Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/401)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and Abū Bakr al-Siddīq neither imprisoned anyone nor had a prison. The correct account, however, is that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did sentence people to beating and imprisonment, as Ibn Sha‘bān mentioned. As for ‘Umar ibn al-Khattāb, there is no disagreement that he had a prison. He imprisoned al-Hutay’a for his satirical verse and Dubay‘ for his questions about obscure matters. Likewise, the rulers and judges who came after him imposed imprisonment in cases that warranted it.

Section

Al-Shāfi‘ī considered guarantees of appearance in financial cases unsound. There are thus three positions on this issue:

The first permits guarantees of appearance in financial cases and in cases involving prescribed punishments and retaliation.

The second does not permit guarantees of appearance in any of these cases.

The third draws the distinction made by Mālik and his companions.

Section

A guarantor of a person’s appearance must pay the debt if he fails to produce that person. If he produces him, he is discharged from financial liability, even if that person is insolvent. If, however, he stipulates that he bears no financial liability, that stipulation is effective, and he is not required to pay the debt even if he fails to produce the person—unless he is able to bring him but is negligent and leaves him at large, or conceals him until he gets away. In that case, he becomes liable for the money because he has caused its loss. So long as he does none of these things, he bears no financial liability; he is required only to seek the person, in accordance with his stipulation.

Mālik’s companions differ over the extent of the search required of him. These differences are recorded in the principal source works, including the material in Husayn’s transmission in the Book of Guarantees and what Ibn Habīb related in al-Wādiha. Anyone wishing to examine these differences may consult the relevant passages, Allah willing.

It is stated in Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book: “Likewise, if he says, ‘I guarantee only his appearance,’ he is not financially liable if he fails to produce the person.” In my view, this requires examination, since there is no difference between saying, “I am

رسول الله ﷺ وأبا بكر الصديق لم يسجنا ولا كان لهما سجن، والصحيح أن رسول الله ﷺ قد حكم بالضرب والسجن - ذكر ذلك ابن شعبان؛ وأما عمر بن الخطاب فلم يختلف عنه في أنه كان له سجن وقد سجن الحطيئة على الهجو، وسجن ضبيعا على سؤاله عن المشكلات، وكذلك من بعده من الأمراء والحكام، حكموا بالسجن فيما يجب فيه السجن. فصل وقد ضعف الشافعي الحمالة في المال في الوجه، فيأتي في المسألة على هذا ثلاثة أقوال: أحدها: إجازة الحمالة بالوجه في المال والحدود والقصاص. والثاني: أن الحمالة بالوجه لا تجوز في شيء من ذلك. والثالث. تفرقة مالك وأصحابه. فصل والحميل بالوجه يلزمه غرم المال إذا لم يحضر العين؛ فإن أحضره بريء من المال - وإن كان عديما، إلا أن يشترط ألا شيء عليه من المال فينفعه الشرط ولا يجب عليه غرم المال وإن لم يحضره إلا أن يكون قادرا على الإتيان به فيفرط في ذلك ويتركه أو يغيبه حتى يذهب، فيكون ضامنا للمال بإهلاكه إياه؛ وما لم يفعل شيئا من ذلك، فلا ضمان عليه في المال، وإنما يلزمه الطلب خاصة على ما اشترط وفيما يلزمه من الطلب اختلاف بين أصحاب مالك، وهو موجود في الأمهات؛ من ذلك ما وقع في سماع حسين من كتاب الكفالة، وما حكى ابن حبيب في الواضحة، فمن أراد الوقوف على الاختلاف في ذلك، تأمله في مواضعه - إن شاء الله؛ قال في كتاب ابن المواز وكذلك لو قال لا أضمن إلا وجهه لم يلزمه ضمان المال إن لم يأت بالعين، وهذا فيه نظر عندي - إذ لا فرق بين أن يقول أنا