Benefits of the Hadith: (Fadalah ibn 'Ubayd (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I bought a necklace on the day of Khaybar for twelve dinars . . . ).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : This hadith contains several benefits:
The first benefit: That what is taken as spoils from the wealth of the disbelievers belongs to the ones who took it, and therefore the contract over it is valid. So, is what they own of our wealth theirs?
The correct view: Yes, it is theirs. The correct view is that it is theirs, because they take it as being lawful for them, and because the disbelievers in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would take spoils from the Muslims, meaning: they would earn from the Muslims and sell it along with their wealth. So, what we own of their wealth is ours, and what they own of our wealth is theirs. Just as one of us whom they kill, they are not liable for it. One of us whom they kill, they are not liable for it, even if they become Muslims, because they believe that this is lawful.
And among the benefits of this hadith: That craftsmanship does not affect the condition of equality when a ribawi item is sold for its like. The explanation of this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1255Sahih (Darussalam).
If someone were to say: The excess here is in the crafted item, but our discussion is if the excess is in the non-crafted item?
It is said: If the Shari'ah forbids excess in the crafted item, then its opposite is even more so.
Now, and among the benefits of this hadith: What the majority of scholars held, which is that it is not permissible to sell a ribawi item for its like, with it or with both of them, something of a different kind. It is not permissible to sell a ribawi item for its like with it or with both of them something of a different kind. An example of this: He sold wheat and dates for wheat. This is not permissible because with one of them is something of a different kind.
And because we say here: If the kind here is equal to the kind that was made the compensation for it, then what is with it is considered an excess, or not? Meaning: He sold a sa' of wheat, and with it half a sa' of dates, for a sa' of wheat. We say: This has become wheat for wheat, and with one of them is an excess, and this is not permissible.
And if the wheat with the dates, which was sold for the wheat, is less than the wheat that was made the compensation for it, then the wheat has been sold for wheat with an excess, and this is also not permissible.
If the single wheat is better than the wheat with the other thing, such that the value of the two is equal to the value of the wheat, this is also not permissible, because it has preceded us that the description does not permit excess.
Now, if the single one, which has nothing with it, is more than the one with something, but the excess of the single one corresponds to the thing with the compensation, is it permissible?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Meaning, an example of this: He sold two sa' of wheat for a sa' of wheat and a sa' of dates, and the value is the same?!
There is a difference of opinion among the scholars on this issue. Some of them said: It is permissible, making the excess sa' over the sa', meaning making the excess in the single one in exchange for the accompanying item in the double one. Is that clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Meaning, he says: These two sa' of wheat for a sa' of wheat and a sa' of dates. We make a sa' of dates in exchange for a sa' of wheat, and the sa' of wheat in exchange for the sa' of wheat, and at that time there is no riba.
So this person says: If there is an excess in the single one, or if there is an excess in the single one that corresponds to what is with the accompanying item of a different kind, then that is permissible. And to this went Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), and it is the madhhab of Abu Hanifah and a narration from Imam Ahmad. They make the excess in the kind in exchange for the accompanying item of the accompanying one, and they say: We make a sa' for a sa', and a sa' of dates for the excess with the wheat.
And likewise, if he sold a sa' of wheat and dates for a sa' of wheat and dates, they also say: There is no harm in it, because we make the wheat in exchange for the dates, and the dates in exchange for the wheat. Is that known, or not?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : They say, for example: A man came with a sa' of wheat and a sa' of dates, and sold them to another person for a sa' of wheat and a sa' of dates. He says: This is also permissible, because if you make a sa' of wheat in exchange for a sa' of wheat, and a sa' of dates in exchange for a sa' of dates, then this is permissible. And if you make a sa' of wheat in exchange for a sa' of dates, and a sa' of dates on the other side in exchange for a sa' of wheat, then this is also permissible and there is no prohibition. And this is what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah held, and the second narration from Ahmad, and it is the correct one. This is the correct one because the 'illah (operative cause) is absent here.
So if with this excess that is with the compensation, there is an excess that corresponds to the excess in this, then you have sold food for food with equality, and there is no prohibition in that, because the excess quantity in the single one is matched by the accompanying item on the other side. And this hadith does not prevent saying that, because in this hadith the necklace was more than the price, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So if it was more than the price, then it is not the point of dispute. If what this hadith indicated was prohibited in both opinions, but if it were assumed that the necklace was less than the gold, less than the dinars, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited it, then this would also be a resolution of the dispute, and a proof that it is not permissible for the single compensation to be matched by two things of two kinds, even if the value is the same.
So the result is that this hadith does not prevent the view held by Abu Hanifah and Imam Ahmad in a narration, and which Shaykh Taqi al-Din (may Allah have mercy on him) chose.
And among the benefits of this hadith: The eagerness of the Companions to know the rulings of the Shari'ah, because Fadalah, after he bought it, mentioned it to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
And among them: That Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is the Guardian of His religion and its completer, and that if something happens contrary to what He is pleased with, then Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) must appoint a situation by which what pleases Allah (Mighty and Majestic) becomes clear. The explanation of this is that he mentioned it to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) after he had completed the contract. Otherwise, if he had remained silent, there would have been nothing regarding the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), even though the approval of Allah indicates His pleasure with it.
Now, and among the benefits of this hadith also: That what occurred in a defective manner must be returned, due to his saying:, and there is no difference in that between the person being knowledgeable or ignorant. So if he made a defective contract while ignorant, then the contract is not valid, but the person is not held accountable for this contract if he was ignorant, due to the saying of the Exalted: [Al-Baqarah 2:286].
And among the benefits of this hadith: Blocking the means leading to riba, which indicates that riba is a great matter, and that the Lawgiver blocked every means that leads to riba. Otherwise, it would be permissible to say that the value is considered the same, because crafted gold is less than non-crafted gold.
