Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/96)

or a valid release is effective. For if he is entitled to take ownership of these things, then his disposing of them is all the more permissible. In the case of a sale, the price belongs to the son; as for manumission and release, the reward belongs to the son, because this is less consequential than if the father had taken ownership of it outright. The apparent meaning of the hadith is that the father’s disposal of his son’s property is valid so long as it does not harm the son or involve something he needs. As for release from a debt, however, he has no right to do so, because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “You and your wealth belong to your father” (1). A debt is not included in this, because it does not become the son’s property until he receives it.

His statement, “or he intends to take it before revoking it”: “take it” means taking back what he gave as a gift. The pronoun here is somewhat awkward, for if you were to read the text, “or he intends to take it,” it would mean taking his own property before revoking it. What is intended, however, is: taking back what he gave as a gift before revoking it. That is, he gives his son something, then wishes to bring it back into his own ownership before revoking the gift. This is not valid, because he has not expressly revoked it. Revocation must be made verbally, such as by saying, “My son, I have revoked what I gave you as a gift.” Simply taking it without expressly revoking the gift is not valid.

His statement, “or takes ownership of it,” means that he takes what he gave as a gift with the intention of acquiring ownership, rather than with the intention of revocation. This is permissible for him. The author says that there are two ways of acquiring ownership: by a verbal declaration, or by intention together with valid possession.

His statement, “by a verbal declaration”: such as saying, “I have taken ownership of my son’s property”—his car, his house, or things that he does not need and whose loss would not harm him.

His statement, “or intention and valid possession, is not valid”: that is, he takes possession of the property

(1) Its source was cited previously on p. 90.

أو إبراء صحيح؛ لأنه إذا كان له أن يتملك هذه الأشياء فتصرفه فيها من باب أولى، ويكون الثمن في البيع للابن، أما العتق والإبراء فالأجر للابن؛ لأن هذا أقل مما لو تملكه أصلاً، والظاهر أن الحديث يدل على صحة تصرف الأب في مال ابنه إذا لم يضره أو يحتاجه، وأما الإبراء فليس له ذلك؛ لأن قوله ﷺ: «أنت ومالك لأبيك» (١)، لا يدخل فيه الدَّين؛ لأن الدَّين لا يكون مالاً للابن حتى يقبضه. قوله: «أو أراد أخذه قبل رجوعه»، «أخذه» أي: أخذ ما وهبه، والضمير هنا فيه ركاكة؛ لأنك لو قرأت المتن: «أو أراد أخذه» أي أخذ ماله قبل رجوعه، ولكن المراد: «أخذه» أي أخذ ما وهبه قبل رجوعه، يعني وهب ابنه شيئاً ثم أراد أن يضمه إلى ملكه قبل أن يرجع، فإنه لا يصح؛ لأنه لم يصرح بالرجوع، فالرجوع لا بد فيه من اللفظ، بأن يقول: رجعت فيما وهبته لك يا بني، أما أن يأخذه دون أن يصرح بالرجوع فلا يصح. قوله: «أو تملكه»، يعني يأخذ ما وهبه بنية التملك لا بنية الرجوع، فله هذا، والتملك يقول المؤلف: له طريقان: القول، أو النية مع القبض. قوله: «بقول» بأن يقول: إني قد تملكت مال ابني، سيارته أو بيته أو أشياء لا يحتاج إليها ولا تضره. قوله: «أو نية وقبض معتبر لم يصح»، يعني يقبض المال

(١) سبق تخريجه ص (٩٠).