Benefits of the Hadith: “Whoever releases a Muslim from his sale, Allah will release him from his mistake.”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In this hadith, there are several benefits:
First: the permissibility of *iqlah* (rescission of a sale). Yes?
The student: The hadith before this one!
The Shaykh : The hadiths before this one are not a problem; their benefits have already been mentioned.
So, the permissibility of *iqlah* is established. In fact, we say: there is evidence in the hadith that *iqlah* is required and recommended. The aspect of evidence is that the Lawgiver attached a reward to it, and this is an encouragement from the Lawgiver to perform it. When encouragement is attached to a ruling, it indicates that this ruling is required by the Shari'ah, either as an obligation or as a recommended act, depending on what the evidence indicates.
But is *iqlah* a new contract or the rescission of a past contract? The answer is the second: it is the rescission of a past contract. For this reason, it is permissible before taking possession of the price, and it is permissible before taking possession of the sold item, even if it is a measured or weighed item that requires the right of completion. It is permissible after the second call to Friday prayer, and it is also permissible after the *iqamah* for prayer if it does not prevent one from praying. Why? Because it is not a sale. Is it permissible in the mosque? Yes, it is permissible, because it is not a sale.
But is it required that it be for the same amount as the price, or is it permissible for the price to increase or decrease? There is a difference of opinion among the scholars. Some said: it is not permissible except for the same amount as the price; if one drops it or increases it, it is not valid. They said: because if one drops it or increases it, he has not considered the exchange in his *iqlah*, and if he does not consider the exchange, it is not *iqlah*. But the correct view is that it is permissible, and the prohibition of *riba* (usury or interest) is far from it. For example, if I sold you a car for twenty thousand, and then you came to me and said: “Release me, I do not want the car now,” and I said: “I will not release you unless you give me two thousand of the price,” and he said: “I will give it to you.” Whoever says that it is not permissible except for the same amount as the price says: this *iqlah* is not valid.
And whoever says it is permissible, which is the correct view, says: this *iqlah* is valid. And likewise the reverse: if the seller is the one who requests *iqlah* and the buyer says: “I will not release you unless you give me two thousand,” the correct view is that it is permissible and there is no harm in it. This is because *iqlah* may cause harm to the one who releases. Perhaps he sold this car for twenty thousand, but at the time of the transaction it reached twenty thousand. If he returns it to him, it may not reach twenty thousand, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : First: because those who increase in it have dispersed.
And second: people may say: why did he return it unless there is a defect in it? So the value decreases. For this reason, we say: the correct view is that *iqlah* is permissible for the same amount as the price, or more, or less, and there is no obstacle.
And among the benefits of the hadith: that the reward is of the same kind as the deed. Because this one who released his sale, who released the Muslim from his sale, Allah will release his mistake. Because the common reason for *iqlah* is regret. So if you release him and remove the regret from him, Allah will release your mistake and remove the regret that you have due to the mistake. And here are questions: First: is anything other than sale included with sale?
The answer: Yes, and no? Meaning, if he rented his house and after renting it, he came to him and said: “I rented the house from you, but I hope you will release me,” and he released him. In any case, it is recommended for him to release him. But does he get this reward? Yes, it appears that he gets it, because *ijarah* (lease) is a type of sale. Although it is not like sale, because sale has a long duration and one owns the item and its benefit, unlike *ijarah*, but he is given a reward similar to the benefit of this one who was released.
So, is the marriage contract included with this?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Here is its form: The husband, after contracting the marriage, came to the wife or her guardian and said: “Release me.” This is not allowed. Yes, it is not included. Why? Because it is possible to get rid of it through divorce. And this is clear for the husband. But for the wife!
The student: *Khul'* (divorce at the wife's request for compensation).
The Shaykh : So, it does not contradict. Yes, it burdens her. So, do we say: if the wife comes to the husband and asks him for divorce, and if he agrees to it and divorces her, does he get this reward?
Yes, it appears that he gets this reward, if not more. Because the woman may not be able to bear patience with the husband. She may not be able to bear patience with the husband, and the problem is one from which one cannot escape. If the buyer does not want this item and regrets it, he can get rid of it. How? By selling it. But the problem is: how does the wife get rid of her husband?
