Benefits of the Hadith: (That the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) granted a dispensation for the 'araya to be sold by their estimated measure).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy:
All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his Companions:
In the hadith of Zayd ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him), there are benefits:
First: The indication of what the scholars mentioned: "That hardship brings about ease". Hardship brings about ease, and this is derived from several texts, including His saying, the Exalted:[Al-Baqarah 2:286], and His saying: [At-Taghabun 64:16], and His saying: [Al-Hajj 22:78].
So when it became difficult for him to eat the fresh dates, Allah made it easy for him by permitting their purchase with dried dates. Thus, hardship brings about ease.
And among the benefits of the hadith is the indication of the general principle: "That the Islamic religion contains no hardship, neither in acts of worship nor in transactions". So if it becomes impossible for a person to transact except in this manner, it is among the principles of the Shari'ah that the matter is made easy for him. However, the impossibility must be verified.
Now, among its benefits, and among the benefits of the hadith, is what Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) pointed to: "That what is forbidden as a means is permitted by pressing need, not by dire necessity". This means that the rule regarding the forbidden is that it is not permitted except in the case of dire necessity, with the condition that his dire necessity is removed by it. And this has passed us by: that the forbidden is permissible for dire necessity, and that the dire necessity is removed by it:
So the first condition for dire necessity is that there is no permissible alternative to it.
The second condition is that his dire necessity is removed by it. If his dire necessity is not removed by it, then it is not permissible. For this reason, treating oneself with a forbidden thing is forbidden. Why? Because there is no dire necessity for it, as it is possible for the patient to be cured without it, and because one is not certain that the dire necessity will be removed by taking it. So both conditions are absent in treating oneself with the forbidden.
The important point is that the well-known principle among the people of knowledge, indeed the one indicated by the Qur'an, is: "That the forbidden is not permitted except by dire necessity, if the dire necessity is removed by it". Its evidence is His saying, the Exalted:[Al-An'am 6:119] Complete! [Al-An'am 6:119].
But the scholars said: "What is forbidden as a means is permitted by pressing need". So pressing need permits it, and they mentioned several things for this, among them:
The issue of 'araya. The issue of 'araya: It is not permissible to sell fresh dates for dried dates, as in the previous hadith: أن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم سئل عن شراء الرطب بالتمر فقال : أينقص إذا جف ؟ قالوا : نعم ، فنهى عن ذلك .
لكن في العرايا أجاز الشارع اشتراء الرطب بالتمر لماذا ؟ لأن منع بيع الرطب بالتمر خوفا مِن أن يكون وسيلة إلى ربا الفضل ، أن الناس يتدرجون فيقولون : إذا جاز البيع بالخرص في الرطب مع التمر ، فليجز أيضا في التمر مع التمر وحينئذ يقعون في الربا .
فلما كان تحريم ذلك من باب تحريم الوسائل أباحه الشارع للحاجة إليه .
ومن ذلك : تحريم الحرير على الرجال ، فإن الحاجة تبيحه ، الحِكة التي تصيب الإنسان تجيز له أن يلبس الحرير لأجل تخف عنه .
ومن ذلك : تضبيب الآنية بالفضة ، تبيحه الحاجة ، لماذا ؟ لأن أصل تحريم هذا خوفًا من أن يتدرج الإنسان منه إلى أن يتخذ إناء كاملًا من الفضة ويستعمله في الأكل والشرب ، فتحريم التضبيب بالفضة تحريم وسائل ، فأباحته الحاجة ، ليش ما نقول الضرورة ؟ بإمكانه أن يشرب في إناء آخر ، وبإمكانه أن يضبب بحديد أو برصاص أو ما أشبه ذلك .
ومن ذلك أيضا : تحريم النظر إلى وجه المرأة الأجنبية فإنه من باب تحريم الوسائل لكونه وسيلة إلى الزنا ، ولهذا جاز النظر إليه للحاجة كالخِطبة ، فإن الخطيب يجوز أن ينظر إلى وجه المخطوبة ، ولو كان تحريمه تحريم قصد وغاية ما جاز ، لأن نظر الخاطب إلى مخطوبته ليس ضرورة ، إذ يمكنه أن يوكل من ينظر إليها من النساء الثقات .
