Continuing to mention the benefits of the hadith: (… then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) caught up with me, so he made a supplication for me and struck it. So it traveled a journey like which it had never traveled before… ).

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy, and in Him we seek help.
He said: “Then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) caught up with me” to the end of it. It is derived from this phrase that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to travel at the rear of the people, due to his saying: “Then he caught up with me”. And if his group had become exhausted, then it necessarily follows that he was at the rear of the people. So if the Messenger caught up with him, he was certainly at their rear. Branching from this benefit is the good care of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for his Ummah and the Companions with him, and that he used to be behind them.
Also branching from this is that it is recommended for the commander of an army to be like this, behind his army or behind his companions and group, so that he may check on their conditions himself.
Also branching from this is the humility of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), because he was able to be at the front of the people and appoint a person to be at the rear of the people. But from his humility (peace and blessings be upon him) was that he loved to be at the rear of the people.
And from the benefits of the hadith is the compassion of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for his Ummah, and especially the weak among them, due to his saying: . .
And from it, meaning from the benefits of the hadith, is doing good to others by making a supplication for them, whether they are absent or present. But it is better in absence, because absence is less of a favor than presence. Indeed, if a person present makes a supplication for a person present, the supplicant may feel that he has a favor over him with this supplication, and likewise the one for whom the supplication is made may feel this favor, so his self is broken before him. But if it is in absence, this concern is removed.
And in it is also making a supplication in absence.
In it is also another benefit, which is that the angel says “Ameen” and says “And for you the like of it.” But if the supplication is for a person present, or if there is an occasion, then that is better. And for this reason, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) made a supplication for Jabir on this occasion. Yes.
And from its benefits is the permissibility of striking an animal so that it travels. The permissibility of striking an animal so that it travels, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) struck it. But two conditions are stipulated for this:
The first condition is that it not be a severe beating, as some people do, taking a piece of wood and striking the camel or the donkey or the like of that.
And the second is that it not be beyond the capacity of that animal. If it is beyond its capacity, meaning the animal has exerted its capacity and has no strength, then at that time striking it is mere torture with no benefit. And the intended purpose of the striking is the benefit.
Now, and from the benefits of the hadith is the manifestation of a sign from the signs of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), which is that when he made a supplication for Jabir and struck his camel, the camel traveled a journey like which it had never traveled before. And this is from the signs of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
And a sign is every mark by which the truth of the claimant is made clear. This sign, every mark by which the truth of the claimant is made clear, is a sign.
And the expression “sign” appears to be more appropriate for the extraordinary events that occur through the hands of the prophets than the expression “miracle,” for two reasons:
The first reason is that this is the Qur’anic and Prophetic expression, “sign.” Even Allah (Mighty and Majestic) made the “sign” for what is less than that: And He said: .
And the second reason is that a miracle may occur from other than a prophet. It may occur from a sorcerer and one who employs the devils and the like of that. So for this reason, the expression “sign” is more appropriate for these two reasons.
Now, and from the benefits of the hadith is also that it is recommended for a person to help his Muslim brother in his mount. From where is this taken?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : From the fact that the Messenger made a supplication for him and struck the camel until it traveled a journey like which it had never traveled before. And helping a person in these matters is from charity, as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: .
And from the benefits of the hadith is the permissibility of testing a person with what is not intended to be taken in reality, due to the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): . Because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) asked to buy it from him, not to take the camel, but to test him. For Jabir wanted to let it go, out of desire to be rid of it and disdain for it, and did not want it, but wanted to get rid of it. Then when it reached this state and traveled a journey like which it had never traveled before, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to test him, so he said: . He said: “No”. This is the best interpretation by which the hadith is understood. As for the saying of some that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to do good to Jabir, but he feared that his heart would be broken if he gave it to him, so he devised a way to give it to him by appearing to buy the camel, this is far-fetched. And what makes it far-fetched is that the Messenger said that on the occasion of what happened to the camel, meaning the cause of this thing is clear. The cause is not that the Messenger wanted to benefit Jabir, so he devised a way to return it to him. Some said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to give him an extra voluntary share from the war spoils, but he feared to give it to him in front of the people, so it would be said that he preferred him over us, so he wanted to make it in the form of a purchase. Yes, a purchase of his camel. And this is also far-fetched. This is also far-fetched. So the most apparent interpretation by which the hadith is understood is what I mentioned.
He said, and from the benefits of the hadith is also the permissibility of the elders purchasing from the younger ones. Yes.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) purchased from Jabir. And does this include age, or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : It includes age, and amount. Yes. So it is permissible for the father to buy from his son, and the older brother from his younger brother, and the commander from the one commanded, and the master from his slave…
The student: The master from his slave, no.

