Benefits of the Hadith: (Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) said: I said, O Messenger of Allah, I sell camels at al-Baqi', so I sell them for dinars and take dirhams.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Now, several benefits are derived from this hadith.
First: The eagerness of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) for knowledge, as seen in Ibn 'Umar's question to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) about his transaction.
Second: It is emphasized that anyone who intends to perform an act of worship or conclude a contract must know its rulings so as not to fall into error, so as not to fall into error. And is a person required to know the rulings before he acts or after he acts?
The student: Before.
The Shaykh : Before he acts. That is, if he acts and falls into error, it may be a problem that cannot be rectified. For this reason, you find that some people now, as awareness has spread and people have begun to inquire about religion, ask about an issue that is twenty years old. For example, he says, "I performed Hajj twenty years ago and did such and such, and perhaps I did not perform the Tawaf of Ifadah." Yes, if he did not perform the Tawaf of Ifadah and then married and had children, we fall into a problem. What is it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The problem is that the one who holds that the marriage contract before the second release (tahallul) is defective renders his marriage defective. However, there is a second opinion that the marriage contract after the first release is permissible. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Hazm, and a group of scholars who said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) only said:Sunan ad-Daraqutni 12:236 meaning your wives, and the prohibition regarding women does not apply until after the contract. But the one who takes the generality and says "except women," whether it is intercourse, direct contact, or a means to it, then it falls under the hadith, as is the famous position of the school of Imam Ahmad. In that case, the marriage contract of this man is not valid and must be renewed, and must be renewed. Do you see how lenient it is? After twenty years, he said he married and had children, and said, "By Allah, I left the Tawaf of Ifadah." So the important thing is that it is certain that a person should ask before?
The student: Before he acts.
The Shaykh : Before he acts.
Now, among the benefits of the hadith is that immediate exchange (taqabud) is not required in the sale of animals for currency. How is this derived? From his saying: "We sell them for dirhams, we sell them for dinars, then we take from them such and such." This indicates that the dirhams or dinars remain in the liability of whom?
The student: The buyer.
The Shaykh : In the liability of the buyer.
And among the benefits of the hadith is the permissibility of selling a debt to the one who owes it, the permissibility of selling a debt to the one who owes it. How is that? Because Ibn 'Umar sells the camel for dinars ... in the liability of the buyer?
The student: Dinars.
The Shaykh : Dinars, then he sells to this buyer these dinars, and this is selling the debt for what it is owed. Pay attention, now, it has examples, among which is this example in the hadith of Ibn 'Umar. And another is if you had a forward sale (salam) in your liability, a forward sale meaning you gave me dirhams on the condition that I give you one hundred sa' of wheat at a specified time. When the time came, you sold to me these sa', one hundred sa'. Is this permissible or not? Yes, it is permissible. I only used the forward sale as an example because some scholars said that selling a forward sale is not permissible even if it is from the one who owes it, and they cited a weak hadith:Sunan Abi Dawud 3468Da'if (Al-Albani) The hadith is weak, and even if it were authentic, this is not the meaning intended by that person. Now, if I bought a car from you and the car remained with you, then I sold it to you before I took it to my home, is this permissible or not?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Pay attention, I bought a car from you and it remained with you in the garage, then I sold it to you. Is this permissible or not?
The student: I did not take possession of it.
