Benefits of the Hadith: (Abu al-Zubayr said: I asked Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) about the price of a cat and a dog...)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : It is derived from this hadith the prohibition of selling a cat, is that so? And its apparent meaning is that there is no difference between the tame and the wild, nor between the tame that is beneficial and the tame that is not beneficial, due to the generality of the wording.
Scholars have differed on this issue into two opinions. Some say that if a cat is of benefit and becomes useful, there is no harm in selling it, because that which is of benefit is permissible, and all that is of benefit is permissible. The legal principle is the permissibility of selling it, based on the implication of the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):Sahih Ibn Hibban 26:35 Its implication is that if something is made permissible, its price is made permissible. And the prohibition of eating does not necessitate the prohibition of selling. Look, the donkey is forbidden to eat, and yet its sale is permissible if it is sold to be of benefit. So if this cat has clear benefit, such as what we mentioned before, eating insects and driving away pests and the like, then there is no harm in it, meaning there is no harm in selling it for its benefit. It is not prohibited from being kept, as we said regarding the dog; rather, it is among that which is permitted to be kept. However, if it is not tame and not beneficial, then its sale is not permissible. Its sale is not permissible because that is a waste of money. They carried the hadith to... Yes, before. And this is the opinion of the majority that it is permissible to sell it if it is of benefit. They carried the hadith to the second type, which is that which is not of benefit, namely that it is wild, because wild animals are not permissible to sell due to the lack of benefit and the inability to deliver them. Otherwise? Meaning, it is like a stray camel or a runaway slave; one cannot or is unable to deliver it to the buyer. And this opinion, which is the opinion of the majority, is a strong opinion, a very strong opinion. They carry the hadith to what they carried it to, namely that the intended meaning is the cat that has no benefit. But with this, we say that the precaution for a person is not to sell it. Rather, if he has a cat and his need for it has ended and someone asks for it, he should give it to him without a price.
Those who prohibited its sale argued with the generality of the hadith. They also argued that this is among the things that are not valued and are found frequently among people, so it resembles water, which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited from being sold. For it is customary that a cat is not kept as livestock is kept, such as keeping sheep, where it remains with the person, breeds with him, and he cares for it. Rather, if he finds a cat, he tames it until it becomes tame. So the opinion of the majority is strong, but with that, the most cautious course is to leave off selling them. As for the dog, it has been mentioned previously.
And in the hadith is evidence for the permissibility of answering with the evidence. From where is this taken?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : From his saying: "prohibited" and he did not say it is haram, but rather he said: "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited" Is this more appropriate, or is it more appropriate to mention the ruling and then its evidence? Or does it differ according to the person addressed?
The student: It differs according to the person addressed.
The Shaykh : It differs according to the person addressed. If the person addressed knows the ruling from the evidence, there is no need to mention the ruling and then present the evidence; there is no need for that, because it would only be lengthening. But if he does not understand, or if you want to teach him that when the ruling is mentioned, the evidence should be coupled with it, then here it is better to mention the ruling and then mention the evidence.
And for this reason, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did that, mentioning the ruling and then the evidence. Among what he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: ما منكم من أحد إلاّ وقد كتب له مقعده من الجنة ومقعده من النّار، قالوا: يا رسول الله أفلا ندع العمل ونتّكل على الكتاب؟ قال: لا، اعملوا فكلّ ميسّر لما خلق له، فأمّا أهل السّعادة فييسّرون لعمل أهل السّعادة، وأمّا أهل الشّقاوة فييسّرون لعمل أهل الشّقاوة، ثمّ قرأ: فأمّا من أعطى واتّقى* وصدّق بالحسنى* فسنيسّره لليسرى* وأما من بخل واستغنى* وكذّب بالحسنى* فسنيسّره للعسرى None of you has been written his place in Paradise and his place in the Fire. They said: O Messenger of Allah, should we then leave off doing deeds and rely on the record? He said: No, work, for everyone is facilitated for what he was created for. As for the people of happiness, they are facilitated for the deeds of the people of happiness. And as for the people of misery, they are facilitated for the deeds of the people of misery. Then he recited: "As for he who gives and fears, and believes in the good, We will facilitate him to ease. And as for he who withholds and considers himself self-sufficient, and denies the good, We will facilitate him to hardship." So the important thing is that mentioning the ruling with the evidence means that the answer is the evidence, or that the ruling is mentioned and then the evidence is coupled with it. This returns to the difference in what?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The questioner or the person addressed. All right, and from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) she said: "Barira came to me" ...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, and al-Nasa'i added: "except a hunting dog" But he added it and criticized it, may Allah have mercy on him, and said that it is denounced. So the exception is not correct, as is the stronger opinion in this issue. We have also previously spoken about it and clarified that if it were said that the prohibition regarding the dog is regarding the price of the dog, it is only regarding the price of the dog that is permitted to be kept, because that which is not permitted to be kept does not apply to sale, for a person cannot lose twice: he loses the reward and he loses the price.
