Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/155)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Section

The pledged property is to be held by whomever the two parties agree upon. If they authorize him to sell it, he may sell it only in the local currency. If he receives the price and it is then destroyed while in his possession, the loss is borne by the pledgor.

His statement, “It is to be held by whomever the two parties agree upon”: “It” refers to the pledged property, and “the two parties” refers to the pledgor and the pledgee. This applies unless the pledgor is content for it to remain in the pledgee’s possession. If he is content with that, then that is what is sought. But if he is not content because he does not trust him, they are told: “Choose someone in whose custody it may be placed.” Once they choose a particular person, it is placed in his custody.

But if they disagree—one of them saying, “I want So-and-so,” while the other says, “I want the other So-and-so”—what should be done? Should the pledgor’s view be given precedence, since he is the owner who fears for his property? Or should the pledgee’s view be given precedence, since he is the one entitled to the debt and wishes to secure it? Or should we disregard both of their views and refer the matter to the judge?

The third view is closer to what is correct. For if we take the pledgor’s view into account because he is the owner, he may choose a man whom the pledgee does not trust. And if we give precedence to the pledgee’s view because he has a right and wishes to secure it, the pledgor may not trust that person, saying, “I fear for my property if it is in this man’s custody.” Therefore, in order to resolve the dispute and solve the problem, we hold that the matter should be brought before the judge, who may appoint whomever he wishes. Thus, his statement, “It is to be held by whomever the two parties agree upon,” applies when they agree on someone; but if they disagree, the matter is referred to the judge, because he has general jurisdiction.

His statement, “If they authorize”: the pronoun refers to the pledgor and the pledgee.

His statement, “him”: that is, the impartial custodian.

فصلٌ وَيُكونُ عِنْدَ مَنْ اتفَقَا عَلَيْهِ، وَإِنْ أَذِنَا لَهُ فِي البَيْعِ لَمْ يَبِعْ إِلاَّ بِنَقْدِ البَلَدِ، وَإِن قَبَضَ الثَّمَنَ فَتَلِفَ فِي يَدِهِ فَمِنْ ضَمَانِ الرَّاهِنِ، قوله: «ويكون عند من اتفقا عليه» «يكون» الضمير يعود على الرهن، «اتفقا» الألف تعود على الراهن والمرتهن، هذا ما لم يرض الراهن بكونه بيد المرتهن، فإن رضي فذاك المطلوب وإن لم يرض لعدم ثقته به، قيل لهما: اختارا من يكون بيده، فإذا اختارا فلاناً صار بيده، فإن اختلفا قال أحدهما: أنا أريد فلاناً، وقال الثاني: أنا أريد فلاناً الآخر فكيف نعمل؟ هل نقدم قول الراهن؛ لأنه المالك الذي يخشى على ملكه، أو نقدم قول المرتهن؛ لأنه الطالب للحق الذي يريد أن يتوثق، أو نقول: لا نأخذ بقولكما ونرجع إلى القاضي؟ الثالث: أقرب إلى الصواب؛ لأنه إن راعينا قول الراهن؛ لأنه المالك، فقد يختار المالك رجلاً لا يثق به المرتهن، وإن قدمنا قول المرتهن؛ لأنه صاحب حق ويريد أن يتوثق بحقه فإن الراهن قد لا يثق به، فيقول: أخشى على ملكي إذا كان بيد هذا الرجل، لذلك نرى فكّاً للنزاع وحلاً للمشكلة أن ترفع إلى القاضي ويُعيِّن من شاء، فعلى هذا قال: «ويكون عند من اتفقا عليه» إن اتفقا على أحد، وإن اختلفا فالمرجع إلى القاضي؛ لأن له الولاية العامة. قوله: «وإن أذنا» الضمير يعود على الراهن والمرتهن. قوله: «له» أي: للعدل.