And from him, he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade: that a resident sells to a Bedouin, and do not bid up the price, and that a man sells over the sale of his brother.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: “And from him (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: Riyad as-Salihin 1775”, and the discussion on this has already been given.
He said: and the discussion on this has also already been given.
"Sahih al-Bukhari 2140 " :
: This has not been discussed previously.
: The word “man” was not mentioned for restriction, but was mentioned for the majority case, and if a thing is mentioned for the majority case, it has no implication, “Every restriction mentioned based on the majority case has no implication”.
And his saying: is narrated in two ways: , and the second way is: :
As for: there is no difficulty in it, because “la” is a prohibitive particle, and “yabī‘” is a present tense verb in the jussive case due to the prohibitive “la,” but it was moved with a kasrah due to the meeting of two static letters.
And as for with the nominative case, there is a difficulty in it, which is that “la” is a negative particle, so does the negation imply prohibition? And the answer is: Yes, it may be a negation intended as a prohibition, so the sentence is declarative in form but imperative in meaning, declarative in terms of wording, imperative in terms of meaning, because it is a statement intended as a prohibition.
The scholars said: “Just as a statement may come in the place of a prohibition, a request may come in the place of a statement”, a request may come in the place of a statement, and they gave as an example for this the saying of Allah the Exalted:[Al-'Ankabut 29:12], for the “lam” is for command, but the intended meaning is a statement, because the meaning is: and we bear your sins.
Now, the discussion on “that a man sells” has two ways: and , so according to the first way, “brother”? Yes, that is right!
The student: “La” is a prohibitive particle.
The Shaykh : It is a prohibitive particle, and “yabī‘” is a present tense verb.
The student: A present tense verb in the accusative case, moved with a kasrah due to the meeting of two static letters.
The Shaykh : Well done, good, and according to the narration with the nominative case, Yasser?
The student: According to the narration with the nominative case.
The Shaykh : Would “la” be? Hmm?
The student: A negative prohibitive particle.
The Shaykh : No, a negative prohibitive particle?! It would be a negative particle but with the meaning of prohibition, yes, negation with the meaning of prohibition, good.
The man, we said it was restricted to manhood based on the majority case.
: His brother in lineage? No, his brother in humanity? No, his brother in religion? Yes, is that so?! Because human brotherhood is not intended by the Shari'ah, and there is no human brotherhood between people, but there is a human kinship between them, meaning that the disbeliever is of the same species as the Muslim in humanity, but he is not his brother. Have you not seen what Noah said: [Hud 11:45-46] Ah? The important thing is that he is not of your family, even though he is his son. And whoever claims that there is human brotherhood between people has strayed far, because brotherhood is either religious, as in His saying: [At-Tawbah 9:11], and similar to it is the brotherhood of faith, as in His saying: [Al-Hujurat 49:10].
Or it is brotherhood in lineage, as in His saying the Exalted:[An-Nisa 4:176], and His saying: [Al-A'raf 7:85]: these are lineages. And as for His saying: [Ash-Shu'ara 26:176-177], and He did not say: their brother, because the people of the thicket are not the people of Madyan, not Madyan, but they are another people, either followers of them or independent. The important thing is that Shu'ayb was not of them, and for this reason he did not say: the people of the thicket denied the messengers, if he had said to them: their brother Shu'ayb, but he said: , so : what does it mean? Yes, it means: in religion and faith.
The form of that is: a person buys a commodity from someone for ten, then another comes to him and says: I will give you the same for nine. Is this selling over a sale or buying over a buying? Ah?
The student: Selling over a sale.
The Shaykh : Good, or he says: I will give you something better than it for ten. This is selling over a sale, good, the price did not decrease, but it is better than it, better than it, yes, the description of the sold item changed, this is selling over a sale, so this is forbidden, and if it is done, the sale is invalid, because the prohibition came specifically for it: “Every contract or act of worship for which a prohibition has come specifically is invalid and cannot be made valid, because making it valid is combining two opposites”.
Good, is the sale forbidden whether that is during the period of option or after the end of the period of option? What do you say?
There is disagreement on this, and some scholars say: that the prohibition is specific to when that is during the time of the two options: the option of the session, or the option of the condition.
And some of the scholars said: that it is general.
So whoever said the first said: that the cause of the prohibition is so that the sale is not annulled and a contract is made with the second, so there would be envy toward the first seller, or did you not understand? Ah?
The student: We want an example.
The Shaykh : Good, perhaps it will become clear with an example. Zayd sold a house to 'Amr for one hundred thousand riyals, and he stipulated the option for a week, so Bakr learned of the contract, so he went to 'Amr and said: I bought so-and-so’s house for one hundred thousand, I have a house for you better than it for eighty thousand, come with me, so he went and saw a better house, and the price was lower, so he went to Zayd, so 'Amr went to Zayd and said: By Allah, I was deceived, is it permissible for him to be deceived or not, why?
