Interventions and discussions on the issue of khulu' and the answers to them.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner: Oh Shaykh. Excuse me, Shaykh, please go ahead... It is not permissible for the owner of the new building to take a khulu' fee on the basis that... but the new tenant might rent this shop, and after one or three months, he obtains a release from this shop, and this new tenant earns a sum of money that may be large, more than what the building owner obtained?
The Shaykh: Where were you? I mentioned this in my speech, I mentioned this in my speech just now, is that not so?
The questioner: Excuse me... It is permissible, but it is only permissible if he agrees... .
The Shaykh: No, no, I meant, how do we justify the khulu' fee in our region in Syria? Because the first tenant might sublet to someone else, so he vacates it for another and takes a khulu' fee more than what he paid, do you understand? I mentioned this, but I said there, to ensure the tenant does not exploit the landlord, that we impose a pledge on him, a pledge that I do not deserve, nor do I eat from it, nor do I benefit from a single penny of it, except when he breaches the agreed conditions, so he continues to deal with my property as if he were the owner; at that point, I take this pledge in exchange for the harm he caused me; because he imposed the law of the disbeliever on me, whereas the khulu' fee has no basis at all.
The questioner: Oh Shaykh, suppose it is a new building, to avoid the process of khulu', we say we rent it - for example - for five hundred dinars, but I will take two hundred and fifty from you in advance... for the next five years, but pay me two hundred and fifty monthly, so in this case, two hundred and fifty monthly for five years, can you give it to me in one lump sum, and the rest two hundred and fifty every month...?
The Shaykh: The rest, which rest?
The questioner: The rent is five hundred dinars monthly.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: On the basis that the building is new, and the shop is five hundred dinars, but in the contract it states that he pays half the rent as a lump sum upon taking possession of the shop for a period of five years, and the rest two hundred and fifty every month.
The Shaykh: Yes, or if you mean the property owner took a loan from him for two and a half years' rent.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Are not all roads leading to the mill?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Okay, so - for example - we said two or three years, is there a difference in your understanding?
The questioner : No, it is the same thing.
The Shaykh: Why did you assume half? Because I fear there is something behind the veil [The Shaykh laughs!].
The questioner: No, may you be safe, it is the whole operation.
The Shaykh: And may I be safe, may I be safe and may you be safe, but this is a scholarly discussion, we need to see what it means, what is the difference? Why did you assume half, I mean?
The questioner: No, Shaykh, here... the man.
The Shaykh: My brother, I am not blaming you or holding you accountable, do not be offended, this is a discussion, yes, because when you say to me: may you be safe [The Shaykh laughs!].
The questioner : May Allah keep you safe.
The Shaykh: Yes, did you notice anything when you assumed half?
The questioner: ... the whole matter, my understanding is... that on the basis of the one who cites khulu'... we take money for half of these five years?
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner: Half the rent, is this permissible in this case?
The Shaykh: Yes, if we say: he took two and a half years' rent.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is permissible.
The questioner : It is permissible.
The Shaykh: If he took an advance of two and a half or three years' rent.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Not half of five years' rent; because I am afraid of too much going back and forth, and we said this just now to the brother questioner here, do you not remember?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner: It differs.
The Shaykh: No, it does not differ, in what he says it does not differ.
The questioner: ... he takes an advance for five years.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: No... it is a form, a form of pledge, but he takes cash for five years' rent, four years, ten years, as they agree, there is no objection, we said this just now.
Another questioner: Also, Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner: He pays exceeding... .
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: In this case, if we say he took an advance for two and a half or three years' rent.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: And also with... a monthly rent in addition to this amount... .
The Shaykh : Who is he?
The questioner: On the assumption that it is.
The Shaykh: The tenant?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: No, he assumed that he pays in cash.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: In cash for half, meaning instead of paying within the period of five years' rent, he pays half of five years' rent, and during each month he pays half a month's rent.
The questioner: This is not the point you raised in the question and what is behind the question.
The Shaykh: Yes, but I do not see yet what is behind it!!
The questioner: Because it might be taken.
Another questioner: Leave the years, the Shaykh stays with the numbers, meaning - for example - the year's rent is ten thousand, five fifty, what is the difference if I come to the shepherd of the...
The Shaykh: The shop.
The questioner: the shop, and he conditions that I pay twenty-five thousand in advance, and twenty-five thousand for the rest.
The Shaykh: Every month.
The questioner: Every month two hundred and fifty.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : This is one case.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: Is this permissible?
The Shaykh: I see no difference, but he scared me... .
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Abu Khalid brought me that he has a note.
The questioner: ... the issue is, if he took an advance, then it is required that the tenant does not pay his rent monthly... for the same period of three years.
The Shaykh: Of course, yes.
The questioner : This is one point.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: And if he pays part of the money, for example; he pays half the rent, which is less than the actual rent of the property.
