Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/186)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

the established position of the school, he breaks his oath by the mere form of the contract, because he qualified it with something that prevents validity. According to the second view, he does not break his oath, because this is not a lease: even if he calls it a lease, it is not legally termed a lease. But the established position gives precedence to the outward form and holds him accountable for his wording, whereas the second view gives precedence to the meaning and says: this is not a legally valid lease.

That which retains its literal meaning is that whose figurative usage has not become predominant over its literal meaning, such as “meat.” Thus, if someone swears not to eat meat, then eats fat, marrow, liver, or the like, he has not broken his oath. But if he swears not to eat condiment, he breaks his oath by eating eggs, dates, salt, vinegar, or olives. ……………

His statement, “That which retains its literal meaning is that whose figurative usage has not become predominant over its literal meaning, such as meat”: We must recognize that the scholars have mentioned that it is deficient to define something by its absence or by negation, since defining by absence or negation does not convey a clear conception. It merely entails removing what is negated—but what then takes its place? Thus, his statement, “whose figurative usage has not become predominant over its literal meaning,” is a negative definition, and it does not delimit what is being defined. A definition must be affirmative and positive. As for negation, it is, as has been said, mere negation and absence. Therefore, the sound definition of literal meaning is: a word used in its linguistic meaning; or, if you prefer: a word used for the meaning for which it was originally coined in the language.

If a word has no legal meaning, it is understood according to its linguistic meaning. An example is his statement, “such as meat.” Linguistically, meat properly refers to flesh. As for tripe, liver, spleen, fat, suet, and the like, these are not termed meat in the Arabic language. This is why the author said:

“If he swears not to eat meat, then eats fat, marrow, liver, or”

المذهب يحنث بصورة العقد؛ لأنه قيدها بما يمنع الصحة، وعلى القول الثاني: لا يحنث؛ لأن هذا ليس بإجارة فهو وإن سماه إجارة فإنه شرعاً لا يسمى إجارة، لكن المذهب يغلبون الصورة ويؤاخذونه بلفظه، وهذا القول الثاني يغلب المعنى ويقول: هذا ليس بإجارة شرعية. وَالْحَقِيقِيُّ هُوَ الَّذِي لَمْ يَغْلِبْ مَجَازُهُ عَلَى حَقِيقَتِهِ كَاللَّحْمِ، فَإِنْ حَلَفَ لَا يَأْكُلُ اللَّحْمَ فَأَكَلَ شَحْمَاً، أَوْ مُخًّا، أَوْ كَبِداً، أوَ نَحْوَهُ لَمْ يَحْنَثْ، وَإِنْ حَلَفَ لَا يَأْكُلُ أُدُماً، حَنِثَ بِأَكْلِ الْبَيْضِ، وَالتَّمْرِ، وَالْمِلْحِ، وَالْخلِّ، وَالزَّيْتُونِ ................ قوله: «والحقيقي هو الذي لم يغلب مجازه على حقيقته كاللحم» يجب أن نعرف أن العلماء ذكروا أن من العيب التعريف بالعدم، أو بالنفي؛ لأن التعريف بالعدم أو بالنفي ما يعطي الصورة؛ لأنه يقتضي رفع هذا المنفي، ولكن ما الذي يحل محله؟! فقوله: «لم يغلب مجازه على حقيقته» هذا تعريف بالنفي، وهو لا يحدد المُعرَّف، والمُعرَّف لا بد أن يكون عن طريق الإثبات والإيجاب، أما النفي فإنه كما قيل: نفي وعدم، ولهذا التعريف الصحيح للحقيقة أن يقال: هو اللفظ المستعمل في حقيقته اللغوية، أو إن شئت فقل: اللفظ الذي استعمل فيما وضع له لغة. فإذا لم يكن لهذا اللفظ حقيقة شرعية حملناه على الحقيقة اللغوية، مثاله: قوله: «كاللحم» وهي حقيقةً الهَبْرُ في اللغة، أما الكرش والكبد، والطحال، والشحم، والودك وما أشبه ذلك، فليس بلحم حسب اللغة العربية، ولهذا قال المؤلف: «فإن حلف لا يأكل اللحم فأكل شحماً، أو مخاً، أو كبداً أو