Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (9/396)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Is he required to swear an oath if Abdullah says, “Swear that he did not appoint me as his agent?”

The answer is: he is not required to do so, because judgment cannot be rendered against him on account of his refusal to swear. Even if he says, “He is telling the truth,” he is not required to make payment, as explained previously.

His statement, “If he hands it over,” means the right in question; the one handing it over is Amr, and the recipient is Abdullah.

His statement, “Then Zayd denies the agency,” saying, “I did not appoint him as my agent”—in this case, we say to Zayd: swear an oath. Hence he says:

“He swears, and Amr is held liable to him,” meaning that Zayd, the holder of the right, swears. If he swears, then Amr is liable to Zayd, and may recover from Abdullah—who claimed agency without evidence—the payment that he handed over. This is the meaning of his statement, “And Amr is held liable to him”: that Amr may seek recourse from the claimant of agency for what he gave him.

If Zayd does not swear, judgment is rendered against him due to his refusal to swear, and it is said to him: “Your right has reached your agent, and you have no further claim.”

If he says, “I will not swear for fear of sin,” we say to him: if you are truthful, then there is no sin upon you; but if you are lying, then the sin is upon you.

His statement, “If what was handed over was a deposit,” means that it was not a right established as a debt owed by the other party.

His statement, “He takes it,” means its owner, namely Zayd. Zayd said to Abdullah: “I have a deposit with Amr; go and bring it to me.” So Abdullah went to Amr, who believed him, and said: “Give me the deposit you hold for so-and-so; he has appointed me as his agent to take possession of it.” Amr then gave it to him. Afterwards, Zayd denied the agency. We then say: if he denies the agency, the deposited property is still in existence, so take it from Abdullah, the claimant of agency.

His statement, “If it is destroyed, he may hold whichever of them he wishes liable”: the subject of “may hold liable” is Zayd.

وهل يلزمه اليمين إذا قال عبد الله: احلف أنه ما وكلني؟ الجواب: لا يلزمه؛ لأنه لا يُقضى عليه بالنكول، حتى لو قال: إنه صادق، فإنه لا يُلزم بالدفع على ما سبق. قوله: «فإن دفعه» أي: الحق، الفاعل عمرو، والمدفوع إليه عبد الله. قوله: «فأنكر زيد الوكالة» وقال: ما وكلت، فهنا نقول لزيد: احلف، ولهذا قال: «حلف وضمنه عمرو» أي: حلف زيد الذي له الحق، فإذا حلف فإن عَمْراً يضمنه لزيد، ويرجع بالحق الذي دفعه على عبد الله الذي ادعى الوكالة بلا بينة، ولهذا قال: «وضمنه عمرو» يعني ويرجع عمرو على مدعي الوكالة بما أقبضه إياه. وإن لم يحلف زيد فإنه يقضى عليه بالنكول، ويقال: حقك وصل إلى وكيلك، ولا شيء لك. فإذا قال: لا أحلف خشية الإثم، فإننا نقول له: إن كنت صادقاً فلا إثم عليك، وإن كنت كاذباً فالإثم عليك. قوله: «وإن كان المدفوع وديعة» يعني ليس حقّاً ثابتاً في ذمة الآخر. قوله: «أخذها» أي: صاحبها الذي هو زيد، فزيد قال لعبد الله: إن لي عند عمرو وديعة، اذهب وائت بها إليّ، فذهب إلى عمرو وصدقه، فقال: أعطني الوديعة التي عندك لفلان، قد وكلني في قبضها، فأعطاها إياه، ثم إن زيداً أنكر الوكالة، فنقول: إذا أنكر الوكالة، فالوديعة موجودة الآن، خذها من عبد الله الذي هو مدعي الوكالة. قوله: «فإن تلفت ضَمّن أيهما شاء» «ضَمَّنَ» الفاعل زيد