Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

you will find it closer to what is correct than the views of others. Nevertheless, he was not infallible. There are about ten issues, or perhaps more, in which we hold that the correct view differs from his position, may Allah have mercy on him, for he, like others, was at times correct and at times mistaken.

This is also the apparent implication of Ibn Abbas’s reasoning, may Allah be pleased with him. When Tawus ibn Kaysan asked him, “Why is it prohibited?” he replied, “Because it is dirhams for dirhams, with taking possession deferred.” (1) That is, it is postponed. The point is that if I buy a commodity from a man for one hundred dinars and leave it with him, then sell it for one hundred and ten dinars, it is as though I had sold one hundred dinars for one hundred and ten; the commodity is merely a means in between. This inference from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, is very close to the truth, because in this case it resembles an inah sale, a sale-and-repurchase arrangement used to conceal usury, in some respects.

If Ibn Abbas, may Allah have mercy on him and be pleased with him, held this to be the rationale—and he was a noble and learned Companion—then this shows you the reprehensible nature of the transactions widely prevalent today which they call installment sales: the buyer selects a particular commodity, then goes to a merchant and says, “Buy it for me, then sell it to me at a profit.” This is plainly usury, as anyone who reflects upon it can see, for in reality the merchant has lent him the price with an increase. Instead of saying, for example, “Give me the value of this commodity, and I will give you an added profit,” he says, “Buy it for me, then sell it to me.” The merchant had no desire whatsoever to purchase it; were it not for this arrangement, he would not have bought it for even the smallest sum. It is clear that what is intended is usury, and this is not difficult for anyone who reflects upon it. If Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, held that the reason for prohibiting the sale of an item before taking possession of it is that it resembles a sale of

(1) Its source has been cited previously on p. 211.
وجدته أقرب إلى الصواب من غيره، لكنه ليس بمعصوم، لدينا نحو عشر مسائل أو أكثر نرى أن الصواب خلاف كلامه ﵀؛ لأنه كغيره يخطئ ويصيب، ثم هو ظاهر تعليل ابن عباس ﵄ لما سأله طاووس بن كيسان قال له: لم النهي؟ قال: لأنه دراهم بدراهم، والقبض مرجأ (١)، أي: مؤخر، وجه ذلك أنني إذا اشتريت من هذا الرجل سلعة بمائة دينار وأبقيتها عنده، ثم بعتها بمائة دينار وعشرة دنانير، صار كأنني بعت مائة دينار بمائة وعشرة فقط؛ وهذه السلعة ممر، وهذا الاستنباط من ابن عباس ﵄ قريب جداً؛ لأنها في هذه الحال تشبه العينة من بعض الوجوه. وإذا كان ابن عباس ﵀ ورضي عنه ـ يرى هذا التعليل، وهو صحابي جليل فقيه، فإنه يدلك على قبح المعاملات المشهورة الآن، والتي يسمونها التقسيط، بأن يختار المشتري سلعة معينة، ثم يذهب إلى تاجر من التجار ويقول: اشترها لي ثم بعها عَلَيَّ بربح، فهذا واضح أنه ربا ولا يخفى إلا على إنسان لم يتأمل؛ لأن حقيقته أنه أقرضه الثمن بزائد، فبدلاً من أن يقول: أعطني ـ مثلاً ـ قيمة هذه السلعة وأعطيك فيها ربحاً، قال: اشترها لي ثم بعها عَلَيَّ، والتاجر لم يرد الشراء إطلاقاً، ولولا هذا ما اشتراها بفلس واحد، وواضح أن المقصود هو الربا، ولا يشكل هذا على إنسان إذا تأمله، وإذا كان ابن عباس ﵄ يرى أن العلة في النهي عن بيع الشيء قبل قبضه، هو أنه يشبه بيع
(١) سبق تخريجه ص (٢١١).

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies