Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/165)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

people discover his falsehood, it damages his standing. This is unlike the case of one who is wronged. The examples will, Allah willing, make the ruling on this issue clear to us.

His statement: “If a wrongdoer makes him swear, ‘Zayd has nothing with you,’ while he has a deposit belonging to Zayd in one place and intends another place.” An example is that an unjust person hears that you are holding a deposit for someone, comes in order to take it from you, and you have placed that deposit in room number one. He comes and says, “Give me the deposit you are holding for so-and-so.” You say, “I have nothing.” He says, “You do have it.” So you say, “I have nothing.” He says, “Swear that you have nothing belonging to him.” By your words, “I have nothing belonging to him,” or “I have no deposit belonging to him,” you intend room number two. This is permissible, and you are truthful, because there is nothing in room number two. The person addressing you thinks, from your oath, “By Allah, I have nothing,” that you have nothing at all—not in room number one, not in room number two, nor anywhere else in the house.

His statement: “Or he intends mā in the sense of ‘that which.’” Likewise, if he swears and intends mā to mean “that which,” for mā may function as a relative pronoun and may also be a negative particle. Thus, if he says, “By Allah, mā do I have anything belonging to him,” the intended construction is: “By Allah, that which I have belonging to him is something.” According to his intended interpretation, mā is parsed as the subject; whereas according to the wrongdoer’s understanding, it is parsed as a negative particle.

If this wrongdoer were clever and said, “Say: ‘By Allah, he gave me nothing,’” and the one swearing intended mā to mean “that which,” this would not work, because shay’an is in the accusative case. Had mā been understood as meaning “that which,” he would have said shay’un—that is, “By Allah, that which he gave me is something.” But when it is not possible to construe mā as a relative pronoun, he intends something other than

ظهر الناس على كذبه صار ذلك قدحاً فيه، بخلاف المظلوم، والأمثلة تبين لنا ـ إن شاء الله ـ حكم هذه المسألة. قوله: «فإن حلَّفه ظالم: ما لزيد عندك شيء، وله عنده وديعة بمكان فنوى غيره» مثاله: إنسان ظالم سمع أن عندك لفلان وديعة، وجاء ليأخذها منك، وقد وضعت هذه الوديعة في الحجرة رقم واحد، فجاء وقال: أعطني الوديعة التي عندك لفلان، قال: ما عندي شيء، قال: عندك، فقلت: ليس عندي شيء، قال: احلف أنك ما عندك له شيء، فنويت بقولك: ما عندي شيء له أو ما عندي له وديعة، نويت الحجرة رقم اثنين، فهذا يجوز وأنت صَادق؛ لأنه لا يوجد في رقم اثنين شيء، فالمخاطَب يظن بيمينه والله ما عندي شيء، أنه ما عنده شيء مطلقاً، لا في الحجرة رقم واحد، ولا في الحجرة رقم اثنين، ولا في سائر البيت. قوله: «أو بـ «ما» الذي» كذلك إذا حلف وأراد بـ «ما» الذي؛ لأن «ما» تصح أن تكون اسماً موصولاً، ويصح أن تكون نافية، فإذا قال: والله ما عندي له شيء فالتقدير، والله الذي عندي له شيء، و «ما» على تأويله نعربها مبتدأ، وعلى مفهوم الظالم نعربها نافية. فلو كان هذا الظالم ذكياً وقال: قل: والله ما أعطاني شيئاً، ونوى الحالف بـ «ما» الذي فلا يصلح؛ لأن «شيئاً» بالنصب، ولو جعل «ما» بمعنى الذي لقال: شيء، يعني والله الذي أعطاني شيء، لكن إذا تعذر أن يجعل «ما» اسماً موصولاً، فينوي غير