Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/126)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

own the benefit itself. The lender only lent it to this particular person; he did not lend it to anyone else. Therefore, it is not lawful for him to lend it out, because by doing so he would be disposing of another person’s property without his permission.

If someone borrows a book and his colleague needs that book for one night, and his colleague says, “Lend me the book just for tonight,” he must not lend it to him. He may excuse himself by saying, “I have borrowed it, and it belongs to someone else.” The borrower has the right to use it, but does not own its benefit. A similar case is that of a person who invites his brothers to a wedding feast. Does any one of the invitees have the right to give some of the food in charity or sell it? He does not, because he has merely been permitted to eat; he is not its owner. Permission to eat the food of a wedding feast is a concession, not a transfer of ownership. Therefore, none of the invitees may take any of that food in order to sell it or give it in charity.

May he lease it out? No, he may not lease it out. This is even more clearly prohibited, because if he has no right to lend it out—although lending is a recommended act and an act of kindness—then granting another person use of it in return for payment is even less permissible.

However, if the borrower knows that the lender customarily permits such a thing—for example, a person borrows a vessel from someone, then his father needs it because he has many guests and asks his son to lend it to him—we say that he may not lend it to him. But if he knows that the owner permits it and would indeed be pleased by it, may he do so? Yes, he may do so. Whenever a person knows that his companion is pleased with his disposing of something in this manner, there is no harm in doing so.

“If it is damaged while with the second borrower, its value is established as his liability, while its rental value is due from the one who lent it to him; and the owner may hold either of them liable.”

His statement, “If it is damaged while with the second borrower, its value is established as his liability, while its rental value is due from the one who lent it to him”: “If it is damaged,” that is, the borrowed item; “while with the second borrower,” namely

يملك النفع، والمعير إنما أعار هذا الشخص ولم يعرها غيره، فلا يحل له أن يعيرها؛ لأنه إن أعارها فقد تصرف في مال غيره بغير إذنه. ولو استعار إنسان كتاباً وكان زميله يحتاج هذا الكتاب لليلة واحدة، فقال زميله: أعرني الكتاب هذه الليلة فقط؟ فلا يعيره، وله أن يعتذر ويقول: أنا مستعير والملك لغيري، والمستعير مالك للانتفاع وليس مالكاً للنفع، ونظير ذلك إنسان يدعو إخوانه لطعام الوليمة، فهل يملك أحد المدعوين أن يتصدق من الطعام، أو يبيع؟ لا يملك؛ لأنه إنما أذن له بالأكل وليس مالكاً، والإذن بأكل طعام الوليمة إباحة وليس تمليكاً؛ ولذلك لا يملك أحد من المدعوين أن يأخذ شيئاً من هذا الطعام ليبيعه أو يتصدق به. وهل يؤجرها؟ لا، لا يؤجرها، وهذا من باب أولى؛ لأنه إذا كان لا يملك أن يعيرها والعارية سنة وإحسان، فكونه ـ أيضاًـ لا يأذن بالانتفاع بها بأجرة أشد امتناعاً. لكن إذا علم المستعير أن المعير يأذن في مثل ذلك عادة، يعني ـ مثلاً ـ إنسان استعار إناءً من شخص ثم إن أباه احتاج إلى هذا الإناء لكثرة الضيوف عنده، وطلب من ابنه أن يعيره، قلنا: لا يجوز أن يعيره، لكن إذا علم أن المالك يأذن بل يفرح فهل له أن يفعل؟ نعم، له أن يفعل، وكل إنسان يعلم من صاحبه الرضا بتصرفه فلا حرج عليه أن يتصرف. فَإِنْ تَلِفَتْ عَنْدَ الثَّانِي اسْتَقَرَّتْ عَلَيْهِ قِيمَتُهَا، وَعَلَى مُعِيرِهَا أُجْرَتُهَا، وَيُضَمِّنُ أَيُّهُمَا شَاءَ. قوله: «فإن تلفت عند الثاني استقرت عليه قيمتها وعلى معيرها أجرتها» «فإن تلفت» أي العارية، «عند الثاني» وهو