A discussion regarding theft from the treasury of the Muslims.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The correct view, the correct meaning, is that the hand is not amputated if he is wealthy.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Is this the correct view?
Another questioner: It is amputated, it is amputated.
The Shaykh : No, no, it is not.
The questioner : If he is wealthy, his hand is amputated.
The Shaykh : It is the apparent view, the correct view, like the statement of Ibn Jinni, yes. If a person thinks about something and sees that it is appropriate, he says, "This is the correct view," like some students; whenever they see a statement by Zayn, they say, "This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah," whereas Shaykh al-Islam might hold a view different from this. All right.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : We said that, meaning, how does one steal from the treasury of the Muslims?
The Shaykh : We mentioned, as I see it, that he has no right to the treasury of the Muslims, except perhaps a very distant right.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I do not know, did we prefer this view or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I do not know, is it written down?
The questioner : It is written. We mentioned that if he is wealthy and does not, meaning, provide a benefit for the Muslims ... for example ...
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, correct, I mentioned it now, yes, yes, we mentioned that if he is wealthy and does not provide a benefit.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And if he provides a benefit, he has a doubt (shubhah). All right, I seek forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance ... . All right, and we mentioned previously an important rule: the original ruling is the obligation of amputation for every thief, except, uh? Except if evidence exists for an exception; otherwise, the original ruling is obligation.
The questioner : We said he is not amputated; if he is wealthy, he is not amputated.
The Shaykh : If he is wealthy, his hand is amputated.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, how?
The questioner : ... the stronger position.
Another questioner: In the previous lesson, we said that if he is wealthy, he is not amputated because he might ... or he might work.
The Shaykh : No, I do not think so, no, no, the opposite.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We mentioned that if he is wealthy and does not provide any of the interests of the Muslims, he has no doubt (shubhah) regarding the public treasury. But according to the madhhab, they say even if he is wealthy, because he might become poor and thus become entitled. Yes, all right. The important point, the conclusion now, in the issue of theft from the public treasury, what is the original ruling?
The questioner : Amputation.
The Shaykh : Amputation, until a clear doubt (shubhah) exists. The clear doubt is either his poverty or his providing a benefit from the interests of the Muslims, such as teaching, the call to prayer, leading the prayer, and the like.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Is this the correct view?
Another questioner: It is amputated, it is amputated.
The Shaykh : No, no, it is not.
The questioner : If he is wealthy, his hand is amputated.
The Shaykh : It is the apparent view, the correct view, like the statement of Ibn Jinni, yes. If a person thinks about something and sees that it is appropriate, he says, "This is the correct view," like some students; whenever they see a statement by Zayn, they say, "This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah," whereas Shaykh al-Islam might hold a view different from this. All right.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : We said that, meaning, how does one steal from the treasury of the Muslims?
The Shaykh : We mentioned, as I see it, that he has no right to the treasury of the Muslims, except perhaps a very distant right.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I do not know, did we prefer this view or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : I do not know, is it written down?
The questioner : It is written. We mentioned that if he is wealthy and does not, meaning, provide a benefit for the Muslims ... for example ...
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, correct, I mentioned it now, yes, yes, we mentioned that if he is wealthy and does not provide a benefit.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And if he provides a benefit, he has a doubt (shubhah). All right, I seek forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance ... . All right, and we mentioned previously an important rule: the original ruling is the obligation of amputation for every thief, except, uh? Except if evidence exists for an exception; otherwise, the original ruling is obligation.
The questioner : We said he is not amputated; if he is wealthy, he is not amputated.
The Shaykh : If he is wealthy, his hand is amputated.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, how?
The questioner : ... the stronger position.
Another questioner: In the previous lesson, we said that if he is wealthy, he is not amputated because he might ... or he might work.
The Shaykh : No, I do not think so, no, no, the opposite.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We mentioned that if he is wealthy and does not provide any of the interests of the Muslims, he has no doubt (shubhah) regarding the public treasury. But according to the madhhab, they say even if he is wealthy, because he might become poor and thus become entitled. Yes, all right. The important point, the conclusion now, in the issue of theft from the public treasury, what is the original ruling?
The questioner : Amputation.
The Shaykh : Amputation, until a clear doubt (shubhah) exists. The clear doubt is either his poverty or his providing a benefit from the interests of the Muslims, such as teaching, the call to prayer, leading the prayer, and the like.