Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/386)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

my due from Zayd.” If he finds that Zayd has died, we say: he must not collect it from the heirs, even if the heirs say, “So-and-so, are you the agent of so-and-so?” He replies, “Yes.” They say, “Our father owed him such-and-such; please take it.” Even then, he should not take it, because the principal said, “Collect my due from Zayd.” The principal’s position may change upon learning that his debtor has died and left behind young children, orphans, and elderly women, so that he may wish to absolve them of the debt.

What should the agent do, then, if the principal does not wish to collect from the heirs? He should inform the principal, saying, “I found that he has died. Do you appoint me to collect from his heirs or not?” The matter is now up to him.

His statement: “Unless he says, ‘the one from whom it is due.’” The pronoun refers to the principal; that is, unless he says, “Collect my due that is owed by Zayd”—meaning, that is due from him. Thus, if he says, “Collect my due from Zayd,” the agent may not collect it from the heirs; but if he says, “Collect my due that is owed by Zayd,” then he may collect it from the heirs, because he has appointed him to receive his due without specifying the person from whom it is to be received.

Thus, there is a distinction between these expressions, although most people do not distinguish between “Collect my due from Zayd” and “Collect my due that is owed by Zayd,” or “that is with Zayd,” and similar expressions. In reality, however, there is a clear difference between them: “Collect my due from Zayd” specifies the person from whom it is to be collected, whereas “Collect my due that is owed by Zayd” does not specify the person from whom it is to be collected, but specifies the source of the obligation.

Yet I do not think that ordinary people distinguish between such subtle issues. If an ordinary person says, “Collect my due from Zayd,” it is equivalent to his saying, “Collect my due that is owed by Zayd.” Therefore, if we know with certainty that this is what he intends, the agent may collect from the heirs. But if we are uncertain, the safer course is to refrain.

Whenever we are uncertain about ownership of something, adopt the safer course. Imam Ahmad regarded nothing as preferable to the safer course. Now, if you collect from the heirs while uncertain, you have taken something about which you have doubts; but if

حقي من زيد، فوجد زيداً قد توفي، فإننا نقول: لا تقبض من الورثة، حتى لو قال الورثة: يا فلان أنت وكيل فلان؟ قال: نعم، قالوا: عند أبينا له كذا وكذا، تفضل وخذه، فإنه لا يتسلمه؛ لأن الموكل قال: اقبض حقي من زيد، وقد تتغير حال الموكل إذا علم أن غريمه قد توفي، ويكون قد ترك صغاراً وأيتاماً وعجائز، فيريد أن يبرئهم منه، وعلى هذا فماذا يصنع إذا كان لا يريد أن يأخذ من ورثته؟ يخبر الموكل، فيقول: إني وجدته قد توفي، فهل توكلني في أن أقبض من ورثته أو لا؟ فهو الآن بالخيار. قوله: «إلا أن يقول الذي قِبله» الضمير يعود على الموكل أي: إلا إذا قال: اقبض حقي الذي قِبَلَ زيد ـ أي: من جهته ـ فاقبض حقي من زيد، هذا لا يقبض من الورثة، واقبض حقي الذي قِبَلَ زيد، فهنا يقبض من الورثة؛ لأنه وكله في قبض حقه دون تعيين من يقبضه منه. فهنا فرق بين العبارات مع أن أكثر الناس لا يميز الفرق بين اقبض حقي من زيد، واقبض حقي الذي قبل زيد أو عند زيد، وما أشبه ذلك، لكن الواقع أن بينهما فرقاً واضحاً؛ لأن اقبض حقي من زيد عَيَّنَ المقبوض منه، واقبض حقي الذي قِبَلَ زيد لم يُعَيَّن المقبوض منه لكنه عيّن الجهة، لكن هذه المسائل الدقيقة لا أظن أن العوام يفرقون بينها، فالعامي إذا قال: اقبض حقي من زيد، فهو بمنزلة قوله: اقبض حقي الذي قبل زيد، فإذا علمنا يقيناً أن هذا هو المراد فإن الوكيل يقبض من الورثة، وإذا شككنا فالسلامة. ومتى شككنا في ملك الشيء فخذوا بالسلامة، وكان الإمام أحمد ﵀ لا يعدل بالسلامة شيئاً، وأنت الآن إذا قبضت من الورثة وأنت شاك فقد أخذت ما ترددت فيه، لكن إذا