Can he give the policeman money so that he will not fine him for breaking traffic rules?

Question I have a taxi. I have unintentionally passed a red light. If one does this intentionally the fine is 500 dinar and if he does it unintentionally the fine is about 150 dinar. The question: The policeman asked me to buy him a meal in return for giving me my papers back and not…

Question

I have a taxi. I have unintentionally passed a red light. If one does this intentionally the fine is 500 dinar and if he does it unintentionally the fine is about 150 dinar.

The question:

The policeman asked me to buy him a meal in return for giving me my papers back and not fine me. Is this considered a bribe or just help?.

Praise be to Allah.

Stopping at the traffic lights is obligatory, because they
were set up in the public interest, to regulate the flow of traffic and
protect lives and property. If people drove on the streets ignoring these
signals, that would result in a great deal of trouble for them, as is well
known.

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) issued a
fatwa stating that it is not permissible to run a red light. He regarded
that as coming under the heading of obeying the authorities, which is
obligatory, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger
(Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), and those
of you (Muslims) who are in authority”

[al-Nisa’ 4:59].

Liqaa’aat al-Baab il-Maftooh
(3/178), question no. 1265

As for making the one who breaks these laws pay a certain
fine, this comes under the heading of financial disciplinary punishments,
which is permissible according to many scholars, such as Abu Yoosuf, the
companion of Abu Haneefah; it is also the earlier view of al-Shaafa’i and
was the view of some of the Maalikis; it was also the view favoured by Ibn
Taymiyah and Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on them all).

Ibn al-Qayyim said: With regard to ta’zeer (disciplinary
punishments) in the form of financial penalties, this is also prescribed in
certain cases according to the view of Maalik and Ahmad, and one of the two
views of al-Shaafa’i. The Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his companions also mentions that in
some cases, such as when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) ordered that the vessels and containers of wine be broken; when he
ordered ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar to burn the two garments that were dyed with
safflower; and when on the day of Khaybar he ordered that the pots in which
the flesh of domesticated donkeys had been cooked be broken, then they asked
him for permission to wash them and he gave them permission. This indicates
that both things are permissible, because the penalty is not necessarily by
breaking. Another example is when he demolished the mosque of the
hypocrites; when he burned the belongings of the one who had stolen from the
war booty before it had been shared out; when he took half of the wealth of
the one who had withheld zakaah, on the orders of Allaah; when he ordered
the one who was wearing a ring of gold to throw it away, and he did so, and
no one touched it; when he cut down the palm trees of the Jews to annoy
them; when ‘Umar and ‘Ali burned down places in which alcohol was sold; when
‘Umar burned the castle of Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas when he hid from the people
he had been put in charge of. These cases are all saheeh and well known,
and it cannot be claimed that they have been abrogated. The one who says
that financial penalties have been abrogated and that this is general in
application has gone beyond the views of the imams in quoting and reaching
conclusions. Most of these issues are acceptable according to the madhhab of
Ahmad and others, and many of them are acceptable according to Maalik. The
fact that the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and the senior Sahaabah did these
things after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) also shows that the claim that the ruling has been abrogated is
false. Those who say that it has been abrogated have no evidence from
Qur’aan or Sunnah or scholarly consensus to support their claims. End quote
from al-Turuq al-Hukamiyyah (p. 224).

According to the view that it is permissible to impose
financial penalties, it is not permissible to try to get out of paying this
fine, and the meal that was offered to the policeman is a haraam bribe,
because it was given to the policeman so that he would waive something that
he was obliged to pay.

As for the permissible bribe, that is the one that a person
is forced to give in order to ward off injustice from himself when he is
being wronged, and it can only be given in such cases.

See also the answer to question no.
25758.

And Allaah knows best.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.