Explanation of the Book of Sales-02
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "And from Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: The five [books] narrated it, and al-Hakim graded it as authentic".
His statement:Sunan al-Bayhaqi 5:373 The two parties in a sale are the seller and the buyer, and the term "the two parties in a sale" was applied to them by way of predominance. Now, we say that the seller is a seller and the buyer is a buyer. And his statement: Evidence is that which clarifies the right and makes it clear, and in matters of wealth, it is one man and one woman...
The student: And two women.
The Shaykh : One man and two women, or two men, or a man and the oath of the claimant. And his statement: Bulugh al-Maram 7:3 Who is the owner of the goods?
The student: The seller.
The Shaykh : I explained that in another wording, which is the seller, as being the seller. This explanation refutes the statement of those who say that the intended meaning of "the owner of the goods" is the buyer, because the owner of the goods in the case of disagreement is the buyer, not the seller. The seller has sold it, and ownership has transferred from him. However, the explanation of the hadith, or rather the explanation of the second wording, rejects this meaning, and the intended meaning of "the owner of the goods" is the seller in any case. He (peace and blessings be upon him) says:Sunan al-Bayhaqi 5:373 The apparent meaning of the hadith is that this is general for all disagreements, whether the seller is the claimant or the buyer is the claimant. In that case, there is between it and the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1341Sahih (Darussalam) a relationship of generality and specificity from one aspect. The aspect is that the hadith covers every disagreement, and specifies the oath to whom? To the one against whom the claim is made. And this one that is with us is specific to the two parties in a sale and covers every disagreement. So between them there is generality and specificity. If they agree in a certain case, there is no doubt that if the seller is the one against whom the claim is made, then his word is accepted with his oath according to both hadiths, which is what we referred to earlier. The case is that the buyer says to the seller, "You stipulated for me that the sheep would be milking," and the seller says, "I did not stipulate that for you." Here, whose word is accepted? The word of the seller that he did not stipulate it, according to both hadiths, meaning according to the implication of this hadith and according to the implication of Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1341Sahih (Darussalam), because the one against whom the claim is made now is?
The student: The seller.
The Shaykh : The seller. And here he saysSunan ad-Daraqutni 13:54 Bulugh al-Maram 7:3 and he is the seller. If the meaning of the two hadiths agrees in a certain case, the matter is clear. The matter is clear that the word is that of the seller. But it becomes difficult if they differ, such as if the buyer says to the seller, "You sold it to me for ten," and the seller says, "No, for eight." Here, the seller is a claimant, because they agreed on eight and differed on the excess. The excess over eight is an addition, so claiming it is a claim. Do we say the word is that of the seller? Or do we say the word is that of the buyer because he is the one against whom the claim is made?
The student: ... The seller.
The Shaykh : There is disagreement on this. There is disagreement. Some preferred the oath of the one against whom the claim is made, and said that here the buyer is the one against whom the claim is made, because it was claimed against him that the price was ten. So his word is accepted, and he swears that it was not ten, and it becomes for him...
And some said, rather, the word is that of the seller. The word is that of the seller, because the buyer is a claimant. The buyer here is a claimant. How is he a claimant? They said because he claimed that the seller removed it from his ownership for eight, and the original state is the continuation of the seller's ownership. So the seller says, "I did not sell it except for ten," and this one says, "For how much did you sell it?" "For eight." So he is a claimant. In that case, both hadiths are true in this case, because the word is that of the seller according to this hadith, and according to the hadith of evidence, the evidence is on the claimant.
But the scholars differed on this issue. Some said the word is that of the seller according to this hadith, and said that the meaning of the hadith ofBulugh al-Maram 1423 matches the ruling, because the buyer claims that what? That the seller removed it from his ownership for eight... and the buyer denies it, and the original state is the continuation of...?
The student: Ownership.
