Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (15/509)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

His statement: “If he acknowledges that he made a gift or pledge and delivered possession, or acknowledges receipt of a price or something else, then denies receipt without denying the acknowledgment, and requests that his opponent be required to swear, he has that right”: This involves several issues.

The first is where he acknowledges that he made a gift and delivered possession. He says, “I gave this book to Zayd as a gift and delivered it to him.” He adds, “and delivered it to him,” so that the gift becomes binding, for a gift becomes binding only upon delivery of possession. Had he said, “I gave it to him as a gift,” without saying, “and delivered it to him,” the gift would not be binding, because if the donor has not delivered the gift, he may withdraw it. Thus, if he says, “So-and-so, I gave you this book as a gift,” but does not deliver it to him, he may withhold the gift and decline to deliver it. But once he delivers it, it becomes binding.

This man acknowledged that he made a gift and delivered possession, then afterward said, “I did not deliver it,” and said, “Require the donee to swear that he received possession,” because the donee claims to have received possession so that the gift becomes binding, while the one making the acknowledgment claims that possession was not delivered, so that it does not become binding. The one making the acknowledgment therefore says, “Require him to swear that I delivered it to him, so that the gift becomes binding.” The author says: he has that right.

If the opponent says, “I will not swear. How can I swear concerning something that he has already acknowledged? Did he not acknowledge that he made the gift and delivered possession? Why, then, are you requiring me to swear concerning something my opponent has acknowledged?!” We say: if he is truthful in claiming that he did not deliver it to you, then you have sworn and are entitled to the gift. But if he is truthful in saying that he gave it and delivered possession, the oath does you no harm; rather, it benefits you in every case. So why would you not swear?!

قوله: «وَإِنْ أَقَرَّ أَنَّهُ وَهَبَ، أَوْ رَهَنَ وَأَقْبَضَ، أَوْ أَقَرَّ بِقَبْضِ ثَمَنٍ أَوْ غَيْرِهِ، ثُمَّ أَنْكَرَ الْقَبْضَ، وَلَمْ يَجْحَدِ الإِْقْرَارَ، وَسَأَلَ إِحْلَافَ خَصْمِهِ فَلَهُ ذَلِكَ» هنا عدة مسائل: الأولى: إن أقر أنه وهب وأقبض، قال: إني وهبت هذا الكتاب زيداً وأقبضته إياه، وإنما أردف قوله: وأقبضته إياه؛ من أجل أن تكون الهبة لازمة؛ لأن الهبة لا تلزم إلا بالقبض، ولو قال: وهبته ولم يقل: وأقبضته، ما لزمت الهبة؛ لأن الواهب إذا لم يُقْبِض الهبة فله أن يرجع، فلو قال: يا فلان أنا وهبتك هذا الكتاب، ولكن ما أقبضه إياه فله أن يمنع الهبة، ولا يُقْبِضَها، ولكن إذا أقبضها صارت لازمة، فهذا الرجل أقر أنه وهب وأقبض، ثم بعد ذلك قال: ما أقبضت، وقال: حَلِّفوا الموهوب له أنه قبض؛ لأن الموهوب له يدعي أنه قابض من أجل أن تلزم الهبة، والمُقِر يدعي أنه لم يُقبض من أجل ألا تلزم، فقال المقِر: حلفوه أني أقبضته حتى تكون الهبة لازمة، يقول المؤلف: له ذلك، فإن قال الخصم: لا أحلف، كيف أحلف على شيء هو أقر به؟ ألم يقر أنه وهب وأقبض، إذن فلماذا تحلفونني على شيء أَقر به خصمي؟! فنقول: إن كان صادقاً أنه لم يُقْبضك فأنت حلفت واستحققت الموهوب له، وإن كنت صادقاً في أنه وهب وأقبض فاليمين لا يضرك؛ بل هو نافع لك على كل حال، فلماذا لا تحلف؟!