"And the safekeeping of wealth is what custom dictates for its preservation, and it varies according to the types of wealth, the countries, the justice or tyranny of the ruler, and his strength or weakness."

The Shaykh : Regarding the safekeeping, the author says: "The safekeeping of wealth is what custom dictates for its preservation". Grammatically, "safekeeping" and "what custom" are the subject and the relative pronoun, with "safekeeping" as the subject and "what" as the relative pronoun serving as the predicate of the subject. "Custom" is the subject and "preservation" is the predicate of the subject, and the sentence consisting of the subject and predicate is the relative clause. So, the safekeeping of wealth means the place where custom dictates its preservation. In the author's mention of custom, it is indicated that the reference in this matter is to custom, not to the Shari'ah, because the Shari'ah has been general and not restricted. Anything that the Lawgiver has not specified or restricted is referred to custom, provided it does not have a specific Shari'ah reality. It varies according to the types of wealth and the countries, and the justice of the ruler, his tyranny, his strength, and his weakness. It is correct that the safekeeping varies according to the circumstances the author mentioned. First, regarding wealth: is the safekeeping for all wealth the same? If a man came to a sheep pen and stole a sheep, he has stolen it from the safekeeping. If the thief said, "I did not steal it from the safekeeping, because wealth is kept in iron boxes," what do you say? Where is gold placed? In iron boxes. So he says, "I did not steal it from what is used to keep wealth." How do we respond to him? We say, "Custom dictates its preservation there." It is not customary for a person who has sheep to go and put them in a commercial box. If he put them in it, they would die. So, since it is not customary, that is the safekeeping. Now, it also varies according to the countries. How does it vary according to the countries? Do we say that large cities require stronger safekeeping, or do we say that small villages require stronger safekeeping?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, let us leave the ruler aside for now; we have not yet reached the ruler. Sometimes large cities require stronger safekeeping, especially if there are different types of residents. Sometimes small villages require stronger safekeeping because their population is small and thieves raid them more. In any case, countries are referred to what people have agreed upon. For example, this small village may be safer due to the smallness of its population and the ability of its authorities to control it, or the situation may be the opposite. Likewise, it varies according to the justice of the ruler and his tyranny. Which is stronger? Now, what do you say, people? Is justice stronger in safekeeping, or is tyranny? It appears that justice is stronger first, because justice is part of faith, and Allah the Exalted said: The just imam or the just ruler is helped by Allah the Exalted in maintaining security, undoubtedly, more than the tyrant is helped. The tyrant does not leave people from stealing except out of fear of him. So, if he is in a state of unconsciousness or his observation is lacking, yes, they will dare to steal. So, in reality, the security of people under the rule of the tyrant is less. Also, the tyrant is not what some people imagine as strictness in ruling. Part of tyranny is not being just with the subjects. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Bashir ibn Sa'd when he gave his son Nu'man something he did not give to his brothers: So, part of the tyranny of the ruler is not being just with the subjects. If he is not just with the subjects, there is no doubt that security will be disrupted. Now, his strength and weakness: which is closer to safekeeping? Strength. Yes, there is no doubt that if the ruler is strong, security is more established than if he is weak. If the ruler, when we come to complain to him, we say, "So-and-so stole the sheep from the pen," and he says, "He did not steal the gold from the boxes," yes. And if we come to complain about the theft of the gold from the boxes, he says, "Nothing happened... regarding your property, he did not raid your property, and he did not come to your bedding. Thank your Lord." What would this be? This is weakness. This is the cause of chaos and the cause of thefts. So, the stronger the ruler is, the less cautious the safekeeping needs to be, to the point that sometimes things of value are placed on the sidewalks and no one comes to them. And if he is weak, doors are broken and wealth is stolen.