Har kimki xalqning manfaatlaridan birini amalga oshirishi uni majburlaydigan vakolatga ega bo‘lsa, uni bajarish uchun olgan pul rashvat bo‘lib, hech qanday ma’noda ish haqi emas. Ish haqi bilan rashvat o‘rtasidagi farq shundaki, ish haqi unga majburiy bo‘lmagan ishni bajarganlik evaziga olinadi; rashvat esa, uni bajarishi majburiy bo‘lgan ishni, ish uchun manfaat egasidan hech qanday evaziz olmasdan bajarganlik evaziga yoki unga majburiy bo‘lgan ishni bajarmaganlik evaziga olinadi. Shunga ko‘ra, rashvat — qabul qiluvchiga bajarishi majburiy bo‘lgan manfaatni amalga oshirish uchun yoki qabul qiluvchi o‘zi majbur bo‘lgan ishni qilmaganligi evaziga manfaatni amalga oshirish uchun berilgan pul bo‘lib, bu manfaat to‘g‘ri bo‘lsinmi yoki batil bo‘lsinmi, farqi yo‘q. Rashvat beruvchi (rashi), uni oluvchi (murtashi), ular o‘rtasidagi vositachi esa (raish) deb ataladi.

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).

Rüşvat qat'iy nas bilan harom qilingan. Ahmad, Abu Dovud, Termiziy va Ibn Moja Abdulloh ibn Amrdan rivoyat qilishadi, u aytdi: Allohning Elchisi ﷺ aytdilar:

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 Tawbondan rivoyat qiladi, u aytdi:

Ahmad narrated from Tawban who said

Bu hadislar poraning barcha turlarini umumiy ravishda qamrab oladi: haqni talab qilish uchunmi yoki batil narsani talab qilish uchunmi, zararni daf etish uchunmi yoki foyda olish uchunmi, zulmni bartaraf etish uchunmi yoki zulm o'tkazish uchunmi — bularning hammasi harom. Poraning haram qilinishi batil narsani talab qilish yoki haqni inkor etish sababli emas, deyilmaydi. Shunday bo'lganda, agar u bunday holatda bo'lsa, harom bo'ladi. Haqiqatni talab qilish va zulmni bartaraf etish maqsadida bo'lsa, ruxsat etiladi, deyilmaydi. Bu shunday deyilmaydi, chunki poraning man etilishi sabab bilan asoslangan, deganidir. Agar sabab mavjud bo'lsa, hukm ham mavjud bo'ladi, sabab yo'qolsa, hukm ham yo'qoladi. Bu to'g'ri emas, chunki porani man etgan barcha matnlar uni biror sabab bilan asoslamagan. Ularda yoki boshqa biror matnda, undan sabab sifatida xulosa chiqarish mumkin bo'lgan narsa yo'q. Demak, uning man etilishi sababsiz, aniq matn bilan belgilangan bo'lib, unda mutlaqo sabab yo'q. Shuningdek, haqqini olish uchun haq egasidan pora olinsa, bu ruxsat etiladi, deyilmaydi, chunki bu ruxsat etilgan ishni, ya'ni haqni ado etishni amalga oshirish uchun pul olishdir. Bu shunday deyilmaydi, chunki porani man etgan matnlar umumiy bo'lib, poraning barcha turlarini o'z umumiyligida qamrab oladi. Agar kimdir poraning ba'zi turlarini ajratib, ularni istisno qilmoqchi bo'lsa, bu masala uchun boshqa matn kerak bo'ladi, chunki matn Kitob yoki Sunnatdan bo'lgan matnsiz tahsis qilinmaydi. Bunday matn kelmagan, shuning uchun u tahsissiz umumiy holda qoladi. Demak, poraning barcha turlari harom bo'lib, haqni talab qilish yoki batil narsani talab qilish, zulmni bartaraf etish yoki zulm o'tkazish, zararni daf etish yoki foyda olish o'rtasida hech qanday farq qilinmaydi, bularning hammasi matnning umumiyligi ostiga kiradi.

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.