The Shaykh : Ownership. The original state is the continuation of the seller's ownership, so the word is that of the seller, or they mutually rescind the sale, as will come to you in the hadith. And some of the scholars said that the word is that of the buyer, because they agreed on the sale and agreed on the eight, and differed on what was added to the eight. So the buyer claims it and the seller denies it. The evidence is on the claimant, so it is said to the seller, "Bring evidence, or you have no right to more than eight." And some said, rather, they should take the mutual oath. This is the madhhab (school of jurisprudence). They take the mutual oath. They said because each of them is a claimant and the one against whom the claim is made. They combined the two statements and said that the seller is a claimant and the buyer is also a claimant, and the seller is the one against whom the claim is made and the buyer is the one against whom the claim is made. So how do we act? They said they take the mutual oath. The seller swears first that he did not sell it for eight, but only for ten. If the buyer is satisfied, what the seller said is established. If he is not satisfied, the buyer swears, "By Allah, I did not buy it for ten, but only for eight." After the mutual oath, the sale is annulled. The sale is annulled, and the goods are returned to their owner and the price to its owner. Do you understand?
Now, if we look at the generality of this hadith, we would say that for every disagreement that occurs between two parties in a sale, the word is that of the seller. If he does not do so, if he does not swear, they mutually rescind the sale, meaning they annul it. But this hadith is not on this absolute basis by the agreement of the scholars. The scholars did not agree that the word is that of the seller in every case. Rather, they agreed that the word is not that of the seller in every case, and that there are cases in which the word of the seller cannot be accepted by agreement, and cases in which the word is that of the buyer by agreement. Is that clear?
So this hadith is not on its absolute basis, but rather we refer to the original hadith in claims, which isBulugh al-Maram 1423. Then, if each of them is a claimant and the one against whom the claim is made, we apply what the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) said, which is to make each of them swear to deny the claim of the other and establish his own claim. And if the mutual oath occurs, each of them has the right to annul the sale.
Now, they differed on a defect. They differed on a defect. The buyer said, "I bought it and it was defective," and the seller said, "No, you bought it free from defect." Whose word is accepted?
The student: The word of the seller.
The Shaykh : Yes. This hadith indicates that the word is that of the seller, and it is so because it matches the principles. Because the original state is? Because the original state is the absence of a defect, and the original state is the soundness of the sold item. And some jurists said that the word is that of the buyer, and this is the madhhab if they differ on the occurrence of the defect. The word of the buyer is accepted. Why? They said because the original state is the non-receipt of the part missing due to the defect, because the defect is a deficiency in the sold item. And the original state is the non-receipt of this part missing due to the defect. So if the buyer claims it and says, "I did not receive this part missing due to the defect," his word is accepted. But this cause, as you know, is very weak, because the original state being the soundness of the sold item is stronger than what they said (may Allah have mercy on them). This is unless there is evidence for the statement of one of them, such as if the defect is an extra finger. Here, whose word is accepted?
The student: The seller.
The Shaykh : No, the word is that of the buyer. The word is that of the buyer, because an extra finger does not grow; it is from the original creation. Or if the defect is a fresh wound that oozes blood, and the sale was four days ago. Here, whose word is accepted?
The student: The seller.
The Shaykh : The word of the seller, because it is not possible for a wound to continue oozing blood for four days. Now, but the correct statement is that the word is that of the seller. The correct statement is that the word is that of the seller, for what we mentioned, which is that the original state is the soundness of the sold item. The original state is the soundness of the sold item.
Now, if they agreed that the defect was with the seller, and the seller said, "I stipulated it for you," and the buyer said, "You did not stipulate it"?
The student: The word of the buyer.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The word of the buyer.
The Shaykh : And what is the original state?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : So, what contradicts this? Let us see now. They agreed on the defect. Yes, there is a defect in the sold item. But I stipulated it for you, and the buyer said, "You did not stipulate it for me," and there is no evidence. Whose word is accepted?
The student: The buyer.
