Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (8/284)

and therefore, if it is destroyed, even without any transgression or negligence, the liability falls upon the purchaser, because it is his property. The evidence for this consists of two things: transmitted evidence and rational consideration.

As for the transmitted evidence, it is the Prophet’s statement, peace and blessings be upon him: “Whoever sells a slave who possesses property, his property belongs to the one who sold him, unless the purchaser stipulates it.” (1) His words, “his property belongs to the one who sold him,” mean from the moment the contract is concluded, for the sale is completed merely through offer and acceptance. “Unless the purchaser stipulates it”: in that case it belongs to the purchaser, who is the buyer, because the principal asset—the slave—becomes the purchaser’s property immediately upon conclusion of the contract. This is the evidence, though its indication is very subtle: the fact that the property does not enter the purchaser’s ownership except by stipulation indicates that the slave himself entered his ownership without any stipulation, but simply through the contract.

For this reason, the scholars differed concerning this issue: during the two option periods, does ownership belong to the seller, the purchaser, or is there further detail?

It was said that it belongs to the seller, because the sale has not yet become binding, as it does not become binding until the period has elapsed without rescission. Accordingly, ownership belongs to the seller.

And it was said that ownership remains pending: if the sale is ultimately confirmed, it belongs to the purchaser; but if it is rescinded, it belongs to the seller. This view is strong from the standpoint of rational consideration. Yet it may be said that the hadith takes precedence over rational consideration: ownership is established as soon as the sale and purchase take place—that is, immediately upon offer and acceptance. This, then, is the transmitted evidence.

As for the rational evidence: if this item sold were to perish, its liability would fall upon the purchaser. If he bears the liability, then how can we make him bear the loss,

(1) Its source has been cited previously on p. 61.

ولهذا لو تلف ولو بدون تعد أو تفريط، فالضمان على المشتري؛ لأنه ملكه، والدليل على هذا أمران: الأثر والنظر. أما الدليل الأثري: فقول النبي ﷺ: «من باع عبداً وله مال فماله للذي باعه إلا أن يشترطه المبتاع» (١)، فقوله: «ماله للذي باعه»، أي: من حين العقد؛ لأن البيع يتم بمجرد الإيجاب والقبول «إلا أن يشترطه المبتاع» فيكون للمبتاع الذي هو المشتري؛ لأن أصل هذا المال وهو العبد ملك للمشتري بمجرد العقد، هذا هو الدليل والدلالة فيه خفية جداً، فكون المال لم يدخل للمشتري إلا بشرطه، يدل على أن العبد قد دخل ملكه بدون شرط بل بمجرد العقد. ولهذا اختلف العلماء في هذه المسألة، هل الملك مدة الخيارين للبائع أو للمشتري أو في ذلك تفصيل؟ فقيل: إنه للبائع؛ لأن البيع لم يلزم بعد؛ إذ أنه لا يلزم حتى تتم المدة قبل الفسخ، وعلى هذا فيكون الملك للبائع. وقيل: إنه منتظر، فإن تبين الإمضاء فهو للمشتري، وإن فسخ فهو للبائع، وهذا القول من حيث النظر قوي، لكن قد يقال: إن الحديث مقدم على النظر، وهو أن الملك يثبت بمجرد البيع والشراء، يعني بمجرد الإيجاب والقبول، فهذا هو الدليل الأثري. أما الدليل النظري: فلأن هذا المبيع لو تلف لكان من ضمان المشتري، وإذا كان من ضمانه فكيف نجعل عليه الغرم،

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (٦١).