Explanation of the Book of Sales-17
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said: "And from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both): that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) — this lesson is new — Bulugh al-Maram 7:80 It was narrated by Ishaq and al-Bazzar with a weak chain of narration": This states in it: Mishkat al-Masabih 2863: And the prohibition is: "demanding abstention in a manner of superiority", meaning that it is directed to a person demanding abstention from a specific thing in a manner of superiority.
So their saying: "demanding abstention": this excludes the command and what is neither a command nor a prohibition, which is permissibility, because a command is demanding action, and permissibility does not demand action or abstention.
And their saying: "in a manner of superiority": this excludes what is in a manner of equality, or what is in a manner of inferiority, meaning that the lower one directs the prohibition to the higher one. The first is called "requesting," like a colleague saying to his colleague, for example: "Do not disturb me."
And when it is from a lower to a higher, it is called "supplication" and "asking" and the like. It is known that the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) directing the prohibition to his Ummah is from the category of demanding abstention in a manner of superiority, because his command is obeyed, may Allah's prayers and blessings be upon him, but he was the most humble of people toward creation and toward the truth.
He said:Mishkat al-Masabih 2863 And he interpreted it by his saying: : But this is an interpretation that does not agree with the apparent meaning of the wording, because the apparent meaning of the wording is al-kal' means deferred for al-kal' for deferred, and this hadith, as you see:
First, its chain of narration is weak. Second, it is not in its generality or comprehensiveness, but rather it includes specific cases, which are those in which there is something of the legally prohibited, and it has forms:
Among them is: selling debt for debt to a third party, such as a person coming to me and saying: "You are demanding from so-and-so one hundred sa' of wheat, sell it to me for two hundred riyals, which I will pay you after a year." This is not permissible. Why? First: because it is selling a debt in the liability of a third party, which he may be able to pay or may not be able to.
And second: because there is profit in what has not been guaranteed. And it has passed us:Musnad Ahmad 212[Da'of (Darussalam): How is there profit in what has not been guaranteed? Because the debt in the liability of the third party for me has not entered into my guarantee. When does it enter into my guarantee? When I receive it. And it is known that if I sell on credit, its price will increase, because a credit sale is not like a spot sale. And thus, I sold what has not entered into my guarantee, and I sold what is doubtful in terms of the ability to pay it. This is one form.
Likewise, from selling debt for debt is: when a person has a hundred dirhams with me that are due, the hundred becomes due and he comes to me and says: "I have nothing." So I say: "Let us make the hundred for one hundred sa' of wheat for a year." This is not permissible. Why?
Because, as we said: he will profit in what has not been guaranteed, because the price of a spot sale is not like the price of a credit sale. So, for example, one hundred sa' of wheat for one hundred dirhams, which is in my liability, and I sold it for one hundred sa' of wheat. It is possible that if I sold it for a spot sale, I would not get more than ninety sa' for one hundred dirhams. And now I sold it for one hundred, so I profited in what has not been guaranteed. And because it leads to flipping the debt by this trick. How is the debt flipped on the debtor by this trick? When the term for the hundred dirhams became due, we made it for one hundred sa' for a year. So the year became due and he had no wheat, so I say: "It will be for two hundred sa' of barley, for example," or I say: "I sold one hundred sa' of wheat, it will be for one hundred and twenty dirhams." And thus, it leads to what? To flipping the debt, and that is similar to what Allah forbade in His saying:[Ali 'Imran 3:130].
And it may also be among its forms: that a person sells what is in the liability of a third party who is unable to pay to another person for fewer dirhams. So, in the liability of this poor person for a person is one thousand dirhams, and a person comes to him and says: "Sell it to me for five hundred dirhams, and I am content with this poor person." This is also not permissible, because first: it is selling dirhams for dirhams without possession.
And second: selling something that has not entered into his guarantee.
And third: it is similar to gambling. How is it gambling? Gambling, because this one who bought this thousand for five hundred: "If he is able to pay, he is a gainer, and if he is unable, he is a loser", and this is the rule of gambling. The rule of gambling is: "Every contract that includes either loss or gain". And based on this, we say: this hadith, if it is authentic, must be restricted to what the texts indicate is prohibited, not to every debt for debt.
Now, based on that, if I buy from you one hundred sa' of wheat for one hundred dirhams, and we do not present either the dirhams or the wheat, then that is permissible according to the stronger opinion, and there is no harm in it, because neither of them is deferred, but rather it is spot, and there is no prohibition in it at all. The people's practice now is on this; a person comes and buys from a person food, rice, sugar, or wheat, or what is for dirhams, and he does not deliver it to him immediately. So it is a sale of debt for debt, but it is permissible because there is no prohibition in it, because there is no prohibition at all, no ignorance, no excessive uncertainty, and no usury. The original ruling for contracts is permissibility, except for what evidence has established as prohibited. And no evidence has been established for prohibiting this, because this hadith is weak, and because it is true even in one form, meaning that if the prohibition is true even in one form, that is sufficient, because we have evidence indicating that the original ruling is permissibility.