The Shaykh : Why?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Because the slave has no ownership for his master.
Now, and from the benefits of the hadith is also that it is not counted as a sin if the seller refuses to sell, due to the saying of Jabir: “No”. And this was not a sin against the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). And for this reason, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not reprimand him. And on this basis, if it is said to you, “Your brother or your father, sell me such-and-such,” and you say “No,” this is not counted as undutifulness to parents or severing family ties, because these are private matters. And what some people do of being angry with a relative when he asks him to sell him a thing and he says “No,” is contrary to the Shari’ah. Some people get angry when his relative says, “Sell me this,” and he says “No,” and he says, “This is not good and he does not maintain his family ties.” So we say, rather, you are the one who erred. You have no right to be angry about this thing or to disapprove of it. And this occurred from the best of the generations, the Companions, with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
And from the benefits of the hadith is determining the price in bargaining, due to his saying: “For a dinar”. But a person might say, “This benefit is like saying the sky is above us and the earth is below us!” So what is the answer? The answer is that in determining the price there is a benefit, in order to proceed or to refrain. Meaning, it is not as you said, “Sell me your house, sell me your car, sell me your pen, and the like of that.” If you determine it, there is a benefit in it, which is that the seller proceeds if he sees the price suitable, or refrains if he sees it unsuitable. Now, is it said, or is it possible to say, that in it is evidence for the condition of knowing the price?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It is stipulated in any case, but is it taken from this hadith or not?
The student: It is not taken.

The Shaykh : It appears that it is not taken, but there is no doubt that determining the price is better and more excellent. Now.
And from the benefits of the hadith is the permissibility of repeating the request to sell or buy, due to his saying: . And this is not counted as the disliked persistence. This is not counted as the disliked persistence. So if you come to a person and say, “Sell me your house for such-and-such,” and he says “No,” then a time passes and you say, “Sell it to me,” and you say it a second time, a third time, and a fourth time, there is no harm, and this is not counted as the disliked persistence, because I do not want him to give it to me without a price, but I want him to give it to me for a price. So I am not asking. And for this reason, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) repeated the request to sell, saying: .
And from its benefits is the permissibility of stipulating the benefit of the sold item in a known manner. The permissibility of stipulating the benefit of the sold item in a known manner…
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : This is because Jabir stipulated that the camels be carried to Medina, to his family in Medina. Knowledge may be by time, by work, or by distance. It may be by time, as if you stipulated that I use this item sold or live in this house for a month; this is time. It may be by work, as if you sold me a slave and stipulated that he work for me by sewing a garment; this is a sale of what?
The student: By work.

The Shaykh : By work. The third is by distance, as if you sold me a car and stipulated that I travel with it to Makkah; this is distance. The difference between these three is clear, or is it not? As for time, when it ends, the condition ends, whether you gained a great deal or not. Work is the same; when it ends, the condition ends, whether the duration of the work was long or short. Distance is the same; it is this distance, whether the duration was long or short.
Now, among the benefits of the hadith is that stipulating a benefit must be known, based on his saying?
The student: To my family.

The Shaykh : To my family. If it were unknown, some scholars said it is valid, and others said it is not valid, such as if I sell you my house and exclude its residence until I find a house, until I find a house. Is this permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.

