ShamelaTranslate
بحث
تسجيل الدخول
ShamelaTranslate

© 2026 ShamelaTranslate. مشروع علمي مفتوح الوصول.

حولتواصلتبرّعبيانات النشرالخصوصيةشروط الاستخدامحق الانسحابإلغاء اشتراك
المغني لابن قدامة - ت التركي
مجلد 7 · صفحة 106فصل

الترجمة · EN

therefrom. This differs from the case where he is absent, for [attendance] has not lapsed from him. It also differs from a pledge (rahn), for the wealth is attached to it, so it is collected therefrom.

Section: If the surety says, "The person for whom the suretyship was provided has been absolved of the debt, and the suretyship has lapsed," or if he says, "There was no debt upon him when I stood surety for him," and the creditor denies this, the statement is that of the creditor, because the original state (asl) is the validity of the suretyship and the persistence of the debt, and he is required to take an oath; if he refuses, judgment is rendered against him. It is possible that he should not be made to take an oath in the case where the surety claims that he stood surety for someone who had no debt, because the surety is contradicting himself in what he claimed, for one who stands surety for a person is implicitly admitting his debt in the manifest view. The first view is more appropriate, because what he claimed is possible.

Section: If the creditor says to the surety, "I have absolved you of the suretyship," he is absolved, because it is his right, so it lapses through his waiver, like a debt. If he says, "You have been absolved by me of it," or "You have returned it to me," he is also absolved, because he is acknowledging the fulfillment of the right, just as if he acknowledged that in a guarantee (daman). The same applies if he says, "You are absolved of the debt for which you stood surety." The surety is absolved in these instances, but the person for whom the suretyship was provided is not; nor does this constitute an admission of having received the right. This is the opinion of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. It has been said: It constitutes [an admission regarding that which the right requires] its admission, in the case where he says, "You are absolved of the debt for which you stood surety." The first view is more correct, because his absolution is possible without receiving the right, through the waiver of the person entitled to it, or the death of the person for whom the suretyship was provided. As for if he says to the person for whom the suretyship was provided, "I have absolved you of the right I have against you," or "You are absolved of the debt that is upon you," then he is absolved of the right, and the suretyship ceases, because it is a phrasing that implies generality in all that is against him. If he says, "You are absolved of the debt for which so-and-so stood surety," he is absolved, and his surety is absolved.

الحواشي

(3) Omitted from MS B. (4) MS B adds: "if". (5) In the original manuscript, MS A, and MS M: "the debt". (6) MS B adds: "to him". (7) Omitted from MS A and MS M.

العربية (المصدر)

منه، وفَارَقَ ما إذا غَابَ، [فإنَّ الحُضُورَ] (٣) لم يُسْقِطْ عنه، ويُفَارِقُ الرَّهْنَ؛ فإنَّه عُلِّق به المالُ، فَاسْتُوفِىَ منه.

فصل: إذا قال الكَفِيلُ: قد بَرِئَ المَكْفُولُ به من الدَّيْنِ، وسَقَطَتِ الكَفَالَةُ. أو قال: لم يكُنْ عليه دَيْنٌ حين كَفَلْتُه. فأنْكَرَ المَكْفُولُ له، فالقولُ قولُه؛ لأنَّ الأصْلَ صِحَّةُ الكَفَالَةِ وبَقَاءُ الدَّيْنِ، وعليه اليَمِينُ، فإن نَكَلَ، قُضِىَ عليه. ويَحْتَمِلُ أن لا يُسْتَحْلَفَ فيما إذا ادَّعَى الكَفِيلُ أنَّه تَكَفَّلَ بمن لا دَيْنَ عليه؛ لأنَّ الكَفِيلَ مُكَذِّبٌ لِنَفْسِه فيما (٤) ادَّعَاهُ، فإنَّ مَن كَفَلَ بِشَخْصٍ مُعْتَرِفٌ بِدَيْنِه في الظَّاهِرِ. والأَوَّلُ أَوْلَى؛ لأنَّ ما ادَّعَاهُ مُحْتَمِلٌ.

فصل: وإذا قال المَكْفُولُ له لِلْكَفِيلِ: أَبْرَأْتُكَ من الكَفَالَةِ. بَرِئَ؛ لأنَّه حَقُّه، فيَسْقُطُ بإِسْقَاطِه، كالدَّيْنِ (٥). وإن قال: قد بَرِئْتَ إلَىَّ منه. أو قد رَدَدْتَهُ إلَىَّ. بَرِئَ أيضًا؛ لأنَّه مُعْتَرِفٌ بِوفَاءِ الحَقِّ، فهو كما لو اعْتَرَفَ بذلك في الضَّمانِ. وكذلك إذا قال (٦): بَرِئْتَ من الدَّيْنِ الذي كَفَلْتَ به. ويَبْرَأُ الكَفِيلُ في هذه المَوَاضِع دون المَكْفُولِ به. ولا يكونُ إِقْرَارًا بِقَبْضِ الحَقِّ. وهذا قول محمدِ بن الحَسَنِ. وقيل: يكونُ [إقْرارًا فيما يَقْتَضِى الحقُّ] (٧) إِقْرَارَه، فيما إذا قال: بَرِئْتَ من الدَّيْنِ الذي كَفَلْتَ به. والأَوَّلُ أصَحُّ؛ لأنَّه يُمْكِنُ بَرَاءَتُه بدون قَبْضِ الحَقِّ، بإِبْرَاءِ المُسْتَحِقِّ، أو مَوْتِ المَكْفُولِ به. فأمَّا إن قال لِلْمَكْفُولِ به: أَبْرَأْتُكَ عمَّا لي قِبَلَكَ من الحَقِّ. أو بَرِئْتَ من الدَّيْنِ الذي قِبَلَكَ. فإنَّه يَبْرَأُ من الحَقِّ، وتَزُولُ الكَفَالَةُ؛ لأنَّه لَفْظٌ يَقْتَضِى العُمُومَ في كلِّ ما قبلَه. وإن قال: بَرِئْتَ من الدَّيْنِ الذي كَفَلَ به فُلَانٌ. بَرِئَ، وبَرِئَ كَفِيلُه.

الحواشي

(٣) سقط من: ب.(٤) في ب زيادة: "إذا".(٥) في الأصل، أ، م: "الدين".(٦) في ب زيادة: "له".(٧) سقط من: أ، م.

السابقمجلد 7 · صفحة 106التالي
السابق7·106التالي