Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/212)

he may divorce her, in which case she would be entitled to half the dowry; or he may consummate the marriage with her, in which case she would be entitled to the dowry in full. Thus, the dowry here is an unsecured debt, and a transfer with respect to it is invalid.

His statement, “The debt being transferred need not be firmly established,” means that the debt being transferred—namely, the debt owed by the transferor—need not be firmly established. The debt owed by the person upon whom the transfer is made, however, is the debt owed by that person. Thus, if a contract-slave transfers his master to a firmly established debt owed to the contract-slave by someone else, the transfer is valid, because the debt being transferred need not be firmly established.

Likewise, if a husband transfers his wife, before consummation, to someone from whom he is owed her dowry, this is permissible. For example, a woman marries for a dowry of ten thousand riyals, and I am owed ten thousand riyals by a man. If I transfer her for ten thousand riyals to the man from whom I am owed payment, this is permissible, because my claim against that person is firmly established. The woman’s claim against me, however, is not firmly established, but this does not matter, since the firm establishment of the debt being transferred is not a condition. Nevertheless, before consummation, this woman has no right to demand her dowry from that man, though she knows that her entitlement is held by him.

Thus, the condition is that the transfer be made to a firmly established debt. If it is made to a specific asset, then it is an agency arrangement; if it is made to an unsecured debt, it is invalid. And if it is made to neither a debt nor a specific asset, then it is not a valid transfer; rather, it is an agency arrangement to borrow.

The second condition is stated in his words: “The two debts must correspond,” meaning the debt being transferred and the debt owed by the person upon whom the transfer is made.

His statement, “in type, description, due date, and amount,” means that they must correspond in four respects:

يطلقها فتستحق نصف المهر، ويجوز أن يدخل بها فتستحق المهر كاملاً، إذاً فالمهر هنا دين غير مستقر فلا تصح الحوالة عليه. قوله: «ولا يُعتبر استقرارُ المحالِ به» أي أن المحال به لا يشترط استقراره وهو الدين الذي على المحيل، والمحال عليه هو الدين الذي على الشخص المحال عليه، فلو أن المكاتب أحال سيده بدينه على من في ذمته دين مستقر للمكاتب، فإن الحوالة صحيحة؛ لأنه لا يشترط استقرار المحال به، ومثل لو أحال الزوج زوجته بمهرها قبل الدخول على شخص يطلبه فيجوز، مثال ذلك: تزوجت امرأة بعشرة آلاف ريال وأطلب رجلاً بعشرة آلاف ريال، فأحلتها بعشرة آلاف ريال على الرجل الذي أطلبُه فهذا يجوز؛ لأن طلبي على فلان مستقر، لكن طلب المرأة عليَّ غير مستقر، لكنه لا يضر؛ لأن استقرار المحال به ليس بشرط، لكن هذه المرأة لا تملك أن تطالب هذا الرجل بمهرها قبل الدخول، لكنها تعرف أن حقها عند هذا الرجل. فالشرط أن تكون على دين مستقر، فإن كانت على عين فتوكيل، وإن كانت على دين غير مستقر لم تصح، وإن كان على غير دين ولا عين فهذه لا تصح حوالة، لكنها توكيل في الاستقراض. الشرط الثاني قوله: «ويشترط اتفاق الدَّينين» أي المحال به، والمحال عليه. قوله: «جنساً ووصفاً ووقتاً وقدراً» أي: اتفاقهما في أربعة أمور: