Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/397)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

As for the first possibility—namely, that the two partners affirm the heirs’ claim that the deceased paid the seller the entire debt from his own funds, on his own behalf and theirs, intending to recover their respective shares from them—the oath passes to the seller. He swears that the witness’s testimony is false and recovers his entire claim, taking two-thirds from the two partners and one-third from the deceased’s estate. The heirs may not recover from the two partners their respective shares of the money which they acknowledge the deceased paid, as the witness testified, even though they affirm his testimony. This is because the deceased neglected to have the payment witnessed, so the loss falls upon him.

Ibn Abī Zayd, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “Unless the payment was made in their presence, in which case the heirs may recover it from them.” This accords with Abū Zayd’s transmission from Ibn al-Qāsim, contrary to ʿĪsā’s transmission from him that the heirs have no recourse against them even if the payment was made in their presence.

Concerning this possibility, he says in the book: “The two partners do not swear, because they must pay.” His statement that they do not swear is correct, because the witness is not testifying on their behalf; rather, he is testifying on behalf of the heirs against them. His explanation, “because they must pay,” however, is questionable. It suggests that he meant that they do not swear because, if they swear, they must pay the heirs, and if they do not swear, they must pay the seller; hence they do not swear. Had this been his meaning, they would have been entitled to swear if they wished, thereby defeating the seller’s claim against them, in the hope that the heirs might be lenient with them in collecting payment.

That cannot, however, be his meaning, because, as we have explained, the heirs have no recourse against them for their respective shares of what the deceased paid on their behalf from his own funds, even if they acknowledge that he made the payment—unless they admit that it was made in their presence, according to one of the two transmissions mentioned from Ibn al-Qāsim. What he should have said, therefore, was: “The two partners do not swear, and they must pay the seller.” If, in this first possibility, the seller refuses to swear after the heirs have refused, his claim lapses, and the heirs recover from the two partners their respective shares of the debt.

As for the second possibility—namely, that they say, “He paid the entire amount from our funds, acting as our appointed agent”—the later scholars differed concerning it. Ibn Abī Zayd said: “The two partners swear that the deceased made the payment, and they are discharged from liability. Because the heirs refused to swear, the seller recovers their share from them after swearing that he received nothing from their deceased relative. The two partners may require the heirs, if they are adults, to swear that they have no knowledge of the two partners having paid anything to their deceased relative. If the heirs refuse to swear, the two partners swear that they paid him the entire debt and recover from the heirs the one-third share for which they are liable.”

Abū Ishāq al-Tūnisī held that the seller swears and recovers his money from all of them, and that the heirs swear to the two partners that they have no knowledge that the two partners paid

فأما الوجه الأول وهو أن يصدق الشركان الورثة فيما ادعوا من أن الميت دفع جميع الحق من ماله، إلى البائع عن نفسه وعنهما ليرجع عليهما بما ينوبهما منه، فيرجع اليمين على البائع فيحلف على تكذيب ما شهد به الشاهد، ويرجع بجميع حقه فيأخذ ثلثيه من الشريكين وثلثه من مال المتوفى، وليس للورثة أن يرجعوا على الشريكين بما ينوبهما من المال الذي أقرا أن موروثهم أداه على ما شهد به الشاهد - وإن كانا قد صدقاه في شهادته بذلك، لأن الميت ضيع في تركه الإشهاد، فالمصيبة منه؛ قال ابن أبي زيد ﵀ إلا أن يكون الدفع بحضرتهما، فيكون لهم الرجوع بذلك عليهما، وذلك على ما روى أبو زيد عن ابن القاسم، خلاف ما روى عنه عيسى من أنه لا رجوع لهم عليهما وإن كان الدفع بحضرتهما، قال في هذا الوجه في الكتاب ولا يحلف الشريكان لأنهما يغرمان، فأما قوله إنهما لا يحلفان فصواب، لأن الشاهد ليس هو لهما وإنما هو للورثة عليهما، وأما قوله لأنهما يغرمان فتعليل فيه نظر يوهم أنه أراد أنهما لا يحلفان، لأنهما إن حلفا غرما للورثة؛ وإن لم يحلفا غرما للبائع: ولذلك لم يحلفا. ولو كان مراده ذلك، لكان من حقهما أن يحلفا إن شاءا ليسقطا طلب البائع عنهما لما قد يرجوان من مسامحة الورثة لهما في الاقتضاء ولا يصح أن يكون مراده ذلك، لما بيناه من أنه لا رجوع للورثة عليهما بما ينوبهما مما أدى الميت عنهما من ماله وإن صدقاه على الدفع إلا أن يقرا أنه كان بحضرتهما على إحدى الروايتين المذكورتين عن ابن القاسم، وإنما كان يجب أن يقول ولا يحلف الشريكان ويغرمان للبائع، فإن نكل البائع في هذا الوجه عن اليمين بعد نكول الورثة، سقط حقه ورجع الورثة على الشريكين بما ينوبهما من الحق. وأما الوجه الثاني - وهو أن يقولا إنما دفع جميع ذلك من أموالنا بوكالتنا إياه على ذلك، ففي ذلك بين المتأخرين اختلاف: قال ابن أبي زيد يحلف الشريكان لقد دفع الميت ذلك ويبرآن ويرجع البائع على الورثة بما ينوبهم بنكولهم بعد يمينه أنه ما قبض من وليهم شيئا، وللشريكين أن يحلفا الورثة إن كانوا كبارا: ما يعلمون أنهما دفعا إلى وليهم شيئا، فإن نكلوا عن اليمين حلفا لقد دفعا جميع الحق إليه، ورجعا عليهم بالثلث الذي ينوبهم منه؛ وذهب أبو إسحاق التونسي إلى أن البائع يحلف فيأخذ من جميعهم ماله ويحلف الورثة للشريكين أنهم ما يعلمون أنهما دفعا