Explanation of the Book of Sales-10
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said, may Allah have mercy on him: And from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), this is the beginning of tonight’s lesson, "And from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) Bulugh al-Maram 7:30 It was narrated by the five except Ibn Majah, and al-Tirmidhi graded it as authentic.".
He said: The prohibition, the scholars said, is demanding cessation in a manner of superiority, meaning that the one prohibiting demands from you that you cease from something in a manner of superiority. If it is in a manner of supplication, it is a question and a du'a' (supplication), and if it is in a manner of entreaty, it is an entreaty. For this reason, they said that if it is from a superior to an inferior, it is a prohibition. And from an inferior to a superior?
The student: A question.
The Shaykh : And from an equal to an equal, it is an entreaty. Okay, he prohibited. The prohibition here is demanding cessation in a manner of superiority, meaning that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) demanded from us that we cease from these things:
First, muhaqalah. It is a form of mutual action derived from al-haql, which is the crop or the place of the crop, as Rafi' ibn Khudayj (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "We were the most abundant of the Ansar in crops". So it is the crop or the place of the crop. And as you know, muhaqalah is a form of mutual action indicating sharing in the action, because the word mufa'alah indicates participation. Okay, so what is muhaqalah? We said it is from al-haql, which is the crop or the place of the crop. We say that the alif-lam in his saying "muhaqalah" and in what follows it is the alif-lam of mental reference, meaning that muhaqalah is a known matter to them. A person comes and sells his crop to another with his crop, he sells his crop to another with his crop. An example: I have a farm and you have a farm, so I sold it to you for your farm, and both are barley, or both are wheat. This is not permissible. Why? Because selling wheat for wheat requires equality in measure, and equality here, with the ears still on their stalks, is not possible; it is difficult. So there is an observation here: is it ignorance (jahl) or riba?
The student: Ignorance (uncertainty).
The Shaykh : Riba. Riba. As for ignorance, it is not ignorance because it is known. For this reason, if he sold the crop for dirhams, it is permissible. So the observation noted in that is that it falls under the category of riba, because selling wheat for wheat is not permissible except with equality in measure and immediate exchange. Here, the exchange took place: he gave me the farm and I gave him the farm, but another condition was missed, and what is it?
The student: Equality.
The Shaykh : Equality or similarity. Okay, another form of muhaqalah: he sells the crop to a person in harvested, ready wheat. This is also not permissible. Why? Because knowledge is difficult to ascertain. Because knowledge is difficult to ascertain. If we assume that the harvested wheat is known, then what about the crop?
The student: It is not known.
The Shaykh : It is not known, so he sold unknown wheat for known wheat, so it is not permissible.
Okay, the second is muzabanah. It is derived from zabn, which is pushing with force, as if each of the two sellers pushes the price to the other with force, meaning quickly. And what is muzabanah? We say the alif-lam in it is for reference, and what reference is it?
The student: Mental recollection.
The Shaykh : Mental reference. It is selling something known to them, and it is explained as selling grapes for raisins, selling grapes for raisins.
An example: A man has trees and grapes, and another has bags of raisins, so one of them says to the other, "Let us trade these grape trees for these bags of raisins." We say that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited this. What is observed in it? Riba is observed in it, because selling grapes for raisins is not permissible, as it requires similarity, and similarity here is absent, absent. Because if we assume that the bags of raisins are known in quantity, but the grape trees are not known in quantity, then if he said, "Let us estimate this grape harvest to be like what it will turn out to be," we say that estimation (kharv) in this category is not permissible except in 'araya (a specific type of lease).
Okay, and likewise in muzabanah, an example of it is if he sells fresh dates on the palm trees for dried dates in baskets and containers, then it is not permissible, because selling dried dates for dried dates requires what?
The student: Similarity.
The Shaykh : Similarity. And similarity between fresh dates and dried dates, here? It is difficult, not known. So this is haram (forbidden), with the aspect of what observed in it? The aspect of riba.
Okay, the third is mukhabarah. Mukhabarah is derived from khabar, meaning the crop. And al-khabir, the farmer, is derived from al-khabar, which is the soft lower part of the earth in which the seed is sown. And in mukhabarah, the alif-lam is also for reference, and what is meant by it is defective sharecropping, defective sharecropping. And it has forms:
The first form is if he says, "I will farm for you on the condition that the wheat is for you and the barley is for me." This is not permissible. Why? Because there is gharar (excessive uncertainty) in it. The wheat harvest may be abundant and the barley harvest?
The student: Little.
The Shaykh : Little. So the owner of the wheat is the ghanim (gainer), and the second?
The student: The gharim (loser).
The Shaykh : The gharim. And it may be the opposite. The second form is if he says, "I will farm for you on the condition that the eastern part of the land is for me and the western part is for you." This is also not permissible. Why?
The student: Gharar.
The Shaykh : Because of ignorance and gharar, because the harvest may be abundant from the eastern part and not from the western part, or the opposite. And partnerships are based on equality, and here there is no equalization.
The third form is if he says, "I will farm for you on the condition that one hundred sa' (a dry measure of about 3 kg) of the harvest is for me and the rest is for you." One hundred sa' of the harvest and the rest is for you. This is also not permissible. Why?
The student: Because of ignorance.
The Shaykh : Because of ignorance as well, because this crop may only yield one hundred sa', and at that time, the owner of the one hundred sa' is the ghanim, and the second?
The student: The gharim.
The Shaykh : The gharim. And it may be that in our estimation, it yields a thousand sa', so what is the ratio of one hundred to a thousand?
The student: One-tenth.
The Shaykh : One-tenth. Then it yields ten thousand sa', so what is the ratio of one hundred? One-tenth of one-tenth. And at that time, the one who stipulated the one hundred sa'?
The student: The gharim.
The Shaykh : The gharim. And this is not permissible in the category of partnerships. Okay, how many forms is this?
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : Three. The fourth form is if he says, "I will farm this land, or on this land, for five years, on the condition that the first year is for me, the second is for you, the third is for me, the fourth is for you, and the fifth is between us?" Here?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Why?
The student: Because of ignorance.
The Shaykh : Because of ignorance and gharar, because the harvest may be abundant in the first year and little in the second year, or it may yield nothing. And is it required that it be five years?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : If he said, "One year for me and one year for you"?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, the same thing. But we mentioned it as an example. The fifth of the forms of prohibited mukhabarah is if he says to you, "The fruit of the palm trees on the well is for you and the rest is for me," or "The fruit of the palm trees on the canals is for you and the rest is for me." This is also not permissible. Why? Because of ignorance.
Okay, so what is the permissible mukhabarah? The permissible mukhabarah is for a known, shared portion, shared, meaning distributed among all parts of the harvest, like one-tenth, one-quarter, one-half, three-quarters, one out of a hundred, one-tenth of one-tenth, meaning, and the like. This is not a problem, because if we stipulate that, everyone shares in the gain and the loss. So the prohibited mukhabarah, meaning, has five categories, all of which revolve around what? Around gharar and ignorance, and that one of the partners is the ghanim and the other is the gharim.
Okay, so if he leased the land for dirhams and said, "Take this land for dirhams, every year you give me ten thousand riyals," is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because this is from the category of ijara (lease). And the farmer farms, he harvests much or little, it is not our concern, even if he did not farm, my lease is established. Meaning, this is from the category of ijara. For this reason, Rafi' ibn Khudayj said: meaning leasing the land for silver, so the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not prohibit us. Okay, this is the mukhabarah.
He said: The thunya, on the pattern of saghara or kubra or the like, and not on the pattern of thariya as in the explanation "Subul al-Salam" he said: "The thunya, on the pattern of thariya" and this is not correct, and I do not know where this specification came from. The known in al-Qamus and others is that it is with a damma then a sukun, on the pattern of?
The student: Saghara.
The Shaykh : What is meant by *thunya*? *Thunya* means an exception, unless it is known. That is, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited *thunya* in sales, unless the exception is known. This is because if the exception is not known, it falls under the *gharar* (excessive uncertainty) that is prohibited. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited sales involving *gharar*. Now, how do we distinguish between a known *thunya* and an unknown *thunya*? A *thunya*... for example, if one says, "I sold you this item except for half of it," is this...
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : Known?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Not known.
