Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/505)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement, “If he says, ‘He was owed something by me, but I paid him’”: this is both an acknowledgment and a claim. The acknowledgment is, “He was owed something by me,” while the claim is, “but I paid him.” Should we say that the one thousand is established against the man by his acknowledgment, whereas payment is not established because he merely claims it, and the claimant must produce evidence? The author says that he is not liable for the one thousand, because there is no contradiction in this: he may indeed have owed him something and then paid it. Since his statement is not contradictory, we accept it.

His statement, “then his word is accepted with his oath,” means that he swears that he paid it and is thereby discharged. Is he required to produce evidence that he paid it? No, he is not required to do so, because this right became binding only through his acknowledgment; it must therefore be accepted in the manner in which he acknowledged it. This is the established position of the school, and it is correct.

Some scholars, however, held that he is both one who acknowledges and one who claims. Thus, he is liable for what he acknowledged and is required to produce evidence for what he claims. He has acknowledged the one thousand and claims to have paid it, so he is told: “The one thousand has now become binding upon you by your acknowledgment. Produce evidence that you paid it.” This was the view of Abu al-Khattab, one of the companions of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him. However, the established position of the school is sounder in this matter, and their proof is what has preceded. Hence the author said:

“Unless there is evidence.”

In that case, he is regarded as claiming payment. If he produces evidence for it, it is accepted; otherwise, he is liable for the one thousand, because here the one thousand was established by evidence. This is like the case where witnesses come and testify that a certain person borrowed one thousand riyals from Zayd, after which Zayd says, “He was owed something by me, but I paid him.” We would say: “We do not now accept your statement, because the original liability was established by evidence; therefore, you must produce evidence that you paid it.” As for the first case, the matter was established only through your own statement, so you are bound only by what you acknowledged.

قوله: «وَإِنْ قَالَ: كَانَ لَهُ عَلَيَّ وَقَضَيْتُهُ» فهذا إقرار ودعوى، فالإقرار «كان له علي» والدعوى «وقضيته» فهل نقول: إن الرجل ثبت عليه الألف بإقراره ولم يثبت القضاء؛ لأنه ادعاه وعلى المدعي البينة؟ المؤلف يقول: لا يلزمه الألف؛ لأن هذا لا يتناقض فقد يكون له عليه وقضاه، فلما لم يكن قوله متناقضاً أخذنا بقوله. قوله: «فقوله: بيمينه» أي: يحلف أنه قضاه ويبرأ، وهل يطالب بالبينة أنه قضى؟ لا يطالب؛ لأنه لم يلزم هذا الحق إلا بإقراره فوجب أن يكون على صفة ما أقر به، وهذا هو المذهب وهو الصحيح. وقال بعض أهل العلم: بل إنه يكون مقراً مدعياً، فيلزمه ما أقر به ويطالب بالبينة بما ادعاه، يكون مقراً بالألف ومدعياً للقضاء، فيقال: أنت الآن لزمك الألف بإقرارك، هاتِ بينة على أنك قضيته، وهذا قول أبي الخطاب من أصحاب الإمام أحمد ﵀، ولكن المذهب في هذا أصح، وحجتهم ما سبق؛ ولهذا قال المؤلف: «مَا لَمْ تَكُنْ بَيِّنَةٌ» فحينئذٍ يكون مدعياً للقضاء، فإن أتى ببينة عليه وإلا لزمه الألف؛ لأن الألف هنا ثبت ببينة، كما لو جاء شهود يشهدون بأن فلاناً استقرض من زيد ألف ريال، ثم قال زيد: كان له علي وقضيته، نقول: الآن لا نقبل قولك؛ لأن الأصل ثبت ببينة، فعليك البينة أنك قضيته، أما في الصورة الأولى فلم يثبت الأمر إلا من قِبَلك فلا يلزمك إلا ما أقررت به.