Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/99)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

the established school holds that there is no retaliation between a father and his son. For example, if he wounds him on the head so severely that the bone becomes visible—such a wound, which exposes the bone, is called a mūḍiḥah (bone-exposing wound), and its compensation is five camels—then the son may not demand this blood-money from his father, since it falls under the author’s words, “and the like.” Likewise, if the father damages his son’s car in a collision, he is liable for its compensation, which becomes a debt owed by him; yet the son may not demand this debt from his father.

It is understood from his words, “a debt,” that he may demand the return of a specific item. Thus, if his father borrowed from him a book, such as the fatwas of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—and the son says, “Give me back the book; I need it,” but the father replies, “No,” without intending to take ownership of it, then the son may demand it. This is not a debt, but a specific item. Since the author says, “a debt,” the son may demand before a judge that his father hand over the item he lent him, for it is a specific item belonging to him.

However, the father may say, “I have now taken ownership of it.” If he says this, we must consider the conditions. If the son says, “I need it for reading or study,” then the father is prevented from taking ownership of it, because one condition for a father to take ownership of his son’s property is that the son’s need or necessity not be attached to it. In that case, taking ownership is not permitted, and the son may demand it.

This is an issue to which we must pay attention: what the jurists—may Allah have mercy on them—state is without regard to questions of propriety, upbringing, or good treatment; they set out general rulings. Yet is it proper for a person to demand from his father a specific item belonging to him? In my view, it is not. But there may be disputes, enmity, and ill feeling between father and son, as happens frequently, and the son may not mind demanding it from his father. Still, I do not believe that propriety dictates that this be permissible,

المذهب ليس بين الأب وابنه قود ـ مثل أن يشجه في رأسه حتى يظهر العظم، وهذه الشجة التي توضح العظم تسمى موضحة، فيها خمس من الإبل، فليس له أن يطالب أباه بهذه الدية لدخولها تحت قوله: «ونحوه»، كذلك لو أن الأب صدم سيارة الابن فإنه يلزمه أرشها، ويكون ديناً عليه، فليس له أن يطالب أباه بهذا الدين. وفهم من قوله: «بدين» أن له أن يطالبه بالعين، فلو استعار أبوه منه كتاباً: كفتاوى شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية ﵀ فقال الابن: أعطني الكتاب، أنا محتاج إليه، فقال: لا، ولم ينوِ التملك، فله أن يطالبه؛ لأن هذا ليس بدين ولكنه عين، والمؤلف يقول: «بدين» فله أن يطالب أباه بتسليم العين التي أعارها إياه عند القاضي؛ لأن هذا عين ماله. لكن للأب أن يقول: أنا الآن تملكته، فإذا قال هذا، نظرنا إلى الشروط، فإذا قال الابن: أنا أحتاجه للقراءة أو المطالعة، امتنع التملك؛ لأن من شرط تملك الأب لمال ابنه ألا تتعلق به حاجته أو ضرورته، فحينئذٍ يمتنع التملك فله المطالبة. وهذه مسألة يجب أن ننتبه لها، أن الذي يقوله الفقهاء ﵏ بقطع النظر عن مسألة المروءة أو التربية، أو حسن المعاملة، فهم يذكرون أحكاماً عامة، لكن هل من المروءة أن الإنسان يطالب أباه بعين ماله؟ في ظني لا، لكن قد يكون بين الأب والابن مشاحنات وعداوة وبغضاء، كما يوجد كثيراً ولا يهمه أن يطالب أباه، ولكن لا أعتقد أن المروءة تقضي بجواز ذلك،