The Shaykh : It depends on the disagreement. Some said it is permissible and set a period in which he can likely find a house. Others said it is not permissible. There is no doubt that specifying the period is more decisive in ending the dispute and further from disagreement, so it is preferable. And if you think you will not find a house except within a month, make the period two months, is that not so? So that if you find it within a month, you have a favor over the owner of the house when you give him his house and... the remainder of the period. You have taken precautions for yourself. Now, if the benefit is stipulated in something other than the item sold, such as if I said, "I sold you my house on the condition that you let me live in your house for a month"?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It is not valid. Yes, and the difference between them is that in the first case, it is retaining a benefit, whereas this is creating a new benefit. How is it retaining a benefit? Because when I sell you the house, you own its substance and its benefits from the moment you take it. So if I exclude its benefit for a period of one year, for example, my exclusion is a retention. It is a retention of a benefit that I owned, so I retained the benefit for this period, and this became permissible. But if I said, "on the condition that you let me live in your house for a month," this is a new benefit that has no relation to the item sold, so it is not a retention of a benefit, but rather it is like a lease contract. It is as if it is a lease contract, and stipulating a contract within a contract is not valid. This is the path our scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) followed, and they classified this under the category of two sales in one sale, saying that stipulating a contract within a contract is not valid. The second opinion in the issue is that this is valid, that I can sell you this house on the condition that you let me live in your house for a month or a year, according to what is agreed upon. They said that the most that can be said is that it is a contract combining a sale and a lease, and there is no evidence prohibiting the combination of two contracts. There is no evidence, and for this reason, it is permissible for me to say, "I sold you my house on the condition that you sell me your house for a known price," and there is no evidence prohibiting this.
If someone asks, did not the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibit marriage by shighar? The answer is yes, but marriage by shighar involves the right of a third party, and there is a fear that his right will be degraded by this condition. Who is the third party?
The student: The woman.

The Shaykh : The woman. The woman. We might say, "I will marry you my daughter on the condition that you marry me your daughter," and... the mahr and everything, but there may be injustice to the two women, or to one of them, unlike this issue. This issue contains no injustice to anyone, so the correct view is that combining is permissible, that stipulating another contract with this contract is permissible, unless it includes a religious prohibition, such as if I said, "I lent you a thousand riyals on the condition that you let me live in your house for a year"?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : This is not permissible?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Why?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Because it is a loan that brings a benefit, and it takes the loan out of its proper context, since the original principle of a loan is to be kind and do good. Now you have made it a matter of exchange and greed. For this reason, we say that every loan that brings a benefit is riba, whether the hadith is authentic or not. The hadith... is in this wording, but its meaning is correct. In any case, we say that if a benefit is stipulated in the item sold, yes, it is permissible. What is its evidence?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : The hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), is that so or not? If a benefit is stipulated in something else, there is disagreement, and the stronger position is that it is permissible, and the stronger position is that it is permissible. Now, some scholars say that the permissibility of this condition is contrary to qiyas (analogical reasoning). The permissibility of this condition is contrary to qiyas. Pay attention, and they bring up things from contracts saying they are contrary to qiyas, meaning that qiyas requires their invalidity, but we followed the text in them. For example, muzara'ah (share-cropping) is contrary to qiyas, musaqah (share-irrigation) is contrary to qiyas, mudarabah (profit-sharing partnership) is contrary to qiyas, until some of them said ijarah (lease) is contrary to qiyas, because ijarah is for non-existent benefits that may be realized or the leased item may be destroyed and nothing realized. They also say this condition is contrary to qiyas. We say to them, what qiyas do you want? They said, because qiyas dictates that when the substance transfers by sale, it transfers with its benefits, and here?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It did not transfer with its benefits; the benefit remained, meaning it is still due to the seller, so this is contrary to qiyas. It is said to them:
First, a general answer: there is nothing in the authentic Sunnah that is contrary to qiyas. And whoever thinks there is something in it contrary to qiyas, either his thought is wrong or his qiyas is defective. Why? Because the Shari'ah came in accordance with sound, correct minds, neither in its reports nor in its rulings. There is nothing contrary to qiyas at all. But think, and you will find that the qiyas indicated by the Shari'ah is what the Shari'ah indicated. You will find that the qiyas indicated by the Shari'ah is what the Shari'ah indicated. So here we say this is not contrary to qiyas. Why? Because the transfer of what is by contract is according to what is established by custom, or the requirement of the Shari'ah, or the verbal condition. That is, the Shari'ah defines, and custom defines, and the verbal condition defines. So this one who sold to you and excluded its benefit for a period did not actually take on an absolute contract, or did he? He took on a restricted contract, and the requirements of contracts return either to custom, or the condition, or the Shari'ah. Pay attention, either to custom, or the condition, or the Shari'ah. For example, if he sold me a slave and excluded his wala' (clientage), we say this is not permissible, because this... in the Shari'ah, is that so? If he sold him a female slave and excluded her womb?
The student: It is not valid.