The Shaykh : "I sold you this item except for half of it," right?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : It is known, my brother. Half of the item is known; the whole is known. If it is an animal, the upper half... it is all one thing. The important point is that the half is known. Every undivided share (*musha'*) is known, but an undivided share, if it is specified, is known. Now, what about "except for a quarter"?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : It is known. So if he says, "I sold you this house except for a quarter of it," or "I sold you this orchard except for a quarter of it," there is no objection, because the exception here is known. Now, what about "I sold you these ten date palms except for one-tenth of them"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Is it known or not known?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : It is known, my brother. Every specified undivided share is known, such as "except for one-tenth of them." Now, what about "I sold you these ten date palms except for one"?
The student: Known, you specified it.
The Shaykh : Except for just one.
The student: Not known.
The Shaykh : It is unknown. If it is unknown, it is not valid, because we do not know which one it is? Is it tall? Short? The eastern one? The western one? The northern one? The southern one? The middle one? We do not know. Now, what about "I sold you ten of these date palms, and they are ten, except for this one which I have identified"?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : Is it valid?
The student: Yes, it is valid.
The Shaykh : Because this is known, right? Now, what about "I sold you this house except for a part of it"?
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. This is unknown, so it is necessary that the excepted item be known. Now, what about "I sold you this sheep except for its head"?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Which head? He is asking which head, hmm.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Does it have two heads?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Suppose there is a sheep with two heads, and he says "except for one of its heads"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : Unknown?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : Let us see. If the two heads are equal, then it is known. But if one is large and one is small, then it is unknown if he says "except for one of its heads." Now, what if he says "I sold you this sheep except for its fetus"?
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : This is unknown. Yes, this is unknown. For this reason, the jurists said that it is not valid because the fetus is unknown. However, the correct view in this issue is that it is valid, because although this is an exception, it is in reality a retention. The fetus is a separate part from the mother. Just as it is valid to sell you this non-pregnant animal, it is valid to sell you this pregnant animal except for its fetus, because if I sell it to you except for the fetus, it is as if I sold you... a non-pregnant animal. This is because the fetus is a separate, independent part, meaning it stands on its own. Now, what about "I sold you this sheep except for its heart"?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Is it valid?
The student: Yes, there is nothing except the heart.
The Shaykh : There is nothing except the heart, but the heart may be large or small.
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : It is unknown. For this reason, the scholars said that it is unknown. Likewise, if he says "I sold you this sheep except for its liver," they say that it is unknown and therefore not valid. If it were said that validity applies in the case of the liver and the heart, it would not be far-fetched, because these two organs are almost known, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the disagreement or difference is slight.
The student: Slight.
The Shaykh : Slight. So if permissibility were said, it would have a basis. The rule for us now in the chapter of exceptions is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited *thunya* unless it is known. Now, what about "I sold you this pile of wheat except for three *sa' s"?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it valid or not valid?
The student: It is valid...
The Shaykh : There is disagreement on this, and it passed us in the chapter of sales, but, glory to Allah the Great, how quickly you forget! "I sold you this pile of food except for three *sa' s." The school of thought says it is not valid, and they justified this by saying that the *thunya* is known—three *sa' s* are known—but what about the remainder after that?
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : It is unknown, not known. And excepting the known from the unknown makes it...?
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : Unknown. Now, what about "I sold you this pile except for half of it"?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : This is permissible, because it is an undivided share. But "except for three *sa' s," they say is not permissible, because that leads to the uncertainty of the item being sold, which is the remainder after three *sa' s*. You might imagine that after three *sa' s*, thirty *sa' s* will remain, or that only seven will remain... weak, except for twenty-seven *sa' s*. Yes, they say that this varies. However, the correct view is that this is a known *thunya*, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited *thunya* unless it is known. To know what it is, to know what it is...?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The excepted item. So if the excepted item is known, there is no harm. Here, we know that this pile of food exceeds the excepted item by a lot. We excepted three *sa' s*, and it amounts to, for example, three hundred *sa' s*, so the matter is known. And the correct view is that excepting the known from the unknown is not a problem, like the example we mentioned. Now, what about "I sold you this land except for forty meters"?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : "I sold you this land except for forty meters"?
The student: Known...
The Shaykh : It is valid. Yes, the ruling in this issue is like the ruling in the previous one, meaning "I sold you this pile except for three *sa' s*" is like "I sold you this land except for forty meters."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, in this case, it is required to specify the meters of the land, unless the land is uniform. If it is uniform, there is no problem, whether from here or here, as long as there are no side streets that differ... The important thing is that if there is a difference, whether in the land itself or in the directions of the land due to the streets, then in this case, it needs to be specified so that no ambiguity arises.