So if the hadith is authentic, it is restricted to the form whose prohibition is known by other evidence.
Now, is it permissible to sell a debt to someone other than the one it is owed to at its current price if it is sold for something that does not require immediate possession, or is it not permissible?
Its example is: a man has one hundred sa' of wheat with me, so a person came to me and said: "Sell it to me for one hundred dirhams at its current value without any profit," or is it not permissible?
There is scholarly disagreement on this matter:
Some of them said: It is not permissible, because this is not with him,Sahih al-Bukhari 2249, 2250.
And some of them said it is permissible, but if he is able to take possession of it, the sale is completed, otherwise he has the right to return, otherwise he has the right to return. And this is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. And this may be needed by a person if the demanded item is in another country. If the demanded item is in another country and a person from the people of the country where the demanded item is comes and buys from me what is in his liability for a consideration in which there is no usury of deferment between them, then here it may be needed, but with the condition:
That it be at the price of the day, so that he does not profit in what has not been guaranteed.
So if someone says: This opinion is refuted by the hadith of Ibn 'Umar:?!
The answer is: This is not refuted, because the sale of dirhams for dinars or vice versa requires immediate possession before parting, and the sale of dirhams for dinars, even if it is spot for spot, requires immediate possession before parting, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):Sahih Muslim 1587c. As for our form that we mentioned, it is the sale of one thing for another in which there is no usury of deferment between them.
But there is no doubt that the precaution is to take the second opinion, which is: not to sell it until he takes possession of it, because if this door is opened, people may trade in debts that are not expected to be obtained, and this would be from the category of gambling. And perhaps they would sell debts that are expected to be obtained but with profit. And all of these are from the legally prohibited matters.
So the better and the precaution is to take the prohibition, and not for a person to sell a debt in the liability of another until he takes possession of it.
Yes. Then the author said: "Chapter on the dispensation in 'araya and the sale of trees and fruits".
The student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: The benefits?
The Shaykh : The benefits of the hadith we mentioned in the forms we mentioned. The hadith is not in its generality; it has permissible forms and it has a prohibited form, but with other evidence.
The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade selling a debt to be paid at a future date for another i.e., a debt for a debt
أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى عن بيع الكالئ بالكالئ ، يعني الدين بالدينforbade selling a debt to be paid at a future date for another
نهى عن بيع الكالئ بالكالئSo their saying: "demanding abstention": this excludes the command and what is neither a command nor a prohibition, which is permissibility, because a command is demanding action, and permissibility does not demand action or abstention.
And their saying: "in a manner of superiority": this excludes what is in a manner of equality, or what is in a manner of inferiority, meaning that the lower one directs the prohibition to the higher one. The first is called "requesting," like a colleague saying to his colleague, for example: "Do not disturb me."
And when it is from a lower to a higher, it is called "supplication" and "asking" and the like. It is known that the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) directing the prohibition to his Ummah is from the category of demanding abstention in a manner of superiority, because his command is obeyed, may Allah's prayers and blessings be upon him, but he was the most humble of people toward creation and toward the truth.
He said:
forbade selling a debt to be paid at a future date for another
نهى عن بيع الكالئ بالكالئmeaning debt for debt
يعني الدين بالدينFirst, its chain of narration is weak. Second, it is not in its generality or comprehensiveness, but rather it includes specific cases, which are those in which there is something of the legally prohibited, and it has forms:
Among them is: selling debt for debt to a third party, such as a person coming to me and saying: "You are demanding from so-and-so one hundred sa' of wheat, sell it to me for two hundred riyals, which I will pay you after a year." This is not permissible. Why? First: because it is selling a debt in the liability of a third party, which he may be able to pay or may not be able to.
And second: because there is profit in what has not been guaranteed. And it has passed us:
It was narrated from ʼUmar bin al-Khattab that the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade 'azl (coitus interruptus) with a free woman, except with her permission.
أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى عن ربح ما لم يضمنLikewise, from selling debt for debt is: when a person has a hundred dirhams with me that are due, the hundred becomes due and he comes to me and says: "I have nothing." So I say: "Let us make the hundred for one hundred sa' of wheat for a year." This is not permissible. Why?
