Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (11/149)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

the testator and the beneficiary’s acceptance belongs to the beneficiary, because his ownership of the bequeathed property is established from the time of the testator’s death.

For example, a man is bequeathed a house that is rented out for one hundred riyals per day, but the beneficiary does not accept the bequest until ten days after the testator’s death. The yield is then one thousand riyals, and it belongs to the beneficiary, because the author, may Allah have mercy on him, says, “Ownership is established through it,” that is, through acceptance, “immediately after death,” meaning from the time of the testator’s death. Although, initially, it was not yet his property, it could have belonged either to the heirs or to the beneficiary. But once he accepts, ownership takes effect retrospectively, as they say. Thus, the yield from the testator’s death until the beneficiary’s acceptance belongs to the beneficiary. This is the view adopted by the author, may Allah have mercy on him.

Some scholars—this being the well-known position of the school—hold that ownership is not established until acceptance, because before he accepts, it is not his property. Accordingly, in our previous example, the one thousand riyals belong to the heirs, because the beneficiary’s ownership of the bequeathed property was not established until after his acceptance.

The issue admits of both possibilities. The author’s statement, may Allah have mercy on him, has force, because the beneficiary’s ownership of the bequeathed property is contingent: if he accepts, it is his property from the time the testator’s ownership ceased. The testator’s ownership ceases at death. The school’s position also has a valid rationale, since his ownership is not established except through acceptance; so how can the yield of someone else’s property belong to him? The matter is thus undecided between the two views. If the heirs and the beneficiary bring their dispute before a judge, he should give preference to whichever view he considers stronger. What is preferable, better, and more prudent in such a case is for the heirs and the beneficiary to reach an amicable settlement.

الموصي وقبول الموصى له فهو للموصى له؛ لأنه يثبت ملكه للموصى به من حين موت الموصي. مثال ذلك: رجل أُوصِيَ له ببيت وكان يؤجر في اليوم الواحد بمائة ريال، ثم لم يقبل الموصَى له إلا بعد عشرة إيام من موت الموصي ـ فالنماء ألف ريال ـ يكون للموصى له؛ لأن المؤلف يقول: «يثبت الملك به»، أي: بالقبول «عقب الموت»، أي: من حين موت الموصي، مع أنه بالأول ليس على ملكه، فهو محتمل أن يكون للورثة أو للموصى له، لكن لما قَبِل انسحب الملك بأثر رجعي ـ كما يقولون ـ فصار النماء من موت الموصي إلى قبول الموصى له، للموصَى له، هذا ما ذهب إليه المؤلف ﵀. وقال بعض العلماء ـ وهو المشهور من المذهب ـ: إنه لا يثبت الملك إلا بالقبول؛ لأنه قبل أن يقبل ليس ملكه، وبناءً على هذا ففي مثالنا السابق تكون ألف الريال للورثة؛ لأن ملك الموصَى له للموصى به لم يثبت إلا بعد قبوله. والمسألة محتملة، فكلام المؤلف ﵀ له قوة؛ لأن ملك الموصَى له للموصى به ملك مراعى، فإن قَبِل فهو ملكه من حين زال ملك الموصي عنه، وملك الموصي يزول عنه بالموت، والمذهب له وجهة نظر أيضاً؛ لأنه لم يثبت ملكه إياه إلا بالقبول، فكيف يكون نماء ملك غيره له؟! فالمسألة مترددة بين هذا وهذا، والقاضي إذا تحاكم الورثة والموصَى له عنده يرجح ما يراه راجحاً، والأولى والأحسن والأحوط أن يصطلح الورثة والموصى له في مثل هذه الحال.