Explanation of the author's statement: "And likewise a gift, except from one who used to exchange gifts with him before his appointment, provided he has no case pending with him"

The Shaykh : He said, "And likewise a gift, except from one who used to exchange gifts with him before his appointment, provided he has no case pending with him". May Allah grant us assistance. This means it is forbidden for a judge to accept a gift if a person gives it to him; it is not permissible to accept the gift in any case, whether the giver has a case pending with the judge or not. Accordingly, if a man is appointed as a judge on a Tuesday, it is permissible for him to accept gifts on the previous day, Monday, but it is not permissible for him to accept a gift on that day itself. However, this is excepted under two conditions, as he said, "except from one who used to exchange gifts with him before his appointment, provided he has no case pending with him". The two conditions are: first, that the giver has a custom of giving gifts to this judge before he assumed the judgeship; and second, that the giver has no case pending with the judge. If the giver has a case pending, it is not permissible to accept his gift, even if he is someone who used to exchange gifts with the judge before his appointment. Is that clear? We now have three stages. The first stage is a gift from a person who used to exchange gifts with the judge before his appointment and who has no case pending with him. The ruling is that it is permissible. This means it is customary that if he returns from a journey, he gives him a gift, or if an occasion arises, he gives him a gift, or the like, and he has no case pending. We say there is nothing wrong with this, because it is completely far removed from bribery, and the original ruling is permissibility; the original ruling is permissibility. The second stage is a man who gives a gift to the judge, but he is not one who has a custom of exchanging gifts with him, and he has no case pending. According to the school of thought, it is not permissible, as the author explicitly stated; it is not permissible because he does not have a custom of doing so. The second opinion is that it is permissible. The third stage is that he exchanges gifts with the judge and has a case pending, but it is not his custom to exchange gifts with him. This is forbidden and not permissible. The fourth stage is that he has a case pending and exchanges gifts with the judge, and he is one who has a custom of exchanging gifts with him previously. This is not permissible as long as he has a case pending; therefore, it is not permissible. So the stages are four: one is permissible, which is when the person is one who used to exchange gifts with him before his appointment and has no case pending. The remaining three are not permissible according to the school of thought. The correct view is that a gift is permissible if the giver has no case pending, even if he is not one who used to exchange gifts with him previously. What remains is: if this man is one who used to exchange gifts with the judge before his appointment, and he gave him a gift, and he had a case pending with the judge, but the judge did not know about it, and then he found out later, is it obligatory for the judge to return it? The answer is yes. For example, suppose this man used to give gifts to the judge, and he had a case pending with the judge tomorrow, transferred from the police, for instance. This man bought a load of jujubes at night—yes, he bought a load of jujubes, watermelons, or something similar—at night and went straight to give it to the judge. But the judge did not know, and he is one who has a custom of exchanging gifts with him. So when morning came, the man had brought his opponent. What is obligatory for him? It is obligatory for him to return it, because it is forbidden for him; he has a case pending. This has happened with previous judges, as we relate from those close to us. A man was given a tray—do you know what a tray is? It appeared to be a pair of glasses made of fig wood. When the judge came, he saw this tray of fig wood. They said, "Where did this come from?" He said, "Masha'Allah, who brought it to us?" They said, "So-and-so brought it." He said, "Yes, return it to him." How can he return it? "O son of the honest man, it is fig wood, and it is fine." He said, "No, there is a problem between him and a man, and they sent it to be litigated before me. Look, Subhan Allah al-Azim (Glory be to Allah the Great), he returned it to him, even though the case had not started, but he knew, he was aware there was a problem between them. He said, "This man brought it, he wants it for me, like fodder, like..." as they say. This cannot be accepted. In any case, a gift has conditions according to the school of thought: two conditions. One is that it must be from someone who has a custom of exchanging gifts before the appointment, and the second is that he must not have a case pending. Allahu Akbar. Good.