Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/245)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement, “for a co-owner in land,” excludes the neighbour. He explicitly states this, saying, “There is no right of pre-emption for a neighbour.” What, then, is the evidence?

They say: The evidence is the statement of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him): “The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ruled that pre-emption applies to everything that has not been divided.” (1) Its implied meaning is that whatever has been divided is not subject to pre-emption. Once it has been divided, the co-owner becomes a neighbour. For example, two men own a piece of land jointly and divide it between themselves: it was initially jointly owned, but now the former co-owner has become a neighbour. The explicit wording of the hadith is: “The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ruled that pre-emption applies to everything that has not been divided,” while its implied meaning is that there is no pre-emption in what has been divided. The conclusion, therefore, is that there is no pre-emption for a neighbour, since if the neighbour who was formerly a co-owner has no right of pre-emption, then a neighbour who has never shared ownership with his neighbour is even less entitled to it.

However, we say that deriving evidence from this hadith in this manner is open to question, because if we cite the hadith as evidence, we must cite it in full. When the hadith is considered in full, it necessarily indicates that a neighbour has the right of pre-emption in some circumstances, but not in others. Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Once the boundaries have been fixed and the access routes have been allocated, there is no pre-emption.” Thus, the hadith explains that when partition has taken place, the land has been marked out by its boundaries, and the access routes have been separately assigned—so that this side has its own route and the other side has its own route—then there is no pre-emption. From this it follows that if they divide the property while the access route remains shared and is not separately assigned, the right of pre-emption remains. This is the stronger view: the neighbour has a right of pre-emption in some cases, but not in others. Thus, if the access route is shared, or the water by which the crops are irrigated is shared, or anything else in which they jointly share—

(1) Its source has been cited previously on p. 235.

قوله: «لشريك في أرض» يخرج الجار، وقد صرَّح به فقال: «فلا شفعة لجار» فما الدليل؟ قالوا: إن الدليل قول جابر ﵁: (قضى النبي ﷺ بالشفعة في كل ما لم يقسم) (١) فمفهومه أن ما قسم ليس فيه شفعة، وإذا قسم صار الشريك جاراً، كأرض بين رجلين اقتسماها كانت في الأول مشتركة والآن صار الشريك جاراً، والحديث: (قضى النبي ﷺ بالشفعة في كل ما لم يقسم) هذا المنطوق، ومفهومه لا شفعة فيما قسم، والنتيجة لا شفعة للجار؛ لأنه إذا كان الجار الذي كان شريكاً بالأول لا شفعة له، فالجار الذي ليس بينه وبين جاره شركة من باب أولى. ولكن نقول: الاستدلال بهذا الحديث فيه نظر؛ لأنه يجب إذا استدللنا بالحديث أن نستدل به كاملاً، وإذا استدللنا بالحديث كاملاً لزم أن يكون الجار له شفعة في بعض الأحوال، وليس له شفعة في بعض الأحوال، يقول جابر ﵁: (فإذا وقعت الحدود وصرفت الطرق فلا شفعة) فالحديث بيَّن أنه إذا حصلت القسمة ورسمت الأرض بحدودها وصرِّفت الطرق، بأن كان هذا الجانب له طريق والجانب الآخر له طريق فلا شفعة، فيؤخذ من هذا أنهما لو اقتسما وبقي الطريق واحداً لم يُصرَّف فالشفعة باقية، وهذا هو القول الراجح، أن الجار له الشفعة في حال وليس له الشفعة في حال، فإذا كانت الطريق واحدة، أو الماء الذي يسقى به الزرع واحداً، أو أي شيء اشتركا فيه من

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (٢٣٥).