طيب إذًا القاعدة هذه لها عدة صور وهي : ما كان محرمًا تحريم وسيلة فإن الحاجة تبيحه وإن لم يضطر إليه .
من فوائد الحديث : جواز العرايا في ثمر النخل ، لقوله في حديث أبي هريرة : بخرصها من التمر ، وهل يلحق بالنخل ما سواها كالتين والعنب فيكون الإنسان محتاجًا إلى التفكه بالعنب فيشتريه بالزبيب ، أو إلى التين الرطب فيشتريه بتين يابس ، اختلف العلماء في هذا فقال بعض العلماء :
إنه لا يجوز القياس لأن لدينا حديثا عاماً : نهى عن بيع المزاينة ، نهى عن بيع المزاينة واضح ؟!
استثني منه العرايا وهذا تخصيص ، فيبقى العام على عمومه وتُخرج منه صورة التخصيص وهي العرايا في التمر أما غيرها فلا يجوز .
قالوا : ولو جازت العرايا في غير التمر لجازت بين الحب والزرع ، والحب والزرع ما يجوز ، يعني لا يجوز للإنسان أن يشتري زرعاً بحب وهو يريد سنبله ، انتبهوا ، وهذه الصورة ممنوعة بالاتفاق فيما أعلم .
ولكنَّ بعض أهل العلم ذهب إلى جواز العرايا في العنب والتين ونحوهما مما يتفكه به ويمكن خرصه ، واستدل لذلك بأن الشريعة مطردة لا تفرق بين متماثلين ، ولا تجمع بين مفترقين ، مطردة ما فيها تناقض ، وإنما ذُكرت العرايا في التمر لأن هذه هي المعاملة التي كانوا يفعلونها ، العنب ليس كثيرًا عندهم ولهذا يأتيهم الزبيب من الشام وغيرها ، والتين كذلك ، المدينة أكثر ما فيها التمر فلهذا جاءت العرية في التمر لأنه الكثير عندهم ، وإلى هذا ذهب شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية وغيره ، وهذا القول هو الصحيح .
وأما النقد بمسألة الحب بالزرع فلا نقد ، ما فيه نقد ، لماذا ؟
لأن الحب في السنبل خفي ، ولا يمكن خرصه ، ولهذا لم تأت السنة بخرص الزروع على أهلها لإخراج زكاتها ، السنة جاءت بخرص ثمار النخل ، أما الزروع فلم تأت به ، حتى إن بعض العلماء حكى إجماع العلماء على أن الزروع لا تُخرص من أجل معرفة مقدار الزكاة فيها وعللوا ذلك بماذا ؟
بأنه لا يمكن الإحاطة بها ، إذ أن الحب محفوف بقشر ، والقشر عليه عود ، يسمونه عندنا السبل ، لهذا لا يمكن أن نقيس الرطب المشاهَد المعلوم الممكن خرصه ، لا يمكن أن نُلحق به ما كان مستورًا بقشوره .
طيب من فوائد الحديث : التضييق في مسألة العرايا ، بأن تكون فيما دون خمسة أوسق ، وهل هذا الشرط في الصفقة الواحدة أو في صفقات متعددة ؟ فيه خلاف ، فمن العلماء من قال : إنه شرط في الصفقة الواحدة .
ومنهم من قال : إنه شرط في الصفقات كلها .
