Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/135)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

to evade it, holding that whatever comes into one’s hands is lawful. They call this “cooperative insurance” and the like. People are now presenting us with transactions that require very careful consideration: do they conform to the Islamic Sacred Law, or are they merely some sort of ploy—or what?

“A pledge does not become binding except through possession, and continued possession is a condition. If the pledgee voluntarily returns it to the pledgor, its binding effect ceases; but if the pledgor returns it to him, it becomes binding once again ...”

His statement, “A pledge does not become binding except through possession,” means that it does not become binding upon the party for whom it is binding, namely the pledgor, unless the pledgee takes possession of it. That is, the pledgee must take possession of the pledged property; it does not become binding merely by the conclusion of the contract. If he does not take possession of it, the contract is valid, but it is not binding.

The evidence for this is the saying of Allah, may He be exalted:

“And if you are on a journey and cannot find a scribe, then a pledge in possession.” [al-Baqarah 2:283]

Thus, He described it as being in possession.

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “A pledged riding animal may be ridden in return for its upkeep, and the milk of a pledged milch animal may be drunk in return for its upkeep. The one who rides it and drinks its milk must bear the upkeep.” (1)

This indicates that the pledgee takes possession of the pledged property. Moreover, when the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, pledged his armour to a Jewish man, he delivered it into his possession. (2) Therefore, if the pledgee does not take possession of it, the pledge is not binding.

The reasoning is that security is not fully established except through possession of the pledged property, for before possession is taken, the pledgor may dispose of it, such as by taking something from it, selling it, or the like. This is the well-known position of the school. Accordingly, if someone pledges a house as security for a debt he owes, but the pledgee does not take possession of it, then the pledgor has

(1) Its source has previously been cited on p. 121. (2) Its source has previously been cited on p. 121.

يتفلتون، والحلال ما حل باليد، فهذا يسمونه تأميناً تعاونياً وغير ذلك، فبدأ الناس الآن يظهرون علينا بمعاملات تحتاج إلى تأمل كبير، هل تنطبق على الشريعة الإسلامية، أو هي لعبة من اللعب، أو ماذا؟! وَلَا يَلْزَمُ الرَّهْنُ إِلاَّ بِالقَبْضِ وَاسْتدَامَتُهُ شَرْطٌ، فَإِنْ أَخْرَجَه إِلى الرَّاهِنِ بِاخْتِيَارِهِ زَالَ لُزُومُهُ، فَإِنْ رَدَّهَ إِليْهِ عَادَ لُزُومُهُ إِليْهِ، … قوله: «ولا يلزم الرهن إلا بالقبض» «لا يلزم» أي: في حق من هو لازم في حقه وهو الراهن، إلا بالقبض من المرتهن، يعني لا بد أن يقبض المرتهن الرهن، فلا يلزم بمجرد العقد، فإن لم يقبضه فالعقد صحيح، لكنه ليس بلازم. دليل هذا: قول الله ﵎: ﴿وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ وَلَمْ تَجِدُوا كَاتِبًا فَرِهَانٌ مَقْبُوضَةٌ﴾ [البقرة: ٢٨٣]، فوصفها بأنها مقبوضة. وقول النبي ﷺ: «الظهر يركب بنفقته إذا كان مرهوناً، ولبن الدَّرِّ يشرب بنفقته إذا كان مرهوناً، وعلى الذي يركب ويشرب النفقة» (١)، وهذا يدل على أن المرتهن يقبض الرهن؛ ولأن الرسول ﷺ لما رهن درعه لليهودي أقبضه إياه (٢)، فإذا كان كذلك فإنه لو لم يقبضه لم يكن الرهن لازماً. والتعليل أنه لا يتم الاستيثاق إلا بقبض الرهن؛ لأنه قبل القبض على وشك أن يتصرف الراهن فيه بأخذ شيء منه أو بيعه وما أشبه ذلك، وهذا هو المشهور من المذهب، وعلى هذا فإذا رهن شخص بيتاً بدين عليه، ولكن المرتهن لم يقبضه، فللراهن

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (١٢١). (٢) سبق تخريجه ص (١٢١).