Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/42)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

and the second beneficiary is entitled to his share of the rent. If he leases out a house or similar property for a period—even a lengthy one—during which the continued existence of the asset is most likely, the lease is valid. ........

The answer is found in his statement, “and the second beneficiary is entitled to his share of the rent,” meaning his allotted portion. In the example we mentioned, eight of the ten years have elapsed, which is four-fifths, leaving one-fifth. Thus, one-fifth of the rent belongs to the children. If we assume that they leased it for one thousand riyals, then those who leased it, and who died in the eighth year, are entitled to eight hundred, while those who came after them are entitled to two hundred. This is what the author—may Allah have mercy on him—means.

However, we must take account of differences in the value of the usufruct, for it may be greater in some years than in others. Yet it may be said that each group has already received the usufruct due to it—particularly where they stipulated, “Ten years, each year for one hundred.” If they specified this, then it is clear that those who come after them are entitled to two hundred out of the thousand. If they did not specify it, the matter may need to be considered, taking into account the difference in rental value between the first group and the second.

His statement, “and the second beneficiary is entitled to his share of the rent,” reflects the author’s—may Allah have mercy on him—view that the lease is not dissolved. The reason is that the first beneficiaries leased it at a time when they owned the usufruct, so their contract was valid. It then passed to the second generation, namely the children, while its usufruct was owned by the tenant; therefore, the lease remains as it was. This is like a man who leases his house to someone and then dies: his heirs may not terminate the lease. The point of similarity between the two cases is that this man leased his house while he had the right to lease it, so the lease was not dissolved by his death; likewise, the beneficiary of the endowment leased the endowed property at a time when he owned its usufruct, so the lease was not dissolved by his death.

Some scholars, and this is the position of the school, said that if the lessor dies

وَلِلثاني حِصَّتُهُ مِنَ الأُجْرَةِ، وَإِنْ أَجَّرَ الدَّارَ وَنَحْوَهَا مُدَّةً وَلَوْ طَويلَةً يَغْلِبُ عَلَى الظَّنِّ بَقَاءُ العَيْنِ فِيهَا صَحَّ. ........ الجواب قوله: «وللثاني حصته من الأجرة» أي نصيبه، فعلى المثال الذي ذكرناه، مضى من المدة ثمانية من عشرة وهي أربعة أخماس فيبقى خمس، تكون خمس الأجرة للأولاد، فإذا قدَّرنا أنهم أجَّروها بألف ريال، فللذين أجَّروا وقد ماتوا في السنة الثامنة: ثمانمائة، وللآخرين: مائتان، فهذا هو كلام المؤلف ﵀. ولكن يجب علينا أن نعرف الفرق في قيمة المنفعة، فقد تكون في بعض السنوات أكثر من بعض، ولكن يقال: إن كل منفعة قد قبضها أصحابها ولا سيما إذا كانوا يقولون: عشر سنوات كل سنة بمائة، إذا حددوا فواضح أن للآخرين مائتين من ألف، وإن لم يحددوا فربما ينظر في الموضوع ويعتبر فرق السعر بين الأول والثاني. وقوله: «وللثاني حصته من الأجرة» هذا ما قرره المؤلف ﵀ أنها لا تنفسخ، والعلة أن أولئك أجروا في وقت هم مالكون للمنفعة فكان عقدهم صحيحاً، وانتقل إلى البطن الثاني وهم الأولاد ومنفعته مملوكة للمستأجر، فتبقى الإجارة على ما هي عليه، كما لو أن رجلاً أجر بيته لشخص ثم مات فإن الورثة لا يفسخون الإجارة، ووجه المماثلة بين هذا وهذا، أن هذا الرجل أجر بيته في حال يملك تأجيره فلم تنفسخ الإجارة بموته، وهذا الموقوف عليه أجر الموقوف في زمن يملك منفعته فلم تنفسخ الإجارة بموته. وقال بعض العلماء وهو المذهب: إنه إذا مات المؤجر