وبيان ذلك : رجل عنده عائلة كبيرة ، احتاج إلى عشرة أوسق ، فاشترى من فلاح ثلاثة ومن فلاح ثلاثة ومن فلاح أربعة ، كل صفقة بمفردها لا تبلغ خمسة أوسق ، لكن مجموعها عشرة ، فهل المعتبر كل صفقة بمفردها أو المعتبر حاجة الإنسان ويشتري ما زاد على الخمسة أو الخمسة فما زاد بصفقة أخرى ؟
فيه خلاف بين العلماء فقيل : متى اشترى الإنسان دون خمسة أوسق لم يشتر أكثر ، ولو في صفقة ثانية وثالثة ورابعة ، ولكن الصحيح أن المعتبر الحاجة ، وأن تكون فيما دون خمسة أوسق في الصفقة الواحدة ، وعلى هذا فإذا كان عند الإنسان عائلة كبيرة أو كان رجلا مضيافًا يغشاه الناس واحتاج إلى أكثر من خمسة أوسق لكن اشترى من عدة بائعين فإن ذلك لا بأس به ، والدليل أن الرجل لو اشترى دون خمسة أوسق ثم أكلها هل يشتري أخرى أو لا يشتري ؟ يشتري ، إذًا فالمدار على الحاجة ، المدار على الحاجة لكن لا تبلغ خمسة أوسق في كل صفقة .
طيب ومن فوائد الحديث : أن العبرة بحاجة المشتري ، فإذا كان المحتاج البائع فهل نراعيه ؟
الطالب : لا يراعى .
الشيخ : إذا كان المحتاج البائع صاحب البستان هل نراعيه ولا لا ؟
الطالب : لا يراعى .
الشيخ : لا يراعى ؟! إي صاحب البستان يريد تمرا عنده عمال ما يأكلون إلا التمر ، ما يشترون الرطب وهو ما عنده ، هو ما عنده الآن ما عنده تمر قلنا له : اصبر حتى يتمر ، قال : هؤلاء العمال يجوعون ، بيتمر بعد شهرين أقول : انتظروا ، مُشكل فأنا محتاج ، فهل تقول : إن الشرع إذا أجاز للمشتري هذه الصفقة لحاجته للتفكه بالرطب ، فإجازته للبائع المحتاج للتمر لا تفكها من باب أولى ؟
الطالب : لا .
الشيخ : ولا واحد منكم يقول هكذا ؟
الطالب : الرطب أولى .
الشيخ : بس هذول عمال ما يعرفون الرطب .
الطالب : بعه واشتر الرطب .
الشيخ : طيب حتى هذا نقول بعه ، إذا كان المشتري محتاج للرطب نقول : بع التمر واشتر رطب ، على كل حال هذه المسألة فيها خلاف بين العلماء نعم ، وكنت أظن أن تكونوا على قولين ، كعادتكم ، لكن سبحان الله هذا إجماع منكم على أنه ما يجوز ، زين الحمد لله ، إذًا فيه علماء الحمد لله ،
العلماء اختلفوا في هذا على قولين :
منهم من قال : إن هذه المسألة خرجت من القياس وخرجت عن العموم فلا يتعدى بها النص ، عرفتم ؟! والحاجة في الحديث لمن ؟
الطالب : للمشتري .
الشيخ : للمشتري فلا نتعدى النص .
ومنهم من قال: إن الشارع لا يفرق بين حاجة المشتري أو حاجة البائع فإذا كانت تجوز للمشتري من أجل التفكه بالرطب فجوازها للبائع من أجل حاجته للتمر من باب أولى .
نعم ، والمسألة لا شك أنها تعارضها المعنيان أو تجاذبها الدليلان ، دليل القياس الذي قد يكون جليا أو مساوياً ودليل الاقتصار على النص فيما ورد فيه التخصيص .
طيب على كل حال فيها قولان ، وما دمتم أنتم الآن عندكم قولان في هذه المسألة فهذا ما أقول لكم .