The Shaykh : It is not valid, because this is contrary to the Shari'ah, since when you sold her, she was not your property, and the womb is not permissible except for a husband or an owner. And on this, draw the analogy. We say that ownership transferred from its owner by the requirement of this condition, and if you wish, say it transferred in a restricted manner. How did it transfer in a restricted manner?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : That is, restricted by this condition. I did not sell it to you so that you utilize its benefit from now, but I sold it to you so that its benefit is mine until a specific time. And this is exactly in accordance with qiyas, exactly in accordance with qiyas. And on this basis, we say regarding everything mentioned as being contrary to qiyas: there is nothing in the Shari'ah that is contrary to qiyas, and whoever thinks so, either his thought is defective or his qiyas is defective. As for a correct qiyas with a correct thought, it is impossible for there to be in the Shari'ah what contradicts qiyas. Yes, that is right.
Now, among the benefits of the hadith is the virtue of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), where he fulfilled the condition immediately after its end. Where is this taken from?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...

The Shaykh :"So when they reached [Medina], he came to him with the camels" without delay, to the extent that in some contexts of the hadith, he brought them before going to his family, and he brought them while the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was at the mosque, and he said to him: Because it is better for a person when he arrives in a town to begin with prayer in the mosque before anything else. Which mosque?
The student: Any mosque.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Any mosque.

The Shaykh : Any mosque in the town, not the mosque on the road, but the mosque that is considered part of the town you arrived in. Yes, that is right.
And among the benefits of the hadith is also that what is known in the mind is like what is mentioned verbally...
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Pay attention, that what is known in the mind is like what is mentioned verbally.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, it is the opposite.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : ... in the mosque ...
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Ah! I am saying in the hadith, not with this last phrase.
The student: Yes, he stipulated and... acceptance of the price except upon delivery.

The Shaykh : No, yes?
The student: That he stipulated carrying them to his family.

The Shaykh : To his family.
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Did he not say it in the city, or did he? But it is well known that his family is in the city, or is it not? If Jabir, for example, had said, “My family is in Makkah, O Messenger of Allah,” would that have been possible? No, it would not. Therefore, what is known in the mind is like what is mentioned in words. So, if there is a known custom among people, or a known custom between the contracting parties, it suffices in place of specifying it by verbal mention; it suffices in place of that. This is based on the hadith: “to my family”. Now, in it also...
The student: There is a benefit.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Be patient, yes, Jabir, leave it for later... Now.
In it also is: “When he reached [the city], I brought him the camel, and he paid me its price”. In this is the permissibility of buying on credit, the permissibility of buying on credit. That is, a person buys an item and does not have its price. Where is this taken from? From the fact that the Messenger did not pay the price except in the city after he returned, only after he returned. It appears that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not have money with him at that time. It appears he did not have money, as evidenced by the fact that in other contexts he ordered Bilal to weigh out its price and make it heavier. If he had had anything in his hand, he would have given him from what he had. So, buying on credit is permissible, but this is not absolute; this is not absolute. Rather, it is permissible for one who has the ability to pay. As for one who takes people’s money and does not have the ability to pay, who indulges himself and acts like rich merchants while he is poor, there is doubt regarding the permissibility of that, even though the original ruling in transactions is permissibility. But there is doubt in this. A poor man sees a car at a person’s place, “a Cadillac”, and he is poor. A Cadillac is worth one hundred thousand. He does not have one hundred thousand. He goes to the showroom and buys it from them for one hundred and twenty thousand, because the showroom does not give him the deferred price like the cash price. He says, “I will walk with people as if I am one of the rich.” Is this permissible?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : This is not permissible because it is extravagance, and it is taking people’s money in a way that fears loss, because this man is poor. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not guide the man who wanted to marry a woman; he did not guide him to borrow when he said he had nothing. He did not guide him to borrow, even though marriage is among the most important matters and may be among the necessities. And yet, he did not guide him. This is unlike a person who has money, and let us suppose he is an employee and has a salary, but right now he has nothing in his hand... at the end of the month he will pay, and he is almost certain that he will pay it. This is fine; he may take something on credit, right? Now, the case that occurred: was it a sale of a specific item for a specific item? Or a sale of a debt for a debt?
The student: A specific item for a specific item.

