Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/191)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Nor is [the guarantor’s] knowledge of him required; rather, what is required is the guarantor’s consent.

His statement, “Nor of him”: it is not a condition that he know the beneficiary of the guarantee. This is very clear, since the beneficiary is the one who seeks out and investigates the guarantor; thus, it is not a condition that the guarantor know him.

Is it a condition that the guaranteed debt be known?

The answer is: it is not a condition that the guaranteed debt be known. Nevertheless, the more he knows about it, the better and the less likely problems are to arise; but this is not obligatory.

Thus, we now have: a guarantor, a guaranteed obligation, a beneficiary of the guarantee, and a guaranteed debtor. Knowledge of the beneficiary and the guaranteed debtor is not required, nor is knowledge of the guaranteed obligation—that is, the debt. Likewise, knowledge of the guarantor is not required either. Yet it is well known that the person entitled to the payment cannot be expected to accept a guarantor without knowing him, although the guarantee is nevertheless valid.

His statement, “Rather, the guarantor’s consent”: that is, the guarantor’s consent is taken into account. No one may be compelled to stand as guarantor; he must consent. If he does not consent, he cannot be held liable for the debt. Even if an unjust ruler wished to compel a certain person to guarantee another, he would not be bound by it. This is due to Allah’s statement concerning trade: “except when it is a trade conducted by mutual consent” [al-Nisa’ 4:29]. The Prophet ﷺ also said: “A sale is only valid by mutual consent” (1). The same applies to all contracts: consent is essential, except in the case of one who is lawfully compelled, such as a person placed under legal interdiction and the like.

(1) Recorded by Ibn Majah in al-Tijarat (Commercial Transactions), the chapter on sales involving an option (2185); by Ibn Hibban in al-Ihsan (4967); and by al-Bayhaqi (6/17), on the authority of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him. Al-Busiri said: “This is an authentic chain of transmission; its narrators are trustworthy.”

ولا له بل رضا الضامن قوله: «ولا له» فليس بشرط أن يعرف المضمون له، وهذا واضح جدّاً؛ لأن المضمون له هو الذي يطلب الضامن، ويبحث عنه فلا يشترط أن يعرفه. وهل يُشترط معرفة الدَّين المضمون؟ الجواب: لا يشترط أن يعرف الدين المضمون، لكن على كل حال كلما عرفه فهو أحسن وأبعد عن المشكلات، ولكنه ليس بواجب. فعندنا الآن: ضامن، ومضمون، ومضمون له، ومضمون عنه، فالمضمون له والمضمون عنه لا تشترط معرفتهما، والمضمون الذي هو الدين لا تشترط معرفته، كذلك الضامن لا يشترط أيضاً، لكن من المعلوم أن صاحب الحق لا يمكن أن يقبل ضامناً بدون معرفة، لكن المسألة تصح. قوله: «بل رضا الضامن» أي: بل يعتبر رضا الضامن، أي: أننا لا نكره أحداً على أن يضمن، فلا بد أن يرضى، فإن لم يرض فإنه لا يُلزم بالحق، حتى لو أراد سلطان جائر أن يُلزم فلاناً بأن يضمن فلاناً فإنه لا يلزمه؛ لقول الله تعالى في التجارة: ﴿إِلاَّ أَنْ تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَنْ تَرَاضٍ﴾ [النساء: ٢٩]، وقال النبي ﷺ: «إنما البيع عن تراض» (١)، وهكذا جميع العقود لا بد فيها من الرضا، إلا من أكره بحق كالمحجور عليه ونحو ذلك.

(١) أخرجه ابن ماجه في التجارات/ باب بيع الخيار (٢١٨٥)، وابن حبان (٤٩٦٧) إحسان، والبيهقي (٦/ ١٧) عن أبي سعيد الخدري ﵁، وقال البوصيري: «هذا إسناد صحيح رجاله ثقات».