Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Betrayal of trust with respect to a loaned item is not like betrayal of trust with respect to a deposit, because the borrower takes possession of the loaned item for his own benefit, whereas a deposit is held for the owner’s benefit. Whoever analogizes one to the other has erred, for the distinction between them is clear. Moreover, if we amputate the hand of one who denies a loaned item, people will refrain from denying such items; but if we do not amputate their hands, people will become emboldened to deny them. This would close the door to acts of kindness, for the lender is doing good. If the lender’s claim is denied and he cannot recover his right except through liability for compensation, people may refrain from lending items, even though lending is obligatory in some circumstances. This would lead to neglecting that obligation.

We may also say: it is an independent category in itself. Suppose that, linguistically, it does not fall under theft; as long as there is an explicit text concerning it, what will our position be before Allah, Mighty and Majestic, on the Day of Resurrection, when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ amputated the hand on account of it and said, “Were Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, to steal, I would amputate her hand” (1)?

When considering the rulings of the Sacred Law, and when issuing fatwas or making any statement, a person must first consider, above all else, how he will answer Allah, Mighty and Majestic, for what he has said, because he is accountable. The mufti and the judge convey the messages of Allah, Mighty and Majestic, as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Convey from me” (2). Thus, you must regard yourself as answerable before Allah, Mighty and Majestic, for every judgment you issue, and you must bear in mind Allah’s questioning before that of anyone else. Hence, the sound and well-known position in the school of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, is that the one who denies a loaned item is subject to hand amputation, contrary to the view adopted by the author. This is why Imam Ahmad would say, “I do not know of anything that can avert it. What can I say?!”

(1) Previously cited, p. 328. (2) Narrated by al-Bukhari in Ahadith al-Anbiya (Accounts of the Prophets), chapter: “What Has Been Mentioned concerning the Children of Israel,” no. 3461, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both.
وليست الخيانة في العارية كالخيانة في الوديعة؛ لأن قابض العارية قبضها لمصلحته، وأما الوديعة فلمصلحة المالك، فمن قاسها عليها فقد أخطأ؛ لأن الفرق بينهما ظاهر، ولأننا إذا قطعنا جاحد العارية امتنع الناس من جحدها، وإذا لم نقطعهم تجرأ الناس على جحدها، وفي هذا سد لباب المعروف؛ لأن المُعير محسن، فإذا كان المعير يُجْحَد، ولا يؤخذ له حقه، إلا بالضمان فقط فإن الناس قد يمتنعون من العارية، وهي واجبة في بعض الصور، وهذا يؤدي إلى عدم القيام بهذا الواجب. ثم نقول أيضاً: هي قسم برأسها، افرض أنها لا تدخل في السرقة لغة، فما دام فيها نص فما موقفنا أمام الله ﷿ إذا كان يوم القيامة، والرسول ﷺ قطع بها، وقال: «لو أن فاطمة بنت محمد سرقت لقطعت يدها» (١)؟. والإنسان حينما ينظر في الأحكام الشرعية وفي فتاويه، أو فيما يقول يجب أن ينظر أولاً كيف يقابل الله ﷿ بما قال قبل كل شيء؛ لأنه مسؤول، فالمفتي والقاضي مبلغ لرسالات الله ﷿، لقول الرسول ﷺ: «بلغوا عني» (٢)، فيجب أن تعتبر نفسك مسؤولاً أمام الله ﷿ في كل شيء تحكم به، فلا بد أن تلاحظ سؤال الله ﷿ قبل كل أحد، فالصحيح المشهور من مذهب الإمام أحمد ﵀ أن جاحد العارية يقطع، خلافاً لما ذهب إليه المؤلف؛ ولهذا كان الإمام أحمد يقول: ما أعلم شيئاً يدفعه، ماذا أقول؟!
(١) سبق تخريجه ص (٣٢٨). (٢) أخرجه البخاري في أحاديث الأنبياء باب ما ذكر عن بني إسرائيل (٣٤٦١) عن عبد الله بن عمر ـ رضي الله عنهما ـ.

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies