Majmu' al-FatawaIbn Taimiya

to someone else, and then to yet another person. He knows that these people have not wronged him; rather, the one who wronged him is the person who transgressed against him. But if he knew who they were, would he be entitled to claim compensation from them for property for which they had assumed no liability? Scholars hold two views, the sounder being that he would not.

For example, if the wrongdoer deposits the owner’s property with someone who does not know that he has seized it unlawfully, and the deposited property is lost, may the owner claim compensation from the person entrusted with it? There are two views, the sounder being that he may not.

Likewise, if he serves it as food to a guest who knows nothing of the wrongdoing, and the owner subsequently finds out, may he claim compensation from the guest? There are two views. “One view” is that he may not.

Those who say that he may claim compensation do not say that eating it was unlawful. Rather, they say that the guest incurs no sin by eating it, but must pay its price, just as if he had purchased it.

Those who hold the correct view say that the guest incurs neither sin by eating it nor any liability whatsoever to compensate its owner. Rather, liability rests with the wrongdoer who seized it from him without right.

Thus, if we consider particular property in someone’s possession, without knowing that it was seized unlawfully or acquired through a form of possession that confers no ownership, and we receive it from him, accept it as a gift, or take it as wages or repayment of a loan, there is unanimous agreement that we incur no sin—even if, in reality, he had marketed it or seized it unlawfully. If we subsequently learn that it was stolen, then, according to the sounder of the two views, we owe only what we undertook by contract. That is, our ultimate liability extends only to what we undertook by contract. We therefore bear no ultimate liability for anything he gave us as a present or gift, nor for anything beyond the purchase price. The same applies to wages

إلَى غَيْرِهِ ثُمَّ إلَى غَيْرِهِ وَيَعْلَمُ أَنَّ أُولَئِكَ لَمْ يَظْلِمُوهُ وَإِنَّمَا ظَالِمُهُ مَنْ اعْتَدَى عَلَيْهِ؛ وَلَكِنْ لَوْ عَلِمَ بِهِمْ فَهَلْ لَهُ مُطَالَبَتُهُمْ بِمَا لَمْ يَلْتَزِمُوا ضَمَانَهُ؟ عَلَى قَوْلَيْنِ لِلْعُلَمَاءِ. أَصَحُّهُمَا أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُ ذَلِكَ. مِثَالُ ذَلِكَ: أَنَّ الظَّالِمَ إذَا أَوْدَعَ مَالَهُ عِنْدَ مَنْ لَا يَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُ غَاصِبٌ فَتَلِفَتْ الْوَدِيعَةُ فَهَلْ لِلْمَالِكِ أَنْ يُطَالِبَ الْمُودَعَ؟ عَلَى قَوْلَيْنِ: أَصَحُّهُمَا أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُ ذَلِكَ وَلَوْ أَطْعَمَ الْمَالَ لِضَيْفٍ لَمْ يَعْلَمْ بِالظُّلْمِ ثُمَّ عَلِمَ الْمَالِكُ فَهَلْ لَهُ مُطَالَبَةُ الضَّيْفِ؟ عَلَى قَوْلَيْنِ: " أَحَدُهُمَا " لَيْسَ لَهُ مُطَالَبَتُهُ. وَمَنْ قَالَ: إنَّ لَهُ مُطَالَبَتُهُ لَا يَقُولُ إنَّ أَكْلَهُ حَرَامٌ؛ بَلْ يَقُولُ: لَا إثْمَ عَلَيْهِ فِي أَكْلِهِ؛ وَإِنَّمَا عَلَيْهِ أَدَاءُ ثَمَنِهِ بِمَنْزِلَةِ مَا اشْتَرَاهُ. وَصَاحِبُ الْقَوْلِ الصَّحِيحِ يَقُولُ: لَا إثْمَ عَلَيْهِ فِي أَكْلِهِ وَلَا غُرْمَ عَلَيْهِ لِصَاحِبِهِ بِحَالِ وَإِنَّمَا الْغُرْمُ عَلَى الْغَاصِبِ الظَّالِمِ الَّذِي أَخَذَهُ مِنْهُ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ. فَإِذَا نَظَرْنَا إلَى مَالٍ مُعَيَّنٍ بِيَدِ إنْسَانٍ لَا نَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُ مَغْصُوبٌ وَلَا مَقْبُوضٌ قَبْضًا لَا يُفِيدُ الْمَالِكَ وَاسْتَوْفَيْنَاهُ مِنْهُ أَوْ اتَّهَبْنَاهُ مِنْهُ أَوْ اسْتَوْفَيْنَاهُ عَنْ أُجْرَةٍ أَوْ بَدَلِ قَرْضٍ لَا إثْمَ عَلَيْنَا فِي ذَلِكَ بِالِاتِّفَاقِ. وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي نَفْسِ الْأَمْرِ قَدْ سَوَّقَهُ أَوْ غَصَبَهُ ثُمَّ إذَا عَلِمْنَا فِيمَا بَعْدُ أَنَّهُ مَسْرُوقٌ فَعَلَى أَصَحِّ الْقَوْلَيْنِ لَا يَجِبُ عَلَيْنَا إلَّا مَا الْتَزَمْنَاهُ بِالْعَقْدِ أَيْ لَا يَسْتَقِرُّ عَلَيْنَا إلَّا ضَمَانُ مَا الْتَزَمْنَاهُ بِالْعَقْدِ فَلَا يَسْتَقِرُّ عَلَيْنَا ضَمَانُ مَا أَهْدَى أَوْ وَهَبَ، وَلَا ضَمَانَ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ الثَّمَنِ، وَكَذَلِكَ الْأُجْرَةُ

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies