Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/264)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

from someone and pledges as security the share he purchased. The author says: the right of pre-emption is forfeited, because a pledge is not a transfer of ownership but an encumbrance. When a person pledges his property to someone, does that mean he has sold it to him or given it to him as a gift? No. Rather, he has encumbered the property as security—that is, as security for the creditor. It is not a transfer of ownership. This is what the author mentioned, may Allah have mercy on him.

The correct view is that the right of pre-emption is not forfeited by the pledge, because ownership has not passed to the pledgee; and this is the authoritative position in the school. However, it is said: if the pledgor repays his debt, the partner may exercise pre-emption; but if he does not repay it and the pledged property is sold, then the matter reverts to a transfer through sale, the discussion of which will come, Allah willing. This is because the pledge does not transfer ownership: it remains the property of the purchaser, though the right of another party has become attached to it. When another party’s right has attached to it, we preserve both that party’s right and the pre-emptor’s right. We say: so long as it is pledged, you cannot take it by pre-emption, because it is encumbered. But if the debtor repays his debt, the pledge is released and no longer pledged, so take it by pre-emption. If he does not repay and it is sold, then take it through one of the two sales, as will come, if Allah Most High wills.

It was also said that he may take it without waiting. In that case, the pledge is dissolved, and the pledgee has no right in this pledged property, because he had taken a pledge only over the property itself, and it has been adjudged to belong to another; thus, the pledge is invalidated.

If someone says, “If the pledge is invalidated, may the pledgee demand compensation from the pledgor for that pledged property?” The answer is: no, because the pledge is attached to the pledged property itself, and it has become rightfully due to another. This is like one who pledges usurped property, after which its owner takes it back: the pledgee cannot demand compensation for it. The pledge is therefore dissolved, while the debt remains owed by the pledgor.

من شخص وأرهنه نصيبه الذي اشتراه، يقول المؤلف: إن الشفعة تسقط؛ لأن الرهن ليس انتقالاً ولكنه إشغال، فالإنسان إذا رهن ملكه عند شخص فهل معناه أنه باعه عليه، أو وهبه له؟ لا، ولكن شغل الملك للتوثقة، أي: لتوثقة صاحب الدين، فليس انتقال ملك؛ هذا ما ذكره المؤلف ﵀. والصحيح أنها لا تسقط بالرهن؛ لأن الملك لم ينتقل للمرتهن وهو المذهب، لكن يقال: إن أوفى الراهن دينه أخذ الشريك بالشفعة وإن لم يوفِ وبيع الرهن فحينئذ نرجع إلى انتقاله ببيع، وسيأتي ذكره إن شاء الله؛ وذلك لأن الرهن لم ينتقل به الملك فهو على ملك المشتري إنما تعلق به حق الغير، فإذا تعلق به حق الغير فإننا نبقي حق الغير وحق الشفيع، ونقول: ما دام مرهوناً لا يمكن أن تأخذه بالشفعة؛ لأنه مشغول، لكن إن أوفى المدين دينه صار الرهن طِلقاً ليس مرهوناً فخذه بالشفعة، وإن لم يوفِ وبيع فخذه أنت بأحد البيعين كما سيأتي إن شاء الله تعالى. وقيل: بل يأخذه ولا ينتظر، وحينئذ ينفسخ الرهن ولا يكون للمرتهن حق في هذا المرهون؛ لأنه إنما رهن عينه وقد استحقت للغير فيبطل الرهن. فإذا قال قائل: إذا بطل الرهن فهل للمرتهن أن يطالب الراهن بعوض عن ذلك الرهن؟ فالجواب: لا؛ لأن الرهن متعلق بعين المرهون وقد صارت مستحقة للغير، فهو كما لو رهن مغصوباً ثم أخذه مالكه فإن المرتهن لا يطالب بعوضه فينفسخ الرهن، ويبقى الدين في ذمة الراهن.