The Shaykh : The statement of the buyer is given precedence, because the original state is the absence of a condition, unless there is strong evidence indicating that the seller is known for truthfulness and good conduct, and that it is impossible for him to conceal a defect. However, if the buyer is known for bad conduct, or if there is other evidence—such as having sold this item to him when prices were high and he accepted the defect, or when prices dropped he claimed he had not stipulated it in order to return the sale—then this is also evidence. But if the matter is devoid of such evidence, the buyer’s statement is accepted, as the original state is the absence of a condition.
I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) say: If the two parties in a sale dispute and there is no proof between them, then the statement of the owner of the goods is accepted, or they may both abandon the transaction.
سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: إذا اختلف المتبايعان وليس بينهما بينة ، فالقول مايقول رب السلعة أو يتتاركانHis statement:
If the two parties in a sale dispute and there is no proof between them
إذا اختلف المتبايعان وليس بينهما بينةand there is no proof between them
وليس بينهما بيّنةThe student: And two women.
The Shaykh : One man and two women, or two men, or a man and the oath of the claimant. And his statement:
then the statement of the owner of the goods is accepted
فالقول قول صاحب السلعةthe seller's word is final
فالقول ما يقول ربّ السّلعةThe student: The seller.
The Shaykh : I explained that in another wording, which is the seller, as being the seller. This explanation refutes the statement of those who say that the intended meaning of "the owner of the goods" is the buyer, because the owner of the goods in the case of disagreement is the buyer, not the seller. The seller has sold it, and ownership has transferred from him. However, the explanation of the hadith, or rather the explanation of the second wording, rejects this meaning, and the intended meaning of "the owner of the goods" is the seller in any case. He (peace and blessings be upon him) says:
If the two parties in a sale dispute and there is no proof between them
إذا اختلف المتبايعان وليس بينهما بيّنةThe proof is due from the claimant, and the oath is due from the one the claim is made against.
البيّنة على المدّعي واليمين على المدّعى عليهThe proof is upon the claimant
البيّنة على المدّعيThe proof is due from the claimant, and the oath is due from the one the claim is made against.
البيّنة على المدّعي واليمين على المدّعى عليهThe student: The seller.
The Shaykh : The seller. And here he says
the statement of the owner of the goods is accepted
القول ما قال رب السلعةthe seller's word is final
فالقول ما يقول ربّ السّلعةThe student: ... The seller.
The Shaykh : There is disagreement on this. There is disagreement. Some preferred the oath of the one against whom the claim is made, and said that here the buyer is the one against whom the claim is made, because it was claimed against him that the price was ten. So his word is accepted, and he swears that it was not ten, and it becomes for him...
And some said, rather, the word is that of the seller. The word is that of the seller, because the buyer is a claimant. The buyer here is a claimant. How is he a claimant? They said because he claimed that the seller removed it from his ownership for eight, and the original state is the continuation of the seller's ownership. So the seller says, "I did not sell it except for ten," and this one says, "For how much did you sell it?" "For eight." So he is a claimant. In that case, both hadiths are true in this case, because the word is that of the seller according to this hadith, and according to the hadith of evidence, the evidence is on the claimant.
But the scholars differed on this issue. Some said the word is that of the seller according to this hadith, and said that the meaning of the hadith of
But the proof (Bayyinah) lies on the one who is making the claim, and the other (Yamin) must be taken by the one who rejects the claim.
البيّنة على المدّعي واليمين على من أنكرThe student: Ownership.
