Continuation of the explanation of the hadith: ( . . . . And Muslim: ( A Muslim does not bid against the bid of his brother ) .
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "And Muslim: Bulugh al-Maram 7:35 " : , : with the jussive mood, because if it were in the nominative, he would have said: la yasum.
The student: I have la yasum.
The Shaykh : No, I have la yasm with the jussive mood. I do not know; this refers to the wording we have here: : yasm. This is a present tense verb in the jussive mood due to the negative particle la, and the waw was deleted for the jussive. And not for what?
The student: For the meeting of two static letters.
The Shaykh : For the meeting of two static letters, because it is not possible to delete a letter from the middle of a word for the sake of the jussive mood. That is: it is not possible for the operator of the jussive to be the one that deleted it. Rather, the letter is deleted for the jussive from the end of the word. Is this known?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is not possible to delete a weak letter or any other letter from the middle of a word for the operator to act upon it, because the letter that is deleted for the operator to act upon is not in the middle. For example: lam yarm, lam yakhash, and lam yada' deleted the weak letter for the sake of the jussive. But if it is in the middle of the word, then the cause of the deletion is not the jussive acting upon this letter. So the cause here is the cause is the meeting of two static letters, because when the verb is put in the jussive, its end becomes static, so the last static letter meets the static waw, and the waw is a weak letter, so it is deleted.
The important point is : meaning: if a Muslim bids on something and the seller relies on him, then it is not permissible for another person to come and increase over him, because the seller has relied on him.
As for if the matter is from the category of competitive bidding, then this is permissible by the consensus of the Muslims, and there is no harm in it. That is, a man offers his goods, whoever bids, whoever bids, so another man stood up and said: I bid ten for it. Is it permissible for me to increase over him and say: eleven? Yes, it is permissible for me to say eleven or twelve or something similar to this.
And likewise, if the seller is the one who offered it, then there is no harm in my increasing over the one who first bid on it. But if you see that the seller has become content and nothing remains for him but to finalize the sale, then it is not permissible for me to bid against his bid, because of the transgression of his right, and because this leads to enmity and hatred between the Muslims.
Now, is that like bidding against a bid in a sale? Meaning, that a person finds someone who wants to buy something and has relied on the seller's statement, and nothing remains for him but to finalize the sale, so another person comes and says: I will give you the same or better for so much and so much?
The answer is: Yes, because the cause is one, and it is the transgression of the right of another. But in the issue of bidding, if he concludes the sale with the one who bid against his brother's bid, is it valid? The answer is: Yes, because the prohibition is against the bidding. As for selling over his sale or buying over his purchase, it is not permissible, the sale is not valid, because the prohibition is directed at the contract itself. And a important rule has preceded us in this chapter, which is: "That if the prohibition returns to the essence of the thing, then it cannot occur validly due to contradiction. But if the prohibition is directed, or if the prohibition returns to an external matter, then he sins but the contract is valid" .
Then the author said: "From Abu Ayyub" , or it was transmitted from Abu Ayyub al-Ansari.
The student: The benefits!
The Shaykh : We took the benefits. Bidding against a bid, what is the benefit?
The student: Why, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes? Yes, and read, yes?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : and it is?
A Muslim must not offer a price above that offered by another Muslim.
لا يسِمُ المسلم على سوم المسلمA Muslim does not bid
لا يسمA Muslim does not bid
لا يسِمِThe student: I have la yasum.
The Shaykh : No, I have la yasm with the jussive mood. I do not know; this refers to the wording we have here:
A Muslim does not bid
لا يسم المسلمThe student: For the meeting of two static letters.
The Shaykh : For the meeting of two static letters, because it is not possible to delete a letter from the middle of a word for the sake of the jussive mood. That is: it is not possible for the operator of the jussive to be the one that deleted it. Rather, the letter is deleted for the jussive from the end of the word. Is this known?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : It is not possible to delete a weak letter or any other letter from the middle of a word for the operator to act upon it, because the letter that is deleted for the operator to act upon is not in the middle. For example: lam yarm, lam yakhash, and lam yada' deleted the weak letter for the sake of the jussive. But if it is in the middle of the word, then the cause of the deletion is not the jussive acting upon this letter. So the cause here is
A Muslim does not bid
لا يسمThe important point is
A Muslim does not bid against his bid
لا يسم على سومهAs for if the matter is from the category of competitive bidding, then this is permissible by the consensus of the Muslims, and there is no harm in it. That is, a man offers his goods, whoever bids, whoever bids, so another man stood up and said: I bid ten for it. Is it permissible for me to increase over him and say: eleven? Yes, it is permissible for me to say eleven or twelve or something similar to this.
And likewise, if the seller is the one who offered it, then there is no harm in my increasing over the one who first bid on it. But if you see that the seller has become content and nothing remains for him but to finalize the sale, then it is not permissible for me to bid against his bid, because of the transgression of his right, and because this leads to enmity and hatred between the Muslims.
Now, is that like bidding against a bid in a sale? Meaning, that a person finds someone who wants to buy something and has relied on the seller's statement, and nothing remains for him but to finalize the sale, so another person comes and says: I will give you the same or better for so much and so much?
The answer is: Yes, because the cause is one, and it is the transgression of the right of another. But in the issue of bidding, if he concludes the sale with the one who bid against his brother's bid, is it valid? The answer is: Yes, because the prohibition is against the bidding. As for selling over his sale or buying over his purchase, it is not permissible, the sale is not valid, because the prohibition is directed at the contract itself. And a important rule has preceded us in this chapter, which is: "That if the prohibition returns to the essence of the thing, then it cannot occur validly due to contradiction. But if the prohibition is directed, or if the prohibition returns to an external matter, then he sins but the contract is valid" .
Then the author said: "From Abu Ayyub" , or it was transmitted from Abu Ayyub al-Ansari.
The student: The benefits!
The Shaykh : We took the benefits. Bidding against a bid, what is the benefit?
The student: Why, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : Yes? Yes, and read, yes?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : and it is?