Continuation of the explanation of the hadith: (It is not permissible to combine a loan and a sale, nor to have two conditions in one sale, nor to take a profit on what one has not guaranteed, nor to sell what one does not have).

The Shaykh : He said: This is the third, meaning the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade taking a profit on what one has not guaranteed, meaning one has not entered into the guarantee of the profit, one has not entered into the guarantee of the profit. Why? Because if it is not in your guarantee, the guarantor might refuse to hand over the right, refusing to deliver it, and in that case there would be harm in it. What is an example? A person sells food that he bought from Zayd, selling it to 'Amr before he has taken possession of it. Here, the sale is not valid. Why? Because it is not guaranteed. Indeed, what is sold by measure, weight, count, or length is not guaranteed; it does not enter into the buyer's guarantee until that happens. To clarify further: if you bought from me one hundred sa' of this wheat in front of us, every sa' for one dirham, if you measure it out, it is in your guarantee. Before you measure it out, it is in the seller's guarantee. Is this wheat mine or the seller's? It is mine, but as long as you have not measured it out, it is in the seller's guarantee. Now, if you sold it for a profit before measuring it out, it would be forbidden, just as selling it in the first place is forbidden, and it becomes more forbidden if you take a profit on it. Why? Because if the seller knows that I have made a profit, he might refuse to deliver it, because people are naturally inclined to envy and injustice. If he sees that I have made a profit, he will prevent it, and in that case, it becomes selling what one is unable to deliver. Now, a man owes me one hundred sa' of wheat, so I sell it to another person. Is this sale permissible or not?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Why? Because this debt in the debtor's possession does not enter into my guarantee until I collect it from him. Now, if I buy fruit on the palm trees, whose guarantee is the fruit in?
The student : The seller.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student : The seller.

The Shaykh : It is in the seller's guarantee, by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): So, is it permissible for me to sell it for a profit?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : We say that the apparent meaning of the hadith is no, and this is one of the two opinions in the madhhab of Imam Ahmad that it is not permissible to sell fruit on the palm trees for a profit. Without a profit?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It is permissible, because taking possession of the fruit by leaving it is taking possession. If the seller leaves it between me and it, that is taking possession. But the Lawgiver made it in whose guarantee?
The student : The seller.

The Shaykh : In the seller's guarantee. So, if you sell it for a profit, you have taken a profit on what you have not guaranteed, and that is forbidden. This is one of the two opinions in the madhhab of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him). Now, do you understand, Fahd?
Now, I rented a house from a person for a year for one thousand riyals. Is it permissible for me to rent it out for a profit for one thousand and one hundred?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, there is no harm at all.
The student: It is permissible.

The Shaykh : The apparent meaning of the hadith is that it is not permissible. This is not guaranteed, because if the property is destroyed, the lease is annulled. The guaranteed item is that which the guarantor guarantees in his debt in all cases. Here, if the property is destroyed, the lease is annulled. For this reason, the second opinion in the madhhab of Imam Ahmad is that it is not permissible for the lessee to rent it out for more than what he rented it for, because if he does so, he has taken a profit on what he has not guaranteed. This is what Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his treatise "Wad' al-Jawahib", stating that it is not permissible to take a profit on what one has rented, and it is not permissible to take a profit on selling fruit on the palm trees, because it is in his guarantee. He mentioned two aspects in this. As for the madhhab in both issues, the profit is permissible. The profit is permissible because it was in the seller's guarantee, meaning the fruit was in the seller's guarantee and did not enter into the buyer's guarantee for a reason: the buyer's benefit in it is not complete until he takes it, so there is a deficiency in the taking of possession. As for the issue of leasing, they say that the original state is the preservation of the property, and the original state is that the benefit remains for the lessee. If it is decreed that it is destroyed, he will guarantee the remaining rent to the lessee. So, it is in his guarantee, either by taking possession of the benefit or by returning what? Returning the rent. Let us suppose it collapsed in the middle of the year. You cannot demand the lessor to say, "Find me a house to live in," because the lessor will say to you, "I only rented you this house, and this house was destroyed; the rain came and demolished it." But he has the remaining rent by proportion. If it collapsed in the middle of the year, how much is he entitled to?
The student: Half the rent.

The Shaykh : Half the rent. So, the reality is that even if it is not in his guarantee in terms of taking possession of the benefit, it is in his guarantee in terms of returning the remaining rent. For this reason, we say that the stronger opinion in both issues is the permissibility of the profit, because the hadith does not apply to it; it is guaranteed in all cases. If the seller guarantees the fruit, he will return to me the value of the fruit. He will return to me the value of the fruit. So, even if it is not in my guarantee, but in the seller's guarantee, if the fruit is lost from me, will it come to me?
The student: Its price.