You mentioned that the husband can get rid of her through divorce. But how does the wife get rid of him?
It appears that if he releases her, meaning: divorces her based on her desire, it is hoped that this reward will be written for him, because he freed her from great regret. If it were not for his divorce, she would remain in the most exhausting state. So, second: if a person releases this man, is it required that he take possession of the sold item in the same place, or is it not required? For example: he bought gold from him with silver, then he returned to him and asked for *iqlah*, and he released him. Is it required to take possession of the two exchanges in the same session?
The answer: No. Why? Because *iqlah* is rescission, not a sale, so the rulings of sale do not apply to it.
Third: is the consent of the one who releases required for *iqlah*?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is necessary. And based on this, if a person forced another to release someone and said to him: “Release so-and-so, or I will do such and such,” and he is capable of carrying out what he threatened, then the *iqlah* is not valid.
The fourth question: Is it permissible for the guardian of an orphan, the agent, and the like to release? The answer: There is a detail:
As for the guardian, if he sees the benefit in *iqlah*, yes, he has the right to release. And if he does not see the benefit, he does not have the right to release. So if he says: “I want the reward,” we say: preserving the fulfillment of the trust is more important than seeking the reward through *iqlah*. Because preserving the trust is obligatory, and *iqlah* is a recommended practice and not obligatory. As for the agent, he does not have the right to release unless it is made permissible for him, because agency is restricted to what he was appointed for. And what was he appointed for?
The student: For sale.
The Shaykh : For sale. He was not appointed for *iqlah*. And because the principal may not be pleased with it. Unlike the guardian, the guardian has a type of independence where no one is above him, and he is in charge of the orphan's wealth, so he has the right to release if he sees the benefit. But the agent does not, so he does not release unless it is made permissible for him or he consults the principal.
Yes, and among the benefits of the hadith—although it is repeated to us often: the refutation of the *Jabriyyah* (determinists), who said: And this indicates that the human being has a choice in *iqlah* and not doing it. The *Jabriyyah* hold that the human being has no choice, and that the human being is compelled in his deeds.
And in the hadith also: a refutation of the extremists of the *Qadariyyah* (sect that denied divine decree) who deny Allah's knowledge of the actions of the servants. The aspect of that is His saying:, and He did not say: except after knowing his release.
First: the permissibility of *iqlah* (rescission of a sale). Yes?
The student: The hadith before this one!
The Shaykh : The hadiths before this one are not a problem; their benefits have already been mentioned.
So, the permissibility of *iqlah* is established. In fact, we say: there is evidence in the hadith that *iqlah* is required and recommended. The aspect of evidence is that the Lawgiver attached a reward to it, and this is an encouragement from the Lawgiver to perform it. When encouragement is attached to a ruling, it indicates that this ruling is required by the Shari'ah, either as an obligation or as a recommended act, depending on what the evidence indicates.
But is *iqlah* a new contract or the rescission of a past contract? The answer is the second: it is the rescission of a past contract. For this reason, it is permissible before taking possession of the price, and it is permissible before taking possession of the sold item, even if it is a measured or weighed item that requires the right of completion. It is permissible after the second call to Friday prayer, and it is also permissible after the *iqamah* for prayer if it does not prevent one from praying. Why? Because it is not a sale. Is it permissible in the mosque? Yes, it is permissible, because it is not a sale.
But is it required that it be for the same amount as the price, or is it permissible for the price to increase or decrease? There is a difference of opinion among the scholars. Some said: it is not permissible except for the same amount as the price; if one drops it or increases it, it is not valid. They said: because if one drops it or increases it, he has not considered the exchange in his *iqlah*, and if he does not consider the exchange, it is not *iqlah*. But the correct view is that it is permissible, and the prohibition of *riba* (usury or interest) is far from it. For example, if I sold you a car for twenty thousand, and then you came to me and said: “Release me, I do not want the car now,” and I said: “I will not release you unless you give me two thousand of the price,” and he said: “I will give it to you.” Whoever says that it is not permissible except for the same amount as the price says: this *iqlah* is not valid.
