Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/485)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

to acknowledge one hundred, but he is compelled to acknowledge two hundred, then his acknowledgement of two hundred is invalid, whereas his acknowledgement of one hundred is valid. But if he would not acknowledge anything and is compelled to acknowledge one hundred, then his acknowledgement is invalid altogether, because he must act voluntarily. The evidence is the saying of Allah, Most High:

“unless it be a trade conducted by mutual consent among you.” [al-Nisaʾ 4:29]

Thus, all contracts require mutual consent. No contract or acknowledgement made by a person under compulsion is valid.

His statement: “not under legal interdiction.” This is the third condition. A person under legal interdiction is one who is prevented from disposing of his property. Such a person falls into two categories. The first is one placed under interdiction for his own benefit; there are three such persons: the minor, the insane person, and the incompetent person. They have been discussed previously. The second is one placed under interdiction for the benefit of others: namely, the insolvent person, whose debts exceed his assets. For example, a man may owe one hundred thousand dirhams while possessing eighty thousand dirhams in assets—that is, he has furnishings and property valued at eighty thousand dirhams. If the creditors request that he be placed under interdiction so that his assets may be distributed among them, he is placed under interdiction.

The acknowledgement of such a person under interdiction is not valid with respect to specific items of his property, because he is prevented from disposing of them. However, his acknowledgement of a debt against himself is valid, because this acknowledgement causes no harm to the creditors.

For example, if, after he has been placed under interdiction, he says, “This car belongs to so-and-so,” we do not accept his statement, because the right of others is attached to it: it is now held for the creditors’ rights. But if he says, “I owe so-and-so,” we say: “It is a debt against you, and after the interdiction is lifted, the person in whose favour you made this acknowledgement may demand it from you.”

His statement: “An acknowledgement made under compulsion is not valid,” means that an acknowledgement made by a person under compulsion is invalid,

بمائة وأكره على أن يقر بمائتين، فالإقرار لا يصح بالمائتين لكن يصح بالمائة، وإن كان لا يقر بشيء فأكره على أن يقر بمائة لم يصح إقراره مطلقاً؛ لأنه لا بد أن يكون مختاراً، والدليل قوله تعالى: ﴿إِلاَّ أَنْ تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَنْ تَرَاضٍ مِنْكُمْ﴾ [النساء: ٢٩]، فكل العقود لا بد فيها من التراضي، فالمكره لا يقع منه أي عقد أو إقرار. قوله: «غير محجور عليه» هذا هو الشرط الثالث، والمحجور عليه هو الممنوع من التصرف، ثم هو قسمان: محجور عليه لحظ نفسه، وهم ثلاثة: الصغير، والمجنون، والسفيه، وقد سبق الكلام عليهم، الثاني: المحجور عليه لحظ غيره، وهو المفلس، الذي دَيْنُهُ أكثر من موجوداته، كرجل عليه مائة ألف درهم ديناً، وماله ثمانون ألف درهم يعني عنده أثاث وموجودات تساوي قيمتها ثمانون ألف درهم، وطلب الغرماء الحجر عليه من أجل توزيع موجوداته عليهم، فهذا يحجر عليه. هذا المحجور عليه لا يصح إقراره في أعيان ماله؛ لأنه ممنوع من التصرف فيها، ويصح إقراره في ذمته؛ لأنه لا ضرر على الغرماء في هذا الإقرار. فلو قال مثلاً بعد أن حجر عليه: هذه السيارة لفلان، لا نقبل منه؛ لأنها تعلق بها حق الغير، فالآن هي محبوسة لحق الغرماء، أما لو قال: في ذمتي لفلان، نقول: هي في ذمتك، وبعد الحجر يطالبك من أقررت بها له. قوله: «ولا يصح من مكره» أي: لا يصح الإقرار من مكره،