Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/173)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

against him for the value of the trees that were lost to me and for the wages of the planter.” The same applies to a building.

But if the buyer knows that the land has been usurped, yet disregards the matter and covets the land, saying, “Perhaps its owner has no proof,” and then plants or builds on it, may he seek recourse against the usurper or not? He may not, because he entered into it with full knowledge.

“If he feeds it to its owner, pledges it to him, deposits it with him, or leases it to him, he is not absolved unless the owner knows. But he is absolved by lending it to him.”

His statement, “If he feeds it,” means that the usurper feeds the usurped property to someone.

His statement, “to someone who knows that it was usurped, then liability rests upon him,” means upon the one who eats it, because he consumed another person’s property knowing that he had no right to do so.

His statement, “and the reverse is likewise true in the reverse case,” means: if he feeds it to someone who does not know that it was usurped, liability rests upon the usurper, not upon the one who ate it, because he consumed it on the assumption that the one disposing of the property was its rightful owner.

An example is a man who usurps a sheep, slaughters it, and feeds it to another person who knows that it was usurped. Liability rests upon the one who ate it, because he directly caused its destruction, whereas the usurper was an indirect cause. The legal principle regarding destroyed property is that, when a direct agent and an indirect cause are both present, liability rests upon the direct agent. But if he did not know, then liability rests upon the usurper who fed it to him.

One question remains: in this case, may the owner of the sheep seek recourse against the usurper even though the one who ate it knew that it was usurped?

The answer is yes. He may do so, for he has the choice of seeking recourse from either the usurper or the one who ate it. However, ultimate liability rests upon the one who ate it if he knew of the usurpation; but if he did not know of the usurpation, ultimate liability rests upon

عليك بقيمة الشجر الذي تلف علي وبأجرة الغارس، وكذلك يقال في البناء. ولو علم المشتري أن الأرض مغصوبة، لكنه تجاهل الأمر وطمع في الأرض وقال: لعل مالكها لا يكون عنده بينة وغرس أو بنى، فهل يرجع على الغاصب أو لا يرجع؟ لا يرجع؛ لأنه دخل على بصيرة. وَإِنْ أَطْعَمَهُ لِمَالِكِهِ أَوْ رَهَنَهُ أَوْ أَوْدَعَهُ أَوْ آجَرَهُ إِيَّاهُ لَمْ يَبْرَأْ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَعْلَمَ وَيَبْرَأُ بِإِعَارَتِهِ. قوله: «وإن أطعمه» أي: الغاصب أطعم المغصوب قوله: «لعالم بغصبه فالضمان عليه» أي: على الآكل؛ لأنه أكل مال غيره وهو يعلم بغير حق. قوله: «وعكسه بعكسه» أي: أطعمه لغير عالم بغصبه فالضمان على الغاصب لا على الآكل؛ لأنه أكل استناداً إلى أن الذي يتصرف في المال هو المالك أصلاً. مثال ذلك: رجل غصب شاة وذبحها وأطعمها شخصاً آخر، يعلم أنها مغصوبة فالضمان على الآكل؛ لأنه مباشر للإتلاف والغاصب متسبب، والقاعدة الشرعية في المتلفات: (أنه إذا اجتمع متسبب ومباشر فالضمان على المباشر) فإن كان لا يعلم فالضمان على الغاصب الذي أطعمه. بقي علينا أن نقول: صاحب الشاة في هذه الحال، هل له أن يرجع على الغاصب مع أن الآكل قد علم أنها مغصوبة؟ الجواب: نعم، له ذلك فهو مخير بين أن يرجع على الغاصب أو على الآكل، لكن قرار الضمان يكون على الآكل إن كان عالماً بالغصب، وإن لم يكن عالماً بالغصب فالقرار على