Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/379)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

and the creditor is entitled to demand payment from him under it, as the hadith indicates, then there is all the more reason to demand payment from the debtor himself, if he is solvent, since the guarantee has not discharged his liability for the debt. The creditor must therefore have the choice of demanding payment from either of them, as al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Hanīfa held, contrary to the position reported from Mālik.” I say: This conclusion does not necessarily follow, because the hadith concerns someone who left insufficient assets to discharge his debt—which is why the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, declined to offer the funeral prayer for him. This is therefore not the case under dispute.

Mālik’s position, which Ibn al-Qāsim preferred, is more convincing: the guarantor cannot be required to pay while the debtor is solvent and present, provided that both are equally obstinate in litigation. For if judgment is given in the creditor’s favour against the guarantor, judgment will immediately be given in the guarantor’s favour against the debtor. Giving judgment directly in the creditor’s favour against the debtor is therefore more appropriate and less burdensome. Success comes through Allah.

Section

A guarantee is valid only in matters in which one person may act on behalf of another. This applies only to a financial liability or to something that may result in such a liability. As for matters concerning the person rather than financial liabilities—such as homicide, theft, prescribed punishments and discretionary punishment—no guarantee is valid, since one person cannot act on another’s behalf in these matters.

Section

Guarantees fall into two categories: financial guarantees and guarantees relating to the person.

Financial guarantees are binding both during life and after death, whether given as part of the original sale or after the sale contract has been concluded. Although such a guarantee is an act of benevolence, it is as though it were given in exchange for consideration: the creditor’s agreement to hand over his merchandise or to grant his debtor a deferment. Furthermore, if the guarantor pays, he may recover what he has paid.

Mālik expressed differing views concerning a financial guarantor. On one occasion, he said that the creditor may choose to recover what is owed to him from either party: the guarantor or the debtor, even if the debtor is solvent. On another occasion, he said that the creditor has no recourse against the guarantor unless the debtor is insolvent. This is the position preferred by Ibn al-Qāsim.

وكان للمكفول له مطالبته بها على ما في الحديث، كان المكفول عنه إذا كان مليا أحرى بالمطالبة، إذ لم يسقط الدين عن ذمته بالكفالة؛ فوجب أن يكون مخيرا في مطالبة من شاء منهما على ما قاله الشافعي وأبو حنيفة، خلاف ما روي عن مالك؛ قلت: وهذا لا يلزمه؛ لأن الحديث إنما هو فيمن لم يترك وفاء، ولذلك لم يصل عليه النبي ﷺ، فليس هذا موضع الخلاف. وقول مالك الذي اختاره ابن القاسم أظهر أن الكفالة لا تلزم الكفيل مع ملأ المكفول عنه وحضوره واستوائهما في اللدد؛ لأنه إن قضى للمكفول له على الكفيل، قضى في الحين للكفيل على المكفول عنه، فالقضاء له على المكفول عنه أولى وأقل عناء، وبالله التوفيق. فصل والحمالة لا تجوز إلا فيما تصح فيه النيابة، وذلك إنما يكون في المال المتعلق بالذمة، أو ما يؤول إلى المال المتعلق بها؛ وأما ما يكون في الأبدان ولا يتعلق بالأموال- كالقتل والسرقة والحدود والتعزير، فلا تجوز فيه الحمالة، إذ لا تصح فيه النيابة. فصل وهي تنقسم على قسمين: حمالة بالمال وحمالة بالوجه. فأما الحمالة بالمال فإنها لازمة في الحياة وبعد الممات، كانت في أصل البيع أو بعد عقد البيع؛ لأنها وإن كانت من المعروف، فكأنها إنما خرجت عن عوض، وهو ما رضي به المتحمل له من دفع سلعته أو تأخير غريمه؛ وأيضا فإنه إذا غرم، يرجع بما غرم. واختلف قول مالك في الحميل بالمال: فمرة قال: إن المتحمل له بالخيار يأخذ أيهما شاء بحقه إن شاء الحميل، وإن شاء المتحمل عنه، وإن كان الغريم مليا؛ ومرة قال: لا سبيل له إلى الحميل إلا في عدم الغريم- وهو اختيار ابن القاسم.