The Shaykh: No, it is not less, why?
The questioner: Yes, because... .
The Shaykh: This is the picture Abdullah is bringing up.
The questioner: The question Muhammad asked is clear.
The Shaykh: It is itself.
The questioner: That one person rents a building shop, he takes from the shop five years, the year is ten thousand, fifty thousand, the shop owner finds it heavy for the tenant to pay fifty thousand at once, he says to him: give me twenty-five thousand and the other twenty-five thousand is paid in monthly installments, fair?
Another questioner: He might say to him: give me twenty-five thousand and you pay nothing for two and a half years, and after two and a half years you start paying fifty thousand every month, ten thousand every year.
The Shaykh: This is the picture, and that is the picture.
The questioner : O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: But what is the difference?
The questioner: I have a point, actually.
The Shaykh : Bring it so we can see.
The questioner: If he paid a monthly rent and took half, the tenant took half the agreed period, it follows that the rent should be half its actual rent; because this building shop might have an actual or known rent - for example - two hundred and fifty dinars, here the property owner or the tenant or the landlord assumes or adds, saying: by Allah, my property's rent is five hundred dinars, and I take from you for three years half the rent in advance, and the half is two hundred and fifty dinars, whereas the actual rent of the location is two hundred and fifty, not five hundred.
The Shaykh : If...
The questioner: Meaning... a type of.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : Understood.
The Shaykh: But this, Abu Khalid, if we now assume the picture has an additional element, which is that I rented you this property for five years.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: At an annual rent of five hundred, and the picture he proposed came up, does the matter differ for you?
The questioner: No, this does not differ.
The Shaykh: This is it, so the issue has no relation to this picture.
The questioner: On this principle.
Another questioner: There is an issue Abu Khalid is discussing, that sometimes I am a tenant from someone for the building before five years, and it became... a new shop, I am renting for fifty, but now prices have risen so the rent became five hundred.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: So you find in the same building.
The Shaykh : ... correct ... .
The questioner: Yes, and a contract for five hundred; is there anything religiously wrong with this?
The Shaykh: Here I return to why I placed the condition for him; because I understood where he was aiming,, so if I agreed with you that this property's annual rent for ten years is five hundred; if the rent for such a property became five thousand, do you want to keep taking from me, or I take from you five hundred, why? , but when the agreed period passes, whether it is ten or five or one year, after that each of us is free from the other; he cannot impose on him, if I am the property owner and I agreed with you that its annual rent is - for example - five hundred, but after the year passes, I am not bound to you and you are not bound to me, the year ended and the property's annual rent became five thousand instead of five hundred, at that point it is a new contract as if you did not rent from me and I did not rent to you, if you agree to pay me the market rate, then that is fine and good, otherwise you leave the place despite your nose, considering you are a Muslim holding to , whereas if we agreed on a long-term period with a low rent, but prices rose, it is not for the property owner now to justify imposing an increase on the tenant, even a relative one, but rather from the perspective of what? Noble character; he says to him: my brother, you see the situation is such and such; if the tenant is pleased with the increase, he increases, otherwise the landlord has no right to impose any increase on him.
And the reverse is the reverse as well; suppose that wages went down, and although we have not yet seen this happen, from the legal standpoint, the landlord is no longer obligated to return it to him, because they had agreed on this.
The questioner : The Shaykh :
Another questioner : This hadith also came ... .
Another questioner : Shaykh, regarding the purchase of land that has no buildings on it, just land that has been divided and allocated by the state, with services running through it like lighting and sewage, and so on. Many of us buy this land. One’s intention might be to invest in the land, build on it, and then sell it. Or one’s intention might also be, if the market is good and the land price rises, to sell the land even if there is no building or any cultivation on it. Is this form of sale permissible?
The Shaykh : The matter is so clear that it makes me ask: what is the reason for a question like this? Therefore, I fear that there is something there that has not been clarified, otherwise the issue is very, very clear. Is there really something hidden that has not yet been explained? Is there a problem with these sales?
The questioner : We believe that, if Allah wills, it is lawful, and we see nothing wrong with it!
The Shaykh : That is correct.
The questioner : But some people also...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Perhaps there is another aspect to the question; one might hoard this land, or wait a long time, perhaps a year or more, until the increase is convincing, or perhaps he does not need the money now, so he delays?
The Shaykh : You do not want to say: "the increase is convincing," but rather "satisfying," yes. This is not called hoarding, my brother. What is trade? Trade is buying a thing in the season of cheapness to sell it in the season of high prices; otherwise, the traders would have died. This is trade. But hoarding applies to necessities in a person’s life and livelihood. In that case, the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) applies:Sunan Ibn Majah 2154Sahih (Darussalam), meaning: except for a sinner, Sunan Ibn Majah 2154Sahih (Darussalam), meaning: except for a sinner. As for one who buys land and leaves it for years until its prices rise, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, just like any item that is not among the necessities of life. So now, what was the problem? There is no problem, praise be to Allah.
