Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/159)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

the price of the pledged property that you held as collateral.” The pledgee took the money and thanked him. At the end of the day, the pledgee went to the pledgor and said, “Pay me what you owe.” The pledgor then returned to the trustee and said, “Did you not say that you had paid him?” He replied, “Yes.” So they went to the pledgee, who said, “No, he did not pay me.” The trustee has no evidence, and the pledgor was not present. In this case, the trustee is liable, because he was negligent in failing to have witnesses. He should have brought witnesses so that he would be discharged of liability and would have fulfilled the trust as instructed. The pledgee may then seek payment from the pledgor, because the debt remains established against him, while the pledgor may seek reimbursement from the trustee.

But if the trustee sought the pledgor’s permission and said, “O so-and-so, the pledgee is an honorable and noble man, and there is no need for me to bring witnesses to his receipt of payment, for that would be unbecoming toward him,” and the pledgor said, “Pay him even if you do not bring witnesses,” and it is established that the pledgor said this, then the trustee is not liable. The same applies if the payment was made in the presence of the pledgor who owes the debt: the trustee bears no liability, because the negligent party in that case is the pledgor upon whom the obligation rests. Why did he not ask for witnesses to testify that payment had been made? Thus, the pledgee may seek payment from the pledgor, because the debt is established whereas its settlement has not been established; but the pledgor may not seek reimbursement from the trustee.

In summary: if the trustee pays the pledgee without evidence and without the pledgor being present, and the pledgee denies receiving payment, then the trustee is liable.

His statement, “just as an agent,” means: it is like the case of an agent who settles a debt and says, “I paid it,” but the creditor denies it, there is no evidence, and the payment was not made in the principal’s presence. In that case, the agent is liable. This issue occurs frequently.

An example is the owner of a grocery shop from whom you bought a bag of bread for one riyal. After you had taken it home, your neighbor went to buy bread, so you gave him

ثمن الرهن الذي ارتهنته، فأخذ الدراهم وشكر له، وفي آخر النهار ذهب المرتهن إلى الراهن وقال: أوفني، فرجع الراهن إلى العدل وقال: ألست تقول: إنك أوفيته؟ قال: بلى، فذهبا إلى المرتهن فقال: لا ما وفاني، والعدل ليس عنده بينة، والراهن لم يحضر، فهنا يضمن العدل؛ لأنه فرط بعدم إشهاده، وكان عليه أن يشهد حتى تبرأ ذمته ويؤدي الأمانة كما أمر، فيرجع المرتهن على الراهن؛ لأن الدَّين ثابت في ذمته ويرجع الراهن على العدل. لكن لو أن العدل استأذن من الراهن، وقال: يا فلان إن المرتهن رجل شريف كريم، وليس هناك حاجة لأن أحضر إليه من يشهد عليه بالوفاء؛ لأن هذا ليس بطيب في حقه، فقال: أوفه وإن لم تشهد، وثبت أن الراهن قال هذا، فهنا لا يضمن العدل، وكَذلك لو كان بحضور الراهن الذي عليه الدين، فلا ضمان على العدل؛ لأن المفرط هنا الراهن الذي عليه الحق، فلماذا لم يطلب شهوداً يشهدون أنه أوفى؟ فيرجع المرتهن على الراهن؛ لأن الدين ثابت لم يثبت قضاؤه، ولا يرجع الراهن على العدل. والخلاصة: أن العدل إذا أوفى المرتهن بدون بينة، ولا حضور الراهن وأنكر المرتهن فعليه الضمان. قوله: «كوكيل»، يعني كما لو فعل الوكيل في قضاء الدين وقال: إني وفيت، وأنكر الدائن ولم يكن هناك بينة، ولم يكن بحضور الموكل فإنه يضمن، وهذه المسألة تقع كثيراً. مثال ذلك: صاحب بقالة اشتريت منه كيس خبز ثمنه ريال، وبعد أن ذهبت به إلى البيت ذهب جاري يشتري خبزاً، فأعطيته