The Shaykh : Yes, the hadith of Zayd ibn Thabit takes precedence; it is not permissible except according to the opinion of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). But we mentioned that the apparent meaning of the hadith is general. Now, is it permissible to sell a debt to someone other than the one who owes it? There is disagreement among scholars on this. As for the school of thought (madhhab), it is not permissible to sell it to someone other than the one who owes it. An example of that: You owe a person one hundred sa' of wheat, so he sells what is his to Zayd and transfers it to you. Is this permissible or not?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The school of thought says it is not permissible, because this buyer may be able to deliver or receive this debt, or he may not be able to, so there is a type of excessive uncertainty (gharar) in the sale, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited the sale of gharar. Do you understand the scenario or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, some scholars said that it is permissible to sell a debt to someone other than the one who owes it, on the condition that its type, amount, and term (if it is deferred) are known, and that it is possible to take it, possible to take it. And he said that as long as the creditor acknowledges it and is trustworthy, the debt can be taken from him, and the term is known, and the type is known, and the kind is known, and the amount is known, then this does not fall under the sale of gharar that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited. Is that clear? And this is the correct opinion. Evidence for this is that the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) who prohibited selling a debt to someone other than the one who owes it said: If he sells something usurped (ghusub) in the hand of the usurper, and both he and the buyer are able to take it, then that is permissible and valid. So we say: The usurped item is a specific thing (ayn) sold by the one who owns it, and the debt is a debt sold by the one who owns it, and there is no difference. There is no difference between the debt and the specific thing in reality, because the operative cause ('illah) is the ability to deliver. As long as the buyer is able to receive the sold item from the one who has it or from his liability, there is no harm in that. And this opinion is the correct one. But it is required that he not sell it for something in which usury (riba) occurs, such as if the debtor has dirhams in his liability and he sells them to the student for dinars. Why is this required? Because immediate exchange is absent, and immediate exchange is necessary before parting.
And the second condition is that the seller does not make a profit in it. If he makes a profit, it is forbidden (haram), because it is profit in what has not entered his guarantee. For example, if the debt in the liability of the debtor is one hundred sa' of wheat, and the sa' is sold for ten, so he sold it for eleven. Is this permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because I made a profit in something that did not enter my guarantee. So selling a debt to someone other than the one who owes it is permissible with conditions. What are they?
The first condition is that it is possible to take it.
And the second condition is that its amount, type, description, and term are known. The third condition is that usury of deferment (riba al-nasi'ah) does not occur with what it is sold for. Is there a fourth condition? What is it?
The student: That he does not make a profit.
The Shaykh : That he does not make a profit in it. If he makes a profit in it, it is not permissible, because it is profit in what he has not gained. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited that. If these conditions are met, what prevents it? Now, do we not require another condition, or a fifth condition? That the debtor is ready to deliver?
The student: Isn't that included in the first ... the ability to deliver?
The Shaykh : Yes, the ability to deliver. But here, the buyer may assume in his mind that he is able to deliver and that his partner is easy to deal with, and the assumption may be wrong, and he may fall into danger. This is different from if the debtor says, "I am ready to deliver." That is, if this condition were stated to cut off the disagreement, this opinion would be good. So the conditions would be five in this case. Now, the difference between them is that it may be imagined that he is able to deliver, but he cannot, and he delays the second. If this debt is not established against the third party ... meaning, if someone comes and says, "I am claiming from so-and-so one hundred sa' of wheat," and one of those present says, "Sell it to me," this is not valid. So we can add this sixth condition as well: that the debt is established by evidence or confession. If it is not established, how can we sell the thing that is not established?
Now, among the benefits of this hadith is that it is not permissible to take a compensation for more than the price of the day, based on his saying (peace and blessings be upon him):Sunan Abi Dawud 3354Da'if (Al-Albani).
And among its benefits is the requirement of immediate exchange (taqabud) in what requires possession, i.e., in what usury of deferment (riba al-nasi'ah) occurs in. As for what usury of deferment does not occur in, possession is not required. Now, do we derive from the hadith that the one seeking a ruling (mustafti) is not required to ask about the impediments?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct. It is not a condition for the permissibility of issuing a fatwa that you ask the questioner about the impediments. If someone asks you about a man who died leaving behind his father, his mother, and his son, and you say that the father gets one-sixth, the mother gets one-sixth, and the rest goes to the son, is it required that you ask before issuing the ruling whether any of them differed from the deceased in religion?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, and it is not required that you ask whether any of them killed the deceased, or whether any of them was a slave. None of this is obligatory. Asking about impediments when issuing a fatwa is not obligatory, except if the mufti has heard a report that reached him and he wants to verify it, meaning a report that prevents the ruling from taking effect, and he wants to inquire and be certain. In that case, there is no harm.
