Whoever possesses an authority which obliges upon him to fulfil a benefit among the people’s benefits, then the money which he takes in order to execute the benefit is bribery nor is it a wage in any way whatsoever. The distinction between the wage and bribery is that the wage is taken in exchange for undertaking an action which is not obliged upon him; as for bribery, it is taken in exchange for performing an action he is obliged to perform without exchange from the one for whose sake the action is performed or in exchange for not performing an action obliged upon him to perform. Accordingly bribery is the money given in order to carry out a benefit obliged upon the receiver to execute or to execute a benefit by the receiver not doing that which he is obliged to do, whether the benefit is right or something void. The payer of the bribe is called the (rashi), its receiver is the (murtashi) and the mediator between them is the (raish).

Bribery is forbidden by the explicit texts. Ahmad and Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi and ibn Majah narrated from Abdullah bin Amur who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said

Ahmad narrated from Tawban who said

These ahadith are general covering all bribery whether it is seeking a right or something null whether it is seeking to repel a harm or gain a benefit, to remove imposing injustice; all are forbidden. It is not said that bribery is forbidden because it is seeking something void or neglecting the truth, so if it like this then it is forbidden. Whereas if it is in seeking the truth of lifting injustice, then it is allowed. This is not said because this means that forbidding bribery came reasoned so if it exists the rule (‘illah) exists and when it departs the rule departs. This is not correct because all the texts which came forbidding bribery are not reasoned in their forbiddance by any reason. There does not exist therein or in any text what could be deduced there from as a reason. Accordingly its forbiddance is by the unreasoned explicit text so there is absolutely no reason for it. Nor is it said that when bribery is taken from the owner of a right to fulfil the right, it is permitted as it is taking money to perform an allowed action which is fulfilling the right. This is not said because the texts which forbade bribery came general so they remain in their generality covering all types of bribery. So if one wants to specify and exclude some types of bribery, this matter requires another text to specify them because the text is not specified except by a text of the Book or Sunnah. No text came so it remains general without specification. Hence all types of bribery are forbidden without distinction between its being in seeking a right or seeking something void, lifting or imposing injustice, repelling harm or achieving a benefit, all these enter under the generality of the text.

Similarly there is no distinction in forbidding bribery between it being to the judge or official or leader or other than these; all are forbidden. Nor is it said that Ahmad narrated from Abu Hurairah (ra) who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

So this is restricted in judgement so the absolute is applied on the restricted. This is not said because the word whose description is considered a description is the absolute/unrestricted not the general word. As for the general word, specification occurs therein not restriction; so if there comes a restriction with it then it is from the type of stating clearly (tansees) one of its units (afrad) not from the type of restriction. Hence the word briber, bribe-taker and mediator are general words and not unrestricted words, thus his statement “in judgement” is not a restriction for it such that the remaining ahadith are carried upon it. Rather it is stating clearly a unit among its units and this is the rule, so all the ahadith remain general and they remain in their generality. So all bribery is forbidden whether to the judge or official or others. Bribing the policeman to repel harm is like bribing the judge and the bribery of the director of a company so as to be employed therein or so that he is not dismissed is like bribing the collector of taxes or conveyor of propaganda so as not to convey it. Bribing the head of workers so as to lighten the work for them or other than that like bribing the worker of the trader given to him by the customer in exchange for selecting for him new goods among the goods, or the worker of the printing press by the writer of a book to perfect his work without the owner of the printing press. All these are bribery and all are forbidden because it is money taken in exchange for performing an action he is obliged to perform without exchange from the one on whose behalf he is performing the action. It enters into bribery what some of them pay to someone with authority before an official to use his influence before him to fulfil his need, but it is not the official who takes the money but rather the one taking the money is the one who talks to the official so money is paid to him in exchange for his talking to him. This is also bribery because this money is given in exchange for executing a benefit from the one upon whom it is obligatory to fulfil it so it is bribery whether the one who executed the benefit took it or not. It is not a condition in verifying the money being bribery that the one who directly performs the execution of the benefit; rather the condition in the money being bribery is that this money be given in exchange for executing the action whether the person who takes it or his friend or the one with authority before him or his relative or boss or other than these since the value in verifying the money being bribery is that it is taken in exchange for executing a benefit to be executed without exchange from the one executing it.

Similar to bribery in forbiddance is the gift gifted to the judges, governors and their like until some of them counted it as being from bribery because it resembles it in its being money taken in order to execute an action obliged to be executed without exchange from the one for whose sake he is executing the action. The difference between bribery and the gift presented to judges, governors and their like is that in bribery money is given in exchange for fulfilling the benefit whereas in the gifts to judges, governors and their like, property is given therein from the owner of the benefit not in exchange for the benefit but because the one being gifted practically supervises the executing of benefits by himself or his mediators whether he is gifted desiring the execution of specific benefit or after executing a specific benefit or desiring the execution of benefits when they occur. Hence bribery and gifts presented to the judge and his like are similar and one is analogised upon the other. However their reality is that there is something of a difference. The forbidding of gifts to the judge, governor and their like came explicitly in the ahadith. Al-Bukhari narrated Abu Hamid As- Saidi

From Buraydah from the Prophet (saw) who said:

Or the Messenger (saw) had called it suht (illegal) which is forbidden money. Al-Khateeb extracted in Talkhis Al-Mutashabbih from Anas that the Prophet (saw) said:

It is related about Masruq from ibn Masoud that he was asked about suht (illegal), is it bribery? He said: ‘No, but suht (illegal) is that a man seeks assistance upon an injustice so he gives you a gift. Do not accept it.’ Abu Wail Shaqeeq bin Salamah, one of the Imams of the Tabi’in, said: “If the judge takes the gift, then he has eaten suht (illegal wealth). And if he takes bribery, then he has reached thereby.’ All these ahadith—the hadith of Abu Hamid and the hadith of Buraydah and the hadith of Anas—all of them are explicit in that the gifts presented to the one supervising the general actions are forbidden whether it is presided after performing a specific action or before performing it, or it is presented to him because he is the one in authority in any matter, or it is presented to him because he has authority with the one in whose hands are executing the benefits; all these are forbidden. The word gifts came in the hadith of:

Is general covering all gifts to governors. Analogised upon all the governors who are supervising the execution of the people’s benefit who are obliged to execute them without exchange taken from the one for whom it is executed; it is forbidden for them to take a gift or a gift be taken from those for whom this benefit is being executed. The policeman, head of a company, leader of workers, and whoever is like them; it is forbidden for them to take gifts and the gifts for them are (suht) (illegal).

However, the gift to these people is forbidden if it is not the custom of the one giving the gift to present it to them. However, if it was of his custom to gift to them whether they were supervising the execution of benefits or not, then the gift is permitted for them without any blame in it. This is because the Messenger (saw) says in the hadith:

Its understanding is that the gift which is gifted to him while he sits in the house of his father and his mother without being a governor is permitted. This means that this gift, whose affair is that its presenter would gift it to the person if he were not supervising, is permitted in the situation of his supervising the execution of benefits as it is permitted in the situation of his not supervising the execution of benefits. So the ahadith of prohibition do not apply upon it and it is excluded by the understanding of the hadith.