Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/242)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

the claimant is treated exactly as a seller or purchaser. What matters is that, in his case, it counts as a sale. Suppose that the one claiming ownership of the recorder reaches a settlement with the person in possession of it—who denies his claim—in exchange for a radio. After taking the radio, he discovers that it is defective. He has the right to return it, saying: “I took the radio, but it has turned out to be defective. I took it from you as compensation for my property, so I regard myself as a seller. Since I have found this defect in the radio, I may return it, rescind the settlement, and claim the recorder,” because, in his case, the settlement here is a sale. If he returns it, his original claim remains as it was before the settlement.

His statement, “and it may be taken from him through pre-emption,” may be illustrated as follows: I claim that the house in which this man lives belongs to me. He says, “It does not belong to you,” and I have no evidence. He then reaches a settlement with me, saying: “I will give you compensation—namely, my share in this land. One half belongs to me and the other half belongs to my partner.” I accept, and then his partner exercises his right of pre-emption and takes it from me. He has the right to do so, because it entered my ownership by way of exchange: I believe that the house belongs to me and that this is compensation for it. Therefore, his partner may take it from me through pre-emption.

His statement, “With respect to the other party, however, it is a release; thus, there is neither return nor pre-emption.” The “other party” means the defendant—that is, the one who denies the claim. In his case, it is a release; hence, there is neither return nor pre-emption.

His statement, “thus, there is no return,” means that if the person against whom the claim was made—that the recorder belongs to the claimant—denies it and then settles in exchange for a radio, and afterwards finds a defect in the recorder, he may not return it to the other party. This is because he does not believe that he acquired it from him. The one who denied the claim believes that it was his property from the outset, and that the other party has no ownership of it; but he

فيعامل المدعي معاملة البائع تماماً أو المشتري، فالمهم أنه يكون في حقه بيعاً، ولنفرض أن هذا الذي ادعى المسجل، وأنكر من هو بيده، صالحه على راديو، أخذ الراديو ثم إنه وجد في الراديو عيباً فله أن يرده، فيقول: أنا أخذت الراديو، لكن تبين أن به عيباً، وأنا قد أخذته منك على أنه عوض عن ملكي، فأنا أعتبر نفسي بائعاً، فوجدت هذا العيب في هذا الراديو فلي أن أرده وأفسخ الصلح وأطالب بالمسجل؛ لأن الصلح في حقه هنا بيع، وإذا رده تبقى دعواه على ما هي عليه أولاً قبل الصلح. وقوله: «ويؤخذ منه بشفعة» مثاله ادعيتُ على هذا الرجل أن البيت الذي يسكنه لي، فقال: ليس لك، وليس عندي بينة، ثم صالحني وقال: سأعطيك عوضاً وهو نصيبي في هذه الأرض، لي نصفها ولشريكي نصفها، فقبلت، فقام شريكه وأخذه مني بالشفعة فله الحق في ذلك؛ لأنه دخل ملكي على سبيل المعاوضة؛ لأني أعتقد أن البيت ملك لي، وأن هذا عوض عنه فيأخذه شريكه مني بالشفعة. قوله: «وللآخر إبراء فلا رد» الآخر، أي: المدعى عليه، يعني المنكر، هو في حقه إبراء فلا رد ولا شفعة. وقوله: «فلا رد» هذا الذي ادعي عليه أن المسجل للمدعي وأنكر ثم صالح براديو، وبعد ذلك وجد في المسجل عيباً، فإنه لا يرده على ذاك؛ لأنه لا يعتقد أنه ملكه من قِبَلِهِ، هذا المنكر يعتقد أنه ملكه من الأصل وأن ذاك ليس له به ملك، ولكنه