First: The eagerness of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) for knowledge, as seen in Ibn 'Umar's question to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) about his transaction.
Second: It is emphasized that anyone who intends to perform an act of worship or conclude a contract must know its rulings so as not to fall into error, so as not to fall into error. And is a person required to know the rulings before he acts or after he acts?
The student: Before.
The Shaykh : Before he acts. That is, if he acts and falls into error, it may be a problem that cannot be rectified. For this reason, you find that some people now, as awareness has spread and people have begun to inquire about religion, ask about an issue that is twenty years old. For example, he says, "I performed Hajj twenty years ago and did such and such, and perhaps I did not perform the Tawaf of Ifadah." Yes, if he did not perform the Tawaf of Ifadah and then married and had children, we fall into a problem. What is it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The problem is that the one who holds that the marriage contract before the second release (tahallul) is defective renders his marriage defective. However, there is a second opinion that the marriage contract after the first release is permissible. This is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Hazm, and a group of scholars who said that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) only said:
It is made lawful for you everything except women
أحلّ لكم كلّ شيء إلاّ النّساءThe student: Before he acts.
The Shaykh : Before he acts.
Now, among the benefits of the hadith is that immediate exchange (taqabud) is not required in the sale of animals for currency. How is this derived? From his saying: "We sell them for dirhams, we sell them for dinars, then we take from them such and such." This indicates that the dirhams or dinars remain in the liability of whom?
The student: The buyer.
The Shaykh : In the liability of the buyer.
And among the benefits of the hadith is the permissibility of selling a debt to the one who owes it, the permissibility of selling a debt to the one who owes it. How is that? Because Ibn 'Umar sells the camel for dinars ... in the liability of the buyer?
The student: Dinars.
The Shaykh : Dinars, then he sells to this buyer these dinars, and this is selling the debt for what it is owed. Pay attention, now, it has examples, among which is this example in the hadith of Ibn 'Umar. And another is if you had a forward sale (salam) in your liability, a forward sale meaning you gave me dirhams on the condition that I give you one hundred sa' of wheat at a specified time. When the time came, you sold to me these sa', one hundred sa'. Is this permissible or not? Yes, it is permissible. I only used the forward sale as an example because some scholars said that selling a forward sale is not permissible even if it is from the one who owes it, and they cited a weak hadith:
If anyone pays in advance he must not transfer it to someone else before he receives it.
من أسلم في شيء فلا يصرفه إلى غيرهThe student: ...
The Shaykh : Pay attention, I bought a car from you and it remained with you in the garage, then I sold it to you. Is this permissible or not?
The student: I did not take possession of it.
