Firstly, the default principle in financial transactions is to fulfill rights, honor commitments, and execute contracts. Allāh says: “O you who have believed, fulfill [all] contracts.” [Al-Mā᾽idah 5:1]. He also says: “And do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly.” [Al-Nisā᾽ 4:29].
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Allāh says: I am the opponent of three on the Day of Resurrection, and if I am someone’s opponent I will defeat him: A man who makes promises in My Name, then proves treacherous; a man who sells a free man and consumes his price; and a man who hires a worker, makes use to him, then does not give him his wages.'”
In another ḥadīth (though its chain of transmission has been debated), the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Give the worker his wages before his sweat dries.”
Secondly, jurists have differed on the issue of reclaiming one’s right from someone who denies or delays it, a concept referred to by jurists as (self-help in recovering rights) or (taking one’s right through trickery).
The evidence for this is the ḥadīth of Hind bint ῾Utbah, narrated by ῾Aā᾽ishah (may Allāh be pleased with her), where Hind, the wife of Abū Sufyān, said to the Prophet (peace be upon him): “O Messenger of Allāh, Abū Sufyān is a tight-fisted man and does not give me enough for me and my children, except what I take from his wealth without his knowledge. Is there any sin on me for that?” The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Take from his wealth on a reasonable basis what is sufficient for you and your children.” [Muslim]
Another piece of evidence is the ḥadīth of ῾Uqbah ibn ῾Aāmir (may Allāh be pleased with him) who said: “We said to the Prophet (peace be upon him): ‘You send us out and we come to people who do not give us hospitality, so what is your opinion?” He replied, “If you come to people who order for you what is fitting for a guest accept it; but if they do not, take from them what is fitting for them to give to a guest.'” [Al-Bukhārī and Muslim]
Some jurists generalized the application of these texts to anyone their right is denied, considering it a general principle. Others restricted it to cases like that of Hind bint ῾Utbah or to situations of travel, viewing them as specific cases with no general application outside these contexts.
They also cited the apparent meaning of Allāh’s words: “And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed.” [Al-Naḥl 16:126] and “The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto.” [Al-Shūrā 42:40].
The Ḥanafī scholars allowed taking one’s right through trickery, and the Shāfi῾ī scholars allowed it under certain conditions. This view is also held by some Mālikī scholars and other jurists like Ibn Sirīn, ᾽Ibrāhīm, Ibn Ḥazm, and Ibn al-Mundhir, using the previous ḥadīth of Hind as evidence.
Al-Qurṭubī supported this by referring to the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) statement: “Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or oppressed,” saying that taking the right from the oppressor is a way of helping him.
On the other hand, the Ḥanbalī scholars, some Mālikī scholars, and Sufyān’s reported opinion held that one should not take their right except through retrieval or judicial ruling, citing the ḥadīth reported by Al-Tirmidhī and others: “Render back the trust to those who entrusted you, and do not betray those who betray you.” This ḥadīth was considered weak by scholars such as Al-Shāfi῾ī, ᾽Aḥmad, Al-Bayhaqī, Ibn Ḥazm, and others.
Thirdly, our chosen opinion is that it is permissible to recover one’s rights from the oppressor and the denier through trickery but under the following conditions:
- One must not take more than the value of their right at the time of recovery.
- The recovery should not cause more harm to the property of the person from whom the right is being recovered, such as taking a part of a machine that renders it useless.
- Recovering the right should not lead to greater harm, such as causing scandal, damaging reputation, or invalidating justice.
- The right should be recovered directly from the denier and not from their partners, family, or heirs, as they are not responsible.
- The recovery should be in the same form as the denied item; if it was money, then money; if it was a specific item, then that item. If not, its equivalent value at the time of recovery, not its original value.
Based on this and the details in the question:
The issue of due rights must first be settled by referring to the employer and the original contract. If the right is confirmed, one may recover it under the above conditions. If the employer acknowledges the right but requests time, the right becomes a debt, and its ruling becomes the ruling of a debt. If the employer denies the claim entirely, one must resort to legal (religious or civil) courts to resolve the rights and obligations.
Fatwā issued by Dr. Khālid Naṣr
