Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/188)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

then zakah remains due from you.” If he replies, “No, it does not remain due,” then the property owner’s word is accepted without an oath. Likewise, if he is told, “Perform the prayer,” and he says, “I have prayed,” it is not permissible for us to require him to swear, nor is he obligated to take an oath. If we were to say, “Swear,” and he replied, “I will not swear,” we ourselves would be sinful, because this is a matter between him and his Lord, and people are entrusted regarding their religious practice. But in matters pertaining to the rights of other people, the denier must swear to his denial.

His statement, “or its quantity,” means that the usurper’s word is accepted concerning its quantity. For example, if a man usurps a sheep and it perishes, then its owner comes and says, “You usurped two sheep, or a sheep together with its offspring,” while the usurper says, “Rather, I usurped one sheep, with no offspring,” then the usurper’s word is accepted. The evidence is the Prophet’s saying, peace and blessings be upon him: “The burden of proof is upon the claimant, and the oath is upon the one who denies.” (1) The reasoning is also that the usurper is liable for compensation, and whoever is liable for compensation, his word concerning that for which he is liable is accepted, provided that he takes an oath, as mentioned previously.

His statement, “or its description,” means the description of the usurped property: the usurper’s word is accepted concerning it. Thus, if he usurps a sheep from someone and it perishes, and its owner says, “It was fat and milk-producing”—that is, it had milk—while the usurper says, “Rather, it was thin and had no milk,” then the usurper’s word is accepted. The evidence and reasoning are as mentioned previously.

His statement, “Concerning its return and its being free of defects, the word is that of its owner,” means that if the usurper and the owner disagree, with the usurper saying, “I returned it to you,” and the owner saying, “You did not return it,” then they have agreed on one matter, while one of them claims something contrary to what they agreed upon. They agree that the property was in the usurper’s possession, then the usurper claims that he returned it. This is a claim beyond what they agreed upon. Thus, we say: the word

(1) Its source has been cited previously (187).

الزكاة باقية عليك، فقال: أبداً ما بقيت، فهنا القول قول المالك بغير يمين، ولو قيل له: صل، فقال: صليت، فلا يجوز أن نحلفه، ولا يَلْزمه اليمين، فلو قلنا: احلف، فقال: ما أنا بحالف لَكُنَّا نحن الآثمين؛ لأن هذا شيء بينه وبين ربه والناس مؤتمنون على أديانهم، لكن فيما يتعلق بحق الآدميين فالمنكر لا بد من اليمين على إنكاره. وقوله: «أو قدره» القول في قدره قول الغاصب، كرجل غصب شاة وتلفت ثم جاء صاحبها وقال: إنك غصبت شاتين أو شاة وولدها، فقال: بل غصبت واحدة لا ولد معها، فالقول قول الغاصب، والدليل قول النبي ﷺ: «البينة على المدعي واليمين على من أنكر» (١)، ومن التعليل أن الغاصب غارم وكل غارم فإنه يقبل قوله فيما غرم مع يمينه كما سبق. وقوله: «أو صفته» أي: صفة المغصوب فالقول قوله، فإذا غصب من شخص شاة، وتلفت، فقال مالكها: إنها سمينة لبون ـ أي: ذات لبن ـ وقال الغاصب: بل هزيلة لا لبن فيها، فالقول قول الغاصب، والدليل والتعليل كما سبق. قوله: «وفي رده وعدم عيبه قول ربه» يعني إذا اختلف الغاصب والمالك فقال الغاصب: إني رددته عليك، وقال المالك: لم ترده، فهنا قد اتفقا على شيء وادعى أحدهما خلاف ما اتفقا عليه، اتفقا على أن العين كانت عند الغاصب ثم ادعى الغاصب أنه ردها، وهذه دعوى فوق ما اتفقا عليه، فنقول: القول

(١) سبق تخريجه (١٨٧).