And whoever says it is permissible, which is the correct view, says: this *iqlah* is valid. And likewise the reverse: if the seller is the one who requests *iqlah* and the buyer says: “I will not release you unless you give me two thousand,” the correct view is that it is permissible and there is no harm in it. This is because *iqlah* may cause harm to the one who releases. Perhaps he sold this car for twenty thousand, but at the time of the transaction it reached twenty thousand. If he returns it to him, it may not reach twenty thousand, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : First: because those who increase in it have dispersed.
And second: people may say: why did he return it unless there is a defect in it? So the value decreases. For this reason, we say: the correct view is that *iqlah* is permissible for the same amount as the price, or more, or less, and there is no obstacle.
And among the benefits of the hadith: that the reward is of the same kind as the deed. Because this one who released his sale, who released the Muslim from his sale, Allah will release his mistake. Because the common reason for *iqlah* is regret. So if you release him and remove the regret from him, Allah will release your mistake and remove the regret that you have due to the mistake. And here are questions: First: is anything other than sale included with sale?
The answer: Yes, and no? Meaning, if he rented his house and after renting it, he came to him and said: “I rented the house from you, but I hope you will release me,” and he released him. In any case, it is recommended for him to release him. But does he get this reward? Yes, it appears that he gets it, because *ijarah* (lease) is a type of sale. Although it is not like sale, because sale has a long duration and one owns the item and its benefit, unlike *ijarah*, but he is given a reward similar to the benefit of this one who was released.
So, is the marriage contract included with this?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Here is its form: The husband, after contracting the marriage, came to the wife or her guardian and said: “Release me.” This is not allowed. Yes, it is not included. Why? Because it is possible to get rid of it through divorce. And this is clear for the husband. But for the wife!
The student: *Khul'* (divorce at the wife's request for compensation).
The Shaykh : So, it does not contradict. Yes, it burdens her. So, do we say: if the wife comes to the husband and asks him for divorce, and if he agrees to it and divorces her, does he get this reward?
Yes, it appears that he gets this reward, if not more. Because the woman may not be able to bear patience with the husband. She may not be able to bear patience with the husband, and the problem is one from which one cannot escape. If the buyer does not want this item and regrets it, he can get rid of it. How? By selling it. But the problem is: how does the wife get rid of her husband?
You mentioned that the husband can get rid of her through divorce. But how does the wife get rid of him?
It appears that if he releases her, meaning: divorces her based on her desire, it is hoped that this reward will be written for him, because he freed her from great regret. If it were not for his divorce, she would remain in the most exhausting state. So, second: if a person releases this man, is it required that he take possession of the sold item in the same place, or is it not required? For example: he bought gold from him with silver, then he returned to him and asked for *iqlah*, and he released him. Is it required to take possession of the two exchanges in the same session?
The answer: No. Why? Because *iqlah* is rescission, not a sale, so the rulings of sale do not apply to it.
Third: is the consent of the one who releases required for *iqlah*?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is necessary. And based on this, if a person forced another to release someone and said to him: “Release so-and-so, or I will do such and such,” and he is capable of carrying out what he threatened, then the *iqlah* is not valid.
The fourth question: Is it permissible for the guardian of an orphan, the agent, and the like to release? The answer: There is a detail:
As for the guardian, if he sees the benefit in *iqlah*, yes, he has the right to release. And if he does not see the benefit, he does not have the right to release. So if he says: “I want the reward,” we say: preserving the fulfillment of the trust is more important than seeking the reward through *iqlah*. Because preserving the trust is obligatory, and *iqlah* is a recommended practice and not obligatory. As for the agent, he does not have the right to release unless it is made permissible for him, because agency is restricted to what he was appointed for. And what was he appointed for?
The student: For sale.
The Shaykh : For sale. He was not appointed for *iqlah*. And because the principal may not be pleased with it. Unlike the guardian, the guardian has a type of independence where no one is above him, and he is in charge of the orphan's wealth, so he has the right to release if he sees the benefit. But the agent does not, so he does not release unless it is made permissible for him or he consults the principal.
Yes, and among the benefits of the hadith—although it is repeated to us often: the refutation of the *Jabriyyah* (determinists), who said:
Whoever releases a Muslim
من أقال مسلمًاAnd in the hadith also: a refutation of the extremists of the *Qadariyyah* (sect that denied divine decree) who deny Allah's knowledge of the actions of the servants. The aspect of that is His saying: