Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/229)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

cannot settle with him over his property in exchange for a portion of it. However, the second view is that it is valid when expressed in the wording of settlement, because what matters is the meaning.

Likewise, if he acknowledges that a specific asset belongs to him and says, “I give you half of it,” or “a quarter of it,” or something similar, that is permissible. But if he says, “I have settled with you for half of it,” the jurists say that it is invalid. This is why it is included in the chapter on settlement. The correct view, however, is that it is permissible even if expressed in the wording of settlement, subject to certain conditions:

His statement, “provided that neither of them stipulated it,” means: neither of the two parties; or it may mean that it was not made a condition—namely, that the acknowledging party acknowledged the right on the condition that he would withhold the other’s due from him unless he remitted or gave away part of it. If that is the case, then it is not permissible, for he has no right to withhold what is due to him unless he relinquishes part of it. This is prohibited and constitutes consuming wealth unlawfully. But does the prohibition apply to the one who remits the right, or to the one whose liability is discharged? Which of the two is the wrongdoer?

The answer is that the wrongdoer is the one whose liability is discharged. If he says, “I acknowledge that I owe you this debt on condition that you remit such-and-such,” then he is the wrongdoer, provided that the debt is truly established. Thus, it is stipulated that neither of them make it a condition. If they do make it a condition, then it is invalid with respect to whichever of them is the aggressor, because what matters is the actual reality of the matter.

His statement, “and provided that he is not someone whose voluntary disposition is invalid,” is coordinated with his statement, “neither of them stipulated it.” That is, another condition is that he not be someone whose voluntary disposition is invalid—that is, someone who cannot give away wealth gratuitously. There is a difference between one whose legal transactions are valid and one whose voluntary dispositions are valid: the former category is broader than the latter. For example, the guardian of an orphan may validly transact on his behalf, but may not make voluntary gifts from his property; the same applies to an agent.

يمكن أن يصالحه عن ماله ببعضه، لكن القول الثاني أنه يصح بلفظ الصلح؛ لأن المقصود المعنى. وكذلك لو أقر له بعين فقال: وهبتك نصفها أو ربعها أو ما أشبه ذلك فإنه جائز، لكن لو قال: صالحتك بنصفها فالفقهاء يقولون: لم يصح؛ وهذا وجه إدخاله في باب الصلح، والصحيح أنه يجوز ولو وقع بلفظ الصلح ولكن بشروط: قوله: «إن لم يكن شرطاه» أي: المتنازعان، أو إن لم يكن شرطاً، أي: بشرط ألا يكون المقر أقر للشخص بهذا الشرط، أي: بأن منعه حقه إلا بأن يسقط أو يهب، فإن كان كذلك فإنه لا يجوز؛ لأنه لا يحل له أن يمنعه حقه إلا إذا تنازل عن بعضه فهذا حرام، ومن أكل المال بالباطل، ولكن هل لا يجوز للمسقِط أو لا يجوز للمسقَط عنه؟ أيهما الظالم؟ الجواب: الظالم هو المسقَط عنه، إذا قال: أنا أقر لك بهذا الدين بشرط أن تسقط كذا وكذا، فالظالم المسقَط عنه، إذا كان الدَّين حقيقة ثابتاً، فيشترط ألا يكون شرطاه، فإن شرطاه فإنه لا يصح، لكن في حق المعتدي منهما؛ لأن العبرة بما في الأمر نفسه. قوله: «وممن لا يصح تبرعه» هذه الجملة معطوفة على قوله: «شرطاه» يعني وإن لم يكن ممن لا يصح تبرعه، أي: ويشترط ـ أيضاً ـ ألا يكون ممن لا يصح تبرعه، أي: بذله المال مجاناً، وهناك فرق بين من يصح تبرعه ومن يصح تصرفه، فالذي يصح تصرفه أوسع من الذي يصح تبرعه، فمثلاً ولي اليتيم يصح تصرفه ولا يصح تبرعه، وكذلك الوكيل.