The Shaykh : A specific item for a specific item?
The student: A specific item for a debt.

The Shaykh : A specific item for a debt, correct. A sale of a specific item for a debt.
So, from this also is taken the permissibility of selling a specific item for a debt, a specific item for a debt. Now, selling a debt for a debt?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : If there is a delay, it is not permissible; otherwise, it is permissible. And people’s practice is on this. Now, people say, for example, “I bought from you such and such for such and such,” and he goes from the shop and brings it for him. So, the contract was made for a debt for a debt, yes.
And from the benefits of the hadith is also the permissibility of asking another person, or the permissibility of appointing another person...
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : From his saying: “So he sent in my tracks”. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not go himself to say, “O Jabir.” Rather, he sent in his tracks. And something like this, which is customary, is fine, especially if the person you have tasked with the thing is pleased by it and does not find it burdensome. Then, there is no harm in it, and this is not considered the blameworthy asking that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) pledged to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) not to ask people for anything. Because the Companions pledged to the Messenger not to ask people for anything, until a man would drop his stick while riding and would dismount from his camel to pick it up from the ground, and not say, “O so-and-so, give it to me.” But the thing that you know your companion, whom you have tasked with the work, is pleased by it and does not find it burdensome, then there is no harm on you in asking him and tasking him. If you fear that he will find it burdensome, then do not do it. And that appears by verbal or psychological signs. The psychological sign is that when you order him, his face turns yellow and darkens. This is instead of him saying “no” with his tongue, right?
The student: A state (hal).

The Shaykh : This is the self, psychological, or when you ordered him he said, “Oh...”? Yes, this is by what?
The student: By his tongue.

The Shaykh : By his tongue. This is further from it; do not task him. As for the man whom you see hastening to serve you and being pleased when you task him, then there is no harm, and this is from the guidance of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and it is not from asking people for anything. Yes, that is right.

The questioner : The Shaykh ...

The Shaykh : And what is the benefit that you have?
The student: Jabir said “no” to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, this is from the benefits of the hadith, as the brother Ghanim said, that it is permissible to say “no” to the elder.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes? No, we did not take that in this; we took it from before, yes, contrary to what the common people do. The common people do not say “no,” but they say, “May you be safe...”
The student: ...

The Shaykh : May you be safe, yes. Or else, what do you say? “May you not have a twist,” yes. Or else, what do you say to a woman? “Honor, honor the woman...”
The student: ...

The Shaykh : By Allah, look, it is according to the situation. That is, some people, when they know that this person is straightforward, say, “Please...” He says, “No.” “Buy this,” he says, “No.” “Sell this,” he says, “No”...
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his Companions.
From the benefits in this hadith, I think...
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The permissibility of agency...

The Shaykh : Yes, we mentioned in it the permissibility of agency in payment, meaning a person appoints another person to handle the payment on his behalf.
And from it is also taken the permissibility of agency in collection, by appointing a person to collect his right from the one who owes it.
And does the one who owes the right have the authority to prevent and say to the agent, “I will not deliver it except to the one who has the right”? The answer is no; he does not have the right to prevent, because a person has the right to collect his right himself or through his agent. Yes, if it is supposed that the agent does not have a legal document that he is an agent, then at that time he has the right to prevent and say, “I will not deliver it to you except with legal proof that you are his agent in collecting his right.”
Now, where did we take this benefit from? From the fact that agency in collection is analogous to agency in payment, and agency in payment or in fulfilling the debt was permitted by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
And from the benefits of the hadith is the clarification that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not intend the sale in its literal sense, due to his saying: . Did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) intend to give charity to him, and he reached the charity through this formal contract? It was said so; it was said this. And it was said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) bought it in reality, but when he saw his pride in himself and that the camel was expensive to him, he returned it to him. And this is better than the one before it. But it is difficult to reconcile with the fact that the apparent meaning of the hadith is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not intend the sale at all, due to his saying: . So, this indicates that he did not intend the sale at all. Therefore, what appears to me is that his intention by that was testing and examining the state of the person as a human being. As for the person, he may be desirous of the thing, then not long after, he becomes desirous of it according to what is associated with it of attributes that make him desire it or deter him from it. As he said here, “Sell it to me,” after he had wanted to let it go, and he refused to sell it to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) for a dinar, even though he had wanted to let it go. And the legal principles do not object to intending this testing and examination. For this reason, he said: . This indicates that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not intend ownership at all. If he had intended that, the camel would have been the camel of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and there would have been a need for interpretation in his saying, “I will take your camel,” which is expressing the thing according to what it was, because the camel was in the first place... yes?
The student: For Jabir.

