Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/136)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

the owner, even if it has not perished, because the basic rule regarding one who takes possession of another’s property—as mentioned previously—is that he is liable.

His statement, “Or if they disagree over its return, then the owner’s statement is accepted”: “They disagree” means that the lender and the borrower disagree concerning the return of the loaned item for use; thus, the owner’s statement is accepted. For example, a person lends a vessel to someone, then comes to demand it from him. The borrower says, “I returned it,” while the lender says, “You did not return it.” The owner’s statement is accepted, because the presumption is that it has not been returned. This is based on the well-known juristic principle: whoever takes possession of property for his own benefit, his statement that he returned it is not accepted. The borrower has the item in his possession for his own benefit; so, if he says, “I returned it to you,” we say: We do not accept your statement unless you produce evidence that you returned it. If the borrower produces evidence that he returned the loaned item, then his statement is accepted on the basis of that evidence. All of the author’s discussion of these disputes concerns cases in which there is no evidence; but if there is evidence, then evidence is decisive in every matter.

Is this the case of the Makhzumi woman (1)?

No. The Makhzumi woman denied it, saying, “You did not lend it to me,” whereas this person says, “You lent it to me, but I returned it to you.” There is a difference between the two. Thus, if it is established that this person did not return it, we do not cut off his hand. But denial entails that the person against whom the loan for use is alleged is not required to return it unless it is established that he was the borrower. The difference between them is therefore clear.

A subsidiary ruling arising from the preceding principle is that whoever takes possession of property for his own benefit

(1) Narrated by al-Bukhari in Ahadith al-Anbiya (3475), and Muslim in al-Hudud, “Chapter: Cutting off the Hand of the Noble Thief and Others” (1688), on the authority of Aishah, who said: “A woman from the Makhzum clan used to borrow goods and then deny having taken them, so the Prophet ordered that her hand be cut off.” This wording is Muslim’s.

المالك، وإن لم تكن تالفة؛ لأن الأصل فيمن قبض مال غيره ـ كما سبق ـ الضمان. قوله: «أو اختلفا في رد فقول المالك» «اختلفا» يعني المعير والمستعير في رد العارية فالقول قول المالك، مثاله: أعار إناء لشخص، ثم جاء يطلبه منه، فقال المستعير: رددته، وقال المعير: لم ترده، فالقول قول المالك؛ لأن الأصل عدم الرد، وبناء على القاعدة المعروفة عند الفقهاء: أن من قبض العين لمصلحة نفسه لم يُقبل قوله في الرد، والمستعيرُ العينُ في يده لمصلحته، فإذا قال: رددتها عليك، قلنا: لا نقبل قولك إلا إذا أتيت ببيِّنة بأنك رددتها، فلو أتى المستعير ببينة أنه رد العارية فإنه يقبل قوله بالبينة، وكل كلام المؤلف في هذه الخلافات فيما إذا لم يكن هناك بينة، أما إذا كان هناك بينة فالبينة قاضية على كل شيء. وهل هذه هي مسألة المخزومية (١)؟ لا، المخزومية تجحد، تقول: ما أعرتني، وهذا يقول: أعرتني ولكن رددتها عليك، وبينهما فرق؛ فإذا ثبت أن هذا لم يردها فإننا لا نقطع يده، لكن الجحد يقتضي أن لا يُطالَب هذا الذي ادُّعِي عليه العارية إلا إذا ثبت أنه مستعير، فبينهما فرق واضح. ويتفرع على القاعدة السابقة: «أن من قبض العين لمصلحة

(١) أخرجه البخاري في أحاديث الأنبياء (٣٤٧٥)؛ ومسلم في الحدود/ باب قطع السارق الشريف وغيره (١٦٨٨) عن عائشة ﵂ قالت: «كانت امرأة مخزومية تستعير المتاع وتجحده فأمر النبي ﷺ بقطع يدها». وهذا اللفظ لمسلم.