Continuation of the discussion on deferred sale.

The Shaykh : Bit by bit... one by one, how is applied in the sale of 'inah?
Abu al-Harith: This reverses the matter completely.

The Shaykh : So then, please go ahead.
The student: ThisThe Shaykh : Ibn al-Qayyim says: "This sale is not considered a sale except at the time of contracting; as for at the time of bargaining, it is not called a sale. In both cases, this is not called anything but bargaining."

The Shaykh : This is correct.

The questioner : And the sale is at the time of contracting. So if he contracted with him on these conditions, then he has fallen into what is prohibited, or what is called riba.

The Shaykh : This is not a problem, my brother. The first hadith that I quoted, regarding the doubt of Ibn al-Qayyim, is based on adhering to the apparent wording. But if the first hadith is interpreted in light of the other hadith, there is no problem. There is no problem with that. But what is the meaning of "two sales in one sale"? Two offers in the form of two sales: a sale for cash and a sale on installments with an increase in the price, or otherwise?

The questioner : ... The Prophetic one, I mean?

The Shaykh : Without a doubt, a sale for cash at one price and a sale on installments at an increased price. But if we remove the increased price here, what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said is: Rather, this is the best, as we mentioned earlier. What will it be? He is earning charity during his trade and lawful profit.

The questioner : He also mentioned the second hadith, so he is adhering to the view that all of this is not called a sale unless they agree on this. I imagine the picture he described, Ibn al-Qayyim, is that they have now agreed on this commodity.

The Shaykh : They have not yet agreed.

The questioner : No, it is like this, I mean.

The Shaykh : My brother, I am with you and with him. In the end, it is one sale. Does anyone say that there are two actual sales?

The questioner : No, my teacher. The prohibition is against two sales in one sale. By "one sale" he means the single sale, meaning the commodity being sold. And by "two sales" he means the price for the deferred payment or the price paid immediately. So he says: if they agree, meaning the contract between them, that if you bring the money now, the price is such and such, or if you bring the money later, the price is such and such, and they agree on this and the contract ends with that, then naturally he may bring the money now or he may bring the money later. In that case, the prohibition applies.

The Shaykh : Why did you introduce this complication into the topic that ruins the research? Why did you introduce this complication: it may be paid and it may be brought? We are now dealing with reality. The one who escapes from this reality has the first proof of his bankruptcy in research. We are studying reality. The reality now...

The questioner : This is the statement of Ibn al-Qayyim.

The Shaykh : No problem, but what do we benefit from the statement of Ibn al-Qayyim? Solving the problem of reality. What is our reality today? In our reality today, it is not that he may pay and he may not pay, is it?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, now you say he says: that in terms of reality, there is only one sale. And I conclude on a blank slate, correct? But he raises the question of how it can be two sales in one sale. I am asking you now, and you are an Arab and I am a non-Arab, if I say to you: how much do you sell this item for in cash? You say to me: for ten. Is this a sale or not?

The questioner : If you agreed to that, it becomes a sale.

The Shaykh : Whether you agreed or not, I am telling you: how much do you sell? The agreement comes later. How much do you sell? So you say to me: I sell for ten. Okay, if I want to buy from you on credit, how much do you sell? You say: ten plus one. Is this a sale or not a sale? But neither this nor that has been concluded, correct? What will be concluded is one, and perhaps nothing will be concluded, they will not agree. So the hadith is very clear: meaning the form of two sales as an offer, but in the end the matter will be concluded on one of them. Then the narrator's interpretation—returning to the brother's previous question—has its value, because the narrator is more aware of his narration than others, even if he is at the bottom. He is more aware of those who come after and want to interpret the hadith. And the narrator to whom the narration was transmitted with its jurisprudence. Therefore, when we say that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), when Allah the Exalted addressed him (peace be upon him): that he (peace be upon him) took charge of explaining the wording and explaining the meaning. From here, the importance of understanding the Companions becomes clear. And that is why we claim affiliation with them and take pride in it. We are Salafis. Why? Because we do not rule by our late and hasty understandings and opinions, which may be Arabic in origin, but with time have become non-Arabic. Because we do not rule by our opinions and we say: what did the Salaf understand? Because the Salaf received the explanation in wording and meaning. When we observe this reality—and it is a truth just as you speak—we transmit this explanation regarding the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). So when a narrator narrates a hadith—especially the first narrator, who is a Companion—and interprets it for us with an interpretation that closes the door between us and another interpretation, we receive the interpreter and the interpretation together. We descend from the Companion to the Tabi'i and so on. Sammak ibn Harb, I think, is a Tabi'i, isn't he? Isn't that so?
Abu Ishaq: Sammak ibn Harb narrates from Jabir ibn Samurah.

