Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/185)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

cannot be understood in its legal sense, because wine is not legally saleable. When it is impossible to construe it according to its true legal meaning, we construe it according to its outward form. Thus, as soon as he sells wine, he breaks his oath. Accordingly, in the example mentioned earlier of selling tobacco, if he says, “By Allah, I shall not sell tobacco,” and then sells it, he breaks his oath—not because it is a sale, but because it has the form of what he swore not to do. Likewise, if he says, “By Allah, I shall not sell through usury,” and then goes and sells through usury, he breaks his oath, because he qualified the oath with something that prevents validity; it is therefore construed according to the outward form.

However, if he says, “By Allah, I shall not sell,” and then sells one dinar for two dinars, he has not broken his oath, because he stated it without qualification, and an unqualified term refers to what is legally valid.

Some scholars said that he does not break his oath if he sells something whose sale is prohibited, even if he qualifies it with something that prevents validity, because of the contradiction involved. The statement, “I shall not sell wine,” contains a contradiction between the word “sell” and “wine.” Accordingly, we say: even if he sells wine, it is not a sale. Whoever considers the outward form holds that he has broken his oath, whereas whoever considers the true reality holds that he has not. The scholars have two views on this issue; according to the established position of the school, he breaks his oath by the mere form of the contract.

If he says, “By Allah, I shall not sell the offspring of my she-camel that is in her womb,” and then sells it, then according to the established position of the school he breaks his oath, because he breaks it by the mere form of the contract: he qualified his oath with something that prevents validity—that is, he connected it to something with which the contract cannot be valid—so it is construed according to the outward form.

Another example is leasing a shop to someone in order to carry out something unlawful in it—for instance, leasing it to him so that he may engage in usury there. This is prohibited, and the contract is invalid. Thus, if he says, “By Allah, I shall not lease my shop to someone who deals in usury,” and then leases it to him, then according to

لا يمكن أن توافق من الناحية الشرعية؛ لأن الخمر شرعاً لا يباع، فإذا تعذر حمله على الحقيقة والمعنى حملناه على الصورة، فنقول: بمجرد أن يبيع الخمر يحنث، وبناء عليه فالمثال الذي ذكرناه آنفاً وهو بيع الدخان، إذا قال: والله لا أبيع الدخان فباعه، فإنه يحنث، لا لأنه بيع، ولكن لأنه صورة ما حلف عليه، ولو قال: والله لا أبيع بربا، فذهب وباع بالربا فإنه يحنث؛ لأنه قيد اليمين بشيء يمنع الصحة، فيحمل على الصورة. أما لو قال: والله لا أبيع، فباع ديناراً بدينارين، فإنه لا يحنث؛ لأنه أطلق والمطلق يطلق على الشرعي الصحيح. وقال بعض العلماء: إنه لا يحنث إذا باع ما يحرم بيعه، ولو قيده بما يمنع الصحة؛ لوجود التناقض؛ لأن قوله: لا أبيع الخمر، كلمة (أبيع) تناقض الخمر، وعلى هذا فنقول: هذا وإن باع الخمر فليس ببيع، فمن نظر إلى الصورة حنَّثه، ومن نظر إلى الحقيقة لم يحنثه. والمسألة فيها قولان للعلماء وعلى المذهب إنه يحنث بصورة العقد. ولو قال: والله لا أبيع حمل بعيري الذي في بطنها، ثم باعه فعلى المذهب يحنث؛ لأنه يحنث بصورة العقد؛ لأنه قيد يمينه بما يمنع الصحة، أي: قرنه بشيء لا يمكن أن يصح معه العقد، فيحمل على الصورة. مثال آخر: تأجير الدكان لشخص ليعمل فيه محرماً، مثل أن يؤجره له ليتعامل فيه بالربا فهذا حرام، والعقد غير صحيح، فإذا قال: والله لا أؤجر دكاني لمن يتعامل فيه بالربا، ثم أجره، فعلى