Benefits of the Hadith: (The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade Najash).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Among the benefits of this hadith is the protection of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for his Ummah from what incites enmity and hatred, for he forbade Najash, which is among the things that incite enmity and hatred.
Among the benefits of the hadith is the protection of Islam for human rights; the protection of Islam for human rights, for in Najash there is encroachment upon others. So if it is forbidden, this includes protecting the person from encroachment upon him.
Among the benefits of the hadith is the prohibition of Najash. Huh?
The student: Because the prohibition...
The Shaykh : Because the original ruling of prohibition is prohibition.
Good. And do we say that among its benefits is the invalidity of the sale in the case of Najash?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : The answer is no, the sale is valid; the sale is valid, because the prohibition is of the act, not the contract. And Najash is not divided into valid and invalid. What is divided into valid and invalid, when a prohibition is issued regarding it, is that in which it is said that the prohibition implies defectiveness. As for what is not divided into valid and defective, it is not correct to say that it is valid or defective. So if someone were to ask us: Is Zihar forbidden? Is there in it what is valid and what is defective?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, because it is not divided into valid and defective. But the sale, if it takes place at a time when it is forbidden, such as after the second call to Friday prayer, is it a valid forbidden sale, or is it not valid?
The student: Not correct.
The Shaykh : Not valid. Why? Because the sale itself is divided into valid and invalid. So if it takes place in the manner that is forbidden, it is invalid. Najash does not have a division into valid and invalid; it is all forbidden. So we do not say that the one who bought through Najash has an invalid purchase; we do not say that. Why? Because Najash is not divided into valid and invalid, so the contract is not invalid. Good. But as for the one upon whom the Najash was directed, what is his case? Is his purchase valid?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : The one upon whom the Najash was directed, yes, his purchase is valid. But does he have the option? The answer is yes. If the price increased beyond the custom, he has the option. For example, Zayd made Najash upon 'Amr. Zayd made Najash upon 'Amr; the item, had there been no Najash, would have been worth ten, but with the Najash, 'Amr did not take it except for fifteen. We say the sale is valid, but if it becomes clear that there was Najash, then the buyer, who is 'Amr, has the option. The option is what? Between returning it and taking the price, or having the amount that exceeded the price of the like dropped from him? We say no, the first one. We say the first one: between returning the item and taking the price, or keeping it at the price on which the contract settled. Because the seller says: What is my sin? I have no sin. Either you give me my item, or you give me all the money. Good. If a person increased in the item out of desire for it, based on the fact that its price is low and that he expects profit, but when it rose he left it, is this from Najash?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: No, no.
The Shaykh : No, because he did not intend to harm others, nor to benefit the seller at the expense of the buyer. Rather, he saw that this item was cheap, so when its price rose, he left it. So this is not from Najash. And this happens often. This happens often. You find a person bidding on an item and increasing in it based on the fact that it is cheap, so when its value rises, he leaves it. So there is no harm in that. Good. Is it from Najash for a partner to increase in what he is a partner in, and he increases his partner's share? He increases his partner's share?
The student: It is not included.
The Shaykh : Huh, it is not from Najash. Good. So if someone says: He is increasing for himself, the answer is: He is not increasing for himself, but he is increasing upon himself regarding his partner's share. As for his own share, it is his ownership; it is his property. He does not need a contract to take place upon it. So at that time, it is not correct to say that he increased for himself. And with this, it is permissible for one of the partners to increase in the shared item, and this is not considered from Najash. Yes.
The questioner : The Shaykh ...
The Shaykh : Yes?
Among the benefits of the hadith is the protection of Islam for human rights; the protection of Islam for human rights, for in Najash there is encroachment upon others. So if it is forbidden, this includes protecting the person from encroachment upon him.
Among the benefits of the hadith is the prohibition of Najash. Huh?
The student: Because the prohibition...
The Shaykh : Because the original ruling of prohibition is prohibition.
Good. And do we say that among its benefits is the invalidity of the sale in the case of Najash?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : The answer is no, the sale is valid; the sale is valid, because the prohibition is of the act, not the contract. And Najash is not divided into valid and invalid. What is divided into valid and invalid, when a prohibition is issued regarding it, is that in which it is said that the prohibition implies defectiveness. As for what is not divided into valid and defective, it is not correct to say that it is valid or defective. So if someone were to ask us: Is Zihar forbidden? Is there in it what is valid and what is defective?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, because it is not divided into valid and defective. But the sale, if it takes place at a time when it is forbidden, such as after the second call to Friday prayer, is it a valid forbidden sale, or is it not valid?
The student: Not correct.
The Shaykh : Not valid. Why? Because the sale itself is divided into valid and invalid. So if it takes place in the manner that is forbidden, it is invalid. Najash does not have a division into valid and invalid; it is all forbidden. So we do not say that the one who bought through Najash has an invalid purchase; we do not say that. Why? Because Najash is not divided into valid and invalid, so the contract is not invalid. Good. But as for the one upon whom the Najash was directed, what is his case? Is his purchase valid?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : The one upon whom the Najash was directed, yes, his purchase is valid. But does he have the option? The answer is yes. If the price increased beyond the custom, he has the option. For example, Zayd made Najash upon 'Amr. Zayd made Najash upon 'Amr; the item, had there been no Najash, would have been worth ten, but with the Najash, 'Amr did not take it except for fifteen. We say the sale is valid, but if it becomes clear that there was Najash, then the buyer, who is 'Amr, has the option. The option is what? Between returning it and taking the price, or having the amount that exceeded the price of the like dropped from him? We say no, the first one. We say the first one: between returning the item and taking the price, or keeping it at the price on which the contract settled. Because the seller says: What is my sin? I have no sin. Either you give me my item, or you give me all the money. Good. If a person increased in the item out of desire for it, based on the fact that its price is low and that he expects profit, but when it rose he left it, is this from Najash?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: No, no.
The Shaykh : No, because he did not intend to harm others, nor to benefit the seller at the expense of the buyer. Rather, he saw that this item was cheap, so when its price rose, he left it. So this is not from Najash. And this happens often. This happens often. You find a person bidding on an item and increasing in it based on the fact that it is cheap, so when its value rises, he leaves it. So there is no harm in that. Good. Is it from Najash for a partner to increase in what he is a partner in, and he increases his partner's share? He increases his partner's share?
The student: It is not included.
The Shaykh : Huh, it is not from Najash. Good. So if someone says: He is increasing for himself, the answer is: He is not increasing for himself, but he is increasing upon himself regarding his partner's share. As for his own share, it is his ownership; it is his property. He does not need a contract to take place upon it. So at that time, it is not correct to say that he increased for himself. And with this, it is permissible for one of the partners to increase in the shared item, and this is not considered from Najash. Yes.
The questioner : The Shaykh ...
The Shaykh : Yes?