Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/214)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

to one due after two months, or a debt due after two months to one due after one month, because their due dates differ. Nor may he transfer a deferred debt to one that is immediately due, again because their due dates differ.

This too is open to question. What could prevent one from transferring ten dirhams due after one month to ten dirhams not due until after two months, if the transferee agrees? There is no harm whatsoever in this, and the correct view is that it is permissible.

Someone may say: “Does this not resemble selling dirhams for dirhams on deferred payment?”

The answer is that this is not a sale; rather, it is the settlement of a debt. It is well known that there is nothing wrong with paying a deferred debt early or deferring one that is immediately due. The correct view, then, is that it is not a condition for the two debts to have the same due date.

The fourth matter is the amount: it is likewise stipulated that the two debts be equal in amount. Thus, he may not transfer a debt of ten to one of eight, because this resembles a sale, and a sale involving an excess is not permissible. However, if he remits two and transfers him to someone for eight, this is permissible, because once he has remitted the two, the amount owed to him is eight. Therefore, when he transfers him for that amount to someone who owes him eight, the two amounts are equal.

As for transferring eight to ten, there is no harm in that. This is why the author said: “The surplus does not matter,” meaning the excess owed by the transferee of the transfer. There is no problem with this, because it is as though he has transferred him to eight out of ten. This is permissible, and this is the meaning of his statement, “The surplus does not matter”: the remainder stays with its owner.

But if he says, “I have transferred you for eight to ten, so that you may collect the entire ten,” this is not permissible, because it has become an exchange. In an exchange between two ribā-bearing items, each must be equal to the other when they are of the same type,

على ما يحل بعد شهرين، أو ما يحل بعد شهرين على ما يحل بعد شهر؛ وذلك لعدم الاتفاق في الوقت، ولا يجوز أن يحيل مؤجلاً بحال ـ أيضاً ـ للاختلاف في الوقت. وهذا ـ أيضاً ـ فيه نظر، فأي مانع يمنع إذا أحلت عشرة دراهم تحل بعد شهر، على عشرة دراهم لا تحل إلا بعد شهرين ورضي المحال؟ فليس في ذلك أي ضرر، والصحيح أنه جائز. قد يقول قائل: إن هذه تشبه بيع الدراهم بالدراهم إلى أجل؟ فيقال: هذا ليس بيعاً، ولكنه استيفاء، ومن المعلوم أنه لو عجل المؤجل، أو أجل المعجل، فإنه لا بأس به، فالصواب إذن أنه لا يشترط اتفاقهما في الوقت. الأمر الرابع: القدر فيشترط ـ أيضاً ـ اتفاق الدَّينين قدراً، فلا يحيل بعشرة على ثمانية؛ لأن هذا يشبه البيع، والبيع مع التفاضل لا يجوز، فلو أسقط عنه اثنين، وأحاله على فلان بثمانية فهذا يجوز، لأنه لما أسقط الاثنين صار الذي عنده ثمانية، فإذا أحاله بها على من يطلبه ثمانية تساويا. أما بثمانية على عشرة فلا بأس، ولهذا قال المؤلف: «ولا يؤثر الفاضل» يعني الزائد في المحال عليه، ولا بأس به؛ لأنه كأنه أحاله على ثمانية من عشرة، وهذا لا بأس به، وهذا معنى قوله: «ولا يؤثر الفاضل» ويبقى الفاضل لصاحبه. فإن قال: أحلتك بثمانية على عشرة ليقبض كل العشرة؟ فهذا لا يجوز، لأنه صار معاوضة، والمعاوضة بين جنسين ربويين لا بد أن يكون أحدهما مساوياً للآخر إذا كان الجنس واحداً،