Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/115)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

in invitations, just like anyone else. This is why, if one of the people of the town in which a judge serves invites him, he may accept the invitation.

“If he lends him currency and then demands repayment in another town, he is obliged to repay it there. As for something whose transport entails expense, he must repay its value if its value in the town where the loan was made is not lower.”

His words, “If he lends him,” mean: if a person lends another person something.

His words, “currency,” refer to silver dirhams and gold dinars.

His words, “then demands repayment in another town, he is obliged to repay it there,” mean that the borrower is obliged to do so.

For example, he lends him dinars in Mecca and demands repayment in Medina. The borrower must repay him if he has the dinars with him, because this causes him no harm: their value is the same in Mecca as it is in Medina, since currency is all of one kind and does not vary from one town to another. Thus, the lender has the right to require him to repay there. This differs from what preceded in the chapter on salam, where delivery must take place at the location where the contract was concluded. The difference is that salam is a transaction of exchange, whereas this is an act of benevolence; and there is no harm to the borrower in giving him the dinars in the other town.

But if it is something whose value differs from the town in which he lent it, then the borrower may suffer harm, since its value may be higher. In that case, we say that he is not obliged to agree. If he agrees, then that is what is sought; but if he does not agree, he cannot be required to do so.

Thus, if he says, “I will lend you one thousand riyals on condition that you repay me in Medina”—while the borrower is in Mecca—the jurists say: if transporting it entails expense—and this is inconceivable in the case of currency—then this is not permissible, because in that case it brings a benefit to the lender. But if transporting it entails no expense, as with currency, then it is permissible, because it involves no benefit: neither the amount nor the type has increased. Rather, he simply prefers repayment to be made in his own town, and the lender is from Medina.

في الدعوات كغيره، ولهذا القاضي إذا دعاه أحد من أهل البلد التي هو قاض فيها فإنه يجيبه. وَإنْ أقْرَضَهُ أَثْمَاناً فَطَالَبَهُ بِهَا بِبَلَدٍ آخَرَ لَزِمَتْهُ، وَفِيمَا لِحَمْلِهِ مُؤونَةٌ قِيمَتُهُ إِنْ لَمْ تَكُنْ بِبَلَدِ القَرْضِ أَنْقَصَ. قوله: «وإن أقرضه» أي: أقرض شخصاً. قوله: «أثماناً» وهي: الدراهم والدنانير. قوله: «فطالبه بها ببلد آخر لزمته» أي: لزمت المقترض. مثاله: أقرضه دنانير في مكة وطالبه بها في المدينة، فيلزمه الوفاء إذا كان معه الدنانير؛ لأنه لا ضرر عليه، القيمة واحدة في مكة أو في المدينة؛ لأن النقد كله نقد واحد، ولا يختلف بين بلد وآخر فله الحق أن يلزمه، بخلاف ما سبق في باب السلم فيكون الوفاء في موضع العقد، والفرق بينهما أن السلم من باب المعاوضات، وهذا من باب الإحسان ولا ضرر عليه أن يعطيه الدنانير في البلد الآخر. أما إذا كان في بلد يختلف عن البلد الذي أقرضه فيه، فهنا قد يلحقه ضرر، فقد تكون قيمته أغلى، وحينئذٍ نقول: لا يلزمه الموافقة، إن وافق فذلك المطلوب وإن لم يوافق فلا يلزمه. فإذا قال: أقرضك ألف ريال بشرط أن توفيني إياها في المدينة ـ مع العلم بأن المقترض في مكة ـ قالوا: إذا كان لحمله مؤونة ـ وهذا لا يتصور في مسألة النقود ـ فإنه لا يجوز؛ لأنه في هذه الحال يجر إلى المقرض نفعاً، وإذا لم يكن لحمله مؤونة كالأثمان فإنه يجوز؛ لأنه ليس فيه نفع؛ لأنه لم يزد العدد ولم يزد النوع، وإنما هو يريد أن يكون وفاؤه في بلده أحب إليه، والمقرض من أهل المدينة.