The student: It is permissible for him to be deceived, because it is during the time of option.
The Shaykh : Because it is during the time of option, good, the time of the option of the session, Zayd sold a house to 'Amr for one hundred thousand riyals, and they were sitting, so a person heard of it and came to them while they were sitting and said: O so-and-so, I will give you my house for eighty thousand riyals and it is better than so-and-so’s house, he said: then I was deceived, this is during the time of which option?
The student: The session.
The Shaykh : The session, and the first one is during the time of the option of the condition, there will be enmity between Zayd and this newcomer, cursing and insulting, why do you come, why do you do this? You are like Satan, you are envious, you are such and such, and it may reach to beating or reach to weapons, and for this reason the Lawgiver prohibited it.
Good, let us see if it is after the time of the two options, meaning after the man bought the house from 'Amr, and they dispersed, and the sale became binding, another person came and said: I will sell you a house better than it for eighty thousand, so-and-so outbid you, is it possible that he can return and annul the sale?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because the time of option has ended.
The Shaykh : Because the time of option has ended, but there will be regret and sorrow in the heart of the buyer, if only I had not rushed, if only I had not hurried, and there will also be hatred and resentment in his heart toward whom? Toward the seller, he deceived me, he outbid me, and the like of that.
Good, the second opinion in the issue says: even after the time of the two options, and they see that the cause in that is: causing regret in the heart of the buyer, and secondly: enmity, throwing enmity between him and the seller, these are two. Thirdly: perhaps he will resort to deception and look for a reason that permits him to return and annul, perhaps he will resort to deception and be satisfied with the first one, then he will go looking for a defect, if he finds one he will scratch it out, yes, he comes and says: this is a defect, clear? Good, so which is stronger, the opinion of generality or restricting it to the time of the two options?
The student: Generality.
The Shaykh : The opinion of generality, as is apparent from the hadith:Sunan an-Nasa'i 4504Sahih (Darussalam).
Good, is buying analogous to selling? Does not one buy over the buying of his brother?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, we say: and so is buying, it is not permissible to buy over the buying of his brother, and the form of buying is: to say to the one who sold -pay attention to the example so that the matter becomes clear to you- in the form of selling, we say to the one who bought, and in the form of buying, you say: to the one who sold, this makes it easier for you to visualize, because some people get confused about the matter, so in the form of selling, you say: to the one who bought, and in the form of buying, you say: to the one who sold, good.
You learned that Zayd sold a house to 'Amr for one hundred thousand, so you went to whom?
The student: The seller.
The Shaykh : Who is he?
The student: To Zayd.
The Shaykh : To Zayd, so you went to Zayd and said: O so-and-so, you sold your house to 'Amr for one hundred thousand, I will give you one hundred and twenty thousand, if they are during the time of the two options, the session or the condition, it is forbidden, forbidden according to both opinions, and if it is after the end of the time of the two options, it is forbidden according to one of the opinions, and the correct one is this: that buying over his buying is forbidden during the time of the two options and after the end of the time of the two options, so if someone says: by what did you include the form of buying, and why? And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:, the answer is from two angles:
First: that buying is called selling, it may be called selling.
Second: Buying is equivalent to selling, and the Lawgiver never distinguishes between two identical things. Therefore, if selling on top of another’s sale is forbidden, then buying on top of another’s purchase is even more so; buying on top of another’s purchase is forbidden.
Third: In a narration by Muslim:, and buying on top of another’s purchase is more severe than bidding on top of another’s bid—as will be detailed, if Allah wills, in the discussion of bidding.
Now, if someone asks: Do you extend this ruling to selling to include other things, such as leasing?
The answer is: Yes, and this is for two reasons. Either we say that leasing is the sale of benefits, in which case it falls under selling.
Or it can be said that it does not fall under selling, but the meaning present in selling is also present in leasing. Based on this, it is not permissible for a person to lease on top of his brother’s lease, nor to rent on top of his brother’s rental.
Leasing on top of his brother’s lease is like hearing that Zayd leased to 'Amr for one thousand riyals per year, so he goes to 'Amr and says: I will give you a better house for eight hundred riyals per year. This is leasing on top of his lease.
Or he goes to Zayd and says: I will give you a rent of one thousand and two hundred. This is renting on top of his rental. Thus, selling on top of selling, buying on top of buying, leasing on top of leasing, renting on top of renting, and bidding on top of bidding—all of this is forbidden.
