Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/286)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

And if the two litigants say, “We are content to appoint him as arbitrator even if he is a lay follower,” what is there to prevent it? At most, they have accepted him as a reconciler between them, or as one akin to a reconciler between them. For this reason, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, explicitly addressed this issue and said that an arbitrator is not required to meet the same conditions as a judge. The difference between them, as we have mentioned, is that a judge is appointed by the ruler, so his judgment constitutes public authority; whereas this one is appointed as arbitrator by particular litigants in a particular case, and thus resembles a reconciler between two disputants.

His statement, “His ruling is enforceable in financial matters,” means, for example, that one person says to another, “You owe me one hundred dirhams,” while the other says, “You have no claim against me.” They then agree to have a certain person arbitrate between them, go to him, and he judges between them according to what the Shariah requires. This is permissible, and his ruling is enforceable.

But if they agree that a certain person will judge between them, then one of them later retracts and refuses, saying, “I have withdrawn from that agreement, and I want the judge to rule between us,” does he have the right to do so?

We say: this must be considered. If the arbitrator has begun the proceedings, neither party has the right to withdraw, for he may retract when it becomes clear to him from the arbitrator’s words that the right is against him. But if this is before they have submitted the case to arbitration—that is, before they have reached the hearing—then there is no harm in it.

His statement, “and prescribed punishments”: is there any prescribed punishment that can arise between disputants? The answer is yes, such as the prescribed punishment for slander. This can arise between two disputants: for example, a man slanders another man, and the slandered person brings a claim against him, alleging that he slandered him. The other says, “I did not slander you.” One says, “Who will judge between us?” The other says, “So-and-so.” Thus, they go to

وإذا قال الخصمان: نحن نرضى أن نحكِّمه ولو كان مقلداً فما المانع؟! لأن غاية ما فيه أنهما رضياه مصلحاً بينهما، أو كالمصلح بينهما، ولهذا نص على هذه المسألة شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية ﵀، وقال: إنه لا يشترط في المُحكَّم ما يشترط في القاضي، والفرق بينهما كما ذكرنا: أن الحاكم منصوب من قِبل ولي الأمر فحكومته ولاية، وأما هذا فهو مُحكَّم من قبل خصم معين في قضية معينة، فهو يشبه المُصلح بين خصمين. قوله: «نفذ حكمه في المال» مثل أن يقول شخص لآخر: في ذمتك لي مائة درهم، والثاني يقول: ليس لك عندي شيء، فرضيا أن يحكم بينهما فلان، فذهبا إليه وحكم بينهما بما تقتضيه الشريعة، فهذا يجوز ويَنْفُذُ الحكم، فإن اتفقا على أن يحكم بينهما فلان، ثم رجع أحدهما عن ذلك وامتنع، وقال: أنا تراجعت عن ذلك، وأريد أن يحكم بيننا القاضي، فهل له ذلك؟ نقول: ينظر في هذا، إن كان المُحكَّم قد شرع في الحكم فإنه لا يحق لأحدهما أن يملك الرجوع؛ لأنه ربما يتراجع إذا تبين له من كلام المُحكَّم أن الحق عليه، أما إذا كان قبل أن يتحاكما، أي: قبل أن يصلا إلى مجلس الحكم فلا بأس في هذا. قوله: «والحدود» هل هناك حد يكون بين المتخاصمين؟ الجواب: نعم، مثل حد القذف، فإن حد القذف يكون بين المتخاصمين، كرجل قذف رجلاً فادعى عليه المقذوف أنه قذفه، فقال: ما قذفتك، قال: من يحكم بيننا؟ قال: فلان، فذهبا إلى