Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (8/453)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

If he finds them to have been unlawfully seized, the contract is invalid.

His statement, “If he finds them to have been unlawfully seized, the contract is invalid”: the pronoun refers to the dirhams or dinars that he specified in the contract; that is, it becomes clear that they were unlawfully seized. The contract is then invalid, because it was concluded with respect to a specific item that had been unlawfully seized, over which the usurper has no right of disposal. His disposal of it is invalid, and consequently the contract is invalid.

For example, someone unlawfully seizes a dirham from another person, then comes to a shopkeeper and says, “I bought this garment from you with this dirham.” It then becomes clear that the dirham was unlawfully seized. The owner of this dirham is not the buyer; thus, this buyer has concluded a contract concerning something he does not own, and a contract concerning something one does not own is invalid. Therefore, the contract is invalid. This is like the reverse case: if he buys a garment for a dirham, and it becomes clear that the garment was unlawfully seized, the contract is not valid, because the item sold is undoubtedly specified by designation.

According to the view that dirhams are not specified by designation, however, if it becomes clear that the dirhams he designated were unlawfully seized, stolen, or the like, the contract is not invalid. The unlawfully seized property is returned to its owner, and the buyer is liable to provide its equivalent.

If the seller says, “I sold it to you for a specified price, and I received it. Now that it has become clear that it belongs to someone else, I want to rescind the contract, because I fear that you may delay payment to me,” what is the answer?

The answer is that this is subject to the disagreement over whether a seller may rescind the contract because of the buyer’s insolvency. But in this case, it should be said that he has the right to rescind without any disagreement, because this man deceived him, misled him, and betrayed his trust. A traitor should only be dealt with in a manner that deters him from his betrayal.

Thus, if he finds them to have been unlawfully seized, stolen, or looted—the essential point is that it becomes clear

وَإِنْ وَجَدَهَا مَغْصُوبَةً بَطَلَ. قوله: «وإن وجدها مغصوبة بطل» الضمير يعود على الدراهم أو الدنانير التي عينها في العقد، أي: تبين أنها مغصوبة فإن العقد يبطل؛ لأنه وقع على عين مغصوبة لا يملك الغاصب أن يتصرف فيها، وتصرفه فيها باطل فيبطل العقد. مثال ذلك: إنسان غصب درهماً من شخص، ثم جاء إلى صاحب الدكان، وقال: اشتريت منك هذا الثوب بهذا الدرهم، فتبين أن الدرهم مغصوب، فَمَالِكُ هذا الدرهمِ ليس المشتري، فهذا المشتري أجرى العقد على ما لا يملكه، والعقد على ما لا يملكه باطل، فيكون العقد باطلاً، كما لو كان الأمر بالعكس، بأن اشترى ثوباً بدرهم، فتبين أن الثوب مغصوب فلا يصح العقد؛ لأن المبيع يتعين بالتعيين، لا إشكال فيه، وعلى القول بأن الدراهم لا تتعين بالتعيين، إذا تبين أن الدراهم التي عيّنها مغصوبة أو مسروقة أو ما أشبه ذلك فهنا لا يبطل العقد، ويرد المغصوب إلى مالكه ويلزم المشتري ببدله. فإذا قال البائع: أنا بعت عليك بثمن معين وقبضته، والآن لما تبين أنه ملك للغير فإني أريد أن أفسخ العقد؛ لأني أخشى أن تماطل بي فما الجواب؟. الجواب: على الخلاف هل يفسخ لإعسار المشتري أو لا؟ لكن في هذه الصورة ينبغي أن يقال: بأن له الفسخ قولاً واحداً؛ وذلك لأن هذا الرجل خدعه وغره وخانه، ولا ينبغي أن يعامل الخائن إلا بما يردعه عن خيانته. إذاً إذا وجدها مغصوبة أو مسروقة أو منهوبة، المهم تبين