Bu hukm cheklangan (muqayyad) narsaga nisbatan mutlaq narsaga qo'llanadi, degani emas. Chunki tavsif sifatida qaraladigan so'z mutlaq yoki umumiy so'z emas, balki mutlaq so'zdir. Umumiy so'zga kelsak, unda tafriq (xususiylashtirish) bo'ladi, cheklash emas. Agar unga biror shart kelsa, u tansees (aniq ko'rsatish) turiga kiradi, ya'ni uning birliklaridan birini aniq ko'rsatadi, cheklash turiga emas. Shunga ko'ra, poraxo'r, para oluvchi va vositachi umumiy so'zlardir, mutlaq so'zlar emas. Shuning uchun uning "hukm chiqarishda" degan bayoni unga cheklov bo'lmaydi, shunda qolgan hadislar unga tatbiq etilsin. Balki bu uning birliklaridan birini aniq ko'rsatishdir va qoida shundaydir. Demak, barcha hadislar umumiy holida qoladi va o'z umumiyligida qoladi. Shunday ekan, har qanday poraxo'rlik harom bo'ladi, sudyaga, mansabdor shaxsga yoki boshqalarga nisbatan bo'lsin. Zararni qaytarish uchun politsiyachiga pora berish sudyaga pora berish kabidir. Xodim bo'lib ishga kirish yoki ishdan bo'shatilmaslik uchun kompaniya direktoriga pora berish, soliq yig'uvchiga yoki targ'ibotni yetkazuvchiga uni yetkazmaslik uchun pora berish kabidir. Ishchilarga yengillik berish uchun ishchilar boshlig'iga pora berish yoki boshqa shunga o'xshash narsalar, xuddi xaridor tomonidan savdogarning xodimiga, savdogar tanlab bergan yangi mollar orasidan tanlab berish evaziga berilgan pora kabi, yoki kitob muallifi tomonidan bosmaxona egasisiz o'z ishini mukammal qilish uchun bosmaxona xodimiga berilgan pora kabi, bularning barchasi poraxo'rlikdir va barchasi harom, chunki bu aynan u o'z zimmasida bo'lgan ishni bajarishi uchun, ish bajarilayotgan shaxsdan hech qanday almashuvsiz olingan pul hisoblanadi. Poraxo'rlikka shuningdek, kishilarning ayrimlari mansabdor shaxs oldida biror amaldorga, uning ta'sirini ishlatib ehtiyojini ado etishi uchun pul to'lashi ham kiradi. Lekin pulni olayotgan amaldor emas, balki amaldor bilan gaplashayotgan shaxsdir, shuning uchun pul amaldor bilan gaplashgani evaziga unga to'lanadi. Bu ham rishvatdir, chunki bu pul foyda bajarilishi evaziga beriladi, bu foydani bajarish majburiy bo‘lgan shaxsdan. Shuning uchun foydani bajargan kishi pulni olganmi yoki olmaganmi, bu baribir rishvatdir. Pulning rishvat ekanligini tasdiqlashda shart emas, foydani bevosita bajaruvchi shaxs bo‘lsin; aksincha, shart shundaki, bu pul harakatni bajarish evaziga berilsin, uni olgan kishi o‘zi, do‘sti, undan yuqoridagi rahbari, qarindoshi, boshlig‘i yoki boshqa kimdir bo‘lsin. Chunki pulning rishvat ekanligini tasdiqlashda muhim jihat shuki, u bajarilishi kerak bo‘lgan foyda evaziga olinadi, holbuki uni bajaruvchi tomondan hech qanday almashuvsiz bajarilishi lozim edi.

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.

Buraydah (roziyallohu anhu) rivoyat qiladi: Payg'ambar ﷺ shunday degan:

From Buraydah from the Prophet (saw) who said:

Yoki Elchi (ﷺ) buni suht (noqonuniy) deb atagan, ya'ni taqiqlangan mol. Al-Xatib "Talxis al-Mutashabbih" kitobida Anas (roziyallohu anhu) dan rivoyat qilgan: Nabiy ﷺ shunday degan:

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:

Masruqdan rivoyat qilinadi: u Ibn Mas'uddan suht (harom daromad) haqida so'radi — bu rashvatmi? U dedi: «Yo'q, lekin suht shundaki, odam zulm qilish uchun yordam so'raydi va sizga sovg'a beradi. Uni qabul qilmang.» Tobi'inning imomlaridan biri Abu Vail Shaqiq ibn Salama dedi: «Agar qozi sovg'ani olsa, u suht (harom mol)ni yegan bo'ladi. Agar rashvat olsa, u bilan (kufrga) yetgan bo'ladi.» Abu Hamid hadisi, Buraydah hadisi va Anas hadisi — bularning barchasi aniq ko'rsatadiki, umumiy ishlarni boshqaruvchi kishiga berilgan sovg'alar harom qilinadi, bu sovg'a biror ish qilingandan keyin berilgan bo'ladimi yoki undan oldin berilgan bo'ladimi, yoki u biror ishda hokimiyat egasi bo'lgani uchun berilgan bo'ladimi, yoki u foyda beradigan kishi qo'lida ta'sirga ega bo'lgani uchun berilgan bo'ladimi — bularning hammasi harom. «Sovg'alar» so'zi quyidagi hadisda kelgan:

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:

Umumiy: hokimlarga berilgan barcha sovg'alar. Xalq manfaatini ijro etishni nazorat qiluvchi, uni bajarishga, ushbu manfaat uchun ijro etilayotgan shaxsdan hech qanday evaziysiz majbur bo'lgan barcha hokimlarga o'xshatilgan holda: ularga sovg'a olish yoki bu manfaat ijro etilayotgan shaxslardan sovg'a qabul qilinishi taqiqlangan. Politsiyachi, kompaniya rahbari, ishchilar yetakchisi va ularga o'xshagan har kim uchun sovg'a olish taqiqlangan, ularga berilgan sovg'alar esa (suht) (noqonuniy) hisoblanadi.

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).

Shunga qaramay, bu kishilarga sovg'a berish harom, agar sovg'a beruvchining odati ularga sovg'a berish bo'lmagan bo'lsa. Ammo, agar uning odati bo'lgan bo'lsa, ular manfaatlarni amalga oshirishni nazorat qilayotganlari yoki qilmayotganlaridan qat'i nazar, unga sovg'a berish, ularga hech qanday gunohsiz ruxsat etiladi. Bunga sabab shuki, Rasulullah ﷺ hadisda shunday deydilar:

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:

Uning tushunchasiga ko'ra, otasi va onasining uyida o'tirgan, lekin hokim bo'lmagan holda unga hadya qilingan sovg'a joizdir. Ya'ni, bu sovg'aning ishi shundan iboratki, uning beruvchisi agar nazorat qilmaganida ham shu shaxsga bergan bo'lardi; shuning uchun u foydalarning ijrosini nazorat qilayotgan holatda ham, foydalarning ijrosini nazorat qilmayotgan holatda bo'lgani kabi, joizdir. Demak, taqiq haqidagi hadislar unga tatbiq etilmaydi va u hadisning ma'nosini tushunishga ko'ra istisno qilinadi.

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.