"And taking what belongs to humans in terms of life, limb, and wealth, unless they are pardoned for it"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : For this reason, the author said "And taking what belongs to humans in terms of life, limb, and wealth". The author (may Allah have mercy on him) should have said, "and it entails killing and amputation," because the author holds that if they amputate, it necessitates qisas (retaliation in kind). Is that right?
The questioner : So it is necessary to...
The Shaykh : It entails its execution, contrary to the madhhab (school of jurisprudence). He should have said, "and it entails killing," is that right? And amputation. But the madhhab is that if they amputate a limb, its execution is not necessitated; rather, the owner has the right to qisas or diyah (blood money). "And taking what belongs to humans in terms of life" When is it life?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If they kill an equivalent. "And limb" If they amputate a member, yes. "And wealth" If they take wealth. An example of this is these people who are highway robbers; they killed a person, and after killing him and taking his wealth, they came repentant to Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So here, does crucifixion drop off them or not? And does the necessity of killing drop off them? Is that right? If the awliya (guardians) of the murdered man demand killing and the conditions for qisas are met, they are killed by qisas, not by hadd (fixed punishment). Good. And the wealth they took? Amputation drops off them regarding the taking of wealth, do you understand? Good. And are they demanded to pay it?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, because it is a human right, so they are demanded to pay it. The author said "Unless they are pardoned for it". If they are pardoned for it, it drops off because it is a human right, and a human right reverts to him. But here is a question: Is it better that they be pardoned or that they be demanded to pay compensation? Is that right? The correct view is that there is a distinction: if the maslahah (public benefit) necessitates that they be pardoned, they are pardoned; and if the maslahah necessitates that they be taken with it, they are taken with it. Because Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) said[Ash-Shuraa 42:40] [Ash-Shuraa 42:40]. So He conditioned the establishment of reward from Allah upon there being reform along with the pardon. And this is correct. But if there is corruption in the pardon, then pardon is not permissible at that time. And if the pardon is between reform and corruption, yes, a person must prioritize the side of pardon. It does not mean that it is obligatory to say to prioritize the side of pardon over taking it, because a person has the right to pardon absolutely. Good. He says "Unless they are pardoned for it". Then he said "And whoever attacks himself". As for the version "And whoever was attacked", it is certainly an error because the active voice is present.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is correct, it is correct, unless they are pardoned for it.
The questioner : Except...
The Shaykh : That does not contradict [the ruling].
The questioner : So it is necessary to...
The Shaykh : It entails its execution, contrary to the madhhab (school of jurisprudence). He should have said, "and it entails killing," is that right? And amputation. But the madhhab is that if they amputate a limb, its execution is not necessitated; rather, the owner has the right to qisas or diyah (blood money). "And taking what belongs to humans in terms of life" When is it life?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If they kill an equivalent. "And limb" If they amputate a member, yes. "And wealth" If they take wealth. An example of this is these people who are highway robbers; they killed a person, and after killing him and taking his wealth, they came repentant to Allah (Mighty and Majestic). So here, does crucifixion drop off them or not? And does the necessity of killing drop off them? Is that right? If the awliya (guardians) of the murdered man demand killing and the conditions for qisas are met, they are killed by qisas, not by hadd (fixed punishment). Good. And the wealth they took? Amputation drops off them regarding the taking of wealth, do you understand? Good. And are they demanded to pay it?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, because it is a human right, so they are demanded to pay it. The author said "Unless they are pardoned for it". If they are pardoned for it, it drops off because it is a human right, and a human right reverts to him. But here is a question: Is it better that they be pardoned or that they be demanded to pay compensation? Is that right? The correct view is that there is a distinction: if the maslahah (public benefit) necessitates that they be pardoned, they are pardoned; and if the maslahah necessitates that they be taken with it, they are taken with it. Because Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) said
but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation - his reward is [due] from Allah
فمن عفا وأصلح فأجره على اللهbut whoever pardons and makes reconciliation
فمن عفا وأصلحThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is correct, it is correct, unless they are pardoned for it.
The questioner : Except...
The Shaykh : That does not contradict [the ruling].