Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/95)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

so if he leases it out, the lease is not valid, because he has not acquired ownership of it.

Thus, he may sell it or lease it out only by revoking the gift. He says, “I have revoked what I gave my son as a gift.” At that point, it returns to the father’s ownership, and he may dispose of it.

His statement, “even that which he gave him as a gift,” indicates a point of disagreement. Some scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, say that when a father disposes of something he gave his son as a gift, his disposal itself constitutes revocation. They analogized this to a man who appoints you as his agent to sell something and then sells it himself: the sale is valid, and his selling it constitutes revocation of the agency. The difference, however, is clear: when the principal disposes of that for which he appointed an agent, he is disposing of his own property. But when the father disposes of what he gave his son as a gift without first revoking it, he is disposing of someone else’s property—unless he intends thereby to revoke his gift. For once he has revoked the gift, it returns to his ownership, and he then sells it after it has become his property.

His statement, “by sale”: sale is well known. For example, if his son owns a car and the father sells it without the son having appointed him as his agent, the sale is void.

His statement, “or manumission”: if the son owns a slave and the father says to the slave, “You are free for Allah’s sake,” the manumission is not valid, because the slave belongs to the son and the father has not acquired ownership of him.

His statement, “or release”: that is, release from a debt. For example, if his son is owed a debt by someone, and the father says to the debtor, “I release you from the debt you owe my son,” the debtor is not released, because the debt itself is not possessed by the son, much less by the father; rather, it remains a liability owed by the debtor. This is clear, and it is more serious than the case of a tangible item that the father sold or manumitted.

Some scholars said that a father’s disposal of his child’s property through sale or manumission

فإذا أجرها فلا يصح التأجير؛ لأنه لم يتملكها. إذاً يستطيع أن يبيعها أو يؤجرها بأن يرجع في الهبة، يقول: إني رجعت فيما وهبته لابني، حينئذٍ ترجع إلى ملك الأب ويتصرف فيها. وقوله: «ولو فيما وهبه له» هذه إشارة خلاف، وهو أن بعض العلماء ﵏ يقول: إذا تصرف فيما وهبه لابنه، فإن تصرفه يدل على الرجوع، وقاسوا ذلك على رجل وكَّلك في بيع شيء، ثم باعه هو فإنه يصح ويكون بيعه له رجوعاً، فيقال: الفرق واضح؛ لأن الموكل إذا تصرف فيما وكَّلَ فيه فقد تصرف في ملكه، لكن الأب إذا تصرف فيما وهبه لابنه دون أن يرجع، فقد تصرف في ملك غيره، إلا إذا قصد أنه راجع في هبته؛ لأنه لما رجع في هبته دخلت في ملكه، فباعها بعد دخولها في ملكه. قوله: «ببيع» البيع معروف، مثاله: لولده سيارة فباعها الأب بدون توكيل الابن له فالبيع باطل. قوله: «أو عتق» الابن له عبد، فقال الأب للعبد: أنت عتيق لوجه الله، فلا يصح العتق؛ لأنه في ملك الابن ولم يتملكه. قوله: «أو إبراء» يعني من الدَّين، فمثلاً لابنه دين على شخص، فقال الأب للمدين: إني أبرأتك من دين ابني عليك، فإنه لا يبرأ؛ لأن الدين لم يملكه الابن فضلاً عن الأب، فالدين في ذمة المدين، وهذا واضح، هذا أشد من العين التي باعها الأب أو أعتقها. وقال بعض العلماء: إن تصرف الوالد في مال ولده ببيع أو عتق