Is the contract valid? The answer is: It is not valid, neither in selling on top of selling, nor in buying on top of buying, nor in leasing on top of leasing, nor in renting on top of renting. The reason is that the prohibition applies to the contract itself, and a prohibition cannot apply to something that is permitted. When a prohibition is issued regarding a specific thing, that thing becomes invalid and not valid. Yes.
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) forbade that a person in the city should make a deal on behalf of a villager on commission
نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يبيع حاضر لبادHe said:
And do not engage in Najash (fraudulent bidding).
ولا تناجشوا"
nor should one demand the hand of a girl who has already been engaged to someone else
ولا يبيع الرجل على بيع أخيه، ولا يخطب على خطبة أخيهAnd a man should not sell to a man on top of his brother’s sale.
ولا يبع الرجل الرجل على بيع أخيهA man should not sell.
لا يبع الرجلAnd his saying:
A man should not sell.
لا يبيع الرجلA man should not sell.
لا يبع الرجلA man should not sell.
لا يبيع الرجلAs for
A man should not sell.
لا يبع الرجلAnd as for
A man should not sell.
لا يبيع الرجلThe scholars said: “Just as a statement may come in the place of a prohibition, a request may come in the place of a statement”, a request may come in the place of a statement, and they gave as an example for this the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And those who disbelieve say to those who believe, "Follow our way, and we will carry your sins."
وقال الذين كفروا للذين آمنوا اتبعوا سبيلنا ولنحمل خطاياكمNow, the discussion on “that a man sells” has two ways:
And a man should not sell.
ولا يبعA man should not sell.
لا يبيعThe student: “La” is a prohibitive particle.
The Shaykh : It is a prohibitive particle, and “yabī‘” is a present tense verb.
The student: A present tense verb in the accusative case, moved with a kasrah due to the meeting of two static letters.
The Shaykh : Well done, good, and according to the narration with the nominative case, Yasser?
The student: According to the narration with the nominative case.
The Shaykh : Would “la” be? Hmm?
The student: A negative prohibitive particle.
The Shaykh : No, a negative prohibitive particle?! It would be a negative particle but with the meaning of prohibition, yes, negation with the meaning of prohibition, good.
The man, we said it was restricted to manhood based on the majority case.
On top of his brother’s sale.
على بيع أخيهMy Lord, indeed my son is of my family; and indeed, Your promise is true; and You are the most just of judges!" (46) He said, "O Noah, indeed he is not of your family
رب إنَّ ابني من أهلي وإن وعدك الحق وأنت أحكم الحاكمين * قال ينوح إنه ليس من أهلكthey are your brothers in religion
فإخوانكم في الدينThe believers are but brothers
إنما المؤمنون إخوةOr it is brotherhood in lineage, as in His saying the Exalted:
If there are both brothers and sisters, the male will have the share of two females.
وإن كانوا إخوة رجالا ونساء فللذَّكر مثل حظ الأنثيينAnd to [the people of] Madyan [We sent] their brother Shu'ayb.
وإلى مدين أخاهم شعيبًا(176) The companions of the thicket denied the messengers (177) When Shu'ayb said to them
كذب أصحاب الأيكة المرسلين * إذ قال لهم شعيبWhen Shu'ayb said to them,
إذا قال لهم شعيبover his brother's sale.
على بيع أخيهThe form of that is: a person buys a commodity from someone for ten, then another comes to him and says: I will give you the same for nine. Is this selling over a sale or buying over a buying? Ah?
The student: Selling over a sale.
The Shaykh : Good, or he says: I will give you something better than it for ten. This is selling over a sale, good, the price did not decrease, but it is better than it, better than it, yes, the description of the sold item changed, this is selling over a sale, so this is forbidden, and if it is done, the sale is invalid, because the prohibition came specifically for it: “Every contract or act of worship for which a prohibition has come specifically is invalid and cannot be made valid, because making it valid is combining two opposites”.
Good, is the sale forbidden whether that is during the period of option or after the end of the period of option? What do you say?
There is disagreement on this, and some scholars say: that the prohibition is specific to when that is during the time of the two options: the option of the session, or the option of the condition.
And some of the scholars said: that it is general.
So whoever said the first said: that the cause of the prohibition is so that the sale is not annulled and a contract is made with the second, so there would be envy toward the first seller, or did you not understand? Ah?
The student: We want an example.
The Shaykh : Good, perhaps it will become clear with an example. Zayd sold a house to 'Amr for one hundred thousand riyals, and he stipulated the option for a week, so Bakr learned of the contract, so he went to 'Amr and said: I bought so-and-so’s house for one hundred thousand, I have a house for you better than it for eighty thousand, come with me, so he went and saw a better house, and the price was lower, so he went to Zayd, so 'Amr went to Zayd and said: By Allah, I was deceived, is it permissible for him to be deceived or not, why?