طيب زين والله أنا تردد فيها ، متردد قد نقول : إن هذه مسألة خرجت عن العموم وعن القياس فيقتصر فيها عما ورد به النص ، وإن كان هذا ستنقوضه علي في مسألة العنب والتين ، المهم -وقد نعم نعم - وقد أقول : بأن الرخصة يستوي فيها البائع والمشتري والإيرداد الذي أوردته صحيح ، فيه لا شك أنه قد يكون أن البائع هذا صاحب النخل محتاج إلى تمر ، يحتاج إلى تمر عمال عنده ، أما هو محتاج ولا هم محتاجين العمال ؟ يمكن لو أعطاهم الرطب يبدى العامل ياكل الرطب جميعا ولا يبالي ، لأن الرطب لين نعم وذا عامل تعبان ويأكل كثير ولو وجد تمرة فيها يبوسة يقعد يمضغها شوي نعم حتى يخف الأكل عليه ، على كل حال إن هذه الحاجة وادرة .
الطالب : ... .
الشيخ : لا لا ما هي بأقوى ، لأن التمر بتمر ما في فرق بس هذا طيب وهذا رديء .
طيب المهم اعرفوا هذا الخلاف الآن وأن كلا واحد من القولين له معنى يجلبه .
طيب فيه أيضا من فوائد هذا الحديث : " أنه إذا تعذر اليقين رجعنا إلى غلبة الظن " وهذه قاعدة معروفة في الفقه ، إذا تعذر اليقين رجعنا إلى غلبة الظن من يعرف مأخذها ؟
الطالب : أنا لا نستطيع كيلها فرجعنا للظن .
الشيخ : فرجعنا إلى الظن صح ، اعتبار الخرص وهو أمر ظني من أجل تعذر اليقين وهذا أمر مطرد ، أنه إذا تعذر رجعنا إلى غلبة الظن ، كذا ولا لا !؟ ولكن هذا الرجوع إلى غلبة الظن أمر مطرد ولا إيش ؟ يعني أحيانا نقول : ارجع إلى غلبة ظنك وأحيانا نقول : ارجع إلى اليقين ، أحيانا نقول : لا بد من اليقين ، فالظاهر لي بعد تتبع بعض المسائل أن ما كان من العبادات اكتفي فيه بغلبة الظن . The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about selling fresh dates for dried dates, so he said: “Do they decrease in weight when they dry out?” They said: “Yes.” So he prohibited it. However, in the case of *al-‘araya*, the Lawgiver permitted buying fresh dates with dried dates. Why? Because the prohibition of selling fresh dates for dried dates is a prohibition of means, out of fear that it would lead to *riba al-fadl* (usury of excess in a like-for-like exchange). People would gradually say: if selling by *kharv* (estimation) is permitted for fresh dates with dried dates, then it should also be permitted for dried dates with dried dates, and in that case they would fall into *riba*. Since the prohibition of that is a prohibition of means, the Lawgiver permitted it due to the need for it. Among such cases is the prohibition of silk for men; the need permits it. The skin condition that affects a person allows him to wear silk to relieve the discomfort. Among such cases is coating vessels with silver; the need permits it. Why? Because the original prohibition of this is out of fear that a person would gradually proceed from it to making a complete vessel of silver and using it for eating and drinking. So the prohibition of coating with silver is a prohibition of means, and the need permitted it. Why do we not say *darurah* (dire necessity)? Because he is able to drink from another vessel, and he is able to coat it with iron or lead or something similar. Among such cases is also the prohibition of looking at the face of a non-mahram woman, which is a prohibition of means because it is a means to *zina* (unlawful sexual intercourse). For this reason, looking at her face is permitted for the need, such as in the case of a suitor. The suitor is permitted to look at the face of the woman he intends to marry. If the prohibition were a prohibition of the goal and the end, it would not be permitted, because the suitor’s looking at the woman he intends to marry is not a *darurah* (dire necessity), since he can appoint a trustworthy woman to look at her. So, this rule has several forms: what is prohibited as a prohibition of means is permitted by the need, even if one is not in *darurah* (dire necessity) for it. Among the benefits of the hadith is the permissibility of *al-‘araya* in palm fruit, based on his statement in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah: “by *kharv* of them for dried dates.” Does this apply to palm trees and what is other than them, such as figs and grapes, so that a person who needs to snack on grapes buys them with raisins, or needs fresh figs and buys them with dried figs? The scholars differed on this. Some scholars said: it is not permissible to apply *qiyas* (analogical reasoning) because we have a general hadith: “He prohibited the sale of *al-muzaynah*.” He prohibited the sale of *al-muzaynah*, is that clear? *Al-‘araya* was excepted from it, and this is a specification. So the general ruling remains in its generality, and the case of specification, which is *al-‘araya* in dates, is excluded from it, while for others it is not permissible. They said: if *al-‘araya* were permitted in anything other than dates, it would be permitted