The Shaykh : Its price. Its price will come to me, so it is actually in my guarantee. In any case, the well-known opinion in the madhhab is that it is permissible to sell fruit on the palm trees for more than what one bought it for, even if it is not in his guarantee, and it is permissible to lease the property for more than what one leased it for, even if it is not in his guarantee, because its guarantee is on the lessor.
Now, he said: Selling what one does not have is also not permissible. The meaning is if it is specific. If it is specific. But if it is described, there is no harm with it, as we will mention. If it is specific, selling what is not with me includes two matters:
The first matter is that I sell Zayd's property, then I go and buy it. I go and buy it. This is not permissible. Why? Because I might go to Zayd to buy it and give him what I sold it for, and Zayd refuses to sell, and there will be dispute and problems in that. Or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Now, an example of that: a man came to me and said, "I found a car for so-and-so, one of the best cars, a good one. I wish I had one like it... I will sell it to you. I will sell you this car, so-and-so's car." He said, "Okay, sell it to me. How much?" I said, "I will sell it to you for forty thousand, forty thousand." He said, "I accept." Is it permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.

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

The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Now, why? Because the owner of the car might sell or might not sell, and you will fall into a problem with the one who bought it from you. So, it is not permissible to sell what is not with you. This is one case. The second case is that the thing is your property, but you cannot access it. It is your property, but you cannot access it, such as if an oppressor has seized it and you cannot retrieve it from him, or if it is a runaway camel or a runaway slave. This is not permissible to sell.
The third case: selling the debts in people's possession. You say, "I am owed one hundred sa' of wheat by so-and-so. I will sell it to you." Is it permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible. First, because it has not entered into his guarantee, as mentioned before. Second, this buyer will not buy it for the market price. If we suppose that a sa' of wheat is equal to a dirham, if you sell him one hundred sa', he will not buy it for one hundred dirhams, will he?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Now, he will buy it, for example, for ninety dirhams, or not? And in that case, if he is able to take it from the debtor, he is a gainer, because he took what is worth one hundred for ninety. And if he is unable, he is a loser, because he spent ninety dirhams and it might be lost on you. How many cases did we mention now?
The student: Three.

The Shaykh : Three cases: selling another person's specific property, selling what is not with him but is his property but he cannot access it, and the third is selling?
The student: The debts.

The Shaykh : The debts in people's possession, because these are not with him.
Now, if someone asks, do you permit a person to sell the debt to the one who owes it?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : The answer is yes, but on the condition that he does not take a profit. If he takes a profit, it falls under the first part of the hadith, which is?
The student: Profit on what one has not guaranteed.

The Shaykh : Profit on what one has not guaranteed. It falls under profit on what one has not guaranteed. The evidence for that is the hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), who said: So, if the debtor comes and says, "I have one hundred sa' of wheat for you, and now I have no wheat, I will compensate you for it." He says, "Okay, compensate me for it." He says, "I will give you one hundred dirhams, because the first sa' is equal to a dirham." The creditor says, "No, give me one hundred and ten." Is it permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Why?
The student: Profit on what one has not guaranteed.

The Shaykh : Because it is profit on what one has not guaranteed. It has not entered into your guarantee until now. And because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said If he says, "I will give you one hundred for it..."
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It is worth one hundred. We mentioned a little while ago that it is worth one hundred. Is it permissible?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : It is permissible, because if he did not profit from it, is it not fine if he said, "I will give you ninety for it?"
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It is permissible...
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It is permissible, because if it is permissible at the exact value, then it is even more permissible at a lower value, just as if he said, "Give me ninety sa' in exchange for the hundred sa'." Is that permissible? Well, then the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) means negating an increase, not negating a decrease. So if he took it for less, may Allah reward him with good; or if he took it for the equivalent, that is justice; or if he took it for more, that is forbidden and not permissible. Now, is it required in this case that they not separate with anything between them?
The student: It is not required...

The Shaykh : I have a hundred sa' of wheat in my debt, and I had nothing, so I bought it for a hundred dirhams. Is it required that we not separate until I obtain the hundred dirhams, or is it not required?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: It is not required, it is required.

The Shaykh : Those who say it is required will cite the hadith of Ibn 'Umar . And those who say it is not required, what do they cite?
The student: Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: ... If he gave him half the debt, it is permissible to give him half the value.

The Shaykh : That is not apparent, because if he gave him half the debt, there is no compensation, yes?
The student: Shaykh, this is required if... if they separate and there is something... and if they separate and there is something between them, it is forbidden. But this, if he sold wheat for dirhams, it differs if the types differ...

The Shaykh : You hit the mark in your heart but did not express it well with your tongue. Here, clarify, clarify?
The student: O Shaykh, when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked by Ibn 'Umar, he said, "We sell..."