The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade Muhaqalah, Muzabanah, and Mukhabarah. He also forbade Thunya unless it was explicit (a known amount).
أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى عن المحاقلة، والمزابنة، والمخابرة، وعن الثنيا، إلا أن تعلمHe said:
He prohibited *muhaqalah*.
نهى عن المحاقلةThe student: A question.
The Shaykh : And from an equal to an equal, it is an entreaty. Okay, he prohibited. The prohibition here is demanding cessation in a manner of superiority, meaning that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) demanded from us that we cease from these things:
First, muhaqalah. It is a form of mutual action derived from al-haql, which is the crop or the place of the crop, as Rafi' ibn Khudayj (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "We were the most abundant of the Ansar in crops". So it is the crop or the place of the crop. And as you know, muhaqalah is a form of mutual action indicating sharing in the action, because the word mufa'alah indicates participation. Okay, so what is muhaqalah? We said it is from al-haql, which is the crop or the place of the crop. We say that the alif-lam in his saying "muhaqalah" and in what follows it is the alif-lam of mental reference, meaning that muhaqalah is a known matter to them. A person comes and sells his crop to another with his crop, he sells his crop to another with his crop. An example: I have a farm and you have a farm, so I sold it to you for your farm, and both are barley, or both are wheat. This is not permissible. Why? Because selling wheat for wheat requires equality in measure, and equality here, with the ears still on their stalks, is not possible; it is difficult. So there is an observation here: is it ignorance (jahl) or riba?
The student: Ignorance (uncertainty).
The Shaykh : Riba. Riba. As for ignorance, it is not ignorance because it is known. For this reason, if he sold the crop for dirhams, it is permissible. So the observation noted in that is that it falls under the category of riba, because selling wheat for wheat is not permissible except with equality in measure and immediate exchange. Here, the exchange took place: he gave me the farm and I gave him the farm, but another condition was missed, and what is it?
The student: Equality.
The Shaykh : Equality or similarity. Okay, another form of muhaqalah: he sells the crop to a person in harvested, ready wheat. This is also not permissible. Why? Because knowledge is difficult to ascertain. Because knowledge is difficult to ascertain. If we assume that the harvested wheat is known, then what about the crop?
The student: It is not known.
The Shaykh : It is not known, so he sold unknown wheat for known wheat, so it is not permissible.
Okay, the second is muzabanah. It is derived from zabn, which is pushing with force, as if each of the two sellers pushes the price to the other with force, meaning quickly. And what is muzabanah? We say the alif-lam in it is for reference, and what reference is it?
The student: Mental recollection.
The Shaykh : Mental reference. It is selling something known to them, and it is explained as selling grapes for raisins, selling grapes for raisins.
An example: A man has trees and grapes, and another has bags of raisins, so one of them says to the other, "Let us trade these grape trees for these bags of raisins." We say that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited this. What is observed in it? Riba is observed in it, because selling grapes for raisins is not permissible, as it requires similarity, and similarity here is absent, absent. Because if we assume that the bags of raisins are known in quantity, but the grape trees are not known in quantity, then if he said, "Let us estimate this grape harvest to be like what it will turn out to be," we say that estimation (kharv) in this category is not permissible except in 'araya (a specific type of lease).
Okay, and likewise in muzabanah, an example of it is if he sells fresh dates on the palm trees for dried dates in baskets and containers, then it is not permissible, because selling dried dates for dried dates requires what?
The student: Similarity.
The Shaykh : Similarity. And similarity between fresh dates and dried dates, here? It is difficult, not known. So this is haram (forbidden), with the aspect of what observed in it? The aspect of riba.
Okay, the third is mukhabarah. Mukhabarah is derived from khabar, meaning the crop. And al-khabir, the farmer, is derived from al-khabar, which is the soft lower part of the earth in which the seed is sown. And in mukhabarah, the alif-lam is also for reference, and what is meant by it is defective sharecropping, defective sharecropping. And it has forms:
The first form is if he says, "I will farm for you on the condition that the wheat is for you and the barley is for me." This is not permissible. Why? Because there is gharar (excessive uncertainty) in it. The wheat harvest may be abundant and the barley harvest?
