Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/315)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

—the person under restriction says, “It was not lost,” then the guardian’s statement is accepted, because he is entrusted. However, if the guardian claims that it was lost through some manifest event, one that would not escape people’s notice—for example, he says, “It was lost in the heavy rains that came upon us”—then he must first establish the occurrence of that manifest event. Thereafter, the guardian’s statement that the property was lost through it is accepted.

Similarly, if he says, “The property was lost in the fire that broke out in his house,” and a fire is a manifest event, we say: First establish that the fire occurred; then we will accept your statement that it was lost in it. The same applies to every trustee who claims that property was lost: his statement is accepted with his oath, unless he claims that it was lost through a manifest event. If he attributes its loss to a manifest event, such as fire, drowning, an army that occupied the country, or the like, then he must produce evidence that this manifest incident occurred. After that, his statement regarding the loss is accepted. This is a principle mentioned in the previous chapters.

Fifth: “delivery of the property.” When the boy reaches adulthood and maturity of judgment, he says to his guardian, “Give me the property.” The guardian says, “I delivered it to you.” He replies, “You did not deliver it.” We now have a claim and a denial: the person under restriction is the one denying, while the guardian is claiming to have returned the property. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies.” (1) According to the author’s view, the guardian’s statement concerning delivery of the property is accepted. Accordingly, this must be reconciled with the hadith: “Proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies.” For this reason, some scholars have said that the guardian’s statement regarding delivery of the property to the person under restriction is not accepted unless supported by evidence.

The author’s evidence is that he is a trustee and that he has acted benevolently. Allah, Exalted is He, says: “There is no blame upon those who do good.” [al-Tawbah: 91] Were we to say that his statement is not

(1) Its source has been previously cited on p. 164.

المحجور عليه: إنه لم يتلف، فإن القول قول الولي؛ لأنه مؤتمن، لكن لو ادعى الولي أنه تلف بأمر ظاهر، لا يخفى على الناس بأن قال: تلف في أمطار أتتنا كثيرة، فيحتاج أولاً إلى إثبات هذا الشيء الظاهر، ثم يقبل قول الولي بأن المال تلف به. أيضاً لو قال: المال تلف بالحريق الذي شب في بيته، والحريق شيء ظاهر، نقول: أثبت الحريق أولاً، ثم نقبل قولك بأنه تلف به، وهكذا كل أمين إذا ادعى التلف، فإنه يقبل قوله بيمينه ما لم يدعِهِ بأمر ظاهر، فإذا ادعاه بأمر ظاهر كالحريق والغرق والجنود التي احتلت البلاد، وما أشبه ذلك، فلا بد من أن يقيم البينة على وجود هذا الحادث الظاهر، ثم يقبل قوله في التلف، وهذه قاعدة ذكرت في الأبواب السابقة. خامساً: «دفع المال» لما بلغ الصبي ورشد، قال لوليه: أعطني المال، قال: دفعته إليك، قال: ما دفعت، فلدينا الآن دعوى وإنكار، المنكِر هو المحجور عليه، والمدعي الرد هو الولي، وقد قال النبي ﷺ: «البينة على المدعي واليمين على من أنكر» (١)، على كلام المؤلف يقبل قول الولي في دفع المال، وحينئذ يحتاج إلى إخراجه من الحديث: «البينة على المدعي واليمين على من أنكر»، ولهذا قال بعض أهل العلم: إنه لا يقبل قول الولي في دفع المال إلى المحجور عليه إلا ببينة. ودليل المؤلف أنه أمين وأنه محسن، وقد قال الله ـ تعالى ـ: ﴿مَا عَلَى الْمُحْسِنِينَ مِنْ سَبِيلٍ﴾ [التوبة: ٩١]، ولو قلنا: إن قوله لا

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (١٦٤).