The Shaykh : We sell dirhams for dinars, or dirhams, and we take dinars for them...
The student: Dinar is what is now... he sold camels, he sold dinars... he sold dinars, and now he sold us... what is it called? He sold us wheat for dinars, so it became like a person who took... meaning one person has dirhams and one person has wheat, he sold him this hundred sa' for a hundred riyals, saying, "I have fifty, and I will bring you the fifty tomorrow or the day after."

The Shaykh : It is permissible.
The student: There is no riba, it is permissible because the types differ.

The Shaykh : Well, good. And if he sold five dinars for fifty dirhams?
The student: It is not permissible, if it means it is not hand-to-hand.

The Shaykh : So we say, meaning, as if 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Dawud says, "It is not valid to cite the hadith of Ibn 'Umar to require possession, because the hadith of Ibn 'Umar is only about selling dirhams for dinars, and selling dirhams for dinars requires?"
The student: Mutual possession.

The Shaykh : Mutual possession, but selling dirhams for wheat does not require mutual possession. And on this basis, if he said, "I sold you a hundred sa' for a hundred dirhams," possession is not required. What is required is what? That it be at the price of the day, so that he does not profit in what he has not guaranteed. As for possession, it is not a condition. And then we convert the wheat to what? To dirhams. Well, if he said, "I do not have wheat, but I have barley. I am a wheat farmer, I have nothing, but I have barley. I will give you barley in place of the wheat." Here, the two conditions in the hadith of Ibn 'Umar are required, which are: that it be at the price of the day, and mutual possession. It is said, for example, if the price is that one sa' of wheat is for two sa' of barley, how much does he give in place of the hundred sa'?
The student: Two hundred.

The Shaykh : Two hundred, and he does not take more than two hundred, and they do not separate with anything between them, because selling wheat for barley requires?
The student: Mutual possession.

The Shaykh : Mutual possession. Is it clear now?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, yes?

The questioner : Wheat and barley, did they not differ?

The Shaykh : No, they are different, they are different. Well...

The questioner : What is the difference?

The Shaykh : Because it is all food.

The questioner : If they differ, is mutual possession not required?

The Shaykh : Because each of them is food, food and measured by volume. The rule is that if they share the cause, whether each is measured by volume, weighed, or currency, according to the opinion that the cause is currency, then mutual possession is necessary. Did this rule not pass by us?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Very well.

The questioner : The hadith, if it is hand-to-hand?

The Shaykh : Yes, well, these are four types of sales.
So if someone asks, what is the wisdom in prohibiting these sales? Because we know that the original ruling in transactions is permissibility, so anyone who claims the prohibition of a transaction is asked?
The student: For evidence.

The Shaykh : For evidence, unlike acts of worship, where the original ruling is prohibition, so anyone who claims the prescription of something as an act of worship, we say to him?
The student: The evidence.

The Shaykh : Bring the evidence. So here we say, what is the wisdom, so that we know the nobility of this Shari'ah and that it does not burden its adherents, but rather guides the adherents. We say because it includes harms. As for the first, like forward sale and sale, it includes riba, or not?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : It includes riba, either in reality or in suspicion, either in reality or in suspicion. And it is known that riba?
The student: Forbidden.

The Shaykh : And secondly, because it takes contracts out of their intended legal purpose. So the intended purpose of a forward sale?
The student: Facilitation.

The Shaykh : Facilitation and kindness. And if it moves to exchange, it goes out of its legal subject. And therefore, if I sold you a dirham for a dirham to a term, you would not give it to me except after two or three days, is that permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : It is not permissible. You gave me a dirham for a dirham, but you did not give me the dirham except after two days?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : And if I lent you a dirham and you did not repay me except after two days?
The student: It is permissible.

The Shaykh : It is permissible. Why? Because the intended purpose is facilitation, not exchange.
Well, two conditions in sale? The cause for that is that it leads to dispute and chaos, or riba if it includes falling into riba through the two conditions.
Selling what one does not possess also leads to dispute and inability to deliver, and perhaps it leads to envy and hatred if the seller sees that you profited in something that did not enter your guarantee and his guarantee. Perhaps there is envy in his heart, and envy is like fire; when it burns, it burns what it touches. If envy enters your heart, even over a small matter, then this, may Allah protect us, grows. You may envy a person in one of the sales, and this develops until you envy him in everything: you envy him for his well-being, his health, his children, his family, his house, his knowledge, his wealth. So the important thing is that when this leads to enmity and hatred, inability to deliver, and envy, the Shari'ah prohibited it.
Well, selling what is not with you is apparent, because it includes excessive uncertainty and ignorance, and anything that includes excessive uncertainty and ignorance is from gambling, which Satan wants to cause enmity and hatred between us, as He said: And we take from the generality of this cause that the Shari'ah wants from us balance in buying and selling, balance in buying and selling, so that we sell calmly, without greed, without avarice, without enmity, and without hatred. And this is undoubtedly one of the beauties of the Shari'ah.