Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/32)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement: “And the water of the land is likewise included incidentally.” For example, if a person leases land for cultivation, there is no objection, even though the land contains water—whether from a river, a valley that reaches it, or the like. They say that the water is included incidentally. Yet this is contrary to what every person actually intends, because anyone who leases land for cultivation leases it only for the sake of its water; if it contained no water, it would not be leased. The same applies to the well.

The view that appears correct is that chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him. He said: The tangible entities that are generated and accrue gradually, little by little, are exactly like benefits. For this reason, he held it permissible to lease an animal in order to take its milk, to lease a well in order to take its water, and to lease land in order to take its water. His statement that tangible entities which come gradually, little by little, are like benefits is the correct view.

Thus, if we say that one may lease an animal in order to take its milk, in accordance with this preponderant view, but the animal refuses to be milked—for it will not allow itself to be milked unless its young is brought to it and it is milked in its presence, or unless it is given food; in any case, animals differ—then if this animal refuses altogether to be milked, what is the ruling according to the view that the lease is valid? We say: the lessee has the right to rescind the contract, because he is unable to obtain the benefit through no fault of his own. The contracted object has become unattainable without any cause on his part, and he was not negligent. This makes clear that the preponderant view in this issue is that chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him.

“And the ability to deliver [the leased property]: thus, leasing an absconding slave or a stray animal is not valid. Likewise, the property must contain the benefit; thus, it is not valid to lease a chronically disabled beast for carrying loads, …”

His statement: “And the ability to deliver”—this is the third condition of

وقوله: «وماء الأرض» أيضاً يدخل تبعاً، إنسان ـ مثلاً ـ استأجر أرضاً للزرع، فلا بأس، والأرض فيها ماء، إما من نهر، أو من وادٍ يأتي إليها، أو ما أشبه ذلك، فإنهم يقولون: الماء يدخل تبعاً، وهذا عكس ما يريده كل إنسان؛ لأن كل إنسان يستأجر أرضاً للزرع فإنما يستأجرها من أجل مائها؛ لأنها لو لم يكن فيها ماء ما استؤجرت وكذلك البئر. والصواب الذي يظهر هو ما اختاره شيخ الإسلام ﵀ حيث قال: إن الأجزاء التي تتولد وتتتابع شيئاً فشيئاً بمنزلة المنافع تماماً؛ ولهذا اختار ﵀ أنه يجوز استئجار الحيوان لأخذ لبنه، واستئجار البئر لأخذ مائها، واستئجار الأرض لأخذ مائها، وقوله ﵀: إن الأعيان التي تأتي شيئاً فشيئاً بمنزلة المنافع، هو الصواب. فإذا قلنا: استأجر حيواناً لأخذ لبنه، وقلنا بهذا القول الراجح، فأبى الحيوان أن يحلب؛ لأنه لا يحلب حتى يؤتى له بولده ويحلب عليه، وإما أنه لا يحلب حتى يؤتى له بطعام، المهم أن الحيوانات تختلف، فإذا أبى هذا الحيوان أن يحلب إطلاقاً، فماذا يكون الحكم على القول بأن الإجارة صحيحة؟ نقول: للمستأجر الفسخ، وذلك لتعذر استيفاء المنفعة بغير سبب منه، إذ إن المعقود عليه تعذر بغير سبب منه، وليس هو المفرط، وبذلك يتبين أن القول الراجح هو ما اختاره شيخ الإسلام ﵀ في هذه المسألة. وَالقُدْرَةُ عَلَى التَّسْلِيمِ، فَلَا تَصِحُّ إجَارَةُ الآبِقِ، وَالشَّارِدِ، وَاشْتِمَالُ العَيْنِ عَلَى المَنْفَعَةِ، فَلَا تَصِحُّ إجَارَةُ بَهِيمَةٍ زَمِنَةٍ لِحَمْلٍ، .... قوله: «والقدرة على التسليم» هذا هو الشرط الثالث من