The Shaykh : Ownership. The original state is the continuation of the seller's ownership, so the word is that of the seller, or they mutually rescind the sale, as will come to you in the hadith. And some of the scholars said that the word is that of the buyer, because they agreed on the sale and agreed on the eight, and differed on what was added to the eight. So the buyer claims it and the seller denies it. The evidence is on the claimant, so it is said to the seller, "Bring evidence, or you have no right to more than eight." And some said, rather, they should take the mutual oath. This is the madhhab (school of jurisprudence). They take the mutual oath. They said because each of them is a claimant and the one against whom the claim is made. They combined the two statements and said that the seller is a claimant and the buyer is also a claimant, and the seller is the one against whom the claim is made and the buyer is the one against whom the claim is made. So how do we act? They said they take the mutual oath. The seller swears first that he did not sell it for eight, but only for ten. If the buyer is satisfied, what the seller said is established. If he is not satisfied, the buyer swears, "By Allah, I did not buy it for ten, but only for eight." After the mutual oath, the sale is annulled. The sale is annulled, and the goods are returned to their owner and the price to its owner. Do you understand?
Now, if we look at the generality of this hadith, we would say that for every disagreement that occurs between two parties in a sale, the word is that of the seller. If he does not do so, if he does not swear, they mutually rescind the sale, meaning they annul it. But this hadith is not on this absolute basis by the agreement of the scholars. The scholars did not agree that the word is that of the seller in every case. Rather, they agreed that the word is not that of the seller in every case, and that there are cases in which the word of the seller cannot be accepted by agreement, and cases in which the word is that of the buyer by agreement. Is that clear?
So this hadith is not on its absolute basis, but rather we refer to the original hadith in claims, which is
But the proof (Bayyinah) lies on the one who is making the claim, and the other (Yamin) must be taken by the one who rejects the claim.
البيّنة على المدّعي واليمين على من أنكرNow, they differed on a defect. They differed on a defect. The buyer said, "I bought it and it was defective," and the seller said, "No, you bought it free from defect." Whose word is accepted?
The student: The word of the seller.
The Shaykh : Yes. This hadith indicates that the word is that of the seller, and it is so because it matches the principles. Because the original state is? Because the original state is the absence of a defect, and the original state is the soundness of the sold item. And some jurists said that the word is that of the buyer, and this is the madhhab if they differ on the occurrence of the defect. The word of the buyer is accepted. Why? They said because the original state is the non-receipt of the part missing due to the defect, because the defect is a deficiency in the sold item. And the original state is the non-receipt of this part missing due to the defect. So if the buyer claims it and says, "I did not receive this part missing due to the defect," his word is accepted. But this cause, as you know, is very weak, because the original state being the soundness of the sold item is stronger than what they said (may Allah have mercy on them). This is unless there is evidence for the statement of one of them, such as if the defect is an extra finger. Here, whose word is accepted?
The student: The seller.
The Shaykh : No, the word is that of the buyer. The word is that of the buyer, because an extra finger does not grow; it is from the original creation. Or if the defect is a fresh wound that oozes blood, and the sale was four days ago. Here, whose word is accepted?
The student: The seller.
The Shaykh : The word of the seller, because it is not possible for a wound to continue oozing blood for four days. Now, but the correct statement is that the word is that of the seller. The correct statement is that the word is that of the seller, for what we mentioned, which is that the original state is the soundness of the sold item. The original state is the soundness of the sold item.
Now, if they agreed that the defect was with the seller, and the seller said, "I stipulated it for you," and the buyer said, "You did not stipulate it"?
The student: The word of the buyer.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The word of the buyer.
The Shaykh : And what is the original state?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : So, what contradicts this? Let us see now. They agreed on the defect. Yes, there is a defect in the sold item. But I stipulated it for you, and the buyer said, "You did not stipulate it for me," and there is no evidence. Whose word is accepted?
The student: The buyer.
The Shaykh : The statement of the buyer is given precedence, because the original state is the absence of a condition, unless there is strong evidence indicating that the seller is known for truthfulness and good conduct, and that it is impossible for him to conceal a defect. However, if the buyer is known for bad conduct, or if there is other evidence—such as having sold this item to him when prices were high and he accepted the defect, or when prices dropped he claimed he had not stipulated it in order to return the sale—then this is also evidence. But if the matter is devoid of such evidence, the buyer’s statement is accepted, as the original state is the absence of a condition.