Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/74)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

he has two debts owed to him by a person—one in wheat and the other in barley—and he releases him from one of them, then the apparent meaning of the author’s words is that the debtor is not discharged, because he did not specify which debt he released him from.

The correct view, however, is that he is discharged from one of them, and the specification is referred back to the creditor who granted the release. This is because the debtor was relieved of it only through the creditor’s act, and because it is an act on the creditor’s part, so he knows best what he intended.

Thus, if a man is owed one hundred dinars and one hundred dirhams by someone, then says to him, “I release you from one of your two debts,” without specifying either the dinars or the dirhams, and the debtor says, “It was the dinars,” while the creditor who granted the release says, “It was the dirhams,” then the creditor’s statement is relied upon here, because he knows his own intention best, and the property is his, so he may release the debtor from whichever debt he wishes. According to the madhhab, however, this is not valid unless it concerns a specified debt, based on his words, “from his debt.”

His words, “from his debt,” also mean that if he releases the debtor from someone else’s debt, saying to the debtor, “I release you from So-and-so’s debt, and I will pay it,” this is not valid and the debtor is not discharged. His saying, “I will pay it,” is merely a promise, and a promise is not binding. Therefore, the release must be from his own debt, not from someone else’s debt.

His statement, “using wording that conveys absolution, charity, gift, or the like”: this is an issue that must be properly understood. His words, “using wording,” exclude the case where he releases the debtor merely in his heart. For example, a man is owed one thousand riyals by So-and-so, and he intends in his heart to release him, but does not say, “I have released him,” nor say to him, “I release you,” “I absolve you,” “I waive it for you,” “I give it to you in charity,” or “I gift it to you.” In that case, the debtor is not discharged. This is like someone who sets aside dirhams to give in charity, then decides against it before giving them away: there is no blame upon him.

كان له على شخص دَينان أحدهما (بُرٌّ) والآخر (شعير) فأبرأه من أحدهما، فظاهر كلام المؤلف أنه لا يبرأ؛ لأنه لم يعين الدَّين الذي أبرأه منه. والصواب: أنه يبرأ من أحدهما، ويرجع في التعيين إلى المبرئ؛ لأن المبرَأ لم يملك ذلك إلا من قبل المبرِئ، ولأن هذا من جهته وهو أعلم بما أراد. فلو أن رجلاً له على شخص مائة دينار ومائة درهم، ثم قال له: أبرأتك من أحد دَينيك، ولم يعين لا الدنانير ولا الدراهم، فقال المدين: هي الدنانير، وقال المبرِئ: هي الدراهم، فنرجع هنا إلى قول المبرئ؛ لأنه أعلم بنيته، والمال ماله فيبرئه مما شاء، لكن على المذهب لا يجوز إلا ديناً معيناً لقوله: «من دَينه». وقوله: «من دَينه»، لو أبرأه من دَين غيره، وقال للمدين: إني أبرأتك من دين فلان وأنا أقضيه، فلا يصح ولا يبرأ، وقوله: وأنا أقضيه، هذا وعد والوعد لا يُلزِم، فلا بد أن يكون من دينه لا من دَين غيره. قوله: «بلفظ الإحلال أو الصدقة أو الهبة ونحوها»، هذه مسألة لا بد أن نعرفها تماماً، فقوله: «بلفظ» احترازاً مما لو أبرأه بقلبه، كرجل له في ذمة فلان ألف ريال، فنوى بقلبه أنه أبرأه لكن لم يقل: إني أبرأته، أو لم يقل له: أبرأتك، أو أحللتك، أو سامحتك أو تصدقت عليك أو وهبته لك، فلا يبرأ، وهذا مثل إنسان يعين دراهم للصدقة بها، وقبل أن يتصدق منعها، فلا حرج عليه.