Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (8/252)

An example of this is a person who buys one hundred sāʿs of wheat from another and gives him a watch worth one hundred riyals, saying, “If I bring you what is due to you by the time we have specified, otherwise the watch is yours,” or, “If I bring you what is due to you within two days, otherwise the watch is yours.” If he does not bring what is due within that period, the watch becomes the seller’s. In reality, this is a conditional sale, so we say: it is not valid, because it is a conditional sale, and a conditional sale is not valid.

If someone were to say, “Is not the basic principle in transactions that they are permissible?” We would say: Yes. For this reason, the stronger view is that it is valid for the purchaser to give the seller a pledge and say, “If I bring you what is due to you”—that is, the price—“within three days, otherwise the pledged item is yours.” This serves the interests of both parties and is a condition that does not conflict with the implications of the contract. According to the school’s position, once the period has elapsed, the seller does not acquire ownership of the pledged item; rather, it remains pledged in his possession. According to the view that the condition is valid, however, the seller acquires the pledged item. But if the purchaser’s delay beyond the due date was caused by circumstances beyond his control, and the value of the pledged item is many times greater than the amount for which it was pledged, then we say that the contract is invalid—or that it is valid, but that the purchaser has the option to rescind, because he has been treated unfairly.

This view—the stronger one—is also a reported opinion from Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him. He bought something from a grocer and pledged his sandals to him, saying, “If I bring you what is due to you by such-and-such a time, otherwise they are yours.” Thus, there is a second reported opinion from Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, that this matter is permissible.

If someone were to ask: What is the evidence that this is not valid?

مثال ذلك: شخص اشترى من آخر مائة صاع بر، وأعطاه ساعة تساوي مائة ريال، فقال: إن جئتك بحقك في الوقت الذي حددناه، وإلا فالساعة لك، أو إن جئتك بحقك في خلال يومين، وإلا فالساعة لك، ولم يأت بحقه في هذه المدة، فتكون الساعة للبائع، وهذا في الواقع بيع معلق فنقول: لا يصح؛ لأنه بيع معلق، والبيع المعلق لا يصح. لو قال قائل: أليس الأصل في المعاملات الحل؟ قلنا: بلى، ولهذا كان القول الراجح أنه يصح أن يعطي البائع رهناً، ويقول: إن جئتك بحقك، أي: بالثمن في خلال ثلاثة أيام، وإلا فالرهن لك؛ لأن فيه مصلحة للطرفين، ولأنه شرط لا ينافي مقتضى العقد، وعلى المذهب إذا تمت المدة لم يملك البائع الرهن بل يبقى رهناً عنده، وعلى القول بصحة الشرط فإن البائع يملك الرهن، لكن إذا تأخر المشتري عن وقت الحلول بأمر قهري، وكان ثمن الرهن أضعاف أضعاف ما رهنه به، فهنا نقول: بأنه لا يصح العقد، أو نقول: بالصحة؛ لكن نقول: للمشتري الخيار؛ لأنه مغبون. وهذا القول، أي: الراجح، رواية عن الإمام أحمد فإنه قد اشترى من بقّال حاجة ورهنه نعليه، وقال له: إن جئتك بحقك في وقت كذا وإلا فهما لك، فتكون رواية ثانية عن الإمام أحمد ﵀ أن هذه المسألة جائزة. فإن قال قائل: ما هو الدليل على أن هذا لا يصح؟