The first benefit: That what is taken as spoils from the wealth of the disbelievers belongs to the ones who took it, and therefore the contract over it is valid. So, is what they own of our wealth theirs?
The correct view: Yes, it is theirs. The correct view is that it is theirs, because they take it as being lawful for them, and because the disbelievers in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would take spoils from the Muslims, meaning: they would earn from the Muslims and sell it along with their wealth. So, what we own of their wealth is ours, and what they own of our wealth is theirs. Just as one of us whom they kill, they are not liable for it. One of us whom they kill, they are not liable for it, even if they become Muslims, because they believe that this is lawful.
And among the benefits of this hadith: That craftsmanship does not affect the condition of equality when a ribawi item is sold for its like. The explanation of this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
Do not sell it until it is separated.
لا تباع حتى تفصلIf someone were to say: The excess here is in the crafted item, but our discussion is if the excess is in the non-crafted item?
It is said: If the Shari'ah forbids excess in the crafted item, then its opposite is even more so.
Now, and among the benefits of this hadith: What the majority of scholars held, which is that it is not permissible to sell a ribawi item for its like, with it or with both of them, something of a different kind. It is not permissible to sell a ribawi item for its like with it or with both of them something of a different kind. An example of this: He sold wheat and dates for wheat. This is not permissible because with one of them is something of a different kind.
And because we say here: If the kind here is equal to the kind that was made the compensation for it, then what is with it is considered an excess, or not? Meaning: He sold a sa' of wheat, and with it half a sa' of dates, for a sa' of wheat. We say: This has become wheat for wheat, and with one of them is an excess, and this is not permissible.
And if the wheat with the dates, which was sold for the wheat, is less than the wheat that was made the compensation for it, then the wheat has been sold for wheat with an excess, and this is also not permissible.
If the single wheat is better than the wheat with the other thing, such that the value of the two is equal to the value of the wheat, this is also not permissible, because it has preceded us that the description does not permit excess.
Now, if the single one, which has nothing with it, is more than the one with something, but the excess of the single one corresponds to the thing with the compensation, is it permissible?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Meaning, an example of this: He sold two sa' of wheat for a sa' of wheat and a sa' of dates, and the value is the same?!
There is a difference of opinion among the scholars on this issue. Some of them said: It is permissible, making the excess sa' over the sa', meaning making the excess in the single one in exchange for the accompanying item in the double one. Is that clear?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Meaning, he says: These two sa' of wheat for a sa' of wheat and a sa' of dates. We make a sa' of dates in exchange for a sa' of wheat, and the sa' of wheat in exchange for the sa' of wheat, and at that time there is no riba.
So this person says: If there is an excess in the single one, or if there is an excess in the single one that corresponds to what is with the accompanying item of a different kind, then that is permissible. And to this went Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), and it is the madhhab of Abu Hanifah and a narration from Imam Ahmad. They make the excess in the kind in exchange for the accompanying item of the accompanying one, and they say: We make a sa' for a sa', and a sa' of dates for the excess with the wheat.
And likewise, if he sold a sa' of wheat and dates for a sa' of wheat and dates, they also say: There is no harm in it, because we make the wheat in exchange for the dates, and the dates in exchange for the wheat. Is that known, or not?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : They say, for example: A man came with a sa' of wheat and a sa' of dates, and sold them to another person for a sa' of wheat and a sa' of dates. He says: This is also permissible, because if you make a sa' of wheat in exchange for a sa' of wheat, and a sa' of dates in exchange for a sa' of dates, then this is permissible. And if you make a sa' of wheat in exchange for a sa' of dates, and a sa' of dates on the other side in exchange for a sa' of wheat, then this is also permissible and there is no prohibition. And this is what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah held, and the second narration from Ahmad, and it is the correct one. This is the correct one because the 'illah (operative cause) is absent here.
So if with this excess that is with the compensation, there is an excess that corresponds to the excess in this, then you have sold food for food with equality, and there is no prohibition in that, because the excess quantity in the single one is matched by the accompanying item on the other side. And this hadith does not prevent saying that, because in this hadith the necklace was more than the price, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So if it was more than the price, then it is not the point of dispute. If what this hadith indicated was prohibited in both opinions, but if it were assumed that the necklace was less than the gold, less than the dinars, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited it, then this would also be a resolution of the dispute, and a proof that it is not permissible for the single compensation to be matched by two things of two kinds, even if the value is the same.
So the result is that this hadith does not prevent the view held by Abu Hanifah and Imam Ahmad in a narration, and which Shaykh Taqi al-Din (may Allah have mercy on him) chose.
And among the benefits of this hadith: The eagerness of the Companions to know the rulings of the Shari'ah, because Fadalah, after he bought it, mentioned it to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
And among them: That Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is the Guardian of His religion and its completer, and that if something happens contrary to what He is pleased with, then Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) must appoint a situation by which what pleases Allah (Mighty and Majestic) becomes clear. The explanation of this is that he mentioned it to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) after he had completed the contract. Otherwise, if he had remained silent, there would have been nothing regarding the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), even though the approval of Allah indicates His pleasure with it.
Now, and among the benefits of this hadith also: That what occurred in a defective manner must be returned, due to his saying:
It is not sold until it is separated
لا يباع حتى تفصلOur Lord, do not impose blame upon us if we have forgotten or erred.
ربنا لا تؤاخذنا إن نسينا أو أخطأناAnd among the benefits of this hadith: Blocking the means leading to riba, which indicates that riba is a great matter, and that the Lawgiver blocked every means that leads to riba. Otherwise, it would be permissible to say that the value is considered the same, because crafted gold is less than non-crafted gold.