Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/193)

His statement, “on his behalf,” means: on behalf of its owner—meaning its rightful possessor—“while guaranteeing it”; that is, on the condition that he will compensate him if he finds him. Thus, he should intend that he is giving it in charity on behalf of its owner, while being liable for it should he find its owner. There are two points here:

First, the charity must be given on behalf of its owner, not on behalf of the usurper himself.

Second, he must intend that he will guarantee it if he finds its owner and the owner claims it.

If he gives it in charity on his own behalf, his charity will not be accepted, for it is charity from unlawfully acquired wealth, and Allah accepts only that which is good. Nor is he absolved of liability, because he neither intended this charity on behalf of its owner nor intended to guarantee it. Thus, he gains neither nearness to Allah nor release from his liability. Rather, I say that this only increases him in sin; that is, if he gives it in charity on his own behalf, he is sinful.

Then, if he finds its owner after having given it in charity on his behalf, he should say: “You now have the choice: if you wish, ratify the charity, and the reward will be yours; and if you wish, I will compensate you for your property, while the reward will go to the usurper.” This is because the usurper has feared Allah, and this is the utmost he is able to do; thus, he is rewarded for his action.

This issue is among the cases of an unauthorized person’s disposal of another’s property which the jurists permitted, because it is a necessity: he does not know its owner, so he must rid himself of it in this manner.

His statement, “Give it in charity on his behalf”: if he does not wish to give it in charity, but instead wishes to allocate it, for example, to a mosque, is that permissible? The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that it is not. However, this apparent meaning is not intended. Rather, he may spend it on charitable causes, such as building a mosque, constructing lodgings for the poor, or buying books for seekers of knowledge. The essential point is that he spend it on that which brings one nearer to Allah. In that case, is he to

وقوله: «عنه» أي: عن ربه أي: المالك «مضموناً» أي: بشرط الضمان إذا وجده، فيعتقد أنه تصدق بهذا عن ربه مضموناً عليه لو وجد ربه، فعندنا شيئان: الأول: أن تكون الصدقة عن ربه لا عن نفس الغاصب. الثاني: أن ينوي أنه ضامن له إذا وجد ربه وطالب به. فإن تصدق به عن نفسه فإن صدَقته لا تقبل؛ لأنها صدقة غير طيبة، والله ﷿ لا يقبل إلا ما كان طيباً، وذمته لا تبرأ؛ لأنه لم ينو هذه الصدقة عن ربها ولم ينو الضمان، فلم يستفد التقرب إلى الله ولم يستفد إبراء الذمة، بل أقول: إن ذلك لا يزيده إلا إثماً، يعني لو تصدق به عن نفسه فهو آثم. فإذا وجد ربه بعد أن تصدق به عنه فإنه يقول: أنت الآن مخير إن شئت فأمضِ الصدقة والأجر لك، وإن شئت ضمنت لك مالك، والأجر للغاصب؛ لأن الغاصب اتقى الله وهذا غاية ما يستطيع فيؤجر على تصرفه. وهذه المسألة من مسائل تصرف الفضولي التي أجازها الفقهاء ﵏؛ لأنها ضرورة، إذ إنه لا يعرف صاحبها فلا بد أن يتخلص منها بهذا. وقوله: «تصدق به عنه» لو أراد أن لا يتصدق بها بل أراد أن يجعلها في مسجد ـ مثلاً ـ فهل يجوز ذلك؟ ظاهر كلام المؤلف: لا، ولكن هذا الظاهر غير مراد، بل له أن يجعلها في طرق الخير من بناء مسجد، أو بناء أربطة للفقراء، أو شراء كتب لطلبة العلم، المهم أن يصرفها فيما يقرِّب إلى الله، وحينئذٍ هل