The Shaykh : That is it. So he is a Tabi'i. This Tabi'i received the hadith from Ibn Mas'ud with understanding, not with unknown meaning. So if he interprets this hadith as two sales in one sale, its form being such and such, we are reassured by this interpretation. And that is why you find many scholars do not invalidate this interpretation and this explanation, especially since it came from the great Imams of Islam, like Sufyan al-Thawri, as I mentioned earlier, and others whom I do not mention now. But this interpretation that they accepted, they interpret it based on their school of thought. So they say: two sales in one sale is as Sammak said: this is ten now in cash, and this is eleven on credit. This is what is prohibited. Why? Because there are two forms—they understand the hadith like we do—there is gharar, there is ambiguity. We do not know whether the sale fell on the lower price or the higher price, meaning on cash or on installments. They built on this understanding—and it is wrong, as I will explain—that if he said to him: this is on installments for ten plus one, this is permissible. Why? Because he did not mention the other price. There is no longer ambiguity in the matter. We say, first: understanding the hadith with the cause of ambiguity of the price fluctuating between the increased and the decreased, this is contrary to the reality witnessed by the traders, both the seller and the buyer. Why?
Because what will occur when two sales, meaning two prices, are offered in one sale is either that he pays in cash or that he does not pay in cash. If he pays in cash, it means a cash sale has occurred. If he does not pay in cash, it means a deferred sale has occurred. Especially today, when you write checks and what are these called? Bills of exchange, and so on. Who says that there is ambiguity in the price here? What is the meaning of this reasoning? This is as the grammarians say: it has no place in the parsing at all. Second: where did they get this reasoning from in the first place? And the Messenger of Allah reasons with another cause, saying: "So he takes both, or the riba." So he made the increase in the price riba. Therefore, here there is a reasoning by ijtihad that contradicts the reasoning specified in the hadith. And this is agreed upon by all that "when the athar comes, the reasoning is invalid," and "when the river of Allah comes, the river of Ma'qil is invalid." Please, what do you have?

The questioner : A Shaykh from before... in his mind.The Shaykh : The issue is due to the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): Is it conceivable that the sale was completed and the picture ended, and then another person came to sell on the sale of his brother?

The Shaykh : Well done, take it. You noticed it well. Yes.
Abu Ishaq: Perhaps it can be clarified, Shaykh. Perhaps the brother's statement can be clarified.

The questioner : The hadith also? Or is this one?

The Shaykh : No, it exists. Both of them.

The questioner : This differs afterwards.

The Shaykh : What is this?
Abu Ishaq: It differs, meaning?

The Shaykh : How does it differ?

The questioner : Meaning, other than the sale.

The Shaykh : Of course, meaning two traders. One offers his goods to a customer, and his neighbor comes and offers to him. They want to sell.

The questioner : Is this the bargaining?

The Shaykh : No, this sale, what is this sale called? It is selling on the sale of another.
Abu Ishaq: Selling on the sale of his brother.

The Shaykh : Yes, his brother, yes, yes.
Abu al-Harith: In this same matter, there is also a principle mentioned by the Maliki school, I think, or others, who say, "Time has a price."

The Shaykh : Yes, they say this based on their view that installment sales are permissible.
Abu al-Harith: Okay, does it have any value in terms of evidence or proof?