The questioner : Shaykh, if you could explain to us the meaning of "two sales in one sale," which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited.
The Shaykh : If I explain it to you, I fear that Abdullah will criticize it, saying: this is recorded, isn’t it?
Another questioner : ... .
The questioner : Study what is behind it.
The Shaykh : Personally, I have no objection, but...
The questioner : ... so that we can benefit from the picture.
Another questioner : Perhaps we are in ... later.
...
The Shaykh: Where were you? I mentioned this in my speech, I mentioned this in my speech just now, is that not so?
The questioner: Excuse me... It is permissible, but it is only permissible if he agrees... .
The Shaykh: No, no, I meant, how do we justify the khulu' fee in our region in Syria? Because the first tenant might sublet to someone else, so he vacates it for another and takes a khulu' fee more than what he paid, do you understand? I mentioned this, but I said there, to ensure the tenant does not exploit the landlord, that we impose a pledge on him, a pledge that I do not deserve, nor do I eat from it, nor do I benefit from a single penny of it, except when he breaches the agreed conditions, so he continues to deal with my property as if he were the owner; at that point, I take this pledge in exchange for the harm he caused me; because he imposed the law of the disbeliever on me, whereas the khulu' fee has no basis at all.
The questioner: Oh Shaykh, suppose it is a new building, to avoid the process of khulu', we say we rent it - for example - for five hundred dinars, but I will take two hundred and fifty from you in advance... for the next five years, but pay me two hundred and fifty monthly, so in this case, two hundred and fifty monthly for five years, can you give it to me in one lump sum, and the rest two hundred and fifty every month...?
The Shaykh: The rest, which rest?
The questioner: The rent is five hundred dinars monthly.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: On the basis that the building is new, and the shop is five hundred dinars, but in the contract it states that he pays half the rent as a lump sum upon taking possession of the shop for a period of five years, and the rest two hundred and fifty every month.
The Shaykh: Yes, or if you mean the property owner took a loan from him for two and a half years' rent.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Are not all roads leading to the mill?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Okay, so - for example - we said two or three years, is there a difference in your understanding?
The questioner : No, it is the same thing.
The Shaykh: Why did you assume half? Because I fear there is something behind the veil [The Shaykh laughs!].
The questioner: No, may you be safe, it is the whole operation.
The Shaykh: And may I be safe, may I be safe and may you be safe, but this is a scholarly discussion, we need to see what it means, what is the difference? Why did you assume half, I mean?
The questioner: No, Shaykh, here... the man.
The Shaykh: My brother, I am not blaming you or holding you accountable, do not be offended, this is a discussion, yes, because when you say to me: may you be safe [The Shaykh laughs!].
The questioner : May Allah keep you safe.
The Shaykh: Yes, did you notice anything when you assumed half?
The questioner: ... the whole matter, my understanding is... that on the basis of the one who cites khulu'... we take money for half of these five years?
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner: Half the rent, is this permissible in this case?
The Shaykh: Yes, if we say: he took two and a half years' rent.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is permissible.
The questioner : It is permissible.
The Shaykh: If he took an advance of two and a half or three years' rent.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: Not half of five years' rent; because I am afraid of too much going back and forth, and we said this just now to the brother questioner here, do you not remember?
Another questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner: It differs.
The Shaykh: No, it does not differ, in what he says it does not differ.
The questioner: ... he takes an advance for five years.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: No... it is a form, a form of pledge, but he takes cash for five years' rent, four years, ten years, as they agree, there is no objection, we said this just now.
Another questioner: Also, Shaykh.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
The questioner: He pays exceeding... .
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner: In this case, if we say he took an advance for two and a half or three years' rent.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner: And also with... a monthly rent in addition to this amount... .
The Shaykh : Who is he?
The questioner: On the assumption that it is.
The Shaykh: The tenant?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: No, he assumed that he pays in cash.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: In cash for half, meaning instead of paying within the period of five years' rent, he pays half of five years' rent, and during each month he pays half a month's rent.
The questioner: This is not the point you raised in the question and what is behind the question.
The Shaykh: Yes, but I do not see yet what is behind it!!
The questioner: Because it might be taken.
Another questioner: Leave the years, the Shaykh stays with the numbers, meaning - for example - the year's rent is ten thousand, five fifty, what is the difference if I come to the shepherd of the...
The Shaykh: The shop.
The questioner: the shop, and he conditions that I pay twenty-five thousand in advance, and twenty-five thousand for the rest.
The Shaykh: Every month.
The questioner: Every month two hundred and fifty.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : This is one case.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: Is this permissible?
The Shaykh: I see no difference, but he scared me... .