The student: Little.
The Shaykh : Little. So the owner of the wheat is the ghanim (gainer), and the second?
The student: The gharim (loser).
The Shaykh : The gharim. And it may be the opposite. The second form is if he says, "I will farm for you on the condition that the eastern part of the land is for me and the western part is for you." This is also not permissible. Why?
The student: Gharar.
The Shaykh : Because of ignorance and gharar, because the harvest may be abundant from the eastern part and not from the western part, or the opposite. And partnerships are based on equality, and here there is no equalization.
The third form is if he says, "I will farm for you on the condition that one hundred sa' (a dry measure of about 3 kg) of the harvest is for me and the rest is for you." One hundred sa' of the harvest and the rest is for you. This is also not permissible. Why?
The student: Because of ignorance.
The Shaykh : Because of ignorance as well, because this crop may only yield one hundred sa', and at that time, the owner of the one hundred sa' is the ghanim, and the second?
The student: The gharim.
The Shaykh : The gharim. And it may be that in our estimation, it yields a thousand sa', so what is the ratio of one hundred to a thousand?
The student: One-tenth.
The Shaykh : One-tenth. Then it yields ten thousand sa', so what is the ratio of one hundred? One-tenth of one-tenth. And at that time, the one who stipulated the one hundred sa'?
The student: The gharim.
The Shaykh : The gharim. And this is not permissible in the category of partnerships. Okay, how many forms is this?
The student: Three.
The Shaykh : Three. The fourth form is if he says, "I will farm this land, or on this land, for five years, on the condition that the first year is for me, the second is for you, the third is for me, the fourth is for you, and the fifth is between us?" Here?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Why?
The student: Because of ignorance.
The Shaykh : Because of ignorance and gharar, because the harvest may be abundant in the first year and little in the second year, or it may yield nothing. And is it required that it be five years?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : If he said, "One year for me and one year for you"?
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, the same thing. But we mentioned it as an example. The fifth of the forms of prohibited mukhabarah is if he says to you, "The fruit of the palm trees on the well is for you and the rest is for me," or "The fruit of the palm trees on the canals is for you and the rest is for me." This is also not permissible. Why? Because of ignorance.
Okay, so what is the permissible mukhabarah? The permissible mukhabarah is for a known, shared portion, shared, meaning distributed among all parts of the harvest, like one-tenth, one-quarter, one-half, three-quarters, one out of a hundred, one-tenth of one-tenth, meaning, and the like. This is not a problem, because if we stipulate that, everyone shares in the gain and the loss. So the prohibited mukhabarah, meaning, has five categories, all of which revolve around what? Around gharar and ignorance, and that one of the partners is the ghanim and the other is the gharim.
Okay, so if he leased the land for dirhams and said, "Take this land for dirhams, every year you give me ten thousand riyals," is it permissible or not permissible?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because this is from the category of ijara (lease). And the farmer farms, he harvests much or little, it is not our concern, even if he did not farm, my lease is established. Meaning, this is from the category of ijara. For this reason, Rafi' ibn Khudayj said:
But as for paper money, he did not prohibit it.
فأما الورق فلم ينهناBut as for paper money, he did not prohibit it.
فأما الورق فلم ينهناHe said:
And regarding *thunya*.
وعن الثنياThe student: Saghara.
The Shaykh : What is meant by *thunya*? *Thunya* means an exception, unless it is known. That is, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited *thunya* in sales, unless the exception is known. This is because if the exception is not known, it falls under the *gharar* (excessive uncertainty) that is prohibited. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited sales involving *gharar*. Now, how do we distinguish between a known *thunya* and an unknown *thunya*? A *thunya*... for example, if one says, "I sold you this item except for half of it," is this...
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : Known?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Not known.
The Shaykh : "I sold you this item except for half of it," right?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : It is known, my brother. Half of the item is known; the whole is known. If it is an animal, the upper half... it is all one thing. The important point is that the half is known. Every undivided share (*musha'*) is known, but an undivided share, if it is specified, is known. Now, what about "except for a quarter"?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : It is known. So if he says, "I sold you this house except for a quarter of it," or "I sold you this orchard except for a quarter of it," there is no objection, because the exception here is known. Now, what about "I sold you these ten date palms except for one-tenth of them"?
