Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/504)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

Section

If a person attaches to his acknowledgment something that nullifies it—for example, if he says, “He is owed one thousand by me, but I am not liable for it,” and the like—he remains liable for the one thousand. If he says, “He was owed something by me, but I paid him,” then his word is accepted with his oath, unless there is evidence or he admits the basis of the claim. If he says, “He is owed one hundred by me,” then remains silent for a period in which he could have spoken, and thereafter says, “in debased coins,” or, “deferred,” then he is liable for one hundred sound coins, payable immediately, …

His statement, “If a person attaches to his acknowledgment something that nullifies it”: “attaches” means that he joins to his acknowledgment something that nullifies it. This is from joining one thing to another, not from arrival; that is, if he couples with his acknowledgment something that nullifies it, is it accepted or not?

He said: “For example, if he says, ‘He is owed one thousand by me, but I am not liable for it,’ and the like, he remains liable for the one thousand.” This is because his statement, “He is owed it by me,” is an acknowledgment, while his statement, “I am not liable for it,” negates that acknowledgment. He cannot be permitted to negate what he has acknowledged; therefore, we say that he is liable for the one thousand.

However, if he attributes the one thousand to something for which no valid consideration may be received—for example, if he says, “He is owed one thousand by me as the price of carrion,” or “the price of wine,” or “the price of an instrument of amusement,” and the like—is this like his saying, “I am not liable for it”? Or should we say that it is not like his saying, “I am not liable for it,” yet he is not liable, because the thing received in exchange has no value in the Sacred Law?

The answer is the latter. This is the more likely view: it is not like his saying, “I am not liable for it,” since it is possible that he sold him wine, then repented and made this acknowledgment before handing over the price. Accordingly, if he attributes it to wine that he sold to him while the latter was a dhimmi, he is liable for the one thousand, because it is consideration for something for which consideration was valid while he was in a state of unbelief.

If he produces evidence that the other party was owed one thousand by him and that he paid it to him, or something similar, such that his statement, “I am not liable for it,” is sound—his statement, “He is owed one thousand by me,” referring to the initial state, and his statement, “I am not liable for it,” referring to the subsequent state—then, if he produces evidence of this, it is accepted.

فَصْلٌ إِذَا وَصَلَ بِإِقْرَارِهِ مَا يُسْقِطُهُ، مِثْلُ أَنْ يَقُولَ: لَهُ عَلَيَّ أَلْفٌ لَا تَلْزَمُنِي وَنَحْوُهُ لَزِمَهُ الأَلْفُ، وَإِنْ قَالَ: كَانَ لَهُ عَلَيَّ وَقَضَيْتُهُ فَقَوْلُهُ بِيَمِينِهِ مَا لَمْ تَكُنْ بَيِّنَةٌ، أَوْ يَعْتَرِفُ بِسَبَبِ الْحَقِّ، وإِنْ قَالَ: لَهُ عَلَيَّ مِائَةٌ ثُمَّ سَكَتَ سُكُوتاً يُمْكِنُهُ الْكَلَامُ فِيهِ، ثُمَّ قَالَ زُيُوفاً أَوْ مؤجَّلَةً لَزِمَهُ مِائَةٌ جيِّدَةٌ حالَّةٌ، ...... قوله: «إِذَا وَصَلَ بِإِقْرَارِهِ مَا يُسْقِطُهُ» «إذا وصل» يعني ضم إلى إقراره ما يسقطه من الوصل، وهو وصل الشيء بالشيء وليس من الوصول، يعني إذا قرن بإقراره ما يسقطه، فهل يقبل أو لا يقبل؟ قال: «مِثْلُ أَنْ يَقُولَ: لَهُ عَلَيَّ أَلْفٌ لا تَلْزَمُنِي وَنحوه لزمه الألف» لأن قوله: «له علي» إقرار، وقوله: «ولا تلزمني» رفع لهذا الإقرار، ولا يقبل أن يرفع ما أقر به، فلهذا نقول: يلزمه الألف. ولكن لو أضاف الألف إلى شيء لا يثبت له عوض، مثل أن يقول: له علي ألف، ثمن ميتة، أو ثمن خمر، أو ثمن آلة لهو، وما أشبه ذلك، فهل هو كقوله: لا يلزمني، أو نقول: إن هذا ليس كقوله: لا يلزمني، لكن لا يلزم؛ لأن المعوض ليس له قيمة شرعاً؟ الجواب: الثاني، وهذا هو الأقرب أن يقال: إنه ليس كقوله: لا تلزمني؛ لإمكانه أن يبيع عليه خمراً، ثم يتوب ويقر قبل أن يسلم الثمن، وعليه فلو أضافه إلى خمر باعه عليه وهو ذمي فإنه يلزمه الألف؛ لأن هذا عوض عن شيء يصح التعويض عنه حيث كان في زمن الكفر. فإن أقام بينة على أنه له عليه ألف، وأنه أوفاه إياه أو ما أشبه ذلك، بحيث يصح قوله: «لا تلزمني» ويكون قوله: «له علي ألف» باعتبار أول الأمر، وقوله: «لا تلزمني» باعتبار ثاني الحال فإذا أقام بينة بهذا فإنه يقبل.