Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (2/380)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

Section

On this view, there is disagreement where the creditor proceeds against the guarantor, claiming that the debtor is insolvent, while the guarantor maintains that he is solvent. Whose statement is to be accepted, and who must produce evidence? According to Sahnūn’s rulings on particular cases in the Book of Guarantees, the creditor’s statement is accepted, and the guarantor must produce evidence that the debtor is solvent. If he cannot do so, he must pay. For Sahnūn states: “If the debtor is not known to have any apparent assets, the guarantor must pay.”

The apparent purport of the section containing Sahnūn’s transmissions in the Book of Marriage, however, is that the debtor is presumed solvent. The guarantor therefore cannot be required to pay until the debtor is found to have no assets. Accordingly, the creditor must produce evidence of the debtor’s insolvency.

Section

On this view, there is likewise disagreement where the creditor stipulates that he may recover what is owed to him from either party, as he chooses. Ibn al-Mājishūn, Ibn Kināna and Ashhab held that the condition is invalid and that the creditor has no recourse against the guarantor unless the debtor is insolvent. Ibn al-Qāsim expressed differing views on this. On one occasion, he held that the condition is valid and effective. This is his well-known position, established in al-Mudawwana and elsewhere, and it was also adopted by Asbagh. On another occasion, Ibn al-Qāsim held that the condition is valid only in the case of a debtor who is difficult to pursue for payment or who holds power.

His statements have been interpreted to mean that he gave effect to the condition without qualification when the guarantee formed part of the original sale, but subject to this restriction when the guarantee was given after the sale contract had been concluded. The correct understanding, however, is what we stated at the outset: these are differing views expressed by him, and there is no distinction between a guarantee given as part of the sale contract and one given afterwards.

Section

There is likewise disagreement where the creditor stipulates to the guarantor that his claim lies against him and releases the debtor. The apparent purport of Ibn al-Qāsim’s statement in the Book of Transfers of Debt is that the condition is valid and that the creditor has no recourse

فصل واختلف على هذا القول إذا قام المتحمل له على الحميل، فقال: إن الغريم عديم، وقال الحميل: بل هو مليء - فمن يكون القول قوله منهما؟ وعلى من تكون إقامة البينة؟ فعلى ما قاله سحنون في نوازله من كتاب الكفالة: إن القول قول المتحمل له، وعلى الكفيل إقامة البينة أن الغريم مليء، فإن عجز عن ذلك وجب عليه الغرم؛ لأنه إذا قال: إذا لم يعلم للغريم مال ظاهر، فالحميل غارم. وظاهر ما في سماع سحنون من كتاب النكاح أن الغريم محمول على اليسار، فلا سبيل إلى إغرام الحميل حتى لا يوجد للغريم مال، فعلى المتحمل له إقامة البينة على عدم الغريم. فصل وكذلك اختلف على هذا القول إذا شرط أن يأخذ أيهما شاء بحقه: فقال ابن الماجشون، وابن كنانة، وأشهب: شرطه باطل ولا سبيل له إلى الحميل إلا في عدم الغريم، واختلف في ذلك قول ابن القاسم: فمرة قال: إن الشرط جائز عامل وهو المشهور عنه المعلوم من مذهبه في المدونة وغيرها، وبه قال أصبغ؛ ومرة قال ابن القاسم: إن الشرط لا يجوز إلا في القبيح المطالبة، أو ذي السلطان؛ وقد تؤول عليه أنه إنما أعمل الشرط من غير استثناء إذا كانت الحمالة في أصل البيع، وبالاستثناء إذا كانت الحمالة بعد عقد البيع؛ والصحيح ما بدأنا به أن ذلك اختلاف من قوله، وألا فرق بين أن تكون الحمالة في عقد البيع أو بعده. فصل وكذلك اختلف - إن اشترط المتحمل له على الحميل أن حقه عليه، وأبرأ الغريم: فظاهر قول ابن القاسم في كتاب الحوالة أن الشرط جائز ولا رجوع له