Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/84)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement: “He is not liable for what is destroyed while in his secure custody or without his act.” That is, the jointly employed worker is not liable for what is destroyed while in his secure custody. For example, when night comes, a tailor locks his shop in the customary manner and is not negligent in securing it, but thieves come and rob the shop, including the garments whose owners had hired him to sew them.

He is not liable, because the loss occurred without his act, and he neither transgressed nor was negligent; rather, he had placed them in secure custody.

However, if he hangs the garment outside the shop so that its owner will remember it when passing by, stop, take it, and pay the wage, but then forgets to bring it inside the shop, and the garment is taken, he is liable, because it was destroyed outside secure custody. The author says: “He is not liable for what is destroyed while in his secure custody,” and there is no doubt that hanging it outside the door of the shop does not constitute secure custody.

His statement, “or without his act,” likewise means that he is not liable for what is destroyed without his act. For instance, if the shop burns down and the garment he was hired to sew is destroyed, this loss was not caused by his act, and therefore he is not liable for it, since he neither transgressed nor was negligent.

However, he then says: “And he is entitled to no wage.” This means that if something is destroyed through his act, he is liable for it and is entitled to no wage; and if it is destroyed without his act or while in his secure custody, he is not liable for it, but is still entitled to no wage. Although he sewed the garment—as in the preceding example—worked on it, spent time sewing it, and fulfilled everything for which he had been hired, the author says: “And he is entitled to no wage,” because he did not deliver the garment to its owner. The owner had hired him to make a garment that he could wear and benefit from, but that benefit has been lost; therefore, this worker is not entitled to any wage. This is the position of the madhhab.

قوله: «ولا يضمن ما تلف من حرزه أو بغير فعله»، «ولا يضمن» أي: الأجير المشترك، «ما تلف من حرزه» فهذا الخياط ـ مثلاً ـ لما كان الليل أغلق الدكان بما جرت العادة أن يغلق به، ولم يقصِّر في الإغلاق، ولكن أتت السرَّاق وسرقوا الدكان، ومن جملته الثياب التي استأجره صاحبها لخياطتها. فلا يضمن؛ لأن التلف بغير فعله، وهو لم يتعد ولم يفرط، فهو قد وضعها في حرزها. ولو علق الثوب خارج الدكان ليتذكر صاحبه إذا مر، فيقف ويأخذه ويعطيه الأجر فنسي أن يدخله في الدكان، فأُخذ الثوب فإنه يضمن؛ لأنه تلف في غير حرزه، والمؤلف يقول: «ولا يضمن ما تلف من حرزه» وهذا لا شك أنه ليس حرزاً أن يعلقه عند باب الدكان من الخارج. وقوله: «أو بغير فعله» كذلك ـ أيضاً ـ ما تلف بغير فعله فإنه لا يضمن، كما لو احترق الدكان فتلف الثوب الذي استؤجر لخياطته، فهذا التلف ليس من فعله، إذاً لا ضمان عليه؛ وذلك لأنه لم يتعد ولم يفرط، لكن يقول: «ولا أجرة له» يعني ما تلف بفعله يضمنه ولا أجرة له، وما تلف بغير فعله أو من حرزه فلا يضمنه ولا أجرة له، مع أنه خاط الثوب ـ كما في المثال السابق ـ وعمل فيه وأمضى زمناً في خياطته وأتى بكل ما استؤجر عليه، يقول المؤلف: «ولا أجرة له»؛ لأنه لم يسلم الثوب لصاحبه، وصاحبه إنما استأجره ليعمل له ثوباً يلبسه وينتفع به، وقد فاتت هذه المنفعة فلا يكون لهذا الأجير أجرة، وهذا هو المذهب.