Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

want the fruit or the crops. If the original co-owner also says, “I do not want them either,” this will likewise harm the buyer. But if we say that they follow the principal property, we are spared this harm.

However, if the date palms bore no fruit at the time of sale, and then bore fruit while in the buyer’s possession, it belongs to the buyer, since it is an increase in his property; before the right of pre-emption is exercised, the property belongs to the buyer.

One question remains that may be raised against the school’s position: when the co-owner takes the share at the price fixed by the contract, even though the fruit and crops will be taken from it, this harms the co-owner. For the price fixed by the contract represents the value of the land, the fruit, the planted trees, and the crops. Thus, if we say that the co-owner must pay the full price, this is unfair to him. What, then, should be done?

We say: the value of the crops and fruit should be assessed and deducted from the price.

His statement, “There is no right of pre-emption for a neighbor,” is understood from his statement, “It is established for a co-owner.” This is the well-known position of the school: the right of pre-emption is not established for a neighbor at all. This has preceded.

“It must be exercised immediately upon learning of it; if he does not claim it then, without excuse, it is invalidated. ……”

His statement, “It must be exercised immediately upon learning of it,” refers to the right of pre-emption. It has already been explained that the right of pre-emption is the taking of the share. That is, the claimant must promptly exercise his right of pre-emption, saying, “I exercise my right of pre-emption,” or, “I take it by right of pre-emption,” or something similar. They made an exception, however, where he is occupied with something that makes it impossible for him to make the claim—for example, if he learns of it while relieving himself and is unable to exercise his right of pre-emption, or if the news reaches him while he is having lunch or dinner, in which case he is unable to do so.

أريد الثمرة ولا الزرع، وإذا قال الشريك الأول: أنا لا أريدها ـ أيضاً ـ صار في ذلك ضرر على المشتري، فإذا قلنا: إنها تتبع الأصل استرحنا من هذا الضرر. أما لو كانت النخيل حين البيع ليس فيها ثمر ثم أثمرت بعد عند المشتري فإنها تكون للمشتري، لأنها نماء ملكه فإنه قبل أن يؤخذ بالشفعة للمشتري. بقي سؤال يرد على المذهب، وهو أن الشريك إذا أخذ النصيب بثمنه الذي استقر عليه العقد، مع أنه سينزع منه الثمرة والزرع فسيكون فيه ضرر على الشريك؛ لأن الثمن الذي استقر عليه العقد هو قيمة للأرض والثمرة والغراس والزرع، فإذا قلنا: إن الشريك يلزمه الثمن كاملاً صار في ذلك ظلم عليه فماذا نفعل؟ نقول: نقدر ثمن الزرع والثمرة ويخصم من الثمن. قوله: «فلا شفعة لجار» هذا مفهوم قوله: «وتثبت لشريك»، وهذا هو المشهور من المذهب أن الشفعة لا تثبت للجار مطلقاً، وقد سبق. وَهِيَ عَلَى الفَوْرِ وَقْتَ عِلْمِهِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَطْلُبْهَا إِذاً بِلَا عُذْرٍ بَطَلَتْ. ..... قوله: «وهي على الفور وقت علمه» أي: الشفعة، وسبق أن الشفعة هي انتزاع الحصة، يعني أنه لا بد أن يبادر الشفيع في الأخذ بالشفعة، فيقول: شفَّعت، أو أخذتها بالشفعة أو ما أشبه ذلك، إلا أنهم استثنوا ما إذا كان مشغولاً بما لا يمكن معه المطالبة، كما لو علم ـ مثلاً ـ وهو على قضاء الحاجة، فلا يستطيع أن يشفع، أو جاءه الخبر وهو يتغدى أو يتعشى، فهذا لا يمكن أن يشفع.

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies