Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/232)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

has vested it in him. Allah the Exalted says:

“And for you is half of what your wives leave.” [al-Nisaʾ 4:12]

And He says:

“Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females.” [al-Nisaʾ 4:11]

Thus, he cannot relinquish something that Allah has vested in him. The transfer of ownership through inheritance is compulsory, and the heir cannot refuse it. If a man dies leaving two sons, and one of them says, “I am wealthy and do not want the inheritance,” can he do that? He cannot. We say: It came into your ownership compulsorily, because Allah vested it in you.

If ownership is transferred without consideration through a voluntary act, such as a gift, then the apparent meaning of the author’s words—as understood by implication—is that there is no right of pre-emption. For example, two men jointly own a piece of land, and one of them gives his share to a third person as a gift. Does his partner have the right to take it by pre-emption? According to the author’s view, no, because it was transferred without consideration. Yet this transfer was voluntary, since he himself made the gift. The correct view is that pre-emption applies in this case, because the rationale for affirming pre-emption exists where a partner’s ownership has passed away through a gift. Once the rationale is established, the difference in legal forms carries no weight. That is, whenever the rationale exists, it makes no difference whether the transfer took place by sale or by gift.

Thus, his statement, “for consideration,” excludes what is transferred without consideration, which is of two types:

The first is where the transfer is compulsory, such as inheritance. In that case, there is no right of pre-emption, and this is clear, because the partner did not transfer it voluntarily.

The second is where ownership is transferred voluntarily, such as through a gift. According to the established school, there is no right of pre-emption; but the correct view is that pre-emption is established, because the rationale for pre-emption is present in the case of a gift. The rationale behind pre-emption is the removal of harm

ملَّكه إياه، قال الله تعالى: ﴿وَلَكُمْ نِصْفُ مَا تَرَكَ أَزْوَاجُكُمْ﴾ [النساء: ١٢] وقال: ﴿يُوصِيكُمُ اللَّهُ فِي أَوْلَادِكُمْ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الأُنْثَيَيْنِ﴾ [النساء: ١١] فلا يمكن أن يتخلى عن شيء ملَّكه الله إياه، فانتقال الملك بالإرث انتقال قهري لا يمكن للوارث أن يرفضه، فلو مات ميت عن ابنين فقال أحدهما: أنا غني ولا أريد الإرث، فهل يمكنه هذا؟ لا يمكن، ونقول: هو دخل عليك قهراً بتمليك الله له إياك. فإذا انتقل بغير عوض على وجه اختياري كالهبة فظاهر كلام المؤلف ـ حسب المفهوم ـ أنه لا شفعة، مثال ذلك: شريكان في أرض وهب أحدهما نصيبه لشخص ثالث، فهل لشريكه أن يأخذ بالشفعة؟ على كلام المؤلف لا؛ لأنه انتقل بغير عوض لكن هذا الانتقال اختياري، فهو الذي قام بهبته، والصحيح أن فيها الشفعة؛ لأن الحكمة من إثبات الشفعة موجودة فيما خرج ملكه عن الشريك بالهبة، والحكمة إذا ثبتت فإنه لا عبرة باختلاف الصور، يعني إذا وُجدت الحكمة فسواء كان ببيع أو بهبة. إذاً قوله: «بعوض» يخرج به ما انتقل بغير عوض وهو نوعان: أحدهما: أن يكون الانتقال قهرياً مثل الميراث، فلا شفعة وهذا واضح؛ لأن الشريك لم ينقله باختياره. الثاني: أن يكون انتقال الملك فيه بالاختيار كالهبة، فالمذهب أنه لا شفعة، والصحيح أن الشفعة ثابتة؛ لأن الحكمة من الشفعة موجودة في الهبة، إذ إن الحكمة من الشفعة إزالة ضرر