Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/310)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

Ibn al-Qāsim’s statement in the first case. As for someone imprisoned for deliberately withholding people’s money, nothing can spare him imprisonment and beating, according to what is related from Sahnūn, except a surety liable for the debt. All of this is clear.

Section

A guardian may be imprisoned for debts owed by the orphans under his guardianship if he holds funds belonging to them. Likewise, a father may be imprisoned for his child’s debt if he holds funds belonging to the child. Ibn Sahnūn related this from Ibn Abd al-Hakam. This means that he received funds whose disbursement has not been established, so his word is not accepted, because his claim runs contrary to the apparent circumstances.

A father may also be imprisoned if he refuses to provide maintenance for his young child, but he is not imprisoned for a debt he owes his child. The distinction is that withholding maintenance from his young child harms the child; the ruler therefore holds him accountable and compels him to provide it. A Muslim may be imprisoned for a debt owed to a non-Muslim, and a master for a debt owed to his slave who has contracted to purchase his freedom. The reason is that personal standing and rank are not taken into account when enforcing rights, except in the case of a father in relation to his child. His right over his child does not arise from his standing and rank, since both share the same inviolability. Rather, it arises from the right of fatherhood he holds over his child, which entails an obligation of maintenance. Other relatives, including grandfathers, may be imprisoned. Allah knows best.

Section

This applies to someone who has not claimed insolvency, saying, “I have nothing.” If, however, the debt falls due and he asks for a postponement and promises to pay, the ruler should grant him a respite commensurate with his prospects of repayment. He should not hastily declare him insolvent and immediately sell his goods on his behalf. Reports to this effect are recorded in al-Mudawwana, al-Utbiyya, al-Wādiha and other compilations. Allowing someone exercising the right of pre-emption a delay in paying the cash price falls under the same principle.

لقول ابن القاسم في الوجه الأول. وأما المحبوس لتقعده على أموال الناس، فلا ينجيه من السجن والضرب على ما روي عن سحنون إلا حميل غارم، وهذا كله بين. فصل ويحبس الوصي فيما على الأيتام من دين - إذا كان لهم في يده مال وكذلك الأب في دين الولد- إذا كان له بيده مال؛ رواه ابن سحنون عن ابن عبد الحكم، ومعنى ذلك أنه قبض مالا ولم يعلم إنفاذه فلا يقبل قوله؛ لأنه يدعي خلاف الظاهر من حاله، ويحبس الأب إذا امتنع من الإنفاق على ولده الصغير، ولا يحبس له في دينه إذا كان له عليه دين والفرق بينهما أن تركه للإنفاق على ولده الصغير من الإضرار به، فالسلطان يأخذه بذلك ويلزمه إياه ويحبس المسلم الكافر والسيد لمكاتبه؛ ووجه ذلك أن الحقوق لا يعتبر فيها الحرمة والمنزلة إلا الوالد في حق الولد؛ لأن حقه عليه ليس لأجل حرمته ومرتبته؛ لأن حرمتهما واحدة، وإنما ذلك لما له عليه من حق الأبوة الموجبة للنفقة، ويحبس سائر القرابات من الأجداد وغيرهم- والله أعلم. فصل وهذا لمن لم يتفالس ويقول: لا شيء لي، وأما إذا حل الدين فسأل أن يؤخر ووعد بالقضاء، فليؤخره الإمام حسبما يرجو له، ولا يعجل عليه بالتفليس وبيع عروضه عليه في الحين؛ والروايات بذلك مسطورة في المدونة والعتبية والواضحة وغيرها من الدواوين، وتأخير الأخذ بالشفعة بالنقد من هذا المعنى.