between grain and crops. Grain and crops are not permissible, meaning it is not permissible for a person to buy crops with grain while he wants the ears of grain. Pay attention, and this case is prohibited by consensus, as far as I know. However, some scholars held the view that *al-‘araya* is permissible in grapes and figs and the like of what is used for snacking and can be estimated by *kharv*. They argued for this by saying that the Shari'ah is consistent and does not differentiate between two similar things, nor does it combine two different things. It is consistent and contains no contradiction. *Al-‘araya* was mentioned in dates because that was the transaction they used to do. Grapes were not abundant among them, so raisins came to them from Sham and elsewhere. Figs were the same. Madinah had mostly dates, so *al-‘ariyah* came in dates because that was the abundant item among them. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and others held this view, and this is the correct opinion. As for the objection regarding the issue of grain with crops, there is no objection. There is no objection. Why? Because the grain in the ear is hidden, and it cannot be estimated by *kharv*. For this reason, the Sunnah did not come with estimating crops on their owners to extract their *zakah* (the obligatory alms). The Sunnah came with estimating the fruits of palm trees, but not crops. Some scholars even reported the consensus of the scholars that crops are not estimated to determine the amount of *zakah* in them, and they reasoned this by saying that it is not possible to encompass them, since the grain is surrounded by husk, and the husk has a stalk, which we call *al-sabil*. For this reason, we cannot analogize the fresh dates that are seen, known, and can be estimated to what is covered by its husks. So, among the benefits of the hadith is the restriction of the issue of *al-‘araya* to be in less than five *awsaq* (a dry measure of about 3 kg). Is this condition in a single transaction or in multiple transactions? There is disagreement. Some scholars said: it is a condition in the single transaction. Others said: it is a condition in all transactions. The explanation is this: a man has a large family and needs ten *awsaq*, so he buys three from one farmer, three from another, and four from a third. Each transaction individually does not reach five *awsaq*, but the total is ten. Is the consideration each transaction individually, or is the consideration the person’s need, and he buys what exceeds five, or five and more in another transaction? There is disagreement among the scholars. It was said: whenever a person buys less than five *awsaq*, he does not buy more, even in a second, third, or fourth transaction. But the correct view is that the consideration is the need, and that it be in less than five *awsaq* in the single transaction. On this basis, if a person has a large family, or is a generous man whom people visit, and he needs more than five *awsaq* but buys from several sellers, then there is nothing wrong with it. The evidence is that if a man buys less than five *awsaq* and then eats them, does he buy more or not? He buys more. So the criterion is the need, the criterion is the need, but it does not reach five *awsaq* in each transaction. So, among the benefits of the hadith is that the consideration is the need of the buyer. If the one in need is the seller, do we consider him? The student: He is not considered. The Shaykh: If the one in need is the seller, the owner of the orchard, do we consider him or not? The student: He is not considered. The Shaykh: He is not considered? Yes, the owner of the orchard wants dates. He has workers who eat nothing but dates. He does not buy fresh dates, and he does not have any now. He does not have dates now. We told him: wait until they become dates. He said: these workers are hungry. It will be in two months. I say: wait. It is difficult. I am in need. So do you say: if the Lawgiver permitted this transaction for the buyer due to his need to snack on fresh dates, then permitting it for the seller in need of dates is even more so? The student: No. The Shaykh: And none of you says this? The student: Fresh dates are more deserving. The Shaykh: But these workers do not know fresh dates. The student: Sell and buy fresh dates. The Shaykh: Okay, even for this we say sell. If the buyer is in need of fresh dates, we say: sell the dates and buy fresh dates. In any case, there is disagreement among the scholars on this issue. Yes, and