Benefits of the Hadith: (The seller and the buyer have the option until they part ways . . . . ).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In this hadith, there are benefits that have been mentioned previously, namely the establishment of the option of the meeting place, that this option may be waived, and that it is permissible to extend the option to after they have parted ways.
Also in this hadith is the addition that it is forbidden for a person to leave the meeting place out of fear that his partner will choose to annul the contract, because this is a scheme to waive his brother's right after it has been established, and it is not permissible to scheme to waive another person's right.
One of the benefits of this hadith is considering the intention in an action. The one who leaves the meeting place of a sales contract may have left because his need was fulfilled, or he may have left so that his partner would not annul the contract, so as not to enable his partner to annul it. In the first case, his leaving is permissible; a person came to someone, bought from him, and left. In the second case? His leaving is forbidden, because the purpose of it is to waive his brother's established right in the contract.
If someone were to say: Is this not his right? The answer is: Yes, the right is his, but he does not have the right to waive his brother's right without a benefit for himself. This is common in the Shari'ah: it is not permissible for a person to prevent his brother from something his brother benefits from, while it does not harm him. As happened to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) with Muhammad ibn al-Muslamah when he prevented his neighbor from running water from Muhammad's land. 'Umar said: "I will let him run it, even if it is over your belly". And as Abu Hurayrah said regarding placing wood on a wall, he said: "Why do I see you turning away from it? By Allah, I will throw it between your shoulders". So this man is not permitted to waive his brother's established right without a benefit for himself, meaning his only purpose is to cause harm.
If someone were to say: Was not Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) one who, when he concluded a transaction, would stand up and leave the meeting place for fear that his partner would waive his right? What is the answer? If we are asked for the answer to this, we say: This was the action of Ibn 'Umar, and the action of Ibn 'Umar is not used as evidence against the hadith, but an excuse is sought for it. Perhaps (may Allah be pleased with him) this hadith did not reach him. Otherwise, we know that Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) was among the most steadfast people in adhering to the Sunnah. If he had known that it was not permissible for him to leave, he would certainly not have left. This is what we know of the state of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), so what is reported of his action is understood to be because the report did not reach him.
Also in this hadith is the addition that it is forbidden for a person to leave the meeting place out of fear that his partner will choose to annul the contract, because this is a scheme to waive his brother's right after it has been established, and it is not permissible to scheme to waive another person's right.
One of the benefits of this hadith is considering the intention in an action. The one who leaves the meeting place of a sales contract may have left because his need was fulfilled, or he may have left so that his partner would not annul the contract, so as not to enable his partner to annul it. In the first case, his leaving is permissible; a person came to someone, bought from him, and left. In the second case? His leaving is forbidden, because the purpose of it is to waive his brother's established right in the contract.
If someone were to say: Is this not his right? The answer is: Yes, the right is his, but he does not have the right to waive his brother's right without a benefit for himself. This is common in the Shari'ah: it is not permissible for a person to prevent his brother from something his brother benefits from, while it does not harm him. As happened to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) with Muhammad ibn al-Muslamah when he prevented his neighbor from running water from Muhammad's land. 'Umar said: "I will let him run it, even if it is over your belly". And as Abu Hurayrah said regarding placing wood on a wall, he said: "Why do I see you turning away from it? By Allah, I will throw it between your shoulders". So this man is not permitted to waive his brother's established right without a benefit for himself, meaning his only purpose is to cause harm.
If someone were to say: Was not Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) one who, when he concluded a transaction, would stand up and leave the meeting place for fear that his partner would waive his right? What is the answer? If we are asked for the answer to this, we say: This was the action of Ibn 'Umar, and the action of Ibn 'Umar is not used as evidence against the hadith, but an excuse is sought for it. Perhaps (may Allah be pleased with him) this hadith did not reach him. Otherwise, we know that Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) was among the most steadfast people in adhering to the Sunnah. If he had known that it was not permissible for him to leave, he would certainly not have left. This is what we know of the state of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), so what is reported of his action is understood to be because the report did not reach him.