I wanted to buy a computer, given my academic circumstances, through a specific company. They go to the computer store and get an invoice for it,

The questioner : He says:The questioner : Your Eminence, the Shaykh, I wanted to buy a computer, given my academic circumstances, through a specific company. They go to the computer store and get an invoice for it, then he goes to this company that sells computers, then he goes to this company, and this company pays the value of the computer in cash, and then you pay the amount in installments, where the amount increases by ten percent. Knowing that this company does not have the devices themselves, but only has a description of these devices, is such a sale permissible?

The Shaykh : Did you hear the question and understand it? He says he needed a computer, so he went and asked about its price, then he went to a company to buy it for him and sell it to him in installments with an increase over its original price. For example, the company bought it for ten thousand; it is worth ten thousand? For ten thousand, and they sold it to this man for twelve thousand, but in installments. Is this permissible? My answer to that is that this is not permissible, because the company did not buy it except for your sake, and did not buy it for you except for the increase. So it is as if they said, "I will lend you its price with an increase." And it is well known that a loan with an increase is forbidden. "Every loan that brings a benefit is usury". And a trick does not avail with Allah; trickery to circumvent the forbidden things only increases their ugliness. For this reason, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) warned this nation: This is a clear trick. Instead of going to the company and saying, "Give me ten thousand for twelve thousand, and I will take the ten and go to the showroom to buy the computer," I say, "You buy the computer, then what? Then sell it to me." This is the same; there is no difference except in the form. Forms do not change realities; forms do not change realities. However, if the computer was with the company beforehand, and you came to them and they said, "This computer is ten thousand cash, or twelve thousand in installments," and you said, "I will take it for twelve thousand in installments," and you took it, there is nothing wrong with that; there is nothing in it. And this is not from the category of two sales in one sale, as some scholars have held, because the reality of this is that it is one sale. I said, "Take it for ten cash, or for twelve in a year," and he said, "I took it for twelve in a year." Where are the two sales? This is one sale, not two? One sale. Yes, if you took it and said, "I will take it either for this or for this: if you come to me with dirhams, it is ten, otherwise it is twelve," this is correct; this is two sales in one sale, and it is unknown. But if you cut the price before parting, the matter is clear, and there is only one sale in it. And the correct view is that two sales in one sale is exactly the issue of 'inah. For this reason, it came in a narration of Abu Dawud: meaning the lesser of the two
And the form of 'inah is: that I sell a need to a person for one hundred riyals in a year, then I return and buy it from him for eighty in cash. It becomes as if I gave him eighty, right? Eighty present, for one hundred deferred. And this is forbidden. And our first issue, the owner of the computer who went to the company and bought it for him, then sold it to him, this is exactly like the issue of 'inah. And that is because the company gave cash to the showroom and took the computer, then sold it to this man for a higher price, so this is forbidden.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : This second one, if he knows about the first contract, it is not permissible for him to buy it. And if he does not know, there is no blame on him, and the sin is on the first one.

The questioner : And if he knows

The Shaykh : If he knows, he does not buy it. Why does he not buy it? Because now, if we say that this is usury, the contract becomes invalid, and the computer belongs to the company, not to the one who bought it from them.

The questioner : And if he knows and forgot

The Shaykh : I hope there is no blame on him as long as he forgot.

The questioner : O Shaykh, they stipulate in this company, or they put in this contract, that if the buyer leaves, they do not bind him to this contract.

The Shaykh : This is what people call "throwing ash in the eyes," meaning that the company says, "I will buy it, and after I buy it, if you wish, take it, and if you wish, do not take it." Yes, this is in reality throwing ash in the eyes. Is this the one who came wanting to buy this car or this computer? Does he have the intention to withdraw? Absolutely not; he did not come except in need, and they know that he must buy it. Then, if he withdraws, how does the company deal with him? They put him on the blacklist; it is not possible to sell to this man a second time. It is a threat. So it is as if they bound him, but in an indirect way. And Allah (Mighty and Majestic) knows the treachery of the eyes and what the breasts conceal. I ask you now: which is closer to a trick for usury, this form, yes, or the form that the Jews did when Allah forbade them the fat of carrion? What did they do? They melted the fat until it became a liquid, then they sold the oil and ate the money. Can it be said now that these people ate the fat? Answer, my brothers. They did not eat it directly, but they ate it by what? By a trick. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: meaning they melted it And there is no doubt that the trick we mentioned in buying the computer from the company is much closer to usury than this trick that the Jews made. Therefore, we say that trickery to circumvent the forbidden things of Allah only increases their ugliness. Look, now the muhallil, do you know the muhallil? Do you know the muhallil? Do you know him?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Do you know the muhallil
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : The muhallil is that if a man divorces his wife three times, she becomes forbidden to him until she marries another husband. Pay attention, this man divorced his wife with the last three divorces, meaning he divorced her first and took her back, divorced her second and took her back, divorced her third. Now she is not permissible for him except after another husband, right or not? The evidence is the saying of Allah the Exalted: But this man regretted greatly regarding his wife, and his spirit was broken and his mind was disturbed, and he had a close friend, a companion, who said to him, "What has happened to you?" He said, "By Allah, I divorced my wife with the third divorce, and she is not permissible for me except after another husband." He said, "The matter is easy. I will now propose to her from her father, and contract with her, and have intercourse with her, and tomorrow I will divorce her. And when the waiting period ends, she returns to you." What is this second one? A muhallil. Meaning this marriage is a trick, a trick for what? So that she becomes permissible for the first husband. And some people say, "Well, my brother, this is kindness to the first husband, kindness to him, this one who was afflicted with worry and distress, and the world became dark for him. Now we want to relieve him, is that not so?" Perhaps Satan may come and say to him like this. We say this close friend is not a friend in reality, but an enemy. Because if he marries her with this intention, it came in the hadith with a corresponding name, which is the borrowed goat. How is the borrowed goat? One who has sheep that need a goat, so he borrows a goat from his neighbor in order to mate the sheep, and in the morning he returns it to his neighbor. This man is a goat, yes, a borrowed goat. He has intercourse with this woman, then divorces her so that she becomes permissible for the first husband. And here we ask: does she become permissible for the first husband? No, she does not become permissible for him. Why? Because this marriage is not intended; it is a marriage intended only to make her permissible for the first one. For this reason, it had no effect, and it does not result in her becoming permissible for the first husband. And it came in the hadith that Yes.