Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (8/266)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

A pledge is binding upon one party and non-binding upon the other. For the one who holds the right, it is non-binding with respect to him, while for the one upon whom the obligation rests, it is binding upon him.

For example, if I borrow money from someone and he asks me for collateral, so I give him a book, then the pledge is binding upon me but non-binding upon the creditor, because he may terminate the pledge and say, “Take your book,” while the debt remains an unsecured liability upon me.

Emancipation: if a person frees his slave and then wishes to revoke it during that very session, this is not valid because of the force with which it takes effect. An endowment is similar: since a person has devoted the endowment to Allah, there is no option in it. Likewise, once a gift has been taken into possession, there is no option in it, because it is not an exchange contract.

“Each of the two parties to a sale has the option so long as they have not separated physically according to customary practice. If they both negate it or waive it, it lapses; but if one of them waives it, the option of the other remains, ……”

His statement, “Each of the two parties to a sale”: they are the seller and the buyer. They are called the two parties to a sale because each of them extends his reach toward the other in order to hand over what has passed from his ownership: the seller extends his hand to deliver the item sold, and the buyer extends his hand to deliver the price and receive what has come into his ownership.

His statement, “the option so long as they have not separated physically according to customary practice,” means that each of them has the option so long as they have not separated. The evidence is the hadith of Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with him: “When two men enter into a sale, each of them has the option so long as they have not separated.” (1) Once they have separated, there is no option. But what constitutes separation? Is it defined by the Sacred Law?

The answer is that the scholars say: it is defined by customary practice, because the Sacred Law has not

(1) Its source reference has already been provided on p. 262.

والرهن وهو عقد لازم من أحد الطرفين، وجائز من أحد الطرفين، فمن له الحق، فهو في حقه جائز، ومن عليه الحق فهو في حقه لازم. مثاله: استقرضت من شخص مالاً فطلب مني رهناً فأعطيته كتاباً، فهذا الرهن من قبلي أنا لازم، ومن قبل صاحب الحق جائز؛ لأن له أن يفسخ الرهن، ويقول: خذ كتابك، ويبقى الدين في ذمتي ديناً مرسلاً. العتق: لو أعتق الإنسان عبده ثم أراد فسخه في نفس المجلس لم يصح؛ لقوة نفوذه، ومثله الوقف؛ لأن الوقف أخرجه الإنسان لله فلا خيار فيه، ومثله الهبة إذا قبضت لا خيار فيها؛ لأنها ليست عقد معاوضة. وَلكُلٍّ مِنْ المُتَبَايِعَينِ الخِيَارُ مَا لَمْ يَتَفَرّقَا عُرْفاً بِأبْدَانِهِمَا وَإِنْ نَفَيَاهُ أَوْ أسْقَطَاهُ سَقَطَ وَإِنْ أسْقَطَهُ أحَدُهُمَا بَقِي خِيَارُ الآخَرِ، ...... قوله: «ولكل من المتبايعين»، وهما البائع والمشتري، سُمِّيا متبايعين؛ لأن كل واحد منهما يمد باعه إلى الآخر لتسليم ما انتقل عنه، فالبائع يمد يده لتسليم المثمن، والمشتري يمد يده لتسليم الثمن واستلام ما آل إليه. قوله: «الخيار ما لم يتفرقا عرفاً بأبدانهما» أي: لكل منهما الخيار ما لم يتفرقا، والدليل حديث ابن عمر ﵄: «إذا تبايع الرجلان فكل واحد منهما بالخيار ما لم يتفرقا» (١)، فإن تفرقا فلا خيار، ولكن بماذا يكون التفرق، هل هو محدود شرعاً؟ الجواب: يقول العلماء: إنه محدود عرفاً؛ لأن الشرع لم

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (٢٦٢).