Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/519)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

settle with the claimant for dirhams payable at a future date in lieu of taking the oath that the claimant is entitled to demand of him by virtue of his claim. Asbagh upheld such a settlement and did not rescind it judicially, following what was reported from ‘Alī ibn Abī Tālib. The well-known position, however, is that it must be rescinded.

As for a disapproved settlement, one view is that it may stand once concluded. Ibn al-Mājishūn said that it must be rescinded if discovered shortly after its conclusion, before much time has elapsed. This is a settlement whose outward form suggests an unlawful arrangement, although this cannot be established with certainty on either party’s side. For example, each party claims that the other owes him dinars or dirhams, while each denies the other’s claim and acknowledges none of it. They then agree that each will grant the other a deferment until a specified date for the amount he claims from him. Each says: “There is nothing unlawful in what I have done, because what I have given is a gift.” Yet the apparent arrangement is that each has deferred what the other owes him on condition that the other likewise defer what he owes. It thus involves “Lend to me and I will lend to you.” There is also reason to fear that each is actually owed part of what he claims from the other, in which case each has deferred payment of his debt on condition that its amount be increased. That is the usury forbidden by the Quran. Thus, note that there are three cases:

One in which there is agreement that the settlement must be rescinded.

One in which there is disagreement over whether it must be rescinded.

One in which there is agreement that it is not to be rescinded, unless it is discovered shortly after its conclusion, in which case rescission is disputed.

Section

Among the questions of settlement governed by the same rules as sales concerning what is lawful and unlawful is that of settling over a defect discovered in a slave. This question appears in al-Mudawwanah without all its cases being covered or its implications fully explained. I therefore thought to present it here, covering all its cases and explaining its implications fully, if Allah wills. There is no strength except through Allah. If a man sells a slave, and the buyer alleges that the slave has a defect and wishes to reach a settlement with the seller, the matter necessarily falls into one of two cases:

يصالحه عن يمينه الواجب له عليه بدعواه على دراهم إلى أجل؛ فهذا أمضاه أصبغ، ولم يفسخه بحكم على ما جاء عن علي بن أبي طالب، والمشهور أنه يفسخ، وأما الصلح المكروه فقيل إنه يجوز إذا وقع، وقال ابن الماجشون يفسخ إذا عثر عليه بحدثانه ما لم يطل، وهو أن يقع بين المتصالحين على وجه ظاهره الفساد ولا يتحقق في جهة واحدة منهما مثل أن يدعي كل واحد منهما على صاحبه دنانير أو دراهم وينكره فيها ولا يقر له بشيء منها، فيصالحان على أن يؤخر كل واحد منهما صاحبه بما يدعيه قبله إلى أجل، لأن كل واحد منهما يقول: لا حرام فيما فعلت، لأني واهب لما أعطيت؛ والظاهر أن كل واحد منهما أخر صاحبه بما له عليه على أن يؤخره بما له عليه، فيدخله أسلفني وأسلفك، ويخشى أن يكون لكل واحد منهما على صاحبه بعض ما يدعيه عليه، فيكون كل واحد منهما قد أخر صاحبه بما له عليه على أن يزيده فيه، وذلك الربا المحرم بالقرآن؛ فقف على أنها ثلاثة وجوه: وجه يفسخ فيه الصلح باتفاق. ووجه يفسخ فيه على اختلاف. ووجه لا يفسخ فيه باتفاق إلا أن يعثر عليه بحدثانه فيفسخ على اختلاف. فصل ومن مسائل الصلح التي تجري مجرى البيوع فيما يحل فيها ويحرم منها - مسألة الصلح في العيب يوجد بالعبد وهي مسألة وقعت في المدونة ناقصة الوجوه غير كاملة المعاني، فرأيت أن أوردها هنا باستيعاب وجوهها وكمال معانيها - إن شاء الله، ولا قوة إلا بالله؛ فإذا باع الرجل عبدا فادعى المبتاع أن به عيبا وأراد مصالحة البائع، فإن الأمر لا يخلو في ذلك من وجهين: