Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/125)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

for a specified term,” up to His saying: “And if you are on a journey and cannot find a scribe, then a pledge taken into possession.” [Quran 2:282–283] This indicates that a pledge may be made after the right has been established. But is it valid before the right is established? The author’s wording indicates that it is not valid, for he said, “together with the right and after it”; as for before it, then no.

An example is a person who comes to request a loan of one hundred thousand from me, and I say, “I must have security. Will you pledge your house to me?” He replies, “Yes, I pledge you my house as security for the loan of one hundred thousand that you will give me.” Here, the pledge precedes the right. They say that it is invalid because it precedes its cause. A pledge is security for a debt by means of a specific asset; therefore, if security is given before the debt exists, it is invalid, since it precedes the existence of its cause. Anything done before its cause exists is void. This is why they say that if someone wishes to swear an oath, then offers expiation before actually swearing it, it does not suffice, because it preceded the existence of its cause.

The view adopted by the author is the well-known position of our jurists, may Allah have mercy on them: a pledge is not valid before the right has been established.

Another view is that it is valid before the right is established, and that its preceding the cause does no harm. This is like a person stipulating a condition in a sale before the contract is concluded: it is valid. Likewise, if the two parties agree upon the pledge before the contract, what prevents it? In reality, there is nothing to prevent it. If we were to leave the door open and say that it is invalid, those seeking legal stratagems would resort to evasion. Thus, the borrower would come to the lender and say, “I want one hundred thousand from you, but I know that you will not lend it to me except against a pledge. So I am now drawing up a pledge of my house for you: I pledge you my house as security for the one hundred thousand that you will lend me.” The lender would say, “There is no problem, so long as you have pledged me the house for this one hundred thousand.” Then, once the contract was concluded, he said,

إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمّىً﴾ إلى قوله: ﴿وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ وَلَمْ تَجِدُوا كَاتِبًا فَرِهَانٌ مَقْبُوضَةٌ﴾ [البقرة: ٢٨٢، ٢٨٣]، فدل على أن الرهن يكون بعد الحق، فهل يصح قبل الحق؟ كلام المؤلف يدل على أنه لا يصح؛ لأنه قال: «مع الحق وبعده» أما قبله فلا. مثاله: إنسان جاء يطلب مني قرضاً مائة ألف، وقلت أنا: لا بد من أن أتوثق، أترهنني بيتك؟ قال: نعم، رهنتك بيتي بالقرض الذي ستقرضني إياه، فهنا الرهن قبل الحق، قالوا: لا يصح؛ لأنه متقدم على سببه، إذ أن الرهن توثقة دَين بعين، فإذا وثقت قبل الدين فإنه لا يصح؛ لأنه قبل وجود السبب، وكل شيء يقدم على سببه فهو ملغى، ولهذا قالوا: لو أن إنساناً أراد أن يحلف يميناً، ثم قدم الكفارة قبل أن يحلف لم تجزئه؛ لأنها قبل وجود السبب. وما ذهب إليه المؤلف هو المشهور عند فقهائنا ﵏ أن الرهن لا يصح قبل ثبوت الحق. وقيل: إنه يصح قبل الحق، وكونه قبل السبب لا يضر، كما لو أن الإنسان اشترط في المبيع شرطاً قبل العقد فإنه يصح، وهذا ـ أيضاً ـ إذا اتفقا على الرهن قبل العقد فما المانع؟! فلا مانع في الحقيقة، ولو أننا فتحنا الباب، وقلنا: إنه لا يصح لتحيل المتحيلون، فجاء المستدين للدائن وقال: أريد منك مائة ألف ولكني أعرف أنك لن تقرضني إلا برهن، وأنا الآن أكتب لك رهن بيتي، فرهنتك بيتي بالمائة ألف التي تقرضني، فقال: لا مانع ما دمت رهنتني البيت هذه المائة ألف، ولما انتهى العقد قال