Benefits of the Hadith: (Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade buying what is in the wombs of livestock until they give birth.)

The Shaykh : It is derived from this phrase:
The prohibition of selling what is in the wombs of livestock, and the invalidity of the sale as well, because it is established in the principles of jurisprudence: "That what is forbidden is invalid, whether in acts of worship or in transactions". The reason for this is that what is forbidden entails distancing oneself from it and not carrying it out; if one carries it out and validates it, the person has opposed the command of Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
It is derived from this hadith: The permissibility of selling a pregnant animal and what is in its womb, because the prohibition was only regarding selling what is in their wombs, not the pregnant animals themselves. Accordingly, if a person sells a female animal from livestock or otherwise that is pregnant, the sale is valid.
It is derived from this hadith: What Ibn Rajab indicated in his *Rules*: "That what is established as a dependent is not established independently, and what is excused in the dependent is not permissible in the independent". Is that right, Yahya? What did you say?
The student: What is excused in the dependent is not...

The Shaykh : ...what came before.
The student: I did not understand Ibn Rajab's statement; I did not understand it.

The Shaykh : I spoke before Ibn Rajab; I spoke in clear terms.
The student: The dependent and the independent.

The Shaykh : All right, secondly: He said: , meaning until what? Until it is milked. It is forbidden to sell what is in the udders of livestock, yes, because it is unknown, and because it is not possible to deliver it:
As for the unknown nature, it is apparent. Even if you see the size of the udder, the meat inside the udder may be much or little. If the meat is much, the milk is little; if the meat is little, the milk is much. Thus, the milk is unknown.
Second point—Ya Alian—it is not possible to deliver it. Why? Because the animal may be stubborn; it may prevent it from being milked, is that not so? Yes?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, so if it is not possible to deliver it and the amount is not known, its sale is not valid, because it is gharar (excessive uncertainty in a contract).
All right, and the third: : The enslaved slave. We return to the first phrase: : So if it is milked, the sale of the milk is valid, because it is a permissible thing. Is what is in its container of fruits analogous to that? It could be said: Is the sale of pomegranates in their peel not valid?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Why? Because this cannot be sold except in this manner. If we ordered the seller to open it, it would be exposed to spoilage, and it is something whose sale in its peel has become customary among Muslims.
The Shari'ah permitted the sale of ears of grain in their husks. : When it becomes hard, its sale is permitted even in its ear, although in its ear there is some degree of uncertainty, is that not so? But because it cannot be sold except in this manner, this slight uncertainty was excused in it.
All right, is the sale of radishes in the ground, onions, garlic, and the like analogous to that? There is also disagreement in this. Yes, I say: Some scholars also analogized it to this and said: The sale of onions, garlic, radishes, and what is eaten in the ground is not valid, because what is it? It is unknown and not known. However, the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) and Ibn al-Qayyim is the permissibility of selling that. They said: Because it is customary, and because it is covered by its natural creation, so it is like pomegranates and watermelons, and not like milk in the udder in every respect. Because the milk in the udder, in addition to being unknown, is not possible to deliver. That is one point. Also, it grows, so every time it is milked, the milk comes down, unlike this. The correct view is what Shaykh al-Islam and Ibn al-Qayyim held regarding the permissibility of its sale. It is also known to people of expertise; they know that the onion is large even if it is in the ground, based on what appears of its stalk and leaves.
All right, he said: Who is the slave? The slave, meaning the enslaved one. Allah has applied the name "slave" to the enslaved one, saying: .
All right, and his saying: , meaning: A runaway from his master, until when? This phrase is a state (hal). , meaning: In the state of his running away. But if he returns, his purchase is valid. However, if a person buys him without the seller informing him that he had run away, does he have the option to return him?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Why? Because running away is a defect, and one who runs away from his first master is not to be trusted not to run away from the second.
All right, and it is derived from this phrase of the hadith: The permissibility of buying and selling slaves. If someone says: Is there not injustice to them, the slaves? How do you make them like livestock to be bought and sold? We say: They were not wronged, but they wronged themselves, because the cause of slavery is disbelief. So if they wronged themselves, we did not wrong them. And many texts have come urging kindness to them, compassion, mercy, and freeing them, to the extent that the Lawgiver made many causes from sins that are expiated by freeing a slave.
All right, is this prohibition of buying a slave while he is a runaway absolute, or do we say: If the buyer is able to return this runaway slave, the purchase is permissible?
Whoever looks at the apparent wording says: The prohibition is general. You may think you are able to return him, but you are not able to.
And whoever looks at the meaning says: If the person is able to return him, there is no harm, because the ruling revolves with its cause. So if he has among the means of search what enables him to return this runaway, like a man, for example, who has a jeep that traverses the sands and mountains until he finds this man, there is no harm in buying the runaway. But if he has nothing but takes a risk, then this is not permissible.
All right, and among the benefits of the hadith in his saying: : The prohibition of buying war spoils until they are distributed. And as mentioned in the first phrase: The prohibition entails invalidity.
And in this phrase is evidence that war spoils are owned. Where is this taken from? From his saying: . And so it is, for the spoils were made lawful for this Ummah (the Muslim community) and were not made lawful for any nation before them. They were made lawful for them to help them in jihad in the path of Allah and for their other needs. As for the previous nations, the spoils were not lawful for them, and it is mentioned that they were gathered in a place and fire would descend from the sky and burn them.
And among the benefits of this phrase: That the spoils are shared, from his saying: . The distribution takes place after the sharing, but between whom? The scholars said:
The spoils belong to those who witnessed the battle from the people of fighting. As for those who are not from the people of fighting, they have no share, but they are given from it. They are given a portion, meaning: They are given something from it that does not reach the limit of the share of the fighter.
And among the benefits of the hadith in his saying: : That buying charities is not permissible from those who are entitled to them until they take possession of them. The cause for this, first, is the lack of ownership. This is in the case where his share is not specified in any of the charity. If his share is specified in any of the charity, then the cause is the incompleteness of ownership, because his ownership is not complete until he takes possession of it. So if the collector who gathers zakah says to five poor people: This is for you from the zakah, is he now a specified sharer or an unspecified one? Specified. Owned? Owned, but his ownership is not complete until its owners take possession of it. So if they take possession of it, its sale is permissible.
And it is known from this hadith that if it is taken possession of, its sale is permissible even if it is not distributed. If it is taken possession of, its sale is permissible even if it is not distributed. For this reason, he stated explicitly regarding the spoils: . And regarding the charities, he said: .
So if the collector says to a group of five poor people: This is for you, own it. If they take possession of it and possess it, it is permissible for one of them to sell his share of it. If they are five, how much is for each one?
The student: One-fifth.

