Benefits of the Hadith: (The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade: that a resident sell to a Bedouin, and do not bid up the price of goods... ).

The Shaykh : This hadith contains several benefits:
First: The prohibition of a resident selling to a Bedouin, based on the statement of Abu Hurayrah: The original ruling regarding prohibition is that it is forbidden, but you know that the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) established conditions for this, including what Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) mentioned: "That he not be a broker for him".
Second: If a resident sells to a Bedouin, the sale is not valid. Why? Because the prohibition applies to it, and whatever the prohibition applies to will not be valid. However, some scholars validated the sale and said: The prohibition here does not apply to a meaning specific to the sale, but rather to the right of the seller or the people. But the correct view is that the sale is not valid, because the prohibition has been reported regarding it, and whatever the prohibition has been reported regarding will not be accepted or effective. How could it be, when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: ?!!
Among the benefits of the hadith is the prohibition of bid-up (najash), based on his statement: . If bid-up occurs and then a sale is made to the one who was bid up, is the sale valid?
The answer: Yes, because the prohibition is not of the sale but of the bid-up. However, the one who was bid up, if he was deceived, has the right to annul the contract, meaning he has the right to return, meaning when the one who was bid up saw this man increasing the price of the goods, and he was a man with experience, he thought the goods... then it became clear to him afterwards that what was done was what? It was bid-up. So he has the option because he was deceived and tricked.
Among the benefits of the hadith is the prohibition of a man selling over the sale of his brother, based on his statement: . And you know in the explanation, does it include, based on his statement: the dhimmi? We clarified that there is disagreement in this, and the correct view is that it includes him.
Now, is buying included with selling? The answer: Yes, because if we say that the term "sale" is a shared term between selling and buying, the matter is clear. And if we say that "sale" is specific to selling and buying has an independent meaning, then it is by analogy. What kind of analogy? Analogy of equality.
Is leasing (ijarah) analogous to selling?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, the prohibition applies to selling, leasing, and all contracts, because the cause is the same, which is encroaching on the right of another.
Among the benefits of the hadith is the prohibition of proposing marriage over the proposal of a Muslim, based on his statement: . And we say regarding the dhimmi what we said regarding selling.
Now, among the benefits of the hadith is that if the suitor is rejected, or permission is given, or the second suitor is ignorant, there is no prohibition. Because the proposal is not established if the rejection is clear, and if permission is given, likewise, and if he is ignorant, he has not proposed over the proposal of his brother because he does not know. And we say regarding proposing over the proposal of a dhimmi what we said regarding selling over his sale, and the correct view is that it is not permissible due to the encroachment involved, and the dhimmi has a right.
Is a woman proposing over a woman's proposal analogous to that?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : We mentioned that it is analogous by the common factor of encroachment and injustice, and a thing when a text is reported regarding its cause, it is rejected.
Now, among the benefits of the hadith is the prohibition of a woman asking for the divorce of her sister, based on his statement: .
But is this prohibition specific to when she intends to cut off her sustenance, based on his statement: ? The answer: No. If we say the lam is for causation, it is specific to that. If we say the lam is for consequence, it is not specific. And whoever reflects on the generality of the texts will realize that the lam is for consequence, and that even if she does not ask to cut off her sustenance, she intended to harm her. So asking for divorce is forbidden.
Among the benefits of the hadith is the clarification of the weakness of the statement of some scholars: That if a woman marries on the condition that he divorce his first wife, the condition is invalid, contrary to the famous view of the school of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), because they say it is permissible. But it is a statement contrary to the text. So if she stipulated this condition and married on this condition, but after he married he said: The condition is invalid and I will not divorce the first wife, does the new second wife who stipulated this have the right to annul the marriage?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : It is considered: If she did not know the ruling of the Shari'ah, she has the right to annul and she has the option, because she did not know, and she has the option, and it is not possible to punish her for something she did not know. And if she is informed that this is forbidden, she does not have the option. But the consideration remains regarding the husband: is he to be disciplined or not?
Yes, if he knows the hadith, yes, he is to be disciplined. Why? Because he deceived and tricked.
Now, if a woman asked for the divorce of her sister for her benefit, such that the woman had grown tired of her husband, and she brought another woman and said: Marry her and release me from this husband, and I stipulate divorce, what do you say?
The student: It is permissible.

The Shaykh : Is it permissible?! Yes, it is permissible, and it may even be praiseworthy, because it involves saving her from the bad treatment she is in.
Now, if she asked for the divorce of her sister for the benefit of the husband, not for the benefit of the wife?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : For the benefit of the husband?
The student: It is considered.
Another student: It is not permissible, the husband knows his own interest.

The Shaykh : This is a woman who married a man and tires her husband. Every day she says: Bring a type of rice. Every day she says: Bring a sack of bread. Every day she says: Bring a type of clothing. And the husband is with her like a sheep with a shepherd. So the other woman wanted to save the husband from this woman, so she went to ask for divorce. Is it permissible or not?
It is permissible, and it may even be praiseworthy, because it involves saving this man who is overpowered by his circumstances, ... .
So we say: If a woman asks for the divorce of her sister, it does not escape three cases:
That it is for the benefit of the husband or for the benefit of the woman, and this is permissible.
That it is to cut off the sustenance of the woman, so it is forbidden because harming the woman is forbidden.
Now, if a man asks a husband to divorce his wife, a man asks a husband to divorce his wife? If it is for the benefit of the husband, it is permissible. For the benefit of the wife, he does not sin. To cut off her sustenance, it is not permissible.
If it is for a personal purpose of the asker, he himself wants this woman?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : Why?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : Because it is encroachment. And Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) denounced the one who asked a man to divorce his wife so he could marry the woman, even though he paid him money. He says to him: Divorce your wife, I will give you ten thousand. The man heard and divorced and gave him ten thousand, and we said to him... So Imam Ahmad denounced this. How can this be?! If the Lawgiver forbade a woman in the waiting period from being proposed to, how about a married woman?! Now, let us continue.