Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/264)

Second: his statement, “securing for some of them their rights against others.” The one responsible for enforcement is the judge: he compels the party against whom judgment has been rendered to carry out the ruling. This was among the judge’s responsibilities in the time of the author—may Allah have mercy on him—and those before him. In our time, however, enforcement has become the responsibility of the ruler: the judge decides the case and clarifies the ruling, while the ruler is the one who enforces it. I believe that this responsibility has now been transferred to the police.

Third: his statement, “administering the property of those who are not legally competent.” Those who are not legally competent may be so because they are minors, insane, or prodigal. Sound legal competence comprises three matters: adulthood, sanity, and prudent management. Thus, one who is not legally competent is either a minor, an insane person, or a prodigal who does not manage his wealth properly. The one who administers his property is the judge.

Fourth: his statement, “placing under legal interdiction those who deserve it due to prodigality or insolvency.” Legal interdiction means preventing a person from disposing of his wealth. By his words, “prodigality or insolvency,” the author indicates that legal interdiction is of two types: interdiction due to prodigality and interdiction due to insolvency. Prodigality is the absence of sound legal competence, whereas insolvency means that a person’s debts exceed the wealth he possesses. If a person is in debt and his debts exceed his assets, he is placed under legal interdiction due to insolvency. The difference between the two is that one placed under interdiction for prodigality may not dispose of either his property or incur obligations against himself, whereas one placed under interdiction for insolvency may incur obligations against himself but may not dispose of his property.

Whoever is not legally competent is prodigal, and his transactions are not valid, neither with respect to his property nor with respect to obligations incurred against himself. That is, it is not valid for him to sell anything of his property, nor to buy

ثانياً: قوله: «وأخذ الحق لبعضهم من بعض» فالذي يتولى التنفيذ هو القاضي، فيجبر المحكوم عليه بأن ينفذ الحكم، هذا من مسؤوليات القاضي في عهد المؤلف ﵀ ومن سبقه، لكن في عهدنا صار التنفيذ للأمير، القاضي يفصل ويبين، وأما الذي ينفذ فهو الأمير، ثم أظنها الآن تحولت إلى الشرطة. ثالثاً: قوله: «والنظر في أموال غير المرشدين» وغير المرشدين، إما لصغرهم أو جنونهم، أو سفههم؛ لأن الرشد يتضمن ثلاثة أمور: البلوغ، والعقل، وحسن التصرف، فغير المرشد إما الصغير، وإما المجنون، وإما السفيه الذي لا يحسن التصرف في ماله، فالذي ينظر في ماله هو القاضي. رابعاً: قوله: «والحجر على من يستوجبه لسفه، أو فلس» الحجر هو منع الإنسان من التصرف في ماله، وأشار المؤلف بقوله: «سفه أو فلس» إلى أن الحجر نوعان: حجر لسفه، وحجر لفلس، أما السفه فهو عدم الرشد، وأما الفلس فهو أن تكون ديون الإنسان أكثر مما عنده من المال، فإذا كان الإنسان مديناً وديونه أكثر من ماله، فإنه يحجر عليه لفلس، والفرق بينهما: أن الحجر للسفه لا يتصرف المحجور عليه لا في ماله ولا في ذمته، والحجر للفلس يتصرف في ذمته لا في ماله. فمن لم يكن رشيداً فهو سفيه، فلا يصح تصرفه لا في ماله ولا في ذمته، يعني لا يصح أن يبيع شيئاً من ماله، ولا أن يشتري