I thought you would be on two opinions, as is your custom, but *subhan Allah* (Glory be to Allah), this is a consensus from you that it is not permissible. Good, praise be to Allah. So there are scholars, praise be to Allah. The scholars differed on this in two opinions: some said that this issue went out of *qiyas* (analogical reasoning) and went out of the generality, so the text is not extended beyond it. Do you understand? The need in the hadith is for whom? The student: For the buyer. The Shaykh: For the buyer, so we do not extend the text. Others said: the Lawgiver does not differentiate between the need of the buyer or the need of the seller, so if it is permitted for the buyer for the sake of snacking on fresh dates, then its permissibility for the seller for the sake of his need for dates is even more so. Yes, and the issue is undoubtedly opposed by two meanings or pulled by two proofs: the proof of *qiyas* (analogical reasoning), which may be clear or equal, and the proof of restricting to the text in what was specified in it. So, in any case, there are two opinions, and since you now have two opinions on this issue, this is what I tell you. Okay, good, by Allah I am hesitant in it, hesitant. We may say that this is an issue that went out of the generality and the *qiyas* (analogical reasoning), so it is restricted to what the text came with. And if this is the case, you will refute me in the issue of grapes and figs. The important thing—and yes, yes—and I may say that the *rukhsah* (dispensation) is equal for the seller and the buyer, and the argument you brought is correct. There is no doubt that the seller may be the owner of the palm trees in need of dates. He needs dates for his workers. Is he in need or are the workers in need? It is possible that if he gave them fresh dates, the worker would eat all the fresh dates and not care, because fresh dates are soft. Yes, and this is a tired worker who eats a lot. If he found a date with some dryness, he would sit and chew it a little, yes, to make the eating easier for him. In any case, this need is strong. The student: ... . The Shaykh: No, no, it is not stronger, because dates are dates, there is no difference, but this is good and this is bad. Okay, the important thing is to know this disagreement now, and that each of the two opinions has a meaning that draws it. Okay, there is also among the benefits of this hadith: “that when certainty is difficult, we return to the preponderance of probability.” This is a known rule in *fiqh* (Islamic jurisprudence). When certainty is difficult, we return to the preponderance of probability. Who knows its source? The student: We are not able to weigh it, so we returned to probability. The Shaykh: So we returned to probability, correct. Considering *kharv* (estimation), which is a matter of probability, due to the difficulty of certainty, and this is a consistent matter: when it is difficult, we return to the preponderance of probability. Is that so or not? But this return to the preponderance of probability is a consistent matter, or what? Meaning, sometimes we say: return to your preponderance of probability, and sometimes we say: return to certainty. Sometimes we say: certainty is necessary. So it appears to me, after following up on some issues, that what is from the acts of worship, the preponderance of probability is sufficient in it.
All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his Companions:
In the hadith of Zayd ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him), there are benefits:
First: The indication of what the scholars mentioned: "That hardship brings about ease". Hardship brings about ease, and this is derived from several texts, including His saying, the Exalted:
Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its capacity
لا يكلف الله نفسا إلا وسعهاSo fear Allah as much as you are able
فاتقوا الله ما استطعتمand has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty
وما جعل عليكم في الدين من حرجSo when it became difficult for him to eat the fresh dates, Allah made it easy for him by permitting their purchase with dried dates. Thus, hardship brings about ease.
And among the benefits of the hadith is the indication of the general principle: "That the Islamic religion contains no hardship, neither in acts of worship nor in transactions". So if it becomes impossible for a person to transact except in this manner, it is among the principles of the Shari'ah that the matter is made easy for him. However, the impossibility must be verified.
