بررسي تطبيقي ضمان منافع مال مغصوب در فقه اسلامي

A Comparative Study of the Liability for the Profits Derived from Usurped Property ‎in the Islamic Law

مسئوليت غاصب نسبت به منافع مال مغصوب همواره يكي از مباحث مهم و كاربردي در فقه اسلامي بوده‏ است. تشتت آراء بين فقهاي اسلامي و تنوع استدلال‏ ها همراه با عدم جامعيت مباحث قبلي، از دلائل نگارش اين مقاله است. در اين مسأله ابوحنيفه و اتباع غير متأخر او معتقدند غاصب به هيچ وجه ضامن منافع نيست. از نظر مالك بن انس نيز در صورت عدم استفاده از منافع، غاصب ضامن نيست اما در مقابل شافعيه و اماميه و حنابله معتقدند غاصب هم در منافع مستوفات و هم غير مستوفات ضامن است. عدم صدق غصب بر منافع، مال نبودن منافع، حديث الخراج بالضمان و قياس از مهم ­ترين ادلۀ قائلين به عدم ضمان است و از طرفي تقوّم و ماليت عرفي منافع در كنار قاعده حرمت مال مسلمان، جواز تعدي به مثل، صدق غصب نسبت به منافع، سيره عقلاء و ضمان تفويت ناشي از اين سيره و قاعده لاضرر در كنار روايات معتبر و اجماع از مهم ­ترين ادله‏ي ضمان منفعت است مشروط بر اينكه معمولاً در برابر آن منفعت، اجرت پرداخت شود.

The issue of the liability of the usurper in respect of the profits derived from ‎the usurped property has long been a bone of contention among Muslim jurists. Differences of opinion among the Islamic jurists, and the variety and ‎insufficiency of the previous arguments are the reasons for ‎writing this article. On this issue, Abu Hanifa and his early followers believe that the usurper is by no means liable for the profits derived from the usurped property. ‎Malik b. Anas also believes that the usurper shall not be liable in the case of not using. The Shafi'iyya, the Shi'a and the Hanbali, however, believe that the usurper shall be ‎liable whether or not he derives benefit from the property. ‎The inaccuracy of applying usurpation to profits, the opinion that profits are not capable of being owned (property), the tradition of Al-kharaj bial-ziman (profits against ‎liability), and deductive analogy ‎(qiyas) form the basis of the arguments posed by the jurists who believe in the non-liability of the ‎usurper.‎ On the other hand, assessment of profits, profits being customarily considered as capable of being owned (property), the rule of the sanctity of Muslim property, the permission to similar transgression, accuracy of applying usurpation to profits, the conduct of the wise and the ‎liability for the forfeiture resulting therefrom, the rule of “no harm” (la zarar) in addition to ‎authentic traditions and consensus among the jurists are the most important arguments by the jurists who believe in the liability of the usurper for the profits derived from the usurped property provided that profits are capable of being bartered in a rent contract.