A man passed away while dealing in debt in the following manner
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
May your eminence, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, be greeted with peace, mercy, and blessings from Allah. A man passed away while dealing in debt in the following manner: The borrower would come and ask him for a specific amount, and he would go to the shop owner and buy a number of bags of rice, sugar, coffee, or the like for the amount agreed upon between the lender and the borrower. Then the lender would sell them to the borrower for a deferred amount exceeding their current value, and then the shop owner would buy them from the borrower at a specific loss, handing over the amount, and this would be completed with the goods remaining in their place without being moved.
His sons advised him more than once, and he would answer them by saying that people have been dealing in this way since we came of age, and no scholar has denied it to them, until May your eminence, Shaykh Abd al-Rahman al-Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him), saw and heard of this method and did not deny it.
After strong insistence from his sons, this man abandoned this debt dealing and turned to debt dealing with cars, where he appointed someone to buy a group of cars and leave them in a car showroom, so the borrower would buy the car for a deferred price, and indeed he would take delivery of the car and drive it out of the showroom.
Is the first method permissible, and is the second method permissible? If one of the methods or both are not permissible, what is the method that clears the deceased's account? Does abandoning the first method constitute a repentance from the deceased, and does repentance expiate what came before it, or are the heirs required to dispose of what exceeded the principal? Are the profits returned to their owners, or what is done with them? And if usurious funds were mixed with the other funds, since he deals in dates and shares in companies, what is the solution for such a case?
The Shaykh : I say: And upon you be peace, mercy, and blessings from Allah.
And I say: It is not prescribed for a person to greet when asking a question while present in the gathering; rather, the greeting is for the one who comes to a group of people or meets people, he greets them. But in the gathering, the Companions would have one of them stand up and ask the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) without greeting.
As for this long and broad question, its essence is that this man was dealing in debt and he had two paths. The first path: A person in need would come to this man and go to a person who had many bags of rice or other things, or raw material or other things that they used to deal in. This merchant would buy this merchandise from the shop owner, let it be for ten thousand riyals, then he would count it one, two, three, four and say: This is the possession. Then he would sell it to this person in need for twelve thousand or thirteen thousand, depending on the length of the deferral period and the condition of the person in need; if he was poor, the tax on him would be more, and if he was not poor, it would be less.
I say: This method is forbidden and there is no doubt in it, because first: it included a stratagem to circumvent usury.
And second: the goods were sold while they were in their place, and counting is not possession in any way. Where is the possession? The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade that goods be sold where they are bought until the merchants take them to their dwellings.
As for the second method: which is that he has cars, and if one of the people needs one, he comes to take the car from him, then he buys it and sells it to another. This is a matter called the matter of tawarruq (commodity sale used to obtain cash), and the scholars differ in it. For Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him), there are two narrations in it: a narration of permissibility and a narration of prohibition.
And Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) chose the narration of prohibition and said: This is forbidden and it is a stratagem, because the buyer has no purpose for the car. What is his purpose? It is the money he sells it for. So it is a stratagem, and stratagems do not make the forbidden lawful, but they increase its ugliness to its ugliness.
As for this usury that he acquired by this first and second method, it is forbidden without doubt, but according to what he saidThe questioner : that people were doing this and it was not denied to them, and he said: Among those who did not deny it to them was Shaykh Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him). So this man's action was based on ta'wil (figurative interpretation), believing that it was permissible based on the approval of these scholars. And if Allah knows from his intention that he did it based on ta'wil, then there is no blame on him and no sin on him.
But I say to you: The method that was in the time of Shaykh Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him) is not like the method mentioned in this book or in this question. The method was that a person would borrow a quantity, they call it a quantity or two or three quantities of raw material or other, then the borrower would take it and auction it in the market. Who buys this? Who buys this?
So the goods are not sold in their place, and there are no stratagems to take a lot of money that people take without need. A poor person in need comes for ten riyals, five, fifteen riyals, and buys this quantity from the merchant, then he takes it and gives it to the broker to auction it. He says: Who buys this? I heard them when I was young saying: Who buys the money of the debtor.
And like this is the matter of tawarruq in which the scholars differed, and Shaykh Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di sees the permissibility of tawarruq, but it is not like the sale of people mentioned in the question. And in any case, the heirs have nothing upon them, if Allah wills. And they should increase in seeking forgiveness for their deceased, and may Allah accept his repentance. And the money in their hands is theirs. Yes.
May your eminence, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen, be greeted with peace, mercy, and blessings from Allah. A man passed away while dealing in debt in the following manner: The borrower would come and ask him for a specific amount, and he would go to the shop owner and buy a number of bags of rice, sugar, coffee, or the like for the amount agreed upon between the lender and the borrower. Then the lender would sell them to the borrower for a deferred amount exceeding their current value, and then the shop owner would buy them from the borrower at a specific loss, handing over the amount, and this would be completed with the goods remaining in their place without being moved.
His sons advised him more than once, and he would answer them by saying that people have been dealing in this way since we came of age, and no scholar has denied it to them, until May your eminence, Shaykh Abd al-Rahman al-Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him), saw and heard of this method and did not deny it.
After strong insistence from his sons, this man abandoned this debt dealing and turned to debt dealing with cars, where he appointed someone to buy a group of cars and leave them in a car showroom, so the borrower would buy the car for a deferred price, and indeed he would take delivery of the car and drive it out of the showroom.
Is the first method permissible, and is the second method permissible? If one of the methods or both are not permissible, what is the method that clears the deceased's account? Does abandoning the first method constitute a repentance from the deceased, and does repentance expiate what came before it, or are the heirs required to dispose of what exceeded the principal? Are the profits returned to their owners, or what is done with them? And if usurious funds were mixed with the other funds, since he deals in dates and shares in companies, what is the solution for such a case?
The Shaykh : I say: And upon you be peace, mercy, and blessings from Allah.
And I say: It is not prescribed for a person to greet when asking a question while present in the gathering; rather, the greeting is for the one who comes to a group of people or meets people, he greets them. But in the gathering, the Companions would have one of them stand up and ask the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) without greeting.
As for this long and broad question, its essence is that this man was dealing in debt and he had two paths. The first path: A person in need would come to this man and go to a person who had many bags of rice or other things, or raw material or other things that they used to deal in. This merchant would buy this merchandise from the shop owner, let it be for ten thousand riyals, then he would count it one, two, three, four and say: This is the possession. Then he would sell it to this person in need for twelve thousand or thirteen thousand, depending on the length of the deferral period and the condition of the person in need; if he was poor, the tax on him would be more, and if he was not poor, it would be less.
I say: This method is forbidden and there is no doubt in it, because first: it included a stratagem to circumvent usury.
And second: the goods were sold while they were in their place, and counting is not possession in any way. Where is the possession? The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade that goods be sold where they are bought until the merchants take them to their dwellings.
As for the second method: which is that he has cars, and if one of the people needs one, he comes to take the car from him, then he buys it and sells it to another. This is a matter called the matter of tawarruq (commodity sale used to obtain cash), and the scholars differ in it. For Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him), there are two narrations in it: a narration of permissibility and a narration of prohibition.
And Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) chose the narration of prohibition and said: This is forbidden and it is a stratagem, because the buyer has no purpose for the car. What is his purpose? It is the money he sells it for. So it is a stratagem, and stratagems do not make the forbidden lawful, but they increase its ugliness to its ugliness.
As for this usury that he acquired by this first and second method, it is forbidden without doubt, but according to what he saidThe questioner : that people were doing this and it was not denied to them, and he said: Among those who did not deny it to them was Shaykh Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him). So this man's action was based on ta'wil (figurative interpretation), believing that it was permissible based on the approval of these scholars. And if Allah knows from his intention that he did it based on ta'wil, then there is no blame on him and no sin on him.
But I say to you: The method that was in the time of Shaykh Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di (may Allah have mercy on him) is not like the method mentioned in this book or in this question. The method was that a person would borrow a quantity, they call it a quantity or two or three quantities of raw material or other, then the borrower would take it and auction it in the market. Who buys this? Who buys this?
So the goods are not sold in their place, and there are no stratagems to take a lot of money that people take without need. A poor person in need comes for ten riyals, five, fifteen riyals, and buys this quantity from the merchant, then he takes it and gives it to the broker to auction it. He says: Who buys this? I heard them when I was young saying: Who buys the money of the debtor.
And like this is the matter of tawarruq in which the scholars differed, and Shaykh Abd al-Rahman ibn Sa'di sees the permissibility of tawarruq, but it is not like the sale of people mentioned in the question. And in any case, the heirs have nothing upon them, if Allah wills. And they should increase in seeking forgiveness for their deceased, and may Allah accept his repentance. And the money in their hands is theirs. Yes.