The Shaykh : For Jabir, now.
And from the benefits of the hadith is also the generosity of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), where he combined for Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) the compensation and the compensated item, between the camel and his dirhams, the value of the camel, due to his saying: . So, “your camel” according to the intention of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and “your dirhams” according to the intention of Jabir, according to the intention of Jabir.
Now, there is also evidence in it for the permissibility of delaying the price. Where is this taken from? From the fact that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not pay the price until he returned to Madinah. So it is permissible to delay the price, but the delay is of two types: sometimes it is deferred to a specific term, in which case it remains until that term; and sometimes it is left unspecified, in which case the one who has the right may demand it immediately. And if he remains silent and leaves it, there is no harm. So if you bought something from me for ten and I remained silent and did not demand it from you until after a month or two, or a year or two, there is no harm in that, because the right belongs to whom? The right belongs to the seller. So if he demands it immediately upon the conclusion of the sale, does he have the right?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, he has the right. But if it was deferred to a specific term, then it is until that term.
Among the benefits of the hadith is that contracts are concluded by what indicates them. Because we did not find in this hadith, when he said: , that there is an explicit use of the word "gift" (hibah), nor an explicit use of the word "acceptance." The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not say, "I have gifted you," and Jabir did not say, "I accept." This statement is the stronger position among the opinions of the scholars that contracts are concluded by what indicates them, even marriage. Even marriage is concluded by what indicates it, because the wording is an expression of what is in the heart. So if the wording indicates what is in the heart, in whatever language, with whatever wording, and in whatever style, then it is suitable for concluding the contract. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding Safiyyah, "I have freed her..." The hadith reported about her is . So if a man says to his slave woman, "I have freed you and made your freedom your mahr," the freeing is valid and the marriage is valid, even though there is no explicit offer or acceptance, meaning not with the wording "I have married you" or "I have married myself to my slave woman" or the like. This indicates that contracts are concluded by what indicates them. Now, by what indicates them: by Shari'ah or by custom?
The student: By custom.

The Shaykh : By custom, by what indicates them by custom, because people mutually understand the meaning of this address among themselves, so it is referred back to custom. Now, if the custom differs, then it is referred back to the speaker to determine the intended meaning. If the custom differs, and this happens often, especially in dialects, then it is referred back to the speaker to determine the intended meaning. But if it is consistent, then it is according to what people have mutually agreed upon. Then, I think the benefits have ended now.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, we mentioned them.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : We mentioned them.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, it is not an acceptance; this is an offer.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : We mentioned them.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes... haggling regarding the price, negotiating the price, yes.

The questioner : ... the transfer of the sold item to the buyer.

The Shaykh : The transfer of the sold item to the buyer by the mere conclusion of the contract, based on his saying, based on his saying?
The student: ... so it indicates that every sale... by the mere conclusion of the sale contract.

The Shaykh : It is possible, this is good, meaning its implication is that we take from it that ownership transfers to the buyer by the mere conclusion of the contract.
The student: This is the principle.

The Shaykh : Yes, this is the principle. Now, branching from that, if it perishes, if it perishes, is it upon the buyer or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : And if it increases? It is for the buyer, yes. Is there anything else?
The student: ... the sale by the one in authority or the Grand Imam.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Some of them...

The Shaykh : Yes, the permissibility of the Imam selling to his subjects.
The student: We mentioned them.

The Shaykh : We mentioned them?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student : Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: Did you mention the permissibility of letting the animals roam?

The Shaykh : What?
The student: The permissibility of letting the animals roam.

The Shaykh : Yes, we mentioned them, yes, that is enough...