Now, among its benefits, and among the benefits of the hadith, is what Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) pointed to: "That what is forbidden as a means is permitted by pressing need, not by dire necessity". This means that the rule regarding the forbidden is that it is not permitted except in the case of dire necessity, with the condition that his dire necessity is removed by it. And this has passed us by: that the forbidden is permissible for dire necessity, and that the dire necessity is removed by it:
So the first condition for dire necessity is that there is no permissible alternative to it.
The second condition is that his dire necessity is removed by it. If his dire necessity is not removed by it, then it is not permissible. For this reason, treating oneself with a forbidden thing is forbidden. Why? Because there is no dire necessity for it, as it is possible for the patient to be cured without it, and because one is not certain that the dire necessity will be removed by taking it. So both conditions are absent in treating oneself with the forbidden.
The important point is that the well-known principle among the people of knowledge, indeed the one indicated by the Qur'an, is: "That the forbidden is not permitted except by dire necessity, if the dire necessity is removed by it". Its evidence is His saying, the Exalted:
while He has explained in detail to you what He has forbidden you
وقد فصل لكم ما حرم عليكمexcepting that to which you are compelled
إلا ما اضطررتم إليهBut the scholars said: "What is forbidden as a means is permitted by pressing need". So pressing need permits it, and they mentioned several things for this, among them:
The issue of 'araya. The issue of 'araya: It is not permissible to sell fresh dates for dried dates, as in the previous hadith: أن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم سئل عن شراء الرطب بالتمر فقال : أينقص إذا جف ؟ قالوا : نعم ، فنهى عن ذلك .
لكن في العرايا أجاز الشارع اشتراء الرطب بالتمر لماذا ؟ لأن منع بيع الرطب بالتمر خوفا مِن أن يكون وسيلة إلى ربا الفضل ، أن الناس يتدرجون فيقولون : إذا جاز البيع بالخرص في الرطب مع التمر ، فليجز أيضا في التمر مع التمر وحينئذ يقعون في الربا .
فلما كان تحريم ذلك من باب تحريم الوسائل أباحه الشارع للحاجة إليه .
ومن ذلك : تحريم الحرير على الرجال ، فإن الحاجة تبيحه ، الحِكة التي تصيب الإنسان تجيز له أن يلبس الحرير لأجل تخف عنه .
ومن ذلك : تضبيب الآنية بالفضة ، تبيحه الحاجة ، لماذا ؟ لأن أصل تحريم هذا خوفًا من أن يتدرج الإنسان منه إلى أن يتخذ إناء كاملًا من الفضة ويستعمله في الأكل والشرب ، فتحريم التضبيب بالفضة تحريم وسائل ، فأباحته الحاجة ، ليش ما نقول الضرورة ؟ بإمكانه أن يشرب في إناء آخر ، وبإمكانه أن يضبب بحديد أو برصاص أو ما أشبه ذلك .
ومن ذلك أيضا : تحريم النظر إلى وجه المرأة الأجنبية فإنه من باب تحريم الوسائل لكونه وسيلة إلى الزنا ، ولهذا جاز النظر إليه للحاجة كالخِطبة ، فإن الخطيب يجوز أن ينظر إلى وجه المخطوبة ، ولو كان تحريمه تحريم قصد وغاية ما جاز ، لأن نظر الخاطب إلى مخطوبته ليس ضرورة ، إذ يمكنه أن يوكل من ينظر إليها من النساء الثقات .
طيب إذًا القاعدة هذه لها عدة صور وهي : ما كان محرمًا تحريم وسيلة فإن الحاجة تبيحه وإن لم يضطر إليه .
من فوائد الحديث : جواز العرايا في ثمر النخل ، لقوله في حديث أبي هريرة : بخرصها من التمر ، وهل يلحق بالنخل ما سواها كالتين والعنب فيكون الإنسان محتاجًا إلى التفكه بالعنب فيشتريه بالزبيب ، أو إلى التين الرطب فيشتريه بتين يابس ، اختلف العلماء في هذا فقال بعض العلماء :
إنه لا يجوز القياس لأن لدينا حديثا عاماً : نهى عن بيع المزاينة ، نهى عن بيع المزاينة واضح ؟!