The student: It is permissible for him to be deceived, because it is during the time of option.
The Shaykh : Because it is during the time of option, good, the time of the option of the session, Zayd sold a house to 'Amr for one hundred thousand riyals, and they were sitting, so a person heard of it and came to them while they were sitting and said: O so-and-so, I will give you my house for eighty thousand riyals and it is better than so-and-so’s house, he said: then I was deceived, this is during the time of which option?
The student: The session.
The Shaykh : The session, and the first one is during the time of the option of the condition, there will be enmity between Zayd and this newcomer, cursing and insulting, why do you come, why do you do this? You are like Satan, you are envious, you are such and such, and it may reach to beating or reach to weapons, and for this reason the Lawgiver prohibited it.
Good, let us see if it is after the time of the two options, meaning after the man bought the house from 'Amr, and they dispersed, and the sale became binding, another person came and said: I will sell you a house better than it for eighty thousand, so-and-so outbid you, is it possible that he can return and annul the sale?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Because the time of option has ended.
The Shaykh : Because the time of option has ended, but there will be regret and sorrow in the heart of the buyer, if only I had not rushed, if only I had not hurried, and there will also be hatred and resentment in his heart toward whom? Toward the seller, he deceived me, he outbid me, and the like of that.
Good, the second opinion in the issue says: even after the time of the two options, and they see that the cause in that is: causing regret in the heart of the buyer, and secondly: enmity, throwing enmity between him and the seller, these are two. Thirdly: perhaps he will resort to deception and look for a reason that permits him to return and annul, perhaps he will resort to deception and be satisfied with the first one, then he will go looking for a defect, if he finds one he will scratch it out, yes, he comes and says: this is a defect, clear? Good, so which is stronger, the opinion of generality or restricting it to the time of the two options?
The student: Generality.
The Shaykh : The opinion of generality, as is apparent from the hadith:
Do not urge someone to cancel a sale
لا يبيع الرجل على بيع أخيهGood, is buying analogous to selling? Does not one buy over the buying of his brother?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, we say: and so is buying, it is not permissible to buy over the buying of his brother, and the form of buying is: to say to the one who sold -pay attention to the example so that the matter becomes clear to you- in the form of selling, we say to the one who bought, and in the form of buying, you say: to the one who sold, this makes it easier for you to visualize, because some people get confused about the matter, so in the form of selling, you say: to the one who bought, and in the form of buying, you say: to the one who sold, good.
You learned that Zayd sold a house to 'Amr for one hundred thousand, so you went to whom?
The student: The seller.
The Shaykh : Who is he?
The student: To Zayd.
The Shaykh : To Zayd, so you went to Zayd and said: O so-and-so, you sold your house to 'Amr for one hundred thousand, I will give you one hundred and twenty thousand, if they are during the time of the two options, the session or the condition, it is forbidden, forbidden according to both opinions, and if it is after the end of the time of the two options, it is forbidden according to one of the opinions, and the correct one is this: that buying over his buying is forbidden during the time of the two options and after the end of the time of the two options, so if someone says: by what did you include the form of buying, and why? And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
No sale
لا بيعFirst: that buying is called selling, it may be called selling.
Second: Buying is equivalent to selling, and the Lawgiver never distinguishes between two identical things. Therefore, if selling on top of another’s sale is forbidden, then buying on top of another’s purchase is even more so; buying on top of another’s purchase is forbidden.
Third: In a narration by Muslim:
Nor shall one bid over his brother's bid.
ولا يسُم على سومهNow, if someone asks: Do you extend this ruling to selling to include other things, such as leasing?
The answer is: Yes, and this is for two reasons. Either we say that leasing is the sale of benefits, in which case it falls under selling.
Or it can be said that it does not fall under selling, but the meaning present in selling is also present in leasing. Based on this, it is not permissible for a person to lease on top of his brother’s lease, nor to rent on top of his brother’s rental.
Leasing on top of his brother’s lease is like hearing that Zayd leased to 'Amr for one thousand riyals per year, so he goes to 'Amr and says: I will give you a better house for eight hundred riyals per year. This is leasing on top of his lease.
Or he goes to Zayd and says: I will give you a rent of one thousand and two hundred. This is renting on top of his rental. Thus, selling on top of selling, buying on top of buying, leasing on top of leasing, renting on top of renting, and bidding on top of bidding—all of this is forbidden.
Is the contract valid? The answer is: It is not valid, neither in selling on top of selling, nor in buying on top of buying, nor in leasing on top of leasing, nor in renting on top of renting. The reason is that the prohibition applies to the contract itself, and a prohibition cannot apply to something that is permitted. When a prohibition is issued regarding a specific thing, that thing becomes invalid and not valid. Yes.