Scholars have differed on this issue into two opinions. Some say that if a cat is of benefit and becomes useful, there is no harm in selling it, because that which is of benefit is permissible, and all that is of benefit is permissible. The legal principle is the permissibility of selling it, based on the implication of the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):
Indeed, when Allah forbids something, He forbids its price
إنّ الله إذا حرّم شيئا حرّم ثمنهThose who prohibited its sale argued with the generality of the hadith. They also argued that this is among the things that are not valued and are found frequently among people, so it resembles water, which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited from being sold. For it is customary that a cat is not kept as livestock is kept, such as keeping sheep, where it remains with the person, breeds with him, and he cares for it. Rather, if he finds a cat, he tames it until it becomes tame. So the opinion of the majority is strong, but with that, the most cautious course is to leave off selling them. As for the dog, it has been mentioned previously.
And in the hadith is evidence for the permissibility of answering with the evidence. From where is this taken?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : From his saying: "prohibited" and he did not say it is haram, but rather he said: "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited" Is this more appropriate, or is it more appropriate to mention the ruling and then its evidence? Or does it differ according to the person addressed?
The student: It differs according to the person addressed.
The Shaykh : It differs according to the person addressed. If the person addressed knows the ruling from the evidence, there is no need to mention the ruling and then present the evidence; there is no need for that, because it would only be lengthening. But if he does not understand, or if you want to teach him that when the ruling is mentioned, the evidence should be coupled with it, then here it is better to mention the ruling and then mention the evidence.
And for this reason, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did that, mentioning the ruling and then the evidence. Among what he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: ما منكم من أحد إلاّ وقد كتب له مقعده من الجنة ومقعده من النّار، قالوا: يا رسول الله أفلا ندع العمل ونتّكل على الكتاب؟ قال: لا، اعملوا فكلّ ميسّر لما خلق له، فأمّا أهل السّعادة فييسّرون لعمل أهل السّعادة، وأمّا أهل الشّقاوة فييسّرون لعمل أهل الشّقاوة، ثمّ قرأ: فأمّا من أعطى واتّقى* وصدّق بالحسنى* فسنيسّره لليسرى* وأما من بخل واستغنى* وكذّب بالحسنى* فسنيسّره للعسرى None of you has been written his place in Paradise and his place in the Fire. They said: O Messenger of Allah, should we then leave off doing deeds and rely on the record? He said: No, work, for everyone is facilitated for what he was created for. As for the people of happiness, they are facilitated for the deeds of the people of happiness. And as for the people of misery, they are facilitated for the deeds of the people of misery. Then he recited: "As for he who gives and fears, and believes in the good, We will facilitate him to ease. And as for he who withholds and considers himself self-sufficient, and denies the good, We will facilitate him to hardship." So the important thing is that mentioning the ruling with the evidence means that the answer is the evidence, or that the ruling is mentioned and then the evidence is coupled with it. This returns to the difference in what?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The questioner or the person addressed. All right, and from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) she said: "Barira came to me" ...
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, and al-Nasa'i added: "except a hunting dog" But he added it and criticized it, may Allah have mercy on him, and said that it is denounced. So the exception is not correct, as is the stronger opinion in this issue. We have also previously spoken about it and clarified that if it were said that the prohibition regarding the dog is regarding the price of the dog, it is only regarding the price of the dog that is permitted to be kept, because that which is not permitted to be kept does not apply to sale, for a person cannot lose twice: he loses the reward and he loses the price.