Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/316)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

accepted, he would be held liable; so how can we hold him liable when his liability is free of it? For this reason, the jurists said: His statement concerning the return of the property is accepted so long as he is not receiving payment. If he is poor and we give him a wage or maintenance, then his statement is not accepted, because the property is in his possession for his own benefit. Whenever property is in a person’s possession for his own benefit, his statement concerning its return is not accepted.

The second view is that the guardian’s statement concerning the return of the property is not accepted, because he is the claimant, while the person under restriction is the one who denies. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies.”

The second proof is that Allah, Exalted is He, says: “And when you deliver their property to them, bring witnesses against them.” [al-Nisa’: 6] Thus, He commanded that witnesses be brought, for if his statement were accepted, there would be no need for witnesses. If you do not bring witnesses, then you have gone against Allah’s command and are therefore either transgressing or negligent; and one who transgresses or is negligent is not trustworthy. We say: Why did you not bring witnesses, when your Lord commanded you to do so? The reasoning is that the default assumption is that no delivery took place.

These are the proofs of those who hold that his statement concerning the return of the property is not accepted. As we have often mentioned, whoever considers one view stronger than another must do two things:

First: explain the evidence for its greater strength.

Second: answer the proofs of the opposing side.

It is not enough simply to mention your own proofs; you must also respond to the proofs of your opponents. They answered Allah’s statement, Exalted is He, “There is no blame upon those who do good,” by saying that this man did not act benevolently, because he was negligent in failing to bring witnesses. Why did he not bring witnesses?!

If someone were to say: I wish to take a middle position between the two views, such that if

يقبل لكان عليه سبيل، فكيف نضمنه ما دامت ذمته بريئة منه؟ ولهذا قال الفقهاء ﵏ يقبل قوله في الرد ما لم يكن له أجرة، بأن كان فقيراً وأعطيناه أجرة أو نفقة فإنه لا يقبل قوله؛ لأن المال بيده لحظ نفسه، وكل إنسان المال بيده لحظ نفسه، فإنه لا يقبل قوله في الرد. القول الثاني: أن الولي لا يقبل قوله في الرد؛ لأنه مدعٍ والمحجور عليه منكر، وقد قال النبي ﷺ: «البينة على المدعي واليمين على من أنكر». والدليل الثاني: أن الله ـ تعالى ـ قال: ﴿فَإِذَا دَفَعْتُمْ إِلَيْهِمْ أَمْوَالَهُمْ فَأَشْهِدُوا عَلَيْهِمْ﴾ [النساء: ٦] فأمر بالإشهاد؛ لأنه لو كان قوله مقبولاً لم يحتج إلى إشهاد، وأنت إذا لم تشهد فقد خالفت أمر الله فتكون بين معتدٍ أو مفرط، والمعتدي أو المفرط ليس بأمين، نقول: لماذا لم تشهد؟ فإن ربك أمرك أن تشهد؛ والتعليل أن الأصل عدم الدفع. هذه أدلة من يرى أنه لا يقبل قوله في الرد، وكما أسلفنا كثيراً أن من رجح قولاً على قول فلا بد من أمرين: الأول: بيان دليل الرجحان. والثاني: والإجابة على أدلة الخصوم. ولا يكفي أن تذكر أدلتك حتى ترد على أدلة خصومك، فأجابوا عن قوله ـ تعالى ـ: ﴿مَا عَلَى الْمُحْسِنِينَ مِنْ سَبِيلٍ﴾ بأن هذا الرجل لم يحسن؛ لأنه فرط، حيث لم يشهد، ولماذا لم يشهد؟! ولو قال قائل: أنا أريد أن أتوسط بين القولين فإذا كان