Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (12/484)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

so we would say: We give you one cluster. The least that a sheep or a slave woman can bear is one, and if there are no household goods, then the least item that may be called household goods is due—even if it is only a rug.

His statement, “the least amount denoted by the term,” explicitly indicates that we refer to customary usage. Thus, whatever is customarily called household goods or a yield is what we refer to in this matter, provided that it is not defective, since the basic presumption is soundness.

If someone were to say that, in the case of a yield and household goods, the average amount should be given, that would be a plausible view. For if we gave him the average, we would wrong neither him nor her. If it is said that this view is challenged by the case in which the palm tree bears one cluster, we reply: the difference is clear. Once it has borne fruit, he has received what was specified, and he has no right to anything more. But when it bears no fruit, it may have borne only one cluster, or it may have borne twenty clusters. So we do not wrong her by saying, “Give him twenty clusters,” nor do we wrong him by saying that he should take one cluster; rather, in this case the matter should be referred to the average.

His statement, “And if there are no dirhams, then three,” is because the minimum plural is three. If she has two dirhams in her possession, he is entitled only to what is in her possession, even if the wording used is plural. That is because it has been specified by what is in her possession and is therefore restricted to it. This differs from the case where she has nothing. Even if she possesses something, but it is a pit, its existence is equivalent to its absence, because it is not dirhams.

All these latter cases are subsidiary issues—that is, they generally do not occur. Yet the jurists posit cases, even if they do not arise in practice, in order to train students in applying general legal principles. For this reason, some of the Companions said that this case is invalid because of the extensive uncertainty and ambiguity involved.

Matters such as these, in which the risk is substantial, ought not to be deemed valid, because in such cases the husband is comparable to one who has been unfairly disadvantaged in a sale transaction; and one who has been unfairly disadvantaged in a sale transaction has the option to rescind.

فنقول: نعطيك قنواً واحداً، وأقل ما تحمل الشاة أو الأمة واحداً، ومع عدم المتاع أقل ما يسمى متاعاً، حتى ولو كان بساطاً. وقوله: «أقل مسماه» صريح في أننا نرجع إلى العرف، فما سمي متاعاً أو حملاً رجعنا فيه إلى ذلك، لكن بشرط ألا يكون معيباً؛ لأن الأصل السلامة. فلو قال قائل: إنه في مسألة الحمل والمتاع يعطى الوسط لكان له وجه؛ لأننا إذا أعطيناه الوسط ما ظلمناه ولا ظلمناها، فإن قيل: هذا القول يرد عليه أنه لو حملت النخلة قنواً واحداً، فنقول: الفرق ظاهر؛ لأنه إذا حملت فقد حصل له ما عين فليس له أكثر منه، أما مع عدم الحمل فيحتمل أن لا تحمل إلا قنواً واحداً، ويحتمل أن تحمل عشرين قنواً، فنحن لا نظلمها فنقول: أعطيه عشرين قنواً، ولا نظلمه فنقول: يأخذ قنواً واحداً، بل يرجع في ذلك إلى الوسط. قوله: «ومع عدم الدراهم ثلاثة» لأن أقل الجمع ثلاثة، فإن كان في يدها درهمان، فما له إلا الذي في اليد، ولو كان بلفظ الجمع؛ وذلك لأنه عُين بما في يدها فيتقيد به، بخلاف إذا لم يكن شيء، ولو كان في يدها شيء لكنه نوًى، فوجوده كالعدم؛ لأنه ليس بدراهم. وكل هذه المسائل الأخيرة مسائل فرعية يعني هذه غالباً لا تقع، لكن الفقهاء يفرضون أشياء، وإن كانت غير واقعة؛ للتمرين على القواعد العامة، ولهذا فإن بعض الأصحاب ﵏ قال: هذه المسألة لا تصح لكثرة الغرر والجهالة فيها. فمثل هذه الأمور التي يعظم فيها الخطر ينبغي ألا نصححها؛ لأن الزوج في هذه الصور يكون من جنس المغبون في البيع والشراء، والمغبون في البيع والشراء له الخيار.