the purchaser has no recourse against the neutral party, because he collected the price without right? We say: This is because he delivered it to him as a trustee in its collection, to deliver it to the pledgee. Therefore, liability did not fall upon him. As for the pledgee, it has become manifest to him that the contract of pledge was invalid; if it was stipulated in a sale, he retains the option regarding it, otherwise his right lapses. If the pledgor is insolvent, whether living or deceased, the pledgee and the purchaser are equal among the creditors, for they are equivalent in the establishment of their rights against the liability (of the debtor), and thus they are equal in the distribution of his wealth among them. However, if the sold item is discovered to be a rightful claim of another after he has paid the price to the pledgee, the purchaser has recourse against the pledgee. This is the position of al-Shafi'i. Abu Hanifa said: He has recourse against the neutral party, and the neutral party has recourse against whichever of them he wishes, the pledgor or the pledgee. Our argument is that the substance of his wealth went to the pledgee without right, so his recourse is against him as if he had collected it from him. As for if the purchaser returned it due to a defect, he does not have recourse against the pledgee, because he collected the price with a right, nor against the neutral party, because he is a trustee and an agent; rather, he has recourse against the pledgor. If the neutral party did not inform the purchaser that he was an agent at the time of sale, the purchaser may have recourse against him, and he (the neutral party) has recourse against the pledgor if he (the pledgor) admits to it or evidence is established for it. If he denies it, the statement of the neutral party is accepted along with his oath. If he refuses to swear the oath and judgment is passed against him due to his refusal, or the oath is returned to the purchaser and he swears it and takes recourse against the neutral party, the neutral party does not have recourse against the pledgor, because he admits that he wronged him. According to the view of al-Khiraqi, the statement regarding the occurrence of the defect is that of the purchaser along with his oath, and this is one of the two narrations from Ahmad. So if the purchaser swears, he has recourse against the neutral party, and the neutral party has recourse against the pledgor. If the slave that was sold perishes in the hands of the purchaser, and then it is shown to be a rightful claim of another before the payment of his price, the one who was wronged may impose liability on whomsoever he wishes among the usurper, the neutral party, and the pledgee, and the liability rests with the purchaser, because the perishing occurred in his hands. This is if both knew of the usurpation. If he (the purchaser) was not aware, is the liability settled upon him or upon the usurper? There are two narrations.
Section: If the neutral party claims to have delivered the price to the pledgee, and he (the pledgee) denies it, al-Qadi and Abu al-Khattab said: His statement is accepted regarding the pledgor, but it is not accepted regarding the pledgee. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because the neutral party is the agent of the pledgor in paying the debt to the pledgee, and he is not an agent
لا يَرْجِعُ المُشْتَرِى على العَدْلِ، لأنَّه قَبَضَ الثَّمَنَ بغيرِ حَقٍّ؟ قُلْنا: لأنَّه سَلَّمَهُ إليه على أنَّه أَمِينٌ فى قَبْضِه، يُسَلِّمُه إلى المُرْتَهِنِ. فلذلك لم يَجِبِ الضَّمَانُ عليه، فأما المُرْتَهِنُ، فقد بَانَ له أنَّ عَقْدَ الرَّهْنِ كان فَاسِدًا، فإن كَان مَشْرُوطًا فى بَيْعٍ، ثَبَتَ له الخِيَارُ فيه، وإلَّا سَقَطَ حَقُّهُ، فإن كان الرَّاهِنُ مُفْلِسًا، حَيًّا أو مَيِّتًا، كان المُرْتَهِنُ والمُشْتَرِى أُسْوَةَ الغُرَمَاءِ؛ لأنَّهم مُتَسَاوُونَ فى ثُبُوتِ حَقِّهم فى الذِّمَّةِ، فاسْتَوَوْا فى قِسْمَةِ مَالِه بينهم. فأما إن خَرَجَ مُسْتَحَقًّا بعد ما دَفَعَ الثَّمَنَ إلى المُرْتَهِنِ، رَجَعَ المُشْتَرِى على المُرْتَهِنِ. وبهذا قال الشَّافِعِىُّ. وقال أبو حنيفةَ: يَرْجِعُ على العَدْلِ، ويَرْجِعُ العَدْلُ على أَيِّهما شَاءَ من الرَّاهِنِ، والمُرْتَهِنِ. ولَنا، أنَّ عَيْنَ مَالِه صَارَ إلى المُرْتَهِنِ بغيرِ حَقٍّ، فكان رُجُوعُه عليه كما لو قَبَضَهُ منه، فأمَّا إن كان المُشْتَرِىَ رَدَّهُ بِعَيْبٍ، لم يَرْجِعْ على المُرْتَهِنِ؛ لأنَّه قَبَضَ الثَّمَنَ بحَقٍّ, ولا على العَدْلِ؛ لأنَّه أَمِينٌ وَوَكِيلٌ، ويَرْجِعُ على الرَّاهِنِ. وإن كان العَدْلُ حين بَاعَهُ لم يُعْلِمِ المُشْتَرِىَ أنَّه وَكِيلٌ، كان لِلْمُشْتَرِى الرُّجُوعُ عليه، ويَرْجِعُ هو على الرَّاهِنِ، إن أقَرَّ بذلك، أو قَامَتْ به بَيِّنَةٌ، وإن أنْكَرَ ذلك، فالقولُ قولُ العَدْلِ مع يَمينِه، فإن نَكَلَ عن اليَمِينِ، فَقُضِىَ عليه بالنُّكُولِ، أو رُدَّتْ اليَمِينُ على المُشْتَرِى، فحَلَفَ، ورَجَعَ على العَدْلِ، لم يَرْجِع العَدْلُ على الرَّاهِنِ؛ لأنَّه يُقِرُّ أنَّه ظَلَمَهُ. وعلى قولِ الخِرَقِىِّ، القولُ فى حُدُوثِ العَيْبِ قولُ المُشْتَرِى مع يَمِينِه. وهو إحْدَى الرِّوَايَتَيْنِ عن أحمدَ. فإذا حَلَفَ المُشْتَرِى، رَجَعَ على العَدْلِ، ورَجَعَ العَدْلُ على الرَّاهِنِ. وإن تَلِفَ العَبْدُ المَبِيعُ فى يَدِ المُشْتَرِى، ثم بَانَ مُسْتَحَقًّا قبل وَزْنِ ثَمَنِه، فلِلْمَغْصُوبِ منه تَضْمِينُ مَن شَاءَ من الغَاصِبِ والعَدْلِ والمُرْتَهِنِ، ويَسْتَقِرُّ الضَّمَانُ على المُشْتَرِى؛ لأنَّ التَّلَفَ فى يَدِه، هذا إذا عَلِمَا بالغَصْبِ، وإن لم يكن عَالِمًا، فهل يَسْتَقِرُّ الضَّمَانُ عليه، أو على الغَاصِبِ؟ على رِوَايَتَيْنِ.
فصل: فإن ادَّعَى العَدْلُ دَفْعَ الثَّمَنِ إلى المُرْتَهِنِ، فأَنْكَرَ، فقال القاضى وأبو الخَطَّابِ: يُقبَلُ قَوْلُه فى حَقِّ الرَّاهِنِ، ولا يُقْبَلُ فى حَقِّ المُرْتَهِنِ. وهو مذهبُ الشَّافِعِىِّ؛ لأنَّ العَدْلَ وَكِيلُ الرَّاهِنِ فى دَفْعِ الدَّيْنِ إلى المُرْتَهِنِ، وليس بِوَكِيلٍ
