Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (8/137)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

without any particular beneficiary. Since this is so, preventing Muslims from transferring it through sale would impose one of the greatest hardships upon people, whereas the removal of hardship is a well-established principle in Islamic law.

Issue: The author of the matn did not mention the houses of Mecca, but the commentator did. The houses of Mecca may neither be sold nor leased; their ruling is even more restrictive than that of land conquered by force. Their evidence is the hadith: “The dwellings of Mecca: their sale is unlawful, and their leasing is unlawful.” However, this is a weak hadith and cannot serve as proof (1).

Were people to act upon this view, it would cause considerable difficulty. Yet the jurists who hold that it is prohibited offered people a concession, saying: If someone can find no place to live except by paying rent, he incurs no sin by paying it; the sin falls upon the lessor, because he has no right to receive it.

This concerns Mecca. What, then, of the sacred ritual sites, where one must remain? Selling them would be even more deserving of prohibition. There is therefore no doubt that those who built structures in Mina, Muzdalifah, or Arafat are usurpers and sinners, because these are ritual sites in which Muslims must stay; they are like mosques. If someone came to a large congregational mosque, built a room within it, and began leasing it out, this would be unlawful. Mina is now a ritual site in which Muslims must stay, and spending the night there is one of the obligatory duties of Hajj. Thus, if someone builds there and begins leasing it to people, he is undoubtedly a usurper, sinful, unjust, and

(1) Reported by al-Daraqutni, 3:57; al-Hakim, 2:53; and al-Bayhaqi, 6:35, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Amr, may Allah be pleased with him. Al-Bayhaqi and al-Dhahabi deemed it weak, while al-Daraqutni held that it is mawquf (a statement of the Companion). It was also narrated with the wording: “Mecca is not to be sold, nor are its houses to be rented out.” Reported by al-Daraqutni, 3:58; al-Hakim, 2:53; and al-Bayhaqi, 6:35, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Amr, may Allah be pleased with him. Al-Daraqutni and al-Bayhaqi deemed it weak.

المسلمين عموماً، فليس له مستحق خاص، وإذا كان كذلك كان منع المسلمين من تداوله بالبيع من أشق ما يكون على الناس، ورفع الحرج معلوم في الشريعة الإسلامية. مسألة: لم يذكر الماتن بيوت مكة، لكن ذكرها الشارح؛ فبيوت مكة لا يجوز بيعها ولا إجارتها، فهي أضيق مما فتح عنوة، ودليلهم حديث «رباع مكة حرام بيعها، حرام إجارتها»، ولكنه حديث ضعيف لا تقوم به حجة (١)، وهذا لو عمل الناس به لكان فيه إشكال كبير، لكن فَرَّج الفقهاء الذين يقولون بالتحريم للناس فقالوا: فإن لم يجد ما يسكنه إلا بأجرة لم يأثم بدفعها، والإثم على المؤجر؛ لأنه لا يستحق ذلك، وهذا في مكة، فما بالك بالمشاعر التي يتحتم على الإنسان أن يبقى فيها، فيكون بيعها أولى بالتحريم؛ ولهذا لا شك أن الذين بنوا في منى أو مزدلفة أو عرفة، غاصبون وآثمون؛ لأن هذا مشعر لا بد للمسلمين من المكوث فيه، فهو كالمساجد، فلو جاء إنسان إلى مسجد جامع كبير وبنى له غرفة في المسجد، وصار يؤجرها، كان حراماً، والآن منى مشعر يجب على المسلمين أن يبقوا فيها، والمبيت فيها واجب من واجبات الحج، فإذا جاء إنسان وبنى فيها وصار يؤجرها للناس فهو لا شك غاصب، آثم، ظالم، ولا

(١) أخرجه الدارقطني (٣/ ٥٧)؛ والحاكم (٢/ ٥٣)؛ والبيهقي (٦/ ٣٥) عن عبد الله بن عمرو ﵄ وضعفه البيهقي، والذهبي، وصوب الدارقطني وقفه، وروي بلفظ: «مكة لا تباع ولا تكرى بيوتها»، أخرجه الدارقطني (٣/ ٥٨)؛ والحاكم (٢/ ٥٣)؛ والبيهقي (٦/ ٣٥) عن عبد الله بن عمرو ﵄ وضعفه الدارقطني والبيهقي.