Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement, “Or he acknowledges the basis of the right”: for example, he says, “He was owed one thousand by me as a loan.” We say: if you then say, “And I repaid it,” the one thousand becomes binding upon you, because you have acknowledged something that entails a debt—namely, a loan, the price of a sale, rent for a house, or the like. Thus, this issue has three cases:

The first is that he says, “He was owed one thousand by me, but I repaid it,” without its being established by evidence and without attributing it to any particular basis. In this case, his word is accepted with his oath that he repaid it.

The second is that the original one thousand is established by evidence, after which he claims to have repaid it. His claim is not accepted except with evidence, because the original debt was established independently of his acknowledgment.

The third is that it is not established by evidence, but he attributes it to a particular basis, saying, “He was owed one thousand by me as a loan,” or, “as the price of merchandise sold,” or, “as rent,” and the like. Once he acknowledges the basis of the right, he has acknowledged that he owes something for which he received no compensation. Thus, the one thousand becomes binding upon him through his acknowledgment of the basis of the right: it is compensation for something he received from the person in whose favor he made the acknowledgment. This differs from a mere acknowledgment alone. Therefore, in this case, his claim that he repaid it is not accepted except with evidence, because he has acknowledged the basis of the right; and the basis is intrinsically probative, just as evidence is intrinsically probative. Accordingly, you must produce evidence. In the first case, however, he did not acknowledge that he received anything; it may have been a gift, a promise, or something else.

His statement, “If he says, ‘He was owed one hundred by me,’ then remains silent for a period in which he could have spoken, and then says, ‘in defective coins,’ or, ‘deferred,’ he is liable for one hundred sound coins payable immediately”: “defective” means flawed, because it stands in contrast to “sound.” This is a man who said, “He was owed one hundred dirhams by me,”

قوله: «أَوْ يَعْتَرِفُ بِسَبَبِ الحَقِّ» فيقول: كان له علي ألف قرضاً، فنقول: إذا قلت: وقضيته، يلزمك الألف؛ لأنك أقررت بشيء يوجب الدين، وهو القرض، أو ثمن البيع، أو أجرة البيت أو ما أشبه ذلك، فصارت هذه المسألة لها ثلاث صور: الأولى: أن يقول: كان له علي ألف فقضيته، ولا يثبت ببينة ولا يعزوه إلى سبب، فهنا القول قوله بيمينه أنه قضاه. الثانية: أن يثبت أصل الألف ببينة ثم يدعي القضاء فلا يقبل إلا ببينة؛ لأن الأصل ثبت بغير إقراره. الثالثة: ألا يثبت ببينة، ولكن يعزوه إلى سبب، فيقول: له علي ألف قرضاً، أو ثمن مبيع، أو أجرة أو ما أشبه ذلك، فلما اعترف بسبب الحق اعترف أن في ذمته شيئاً لم يؤخذ عنه عوض، فالألف لزمته بإقراره بسبب الحق، وهو عوض عن شيء أخذه من المُقَرِّ له، بخلاف الذي هو مجرد إقرار فقط، فنقول في هذه الصورة: لا تقبل دعواه أنه قضى إلا ببينة، لأنه اعترف بسبب الحق، والسبب موجب بذاته كالبينة موجبة بذاتها، وحينئذٍ يلزمك أن تقيم بينة، أما في الأولى فإنه لم يعترف أن شيئاً دخل عليه، فقد يكون هذا هبة منه أو عدة أو غير ذلك. قوله: «وَإِنْ قَالَ: لَهُ عَلَيَّ مِائَةٌ ثُمَّ سَكَتَ سُكُوتاً يُمْكِنُهُ الكَلَامُ فِيهِ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: زُيُوفاً أَوْ مُؤَجَّلَةً لَزِمَهُ مِائَةٌ جَيِّدَةٌ حَالَّةٌ» «زيوفاً» أي: معيبة؛ لأنها تقابل «جيدة»، هذا رجل قال: له علي مائة درهم،

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies