The Book of Marriage, Breastfeeding, Divorce, Mutual Oath-Swearing, and Manumission-02b

The reciter: And Amr al-Naqqad and Zuhayr ibn Harb and Ibn Abi 'Umar narrated to me. Zuhayr said: Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah narrated to us from al-Zuhri from Sa'id from Abu Hurayrah Amr added in his narration: .

The Shaykh : Most of the phrases in this hadith have passed before us, and some have not. He forbade a resident from selling to a traveler. The resident is the one who lives in the town, and the traveler is the one who comes to it, whether he is from the Bedouins or not. The wisdom behind this is that if the resident sells to the traveler, he squeezes the people of the town. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: This is because the resident knows the prices and does not sell except at the known price. The traveler comes and offers his goods in the market, and he is in a hurry to return to his family, so he sells cheaply. The traveler benefits from the fact that the price is paid to him in cash, because people know that if he is a traveler, he must carry the price away. And the people of the town benefit from what? From the lowering of the price. If someone says, "This does not preserve the right of the traveler," we say, "Yes, the right of the traveler is preserved, because the traveler will settle in where? In the market, and people will bid over one another when they see that the price is reasonable. For this reason, if there is an advantage taken over the traveler, it is forbidden, just as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade intercepting travelers. So the right of the newcomer is preserved by not letting people go out to intercept him and buy from him before he reaches the market. So in this, the traveler is preserved by what? By the prohibition of intercepting him, and the people of the town are preserved by the prohibition of the resident selling to the traveler. Now, the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) introduced conditions into this, some of which are acceptable and some are not. One of the conditions is that the resident should not seek out the traveler, meaning the prohibition applies if the resident seeks him out. But if the traveler comes to the resident and says, "O so-and-so, sell this good for me," they said, "There is no harm in that." Why? Because in this case, the traveler has appointed him as his agent, unlike when the resident goes to the traveler. The apparent meaning of the hadith is general, and there is no doubt in it: a resident does not sell to a traveler. And if the traveler brings his goods to the resident, the resident says, "No, I will not sell them to you." But someone might say that the meaning implies permissibility, because the traveler is free to sell by himself and he is free to sell through his agent, and now he has appointed an agent. In my opinion, there is hesitation in this matter. If we look at the generality of the hadith, we say, "Do not sell, even if the traveler brings the good and says, 'O so-and-so, sell this good for me,' then he should say, 'No,' until the traveler is forced to what? To sell it in the market, and people benefit from that. And if we look at the fact that the traveler has the right to appoint an agent, we say, "There is no harm in that." What is the practice of people today? It is the second one: if the traveler comes to the merchant and says, "Sell this good for me," he sells it, and people do not see this as squeezing them. Or engaging in bid'ah (artificially raising the price), meaning he forbade engaging in bid'ah. What is bid'ah? The scholars said that bid'ah is when a person raises the price of a good while he does not intend to buy it, either to benefit the seller or to harm the buyer, or for both. Is that clear? For example, a good is offered and bid on at one hundred, so a man says, "One hundred is too little," and then says, "One hundred and ten," in order to raise the price. To benefit whom? To benefit the seller, because he is his companion. Or he does not bid on it, but he intends to harm the buyer: one hundred is its value, but he raises it in order to harm the buyer. This is forbidden bid'ah and aggression. It may be for both: to benefit the seller and harm the buyer, and this is also forbidden. But if he raises the price and has no desire for it, but he bids on the price and sees it as cheap, and when the price rises above what he had in mind, he leaves it, is this permissible? The answer is yes, it is permissible. Sometimes a good is first bid on cheaply, so he raises the price in order to buy it and then make a profit, and there is no harm in that. ... And those disbelievers who are making a fuss about it today only took it from what? From Islam, whether that was by coincidence or because they studied the Islamic religion and knew it. In this hadith and others like it, there is clear protection of human rights, and that Islam is the most faithful to human rights, and that if injustice occurs from any of the Muslims, it should never be attributed to Islam, because Islam is a complete religion in all aspects, and if one of its children errs, the error is upon him, while the rest has already been mentioned. Yes.