Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (8/182)

from his house, took him to the market along with his own slave, announced both of them for sale, and sold them. The contract has thus been concluded with respect to something he has the right to sell and something he has no right to sell. We therefore say: it is valid with respect to his own slave, but invalid with respect to the other person’s slave. The difference between this case and the previous one is clear: here there is no intermingling, for each item is distinct. Likewise, if he sells his own car and someone else’s car, the sale is valid with respect to his own car but invalid with respect to the other person’s car.

His statement, “or a slave and a free person”: a free person is not owned property. Thus, if he sells his slave and a free person for one price in a single transaction, the sale is valid with respect to his slave but invalid with respect to the free person, because a sale contract cannot validly be concluded concerning a free person.

His statement, “or vinegar and wine in a single transaction: it is valid with respect to his slave, and with respect to the vinegar in its proportionate share”: he now has two jars, one containing wine and the other vinegar, and he sells them both together. The sale is valid with respect to the vinegar but invalid with respect to the wine.

His statement, “it is valid with respect to his slave”: if bids were called for these two slaves, and it was asked how much each one was worth, they would say: one is worth one thousand and the other is worth two thousand. Thus, if his slave is worth two thousand, we deduct two-thirds from the price; and if the other person’s slave is worth one thousand, we deduct one-third.

If he sells his slave and a free person, how do we assess the value of the free person? We say: he is treated as though he were a slave. Thus it is said: suppose that this free person were a slave alongside your slave whom you sold. He replies: if the free person were a slave, he would be worth two thousand, while my slave would be worth one thousand; so we deduct two-thirds from the price.

من بيته وذهب به معه إلى السوق ومعه عبده فنادى عليهما جميعاً وباعهما، فالآن وقع العقد على ما يملك بيعه وما لا يملك، فنقول: يصح في عبده، ولا يصح في عبد غيره، والفرق بين هذه وبين التي قبلها واضح، فهذه ليس فيها اختلاط، فكل عين متميزة، وكذلك باع سيارته وسيارة غيره يصح في سيارته، ولا يصح في سيارة غيره. قوله: «أو عبداً وحراً» الحر غير مملوك، فباع عبده وحراً بثمن واحد صفقة واحدة، يصح في عبده ولا يصح في الحر؛ لأن الحر لا يصح عقد البيع عليه. قوله: «أو خلًّا وخمراً صفقة واحدة صح في عبده، وفي الخل بقسطه» عنده الآن جَرَّتان، إحداهما: خمر، والثانية: خل، فباعهما جميعاً، فيصح في الخل ولا يصح في الخمر. وقوله: «صح في عبده» فلو نودي على هذين العبدين كم يساوي كل واحد؟ قالوا: أحدهما يساوي ألفاً، والثاني يساوي ألفين، فإذا كان عبده يساوي ألفين أسقطنا الثلثين من الثمن، وعبد غيره يساوي ألفاً أسقطنا الثلث. وإذا باع عبده وحراً كيف نقوِّم الحر؟ قلنا: يقدر أنه عبد، فيقال: يقدر أن هذا الحر عبد مع عبدك الذي بعته، قال: لو كان الحر عبداً لكان يساوي ألفين، وعبدي يساوي ألفاً فنسقط من الثمن الثلثين.