The student: Correct.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Is it known or not known?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : It is known, my brother. Every specified undivided share is known, such as "except for one-tenth of them." Now, what about "I sold you these ten date palms except for one"?
The student: Known, you specified it.
The Shaykh : Except for just one.
The student: Not known.
The Shaykh : It is unknown. If it is unknown, it is not valid, because we do not know which one it is? Is it tall? Short? The eastern one? The western one? The northern one? The southern one? The middle one? We do not know. Now, what about "I sold you ten of these date palms, and they are ten, except for this one which I have identified"?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : Is it valid?
The student: Yes, it is valid.
The Shaykh : Because this is known, right? Now, what about "I sold you this house except for a part of it"?
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. This is unknown, so it is necessary that the excepted item be known. Now, what about "I sold you this sheep except for its head"?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Which head? He is asking which head, hmm.
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Does it have two heads?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Suppose there is a sheep with two heads, and he says "except for one of its heads"?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : Unknown?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : Let us see. If the two heads are equal, then it is known. But if one is large and one is small, then it is unknown if he says "except for one of its heads." Now, what if he says "I sold you this sheep except for its fetus"?
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : This is unknown. Yes, this is unknown. For this reason, the jurists said that it is not valid because the fetus is unknown. However, the correct view in this issue is that it is valid, because although this is an exception, it is in reality a retention. The fetus is a separate part from the mother. Just as it is valid to sell you this non-pregnant animal, it is valid to sell you this pregnant animal except for its fetus, because if I sell it to you except for the fetus, it is as if I sold you... a non-pregnant animal. This is because the fetus is a separate, independent part, meaning it stands on its own. Now, what about "I sold you this sheep except for its heart"?
The student: Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Is it valid?
The student: Yes, there is nothing except the heart.
The Shaykh : There is nothing except the heart, but the heart may be large or small.
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : It is unknown. For this reason, the scholars said that it is unknown. Likewise, if he says "I sold you this sheep except for its liver," they say that it is unknown and therefore not valid. If it were said that validity applies in the case of the liver and the heart, it would not be far-fetched, because these two organs are almost known, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : And the disagreement or difference is slight.
The student: Slight.
The Shaykh : Slight. So if permissibility were said, it would have a basis. The rule for us now in the chapter of exceptions is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited *thunya* unless it is known. Now, what about "I sold you this pile of wheat except for three *sa' s"?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it valid or not valid?
The student: It is valid...
The Shaykh : There is disagreement on this, and it passed us in the chapter of sales, but, glory to Allah the Great, how quickly you forget! "I sold you this pile of food except for three *sa' s." The school of thought says it is not valid, and they justified this by saying that the *thunya* is known—three *sa' s* are known—but what about the remainder after that?
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : It is unknown, not known. And excepting the known from the unknown makes it...?
The student: Unknown.
The Shaykh : Unknown. Now, what about "I sold you this pile except for half of it"?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : This is permissible, because it is an undivided share. But "except for three *sa' s," they say is not permissible, because that leads to the uncertainty of the item being sold, which is the remainder after three *sa' s*. You might imagine that after three *sa' s*, thirty *sa' s* will remain, or that only seven will remain... weak, except for twenty-seven *sa' s*. Yes, they say that this varies. However, the correct view is that this is a known *thunya*, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited *thunya* unless it is known. To know what it is, to know what it is...?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : The excepted item. So if the excepted item is known, there is no harm. Here, we know that this pile of food exceeds the excepted item by a lot. We excepted three *sa' s*, and it amounts to, for example, three hundred *sa' s*, so the matter is known. And the correct view is that excepting the known from the unknown is not a problem, like the example we mentioned. Now, what about "I sold you this land except for forty meters"?
The student: Known.
The Shaykh : "I sold you this land except for forty meters"?
The student: Known...
The Shaykh : It is valid. Yes, the ruling in this issue is like the ruling in the previous one, meaning "I sold you this pile except for three *sa' s*" is like "I sold you this land except for forty meters."
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, in this case, it is required to specify the meters of the land, unless the land is uniform. If it is uniform, there is no problem, whether from here or here, as long as there are no side streets that differ... The important thing is that if there is a difference, whether in the land itself or in the directions of the land due to the streets, then in this case, it needs to be specified so that no ambiguity arises.