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Abu Khalid brought me that he has a note.
The questioner: ... the issue is, if he took an advance, then it is required that the tenant does not pay his rent monthly... for the same period of three years.
The Shaykh: Of course, yes.
The questioner : This is one point.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: And if he pays part of the money, for example; he pays half the rent, which is less than the actual rent of the property.
The Shaykh: No, it is not less, why?
The questioner: Yes, because... .
The Shaykh: This is the picture Abdullah is bringing up.
The questioner: The question Muhammad asked is clear.
The Shaykh: It is itself.
The questioner: That one person rents a building shop, he takes from the shop five years, the year is ten thousand, fifty thousand, the shop owner finds it heavy for the tenant to pay fifty thousand at once, he says to him: give me twenty-five thousand and the other twenty-five thousand is paid in monthly installments, fair?
Another questioner: He might say to him: give me twenty-five thousand and you pay nothing for two and a half years, and after two and a half years you start paying fifty thousand every month, ten thousand every year.
The Shaykh: This is the picture, and that is the picture.
The questioner : O Shaykh.
The Shaykh: But what is the difference?
The questioner: I have a point, actually.
The Shaykh : Bring it so we can see.
The questioner: If he paid a monthly rent and took half, the tenant took half the agreed period, it follows that the rent should be half its actual rent; because this building shop might have an actual or known rent - for example - two hundred and fifty dinars, here the property owner or the tenant or the landlord assumes or adds, saying: by Allah, my property's rent is five hundred dinars, and I take from you for three years half the rent in advance, and the half is two hundred and fifty dinars, whereas the actual rent of the location is two hundred and fifty, not five hundred.
The Shaykh : If...
The questioner: Meaning... a type of.
The Shaykh: All right.
The questioner : Understood.
The Shaykh: But this, Abu Khalid, if we now assume the picture has an additional element, which is that I rented you this property for five years.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh: At an annual rent of five hundred, and the picture he proposed came up, does the matter differ for you?
The questioner: No, this does not differ.
The Shaykh: This is it, so the issue has no relation to this picture.
The questioner: On this principle.
Another questioner: There is an issue Abu Khalid is discussing, that sometimes I am a tenant from someone for the building before five years, and it became... a new shop, I am renting for fifty, but now prices have risen so the rent became five hundred.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner: So you find in the same building.
The Shaykh : ... correct ... .
The questioner: Yes, and a contract for five hundred; is there anything religiously wrong with this?
The Shaykh: Here I return to why I placed the condition for him; because I understood where he was aiming,
The believers are bound by their conditions.
المؤمنون عند شروطهمThe believers are bound by their conditions.
المؤمنون عند شروطهمThe believers are bound by their conditions.
المؤمنون عند شروطهمAnd the reverse is the reverse as well; suppose that wages went down, and although we have not yet seen this happen, from the legal standpoint, the landlord is no longer obligated to return it to him, because they had agreed on this.
The questioner : The Shaykh :
Another questioner : This hadith also came ... .
Another questioner : Shaykh, regarding the purchase of land that has no buildings on it, just land that has been divided and allocated by the state, with services running through it like lighting and sewage, and so on. Many of us buy this land. One’s intention might be to invest in the land, build on it, and then sell it. Or one’s intention might also be, if the market is good and the land price rises, to sell the land even if there is no building or any cultivation on it. Is this form of sale permissible?
The Shaykh : The matter is so clear that it makes me ask: what is the reason for a question like this? Therefore, I fear that there is something there that has not been clarified, otherwise the issue is very, very clear. Is there really something hidden that has not yet been explained? Is there a problem with these sales?
The questioner : We believe that, if Allah wills, it is lawful, and we see nothing wrong with it!
The Shaykh : That is correct.
The questioner : But some people also...
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : Perhaps there is another aspect to the question; one might hoard this land, or wait a long time, perhaps a year or more, until the increase is convincing, or perhaps he does not need the money now, so he delays?
The Shaykh : You do not want to say: "the increase is convincing," but rather "satisfying," yes. This is not called hoarding, my brother. What is trade? Trade is buying a thing in the season of cheapness to sell it in the season of high prices; otherwise, the traders would have died. This is trade. But hoarding applies to necessities in a person’s life and livelihood. In that case, the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) applies:
No one hoards but a sinner.
لا يحتكر إلا خاطئNo one hoards but a sinner.
لا يحتكر إلا خاطئThe questioner : Shaykh, if you could explain to us the meaning of "two sales in one sale," which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited.
The Shaykh : If I explain it to you, I fear that Abdullah will criticize it, saying: this is recorded, isn’t it?
Another questioner : ... .
The questioner : Study what is behind it.
The Shaykh : Personally, I have no objection, but...
The questioner : ... so that we can benefit from the picture.
Another questioner : Perhaps we are in ... later.
...
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.