Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/270)

and be told: “Do not leave the house,” in light of the verses we have already mentioned.

It is therefore not permissible for the judge to rule that the defendant be imprisoned, because there is no benefit in imprisoning him; rather, it only makes matters more difficult. He should be left to seek provision in Allah’s land, so that perhaps he may repay his debt. Indeed, once it becomes clear to the judge that he is poor, it is unlawful for the judge even to hear the creditor’s claim demanding payment from him. If the judge forbids the creditor from pursuing payment and the latter persists, the judge must discipline this claimant, because he has committed an act of disobedience. The scholars have stated: discretionary punishment is obligatory for every sin for which there is neither a prescribed punishment nor expiation.

However, if he claims insolvency while lying, evidence is required. Thus, if he claims insolvency and there is no indication that he is financially able, he is to swear an oath and be released. But if there is an indication that he is financially able, the judge may imprison him.

His statement: “One whose property is sufficient to cover his debt is not placed under restriction.” This does not mean that his property must equal the debt exactly; rather, it means that his property is equal to his debt or exceeds it. In that case, he is not placed under restriction. For example, a man owes one hundred dirhams and has one hundred dirhams in his possession. His property is sufficient to cover his debt, so he is not placed under restriction, since there is no need to restrict him.

Another example: a man owes one hundred dirhams and has two hundred dirhams in his possession. Such a person is not placed under restriction. Thus, what the author means by his statement, “one whose property is sufficient to cover his debt,” is the minimum threshold: his property must equal the debt or be greater than it. He is therefore not placed under restriction, nor is he prevented from disposing of his property. But what is to be done?

He says: “And he is ordered to repay it.” The phrase “he is ordered” is in the passive voice. So who is the one issuing the order?

ويقال: لا تخرج من البيت؛ لما سبق من الآيات التي ذكرناها. فلا يحل للقاضي أن يحكم بحبس المطلوب؛ لأن حبسه ليس فيه فائدة بل لا يزيد الأمر إلا شدة، ليدعه يطلب الرزق في أرض الله فلعله أن يوفي، بل ويحرم على القاضي سماع الدعوى في مطالبته متى تبين له أنه فقير، ويجب على القاضي إذا نهى من له الدين عن الطلب وأصرَّ، أن يؤدب هذا المطالب؛ لأنه فعل معصية، وقد قال العلماء: التعزير واجب في كل معصية لا حد فيها ولا كفارة، لكن لو ادَّعى العسرة وهو كاذب فلا بد من بينة، فلو ادعى العسرة وليس هناك قرينة تدل على أنه موسر فإنه يحلف ويخلى، فإن كان هناك قرينة تدل على أنه موسر فللقاضي أن يحبسه. قوله: «ومن ماله قدر دينه لم يحجر عليه» لا يعني بذلك أن يكون المال قدر الدين سواء بسواء، بل المراد من ماله قدر دينه أو أكثر فإنه لا يحجر عليه، كرجل عليه مائة درهم وبيده مائة درهم، فهذا ماله قدر دينه، فلا يحجر عليه؛ لأنه لا حاجة للحجر. مثال آخر: رجل عليه مائة درهم وبيده مائتا درهم، فهذا لا يحجر عليه، إذاً مراد المؤلف بقوله: «من ماله قدر دينه» هذا الحد الأدنى، يعني قدر الدين أو أعلى فإنه لا يحجر عليه، ولا يمنع من التصرف في ماله ولكن ماذا نفعل؟ يقول: «وأمر بوفائه» «أمر» مبني لما لم يسمَّ فاعله، فمن الفاعل الآمر؟