If the state agrees with a merchant to sell a commodity at a specific price, is it permissible for him to increase above that price?

The questioner : Praise be to Allah, O Shaykh, you have covered the topic. We, by Allah, only want what is new in matters, and you have clarified it. O noble Shaykh, we have an issue in Iraq where an agreement is made between the citizen and the state to sell specific goods at a fixed price, on the condition that he sells them at that price. Then the citizen wants to increase the price above the set price. Is there sin in that?

The Shaykh : This is not a new matter regarding the systems in place today. I think you all know that the original ruling in the sale of necessities is that price-fixing is not permissible, as came in the authentic hadith when they asked him (peace and blessings be upon him) to fix prices, he said: And the entire Islamic world proceeded on this basis for all the past centuries. Then the system of mandatory price-fixing appeared due to the system in place in the lands of disbelief. Perhaps this was because there was some injustice regarding those who buy necessities, and there was no personal deterrent because they are disbelievers, so the man-made law actually obligated them to impose price-fixing on the people. The Islamic states, in name, followed this European system and took the path of fixing the prices of many necessities. Islamic jurisprudence distinguishes and says that the original ruling is not to impose price-fixing on the people except in specific circumstances, meaning if there are emergency circumstances that oblige the Muslim ruler to consider the interest of the Muslims, then at that time the Muslim ruler has the right to impose a price-fixing system on necessary items. But where is this Islamic system in these governments, for example, that are in place today? With great regret, is this system with you an emergency one, or was it from before? If it has existed from before, as it exists in many countries, then the answer should proceed from the previous rule: the original ruling is no price-fixing except for emergency circumstances. If it is assumed that those who established this price-fixing considered the interest of the people in that, then we must adhere to the price-fixing out of consideration for the interest, and not out of adherence to the governing system and law. But if the interest is contrary to that, it is very obvious that it is not obligatory to adhere to that price-fixing, and that consequently it is permissible to violate it. In summary, I cannot say it is permissible or not permissible because I am not aware of the motive behind this price-fixing, but I condition the ruling of permissibility or impermissibility on the realization of the interest of price-fixing or not. If the interest is realized by price-fixing, it is obligatory to adhere to it, and if not, then it is not. Yes.