"And if a slave steals from the property of his master, or a master steals from the property of his mukatab, or a free Muslim steals from the public treasury"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said "And if a slave steals from the property of his master, he is not amputated" If a slave steals from the property of his master, he is not amputated. What is the doubt (shubhah)?
The questioner : Maintenance.
The Shaykh : There is nothing in it but maintenance. So, the discussion, my brothers, is about when the property is secured. If the property is not secured, such as if the slave has the keys to the safes and steals from them, then there is no amputation, because we have a prior condition, which is that the theft must be from a secured place. If the master gave him the keys, that means he entrusted him with the property. But the author’s discussion here is about what? Secured property. Is he amputated or not? The author says he is not amputated. The doubt here is that the slave has a degree of latitude in his master’s property, and that his maintenance is obligatory upon his master. The master may be negligent in providing for him, so that slave, whose master was negligent in providing for him, resorts to stealing. Now, what do you say if the master steals from the property of his slave?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So, he is not amputated. Moreover, the school of thought with us is that a slave does not own property, even if he is granted ownership, based on the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)Sunan al-Bayhaqi 5:326 He said So, the slave does not own property, and the property he deals with is not the dealing of an owner, but a dealing of exclusive use. Now, "If a slave steals from his master, or a master steals from the property of his mukatab" This is possible: a master steals from the property of his mukatab. From the mukatab? The mukatab is the slave who bought himself from his master. This is the mukatab: the slave who bought himself from his master. How? A man had a slave, and the slave said to him, "Free me." He said, "I will not free you; I bought you for a thousand dirhams." The slave said, "Make me a mukatab," meaning, sell me to myself. He said, "I have made you a mukatab on the condition that you give me a thousand dirhams, and you are free." This is mukatabah, and Allah has referred to it in the Qur'an in His saying [An-Nur 24:33] but with the condition [An-Nur 24:33] good in religion and in worldly affairs. "Good" means rectitude in religion and earning in wealth. Here, the correct view is that the command is obligatory: if the slave requests mukatabah, it is obligatory for the master to make him a mukatab, because Allah commanded it, and the default ruling for a command is obligation. But with this condition: "If you know good in them," meaning rectitude in their religion and worldly affairs. Rectitude in religion is known, and rectitude in worldly affairs is earning. But if the slave comes and says, "Make me a mukatab," and I know that if I make him a mukatab, he will go to brothels, cinemas, and entertainment venues, and the like, or if it appears that he does not pray, we do not make him a mukatab. Or if he says, "Make me a mukatab," and I know that if I make him a mukatab now, I am providing for him, but if I make him a mukatab, he will become a burden on people, not earning, not a provider. In that case, we do not make him a mukatab. Now, this master stole from the property of his mukatab. Does the mukatab own? Yes, he owns his property. That is why he has the right to dispose of it. If you made him a mukatab and said, "I have made you a mukatab for so many dirhams," he has bought his own freedom. Now he can sell and buy, lease and hire, and be like a free person. So, he has property. The master stole from the property of his mukatab. It is said that he is not amputated. What is the doubt? That his ownership still remains over him, as mentioned in the hadith narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 12:579 So, this mukatab has not yet been freed. When is he freed? When he pays what is due to him, he is freed.
Now, "or a free Muslim steals from the public treasury." This applies to some common people. If a free Muslim steals from the public treasury, he is not amputated. Why? Because there is a doubt. The doubt is that every Muslim has a right in the public treasury, or not? Now, if he is rich and does not hold any of the interests of the Muslims, what is his right in the public treasury? The poor person has a right in the public treasury. The one who holds an interest of the Muslims, such as teaching, leading prayer, calling to prayer, and the like, has a right. But if he is rich and does not perform any of the interests of the Muslims, what is his right? It is said that he may be among those with rights on some day, so he has a doubt. But tell me, does that mean it is permissible for a free Muslim to steal from the public treasury? No, it is forbidden for him, contrary to those who said that the public treasury is lawful. Lie to the state, steal from the job, do whatever you want as long as it does not contradict. This is forbidden. He said, "No, it is not forbidden." What is the reason? He said, "This is the property of the Muslims." The property of the Muslims is greater than the property of one specific person. The reason is that the property of the Muslims is a betrayal to every Muslim.
The questioner : Maintenance.
The Shaykh : There is nothing in it but maintenance. So, the discussion, my brothers, is about when the property is secured. If the property is not secured, such as if the slave has the keys to the safes and steals from them, then there is no amputation, because we have a prior condition, which is that the theft must be from a secured place. If the master gave him the keys, that means he entrusted him with the property. But the author’s discussion here is about what? Secured property. Is he amputated or not? The author says he is not amputated. The doubt here is that the slave has a degree of latitude in his master’s property, and that his maintenance is obligatory upon his master. The master may be negligent in providing for him, so that slave, whose master was negligent in providing for him, resorts to stealing. Now, what do you say if the master steals from the property of his slave?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So, he is not amputated. Moreover, the school of thought with us is that a slave does not own property, even if he is granted ownership, based on the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)
If one sells a slave who has wealth, his wealth belongs to the one who sold him, unless the buyer stipulates otherwise.
من باع عبداً له مال فماله للذي باعه إلا أن يشترط المبتاعSo his wealth belongs to the one who sold him
فماله للذي باعهAnd those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess - then make a contract with them
والذين يبتغون الكتاب مما ملكت أيمانكم فكاتبوهمif you know there is within them goodness
إن علمتم فيهم خيراًThe mukatab is a slave as long as a dirham remains upon him.
المكاتب عبد ما بقي عليه درهمNow, "or a free Muslim steals from the public treasury." This applies to some common people. If a free Muslim steals from the public treasury, he is not amputated. Why? Because there is a doubt. The doubt is that every Muslim has a right in the public treasury, or not? Now, if he is rich and does not hold any of the interests of the Muslims, what is his right in the public treasury? The poor person has a right in the public treasury. The one who holds an interest of the Muslims, such as teaching, leading prayer, calling to prayer, and the like, has a right. But if he is rich and does not perform any of the interests of the Muslims, what is his right? It is said that he may be among those with rights on some day, so he has a doubt. But tell me, does that mean it is permissible for a free Muslim to steal from the public treasury? No, it is forbidden for him, contrary to those who said that the public treasury is lawful. Lie to the state, steal from the job, do whatever you want as long as it does not contradict. This is forbidden. He said, "No, it is not forbidden." What is the reason? He said, "This is the property of the Muslims." The property of the Muslims is greater than the property of one specific person. The reason is that the property of the Muslims is a betrayal to every Muslim.