The Shaykh : One-fifth, and it is permissible for them to sell it all even if they do not divide it, because it is like other shared properties.
It is derived from this hadith from his saying: : The permissibility of diving in the sea to seek pearls and other things that are in the sea. And this is restricted to when safety is the predominant outcome. If destruction is the predominant outcome, diving is forbidden, by the saying of Allah the Exalted: . All right, and if the two are equal?
The student: From the perspective of precaution.

The Shaykh : From the perspective of precaution in prohibition, because among the established rules is: "That if a permissive factor and a prohibitive factor meet, the side of prohibition prevails". So safety is permissive and destruction is prohibitive, and they met in this action, and neither was predominant, so the side of prohibition was given precedence, and we say: It is not permissible to dive.
And among the benefits of this hadith is the permissibility of selling what a person extracts from the sea, and that it is considered lost property. From where is this taken? From his saying: , because it is unknown. However, if it is known, then there is no harm in it. Indeed, a person owns what he extracts from the sea just as he owns what he gathers from the land.
Now, and similar to that, similar to that also is if someone were to say: I will go and pick up truffles for you. Do you know what truffles are? Truffles, I mean, are the fugh. Yes? Truffles are the counterpart of the 'asaqil, and the 'asaqil are the counterpart of the bint al-ubur. Yes:
"And I have certainly gathered for you truffles and 'asaqil. *** And I have certainly forbidden you the bint al-ubur".
So if this man says: I will gather truffles, and for you is what I gather from now until noon, he says this in the morning, or at noon he says: from noon until sunset, is this permissible?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Why? Because it involves excessive uncertainty (gharar). He may gather a lot, or he may gather a little.
Now, if you hired a person to gather truffles—wait, something hasn't come yet—you hired a person to gather truffles from noon until sunset, is this permissible?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Because the contract here is on his benefit, not on the acquisition, on the benefit, not on the acquisition.
The important point is that it is analogized to the dive of the divers and whatever resembles it.
And it is derived from this hadith, as with all of them: the care of the Shari'ah in protecting people from what causes disputes among them. From where is this taken? Because these types that involve excessive uncertainty (gharar) will result in the defrauded party harboring hatred, hostility, and enmity toward whom? Toward the defrauder. And the defrauder will be arrogant and boastful toward the defrauded party. So the Lawgiver protected people from this predicament in which they get entangled.