But we said that usurpation is broader than plunder because it includes both movable property and real estate.
The questioner : Okay, what is this called from the perspective of consideration? Is it not considered plunder, and embezzlement is... for example, a person has money and someone takes it while he is unaware?
The Shaykh : We are now speaking in the words of the scholars. The scholars say that embezzlement is when one snatches the thing and passes by with it, snatching it while walking, but it has other forms besides this, such as what we mentioned regarding the shopkeeper who was deceived; this is undoubtedly embezzlement.
The questioner : Is usurping land considered theft?
The Shaykh : No, it is not theft; this is usurpation... it is not considered theft... it is not considered theft by the explicit text of the hadith.
The questioner : Yes, but this... the intention of the jurists is that the hand is not cut off for usurpation, like taking a piece of land?
The Shaykh : The hand is not cut off.
The questioner : Okay, they specified this in their text, why?
The Shaykh : Because it is not theft.
The questioner : He took it openly, meaning, for example, mere usurpation... why did they make this distinction?
The Shaykh : Because the definition of theft is taking money in a hidden manner, and the usurper takes it by force without right.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, there is liability; if he breaks it, he is liable for it.
The questioner : Why? ...
The Shaykh : This person is disciplined, but the radio itself is respected. Now, the radio itself is respected, but if the one who used it used it for something forbidden, that is the one who is disciplined. If the authority sees that it is in the public interest to punish him by destroying his property which he uses for disobedience, this falls under the category of discretionary punishment.
The questioner : ...؟
The Shaykh : Absolutely not; if it becomes theft, the general rule is that he does not know about it.
The questioner : But he took it?
The Shaykh : The general rule is that he does not know about it. If he fears that he will be found out and says, "I will wait," then there is no harm.
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : If someone comes to a person who has money, takes it, and runs away, do we call that embezzlement? Is it called embezzlement?
The Shaykh : This is how the jurists described it.
The questioner : Is this considered plunder?
The Shaykh : No, plunder is said to be based on one's strength.
The questioner : Is it not considered usurpation?
The Shaykh : Usurpation covers all of this if it is by force, whether he takes it and runs away, or takes it and stays, or relies on his strength; it is all usurpation. But we said that usurpation is broader than plunder because it includes both movable property and real estate.
The questioner : Okay, what is this called from the perspective of consideration? Is it not considered plunder, and embezzlement is... for example, a person has money and someone takes it while he is unaware?
The Shaykh : We are now speaking in the words of the scholars. The scholars say that embezzlement is when one snatches the thing and passes by with it, snatching it while walking, but it has other forms besides this, such as what we mentioned regarding the shopkeeper who was deceived; this is undoubtedly embezzlement.
The questioner : Is usurping land considered theft?
The Shaykh : No, it is not theft; this is usurpation... it is not considered theft... it is not considered theft by the explicit text of the hadith.
The questioner : Yes, but this... the intention of the jurists is that the hand is not cut off for usurpation, like taking a piece of land?
The Shaykh : The hand is not cut off.
The questioner : Okay, they specified this in their text, why?
The Shaykh : Because it is not theft.
The questioner : He took it openly, meaning, for example, mere usurpation... why did they make this distinction?
The Shaykh : Because the definition of theft is taking money in a hidden manner, and the usurper takes it by force without right.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, there is liability; if he breaks it, he is liable for it.
The questioner : Why? ...
The Shaykh : This person is disciplined, but the radio itself is respected. Now, the radio itself is respected, but if the one who used it used it for something forbidden, that is the one who is disciplined. If the authority sees that it is in the public interest to punish him by destroying his property which he uses for disobedience, this falls under the category of discretionary punishment.
The questioner : ...؟
The Shaykh : Absolutely not; if it becomes theft, the general rule is that he does not know about it.
The questioner : But he took it?
The Shaykh : The general rule is that he does not know about it. If he fears that he will be found out and says, "I will wait," then there is no harm.