The Shaykh : Never. The evidence rejects it.
Abu Layla : My teacher, regarding the previous question, if a merchant, for example, sells a type of goods like a jilbab, and a customer enters my shop and says, "I have this in another shop for five dinars, and you have it for eleven dinars, so I want to draw the customer's attention to the difference between this merchandise and that merchandise." Is this permissible, our teacher?

The Shaykh : This is permissible, but this speech is not permissible in this context, because we are talking about installment sales.
Abu Layla : Oh my teacher, this is selling on the sale of his brother, meaning now I...

The Shaykh : ... The sale of the two merchants, as I understood from you, is that a customer comes to you, and you offer him merchandise at a price, then his neighbor comes and says to him, "My brother, I will sell it to you for less."
Abu Layla : No, my teacher, the point, my teacher, is that now I want to talk about this man's merchandise, not carrying the good merchandise.

The Shaykh : It is not necessary that it be this man. You are saying the customer says so and so, correct?
Abu Layla : Yes.

The Shaykh : Where is the one offering the second price in the scenario you described?
Abu Ishaq: Originally, one does not sell on the sale of his brother, meaning this is the comprehensive rule.
Another questioner: Excuse me, teacher, it seems the intention was...Abu Layla

The Shaykh : No, you have the right, the teacher is speaking here, yes.
Abu Ishaq: Meaning, it is the brother...Abu Layla : When he said, "None of you should sell on the sale of his brother," and you mentioned that it is not permissible for the two men to compete in lowering the price so that one of them is not harmed.

The Shaykh : Meaning, the second seller, the neighbor of the first seller, does not intervene by offering his merchandise to the buyer at a lower price to pull him away from his neighbor to his own side. This scenario is different from that one.
Abu Ishaq: Meaning, is this scenario prohibited?

The Shaykh : Of course, it is prohibited, so that they separate, like in a proposal.

The questioner : This scenario is selling on his sale.

The Shaykh : is it
Abu Ishaq: Meaning, I... I own a shop and I have this for five dinars, and another man has this for eleven dinars. I obtained it, for example, from the free zone by smuggling without customs, for example.

The Shaykh : Do not make it like that, my Shaykh. Leave it without smuggling, let it be normal.
Abu Ishaq: For example, I entered it somehow at a cheap price, so I said this is for five dinars.

The Shaykh : To whom did you say?
Abu Ishaq: I put a price on the merchandise, and he put eleven dinars on it, so I did not intend to harm him or anything like that.

The Shaykh : The issue is never about this.
Abu Ishaq: Meaning, it must be...

The Shaykh : Oh teacher, this is a merchant, and I, may Allah forbid, am a merchant.
Everyone laughs.

The Shaykh : You went to him, you went to buy a jilbab, and this is what we see in reality, no one comes to me, he has many customers, every time someone comes to him, I do this, and I eavesdrop, I hear that he is offering him a jilbab at a high price, you go to him and he offers you a jilbab at a high price, I glance at you like this, I tell you, come to me.
Everyone laughs.

The Shaykh : Or maybe I am more brazen than that, hehe, I tell you frankly, come to me, I will sell it to you cheaper.
Abu Ishaq: This is what is prohibited.

The Shaykh : This is what is prohibited, his scenario is completely different from this.
Abu Ishaq: But the one you presented is permissible?

The Shaykh : The one where you put up a sign, of course, it is permissible. Your scenario, as I understood from you, is that a customer came to you.
Abu Layla : Yes.

The Shaykh : You offered him the good jilbab for ten dinars, and he said to you, "My brother, others are selling it for five, six, hey!"
Abu Layla : Yes, that is correct.

The Shaykh : Where is the second seller who is competing with you? There is none. The customer himself is telling you the price outside is lower than this. This has nothing to do with our previous topic.
Abu Layla : If he had a jilbab and said to me, this is the jilbab.

The Shaykh : It is the same scenario, my brother, it has nothing to do with the sale It has absolutely nothing to do. Look, the group is late, I am.
Abu al-Harith: Are we not finishing the course, teacher?

The questioner : We have not reached our turn, my Shaykh.

The Shaykh : May Allah not bring you to your turn, if Allah wills.
Everyone laughs.