Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/308)

The point is that the depositary denied it, saying, “You did not deposit anything with me,” while it was established by evidence that the depositor had indeed entrusted it to him.

His statement, “or an admission,” means that after denying it—may Allah guide him—he regretted it and admitted it; or he denied the deposit because he had forgotten it, then remembered; or he had forgotten it and later found it in his house. The point is that, after having denied it, he admitted it.

His statement, “then claims that he returned it or that it was destroyed before his denial, neither claim is accepted, even with evidence”: an example is that a man denies the deposit on Thursday. A claim is then brought against him on Friday, and it is established against him by evidence. He then claims that it was destroyed on Wednesday. In this case, his statement is not accepted, because he has contradicted himself: when he denied the deposit on Thursday, he said, “I have no deposit belonging to you.” Then, once it was established, he said that it had been destroyed on Wednesday. Thus, his claim that it was destroyed is not accepted, nor is his claim that he returned it, because by denying it he became treacherous. Therefore, his statement is accepted neither concerning its return nor its destruction, and he is liable for compensation.

Even if he produces evidence that it was destroyed on Wednesday, bringing witnesses who testify that a certain deposit was destroyed on Wednesday, is that accepted or not?

The author says, “neither claim is accepted”—that is, the claim of return and the claim of destruction—“even with evidence.” Thus, even if he brings witnesses and they say, “We testify that so-and-so’s deposit was destroyed on Wednesday,” their testimony is not accepted, because he himself has declared the evidence false. When he denied it on Thursday and said, “You never deposited anything with me; I had no deposit belonging to you,” he thereby declared the evidence false. His statement contradicts his evidence.

By his words, “even with evidence,” the author—may Allah have mercy on him—indicated that there is a difference of opinion.

المهم أن المودَع أنكر وقال: لم تودعني، وثبت أنه أودعه ببينة. قوله: «أو إقرار» يعني بعد أن أنكر ـ هداه الله ـ وندم وأقر، أو أنكر ناسياً للوديعة ثم تذكر، أو كان ناسياً لها ثم وجدها في بيته، المهم أنه بعد أن أنكر أقر. قوله: «ثم ادعى رداً أو تلفاً سابقين لجحوده لم يقبلا ولو ببينة» مثال ذلك: أنكر الرجل الوديعة يوم الخميس، وأقيمت الدعوى عليه يوم الجمعة، وثبتت عليه ببينة، ثم ادعى أنها تلفت يوم الأربعاء، فهنا لا يقبل قوله؛ لأنه كذب نفسه، حيث أنه أنكر الوديعة يوم الخميس وقال: ليس عندي وديعة، ولما ثبتت قال: إنها تلفت يوم الأربعاء، فهنا دعواه التلف لا تقبل، ودعواه الرد لا تقبل؛ لأنه بإنكاره صار خائناً، فلا يقبل قوله لا في الرد ولا في التلف ويلزمه الضمان. ولو أقام بينة على أنها تلفت يوم الأربعاء، وأتى بشهود يشهدون أن الوديعة الفلانية تلفت يوم الأربعاء، فهل يقبل أو لا يقبل؟ يقول المؤلف: «لم يقبلا» أي: الرد والتلف «ولو ببينة» حتى لو جاء بشهود وقالوا: نشهد إن وديعة فلان تلفت يوم الأربعاء فإنها لا تقبل؛ لأنه هو نفسه مكذب للبينة؛ لأنه لما أنكر يوم الخميس وقال: أبداً ما أودعتني ما صار له عنده وديعة فيكون مكذباً للبينة؛ فكلامه يناقض بينته. وأشار المؤلف ﵀ بقوله: «ولو ببينة» إلى خلاف