Because, as we said: he will profit in what has not been guaranteed, because the price of a spot sale is not like the price of a credit sale. So, for example, one hundred sa' of wheat for one hundred dirhams, which is in my liability, and I sold it for one hundred sa' of wheat. It is possible that if I sold it for a spot sale, I would not get more than ninety sa' for one hundred dirhams. And now I sold it for one hundred, so I profited in what has not been guaranteed. And because it leads to flipping the debt by this trick. How is the debt flipped on the debtor by this trick? When the term for the hundred dirhams became due, we made it for one hundred sa' for a year. So the year became due and he had no wheat, so I say: "It will be for two hundred sa' of barley, for example," or I say: "I sold one hundred sa' of wheat, it will be for one hundred and twenty dirhams." And thus, it leads to what? To flipping the debt, and that is similar to what Allah forbade in His saying:
O you who have believed, do not consume usury, doubled and multiplied
يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تأكلوا الربوا أضعافاً مضاعفةًAnd it may also be among its forms: that a person sells what is in the liability of a third party who is unable to pay to another person for fewer dirhams. So, in the liability of this poor person for a person is one thousand dirhams, and a person comes to him and says: "Sell it to me for five hundred dirhams, and I am content with this poor person." This is also not permissible, because first: it is selling dirhams for dirhams without possession.
And second: selling something that has not entered into his guarantee.
And third: it is similar to gambling. How is it gambling? Gambling, because this one who bought this thousand for five hundred: "If he is able to pay, he is a gainer, and if he is unable, he is a loser", and this is the rule of gambling. The rule of gambling is: "Every contract that includes either loss or gain". And based on this, we say: this hadith, if it is authentic, must be restricted to what the texts indicate is prohibited, not to every debt for debt.
Now, based on that, if I buy from you one hundred sa' of wheat for one hundred dirhams, and we do not present either the dirhams or the wheat, then that is permissible according to the stronger opinion, and there is no harm in it, because neither of them is deferred, but rather it is spot, and there is no prohibition in it at all. The people's practice now is on this; a person comes and buys from a person food, rice, sugar, or wheat, or what is for dirhams, and he does not deliver it to him immediately. So it is a sale of debt for debt, but it is permissible because there is no prohibition in it, because there is no prohibition at all, no ignorance, no excessive uncertainty, and no usury. The original ruling for contracts is permissibility, except for what evidence has established as prohibited. And no evidence has been established for prohibiting this, because this hadith is weak, and because it is true even in one form, meaning that if the prohibition is true even in one form, that is sufficient, because we have evidence indicating that the original ruling is permissibility.
So if the hadith is authentic, it is restricted to the form whose prohibition is known by other evidence.
Now, is it permissible to sell a debt to someone other than the one it is owed to at its current price if it is sold for something that does not require immediate possession, or is it not permissible?
Its example is: a man has one hundred sa' of wheat with me, so a person came to me and said: "Sell it to me for one hundred dirhams at its current value without any profit," or is it not permissible?
There is scholarly disagreement on this matter:
Some of them said: It is not permissible, because this is not with him,
The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade the sale (the fruits) of date-palms until they were fit for eating
وقد نهى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن بيع ما ليس عندهAnd some of them said it is permissible, but if he is able to take possession of it, the sale is completed, otherwise he has the right to return, otherwise he has the right to return. And this is the choice of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. And this may be needed by a person if the demanded item is in another country. If the demanded item is in another country and a person from the people of the country where the demanded item is comes and buys from me what is in his liability for a consideration in which there is no usury of deferment between them, then here it may be needed, but with the condition:
That it be at the price of the day, so that he does not profit in what has not been guaranteed.
So if someone says: This opinion is refuted by the hadith of Ibn 'Umar:
We used to sell camels for dirhams and take dinars in exchange, and sell for dinars and take dirhams in exchange. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: There is no harm in taking them at the current market price, as long as you do not separate from each other with anything remaining
كنا نبيع الإبل بالدراهم ونأخذ عنها الدنانير ، وبالدنانير فنأخذ عنها الدراهم ، فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : لا بأس أن تأخذها بسعر يومها ما لم تتفرقا وبينكما شيءThe answer is: This is not refuted, because the sale of dirhams for dinars or vice versa requires immediate possession before parting, and the sale of dirhams for dinars, even if it is spot for spot, requires immediate possession before parting, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
If these classes differ, then sell as you wish
إذا اختلفت هذه الأصناف فبيعوا كيف شئتمBut there is no doubt that the precaution is to take the second opinion, which is: not to sell it until he takes possession of it, because if this door is opened, people may trade in debts that are not expected to be obtained, and this would be from the category of gambling. And perhaps they would sell debts that are expected to be obtained but with profit. And all of these are from the legally prohibited matters.
So the better and the precaution is to take the prohibition, and not for a person to sell a debt in the liability of another until he takes possession of it.
Yes. Then the author said: "Chapter on the dispensation in 'araya and the sale of trees and fruits".
The student: Shaykh!
The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: The benefits?
The Shaykh : The benefits of the hadith we mentioned in the forms we mentioned. The hadith is not in its generality; it has permissible forms and it has a prohibited form, but with other evidence.