The Shaykh : Yes, the hadith of Zayd ibn Thabit takes precedence; it is not permissible except according to the opinion of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). But we mentioned that the apparent meaning of the hadith is general. Now, is it permissible to sell a debt to someone other than the one who owes it? There is disagreement among scholars on this. As for the school of thought (madhhab), it is not permissible to sell it to someone other than the one who owes it. An example of that: You owe a person one hundred sa' of wheat, so he sells what is his to Zayd and transfers it to you. Is this permissible or not?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The school of thought says it is not permissible, because this buyer may be able to deliver or receive this debt, or he may not be able to, so there is a type of excessive uncertainty (gharar) in the sale, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited the sale of gharar. Do you understand the scenario or not?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, some scholars said that it is permissible to sell a debt to someone other than the one who owes it, on the condition that its type, amount, and term (if it is deferred) are known, and that it is possible to take it, possible to take it. And he said that as long as the creditor acknowledges it and is trustworthy, the debt can be taken from him, and the term is known, and the type is known, and the kind is known, and the amount is known, then this does not fall under the sale of gharar that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited. Is that clear? And this is the correct opinion. Evidence for this is that the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) who prohibited selling a debt to someone other than the one who owes it said: If he sells something usurped (ghusub) in the hand of the usurper, and both he and the buyer are able to take it, then that is permissible and valid. So we say: The usurped item is a specific thing (ayn) sold by the one who owns it, and the debt is a debt sold by the one who owns it, and there is no difference. There is no difference between the debt and the specific thing in reality, because the operative cause ('illah) is the ability to deliver. As long as the buyer is able to receive the sold item from the one who has it or from his liability, there is no harm in that. And this opinion is the correct one. But it is required that he not sell it for something in which usury (riba) occurs, such as if the debtor has dirhams in his liability and he sells them to the student for dinars. Why is this required? Because immediate exchange is absent, and immediate exchange is necessary before parting.
And the second condition is that the seller does not make a profit in it. If he makes a profit, it is forbidden (haram), because it is profit in what has not entered his guarantee. For example, if the debt in the liability of the debtor is one hundred sa' of wheat, and the sa' is sold for ten, so he sold it for eleven. Is this permissible or not?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because I made a profit in something that did not enter my guarantee. So selling a debt to someone other than the one who owes it is permissible with conditions. What are they?
The first condition is that it is possible to take it.
And the second condition is that its amount, type, description, and term are known. The third condition is that usury of deferment (riba al-nasi'ah) does not occur with what it is sold for. Is there a fourth condition? What is it?
The student: That he does not make a profit.
The Shaykh : That he does not make a profit in it. If he makes a profit in it, it is not permissible, because it is profit in what he has not gained. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited that. If these conditions are met, what prevents it? Now, do we not require another condition, or a fifth condition? That the debtor is ready to deliver?
The student: Isn't that included in the first ... the ability to deliver?
The Shaykh : Yes, the ability to deliver. But here, the buyer may assume in his mind that he is able to deliver and that his partner is easy to deal with, and the assumption may be wrong, and he may fall into danger. This is different from if the debtor says, "I am ready to deliver." That is, if this condition were stated to cut off the disagreement, this opinion would be good. So the conditions would be five in this case. Now, the difference between them is that it may be imagined that he is able to deliver, but he cannot, and he delays the second. If this debt is not established against the third party ... meaning, if someone comes and says, "I am claiming from so-and-so one hundred sa' of wheat," and one of those present says, "Sell it to me," this is not valid. So we can add this sixth condition as well: that the debt is established by evidence or confession. If it is not established, how can we sell the thing that is not established?
Now, among the benefits of this hadith is that it is not permissible to take a compensation for more than the price of the day, based on his saying (peace and blessings be upon him):
There is no harm in taking them at the current rate
لا بأس أن تأخذها بسعر يومهاAnd among its benefits is the requirement of immediate exchange (taqabud) in what requires possession, i.e., in what usury of deferment (riba al-nasi'ah) occurs in. As for what usury of deferment does not occur in, possession is not required. Now, do we derive from the hadith that the one seeking a ruling (mustafti) is not required to ask about the impediments?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is correct. It is not a condition for the permissibility of issuing a fatwa that you ask the questioner about the impediments. If someone asks you about a man who died leaving behind his father, his mother, and his son, and you say that the father gets one-sixth, the mother gets one-sixth, and the rest goes to the son, is it required that you ask before issuing the ruling whether any of them differed from the deceased in religion?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No, and it is not required that you ask whether any of them killed the deceased, or whether any of them was a slave. None of this is obligatory. Asking about impediments when issuing a fatwa is not obligatory, except if the mufti has heard a report that reached him and he wants to verify it, meaning a report that prevents the ruling from taking effect, and he wants to inquire and be certain. In that case, there is no harm.