Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/168)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

—the deposit to its owner, is his statement accepted? Then why do you not accept the pledgee’s statement when he claims to have returned the pledge? That is, a person gives another person something in trust and says: “Keep this watch with you as a trust.” After some time, the owner of the watch comes to ask for it, and the depositary says, “I have already given it back to you.” The depositary’s statement is accepted, whereas the pledgee’s statement is not accepted. This is because the depositary is acting benevolently, and Allah Most High says: “There is no blame upon the doers of good.” [al-Tawbah 9:91]

Such matters very often take place without witnesses. If someone were to give me his property and say, “Keep this with you as a deposit,” then later come to ask for it, and I were to say, “I will not give it to you except in the presence of witnesses,” he would say, “I gave it to you without witnesses, so how can you refuse to give it back to me except with witnesses?!” Since customary practice entails that no witnesses are taken in such cases, and since this man is acting benevolently, there is no claim against him.

We have a principle: whoever takes possession of something for his own benefit, such as a borrower, his statement that he returned it is not accepted. Whoever takes possession of it for the benefit of its owner, such as a depositary, his statement that he returned it is accepted. Whoever takes possession of it for the benefit of both parties, such as in the case of a pledge or leased property, his statement that he returned it is not accepted, just as with one who takes possession of something for his own benefit. This is because the side of safeguarding is given precedence. Accordingly, the lessee’s statement that he returned the leased property is not accepted unless he produces evidence.

As for destruction, the statement of everyone in whose possession property is placed by permission of its owner or by the Law is accepted concerning its destruction—unless he claims that it was destroyed by an apparent cause. In that case, he must establish evidence for that apparent cause; then his statement is accepted that this property perished among the things that perished. Accordingly, the statements of both the pledgee and the depositary are accepted. That is, if the pledgee claims that the pledged property was destroyed, his statement is accepted, because he is a trustee. In the versified presentation of the legal principles:

الوديعة إلى المودِع قبل قوله، فلماذا لا تقبلون قول المرتهن في رد الرهن؟ أي: إنسانٌ أعطى شخصاً وديعة وقال: خذ هذه الساعة أمانة عندك، وبعد مدة جاء صاحب الساعة يطلبها، فقال المودَع: إني قد أعطيتكها، فيقبل قول المودَع، وهذا المرتهن لا نقبل قوله؛ لأن المودَع محسن، والله تعالى يقول: ﴿مَا عَلَى الْمُحْسِنِينَ مِنْ سَبِيلٍ﴾ [التوبة: ٩١]، وكثيراً ما تحصل مثل هذه الأمور بدون إشهاد، فلو أعطاني ماله، وقال: خذ هذا وديعة عندك، فجاء يطلبه فقلت له: لا أعطيك إياه إلا بشهود، فسيقول أنا أعطيتك إياه بلا شهود، فكيف لا تعطيني إياه إلا بشهود؟! فلما كان العرف يقتضي عدم الإشهاد وكان هذا الرجل محسناً، لم يكن عليه من سبيل، ولدينا قاعدة: «أن من قبض الشيء لحظ نفسه كالمستعير لم يُقبل قوله في الرد، ومن قبضه لحظ مالكه كالمودَع قُبل قوله في الرد، ومن قبضه لحظهما جميعاً مثل الرهن والعين المؤجرة لم يقبل قوله في الرد، كمن قبض الشيء لحظ نفسه؛ تغليباً لجانب الحماية، وعلى هذا فلا يقبل قول المستأجر في رد العين المؤجرة إلا ببينة. أما في التلف فكل من كانت بيده العين بإذن من مالكها أو من الشرع فقوله في التلف مقبول، إلا إذا ادعى التلف بسبب ظاهر، فإنه يلزم بإقامة البينة على هذا الظاهر، ثم يقبل قوله في أن هذا المال تلف من جملة ما تلف، وعليه يقبل قولهما ـ أي: المرتهن والمودع جميعاً ـ، يعني لو ادعى المرتهن أن الرهن تلف قبل قوله؛ لأنه أمين، وفي نظم القواعد: