Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/190)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Should we say that the usurper’s word is accepted because he is the one liable, or that the owner’s word is accepted because the presumption is soundness?

We say: the owner’s word is accepted, because the presumption is soundness. This presumption takes precedence over the second one, since a defect is incidental to soundness; thus, this presumption is given priority over the presumption of liability.

This is, in fact, a principle to which the seeker of knowledge should pay attention. At times, a presumption conflicts with what is outwardly apparent, and at other times two presumptions conflict, in which case one is given precedence over the other according to what the Sacred Law requires and according to the indications of the circumstances. For example, if a woman separates from her husband while holding a coffee pot in her hand—and coffee made from beans is generally drunk by men—and she claims that the pot belongs to her while the husband says, “It belongs to me,” then we have both a presumption and an outward indication. The presumption is that whatever is in a person’s possession belongs to him; yet the outward indication is that this coffee pot is for men. Which of the two takes precedence? This must be considered: if the outward indication is strong—stronger than the presumption—we give precedence to the outward indication.

His statement, “Concerning its return and its freedom from defects, the owner’s word is accepted”: this dispute mentioned by the author—whether the usurper’s word is accepted or the owner’s word is accepted—who is to rule on it? This is referred to the judge, or to a man appointed as an arbiter by the usurper and the owner of the property; and he is given these principles.

“And if he does not know its owner, he must give it in charity on his behalf, while remaining liable for it . . .”

His statement, “And if he does not know its owner, he must give it in charity on his behalf, while remaining liable for it”: in “if he does not know,” the subject is the usurper; “its owner” means the owner of the usurped property—its rightful possessor. If he does not know its owner, such as when he usurped this item long ago and then forgot, or when he usurped something from by the door of the mosque, such as taking a sandal—

فهل نقول: إن القول قول الغاصب؛ لأنه غارم، أو نقول: إن القول قول المالك؛ لأن الأصل السلامة؟ نقول: القول قول المالك؛ لأن الأصل السلامة، وهذا الأصل متقدم على الأصل الثاني؛ لأن العيب حادث على السلامة فقُدم هذا الأصل على أصل الغرم. وهذه في الحقيقة قاعدة ينبغي لطالب العلم أن ينتبه لها، فأحياناً يتعارض الأصل والظاهر، وأحياناً يتعارض أصلان فيقدم أحدهما على الآخر حسب ما تقتضيه الشريعة، وحسب ما تقتضيه قرائن الأحوال، ولهذا ـ مثلاً ـ لو أن امرأة فارقت زوجها وأمسكت بيدها إبريق القهوة ـ وقهوة البُنِّ يشربها غالباً الرجال ـ وادعت أن الإبريق لها، والزوج يقول: لي. فعندنا أصل وظاهر، الأصل أن ما بيد الإنسان فهو له، وعندنا ظاهر، وهو أن هذا الإبريق للرجال، فأيهما نقدم؟ يُنْظَر إذا كان الظاهر قوياً أقوى من الأصل قدمنا الظاهر. وقوله: «وفي رده وعدم عيبه قول ربه» هذا النزاع الذي ذكره المؤلف وهل القول قول الغاصب، أو القول قول ربه، من الذي يحكم به؟ يوجه هذا إلى القاضي، أو إلى رجلٍ حَكّمه الغاصب ورب المال، فيعطى هذه القواعد. وَإِنْ جَهِلَ رَبَّهُ تَصَدَّقَ بِهِ عَنْهُ مَضْمُوناً .............. قوله: «وإن جهل ربَّه تصدق به عنه مضموناً» «إن جهل» الفاعل الغاصب «ربه» أي: رب المغصوب، أي: صاحبه، إذا جهل صاحبه، بأن يكون قد غصب هذا الشيء من زمان قديم ونسي، أو غصب شيئاً من عند باب المسجد، كأن يكون قد أخذ نعلاً