Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/40)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

An example of being compelled to consume the property itself is when a person is hungry and has nothing but bread belonging to someone else. An example of being compelled to use its benefit is when a person is cold and needs someone else’s quilt. In this case, the compulsion relates to its benefit, not to the item itself, because the quilt remains; what is being used is the warmth provided by it.

The difference between this and being compelled to consume the property itself is that, when one is compelled to use the benefit of property, the property itself remains, whereas when one is compelled to consume the property itself, it will be destroyed. The distinction between them is clear.

In the first case, if a person is compelled to use another’s property, and its owner himself needs it, then the owner has the greater right to it.

For example, a man has a loaf of bread and is hungry, while his companion is also hungry and has no bread. The companion needs the property belonging to the other, but the other also needs it. In this case, it is not permissible for the companion to take the other’s property, because its owner has a greater right to it than he does. But may the owner give it to him in preference to himself, or not?

The answer is that, according to the established position of the madhhab, giving another preference in this situation is not permissible. We have previously mentioned a principle concerning this: giving preference to another with respect to something obligatory is impermissible. One example occurs in the chapter on dry ablution: if a person has only enough water for his own purification, and another person with him needs water, he should not give it to him; rather, the other should perform dry ablution, because this would be giving preference to another with respect to an obligation, and such preference is forbidden.

Accordingly, if the owner of the food needs it—that is, is compelled to have it just as his companion is compelled—then he may not give preference to his companion with it, because he is required to save himself. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

مثال الاضطرار إلى عينه: جاع إنسان وليس عنده إلا خبزٌ لغيره، ومثال الاضطرار إلى نفعه: بَرَدَ الإنسان واضطُر إلى لحاف غيره، فالاضطرار هنا إلى نفعه لا إلى عينه؛ لأن اللحاف سيبقى، والذي يُنتفع به هو التدفئة بهذا اللحاف. والفرق بينه وبين الاضطرار إلى عين المال أنَّ المضطر إلى نفع المال ستبقى عين المال، والمضطر إلى عين المال سوف تفنى عين المال، فبينهما فرق واضح. في المسألة الأولى: إذا اضطر إلى مال الغير، فإن صاحب المال إن كان مضطراً إليه فهو أحق به. مثاله: رجل معه خبزة وهو جائع وصاحبه جائع، وليس معه خبز، فالصاحب محتاج إلى عين مال الغير، لكن الغير ـ أيضاً ـ محتاج إليه، ففي هذه الحال لا يحل للصاحب أن يأخذ مال الغير؛ لأن صاحبه أحق به منه، ولكن هل يجوز لصاحبه أن يؤثره أو لا؟ الجواب: المذهب أن الإيثار في هذه الحال لا يجوز، وقد سبق لنا قاعدة في ذلك، وهي أن الإيثار بالواجب غير جائز، ومن أمثلتها في باب التيمم إذا كان الإنسان ليس معه من الماء إلا ما يكفي لطهارته، ومعه آخر يحتاج إلى ماءٍ فلا يعطيه إياه والثاني يتيمَّم؛ لأن هذا إيثار بالواجب، والإيثار بالواجب حرام. وعلى هذا فإذا كان صاحب الطعام محتاجاً إليه، يعني مضطراً إليه كضرورة الصاحب فإنه لا يجوز أن يؤثر به الصاحب؛ لأن هذا يجب عليه أن ينقذ نفسه، وقد قال النبي عليه الصلاة