استثني منه العرايا وهذا تخصيص ، فيبقى العام على عمومه وتُخرج منه صورة التخصيص وهي العرايا في التمر أما غيرها فلا يجوز .
قالوا : ولو جازت العرايا في غير التمر لجازت بين الحب والزرع ، والحب والزرع ما يجوز ، يعني لا يجوز للإنسان أن يشتري زرعاً بحب وهو يريد سنبله ، انتبهوا ، وهذه الصورة ممنوعة بالاتفاق فيما أعلم .
ولكنَّ بعض أهل العلم ذهب إلى جواز العرايا في العنب والتين ونحوهما مما يتفكه به ويمكن خرصه ، واستدل لذلك بأن الشريعة مطردة لا تفرق بين متماثلين ، ولا تجمع بين مفترقين ، مطردة ما فيها تناقض ، وإنما ذُكرت العرايا في التمر لأن هذه هي المعاملة التي كانوا يفعلونها ، العنب ليس كثيرًا عندهم ولهذا يأتيهم الزبيب من الشام وغيرها ، والتين كذلك ، المدينة أكثر ما فيها التمر فلهذا جاءت العرية في التمر لأنه الكثير عندهم ، وإلى هذا ذهب شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية وغيره ، وهذا القول هو الصحيح .
وأما النقد بمسألة الحب بالزرع فلا نقد ، ما فيه نقد ، لماذا ؟
لأن الحب في السنبل خفي ، ولا يمكن خرصه ، ولهذا لم تأت السنة بخرص الزروع على أهلها لإخراج زكاتها ، السنة جاءت بخرص ثمار النخل ، أما الزروع فلم تأت به ، حتى إن بعض العلماء حكى إجماع العلماء على أن الزروع لا تُخرص من أجل معرفة مقدار الزكاة فيها وعللوا ذلك بماذا ؟
بأنه لا يمكن الإحاطة بها ، إذ أن الحب محفوف بقشر ، والقشر عليه عود ، يسمونه عندنا السبل ، لهذا لا يمكن أن نقيس الرطب المشاهَد المعلوم الممكن خرصه ، لا يمكن أن نُلحق به ما كان مستورًا بقشوره .
طيب من فوائد الحديث : التضييق في مسألة العرايا ، بأن تكون فيما دون خمسة أوسق ، وهل هذا الشرط في الصفقة الواحدة أو في صفقات متعددة ؟ فيه خلاف ، فمن العلماء من قال : إنه شرط في الصفقة الواحدة .
ومنهم من قال : إنه شرط في الصفقات كلها .
وبيان ذلك : رجل عنده عائلة كبيرة ، احتاج إلى عشرة أوسق ، فاشترى من فلاح ثلاثة ومن فلاح ثلاثة ومن فلاح أربعة ، كل صفقة بمفردها لا تبلغ خمسة أوسق ، لكن مجموعها عشرة ، فهل المعتبر كل صفقة بمفردها أو المعتبر حاجة الإنسان ويشتري ما زاد على الخمسة أو الخمسة فما زاد بصفقة أخرى ؟
فيه خلاف بين العلماء فقيل : متى اشترى الإنسان دون خمسة أوسق لم يشتر أكثر ، ولو في صفقة ثانية وثالثة ورابعة ، ولكن الصحيح أن المعتبر الحاجة ، وأن تكون فيما دون خمسة أوسق في الصفقة الواحدة ، وعلى هذا فإذا كان عند الإنسان عائلة كبيرة أو كان رجلا مضيافًا يغشاه الناس واحتاج إلى أكثر من خمسة أوسق لكن اشترى من عدة بائعين فإن ذلك لا بأس به ، والدليل أن الرجل لو اشترى دون خمسة أوسق ثم أكلها هل يشتري أخرى أو لا يشتري ؟ يشتري ، إذًا فالمدار على الحاجة ، المدار على الحاجة لكن لا تبلغ خمسة أوسق في كل صفقة .
طيب ومن فوائد الحديث : أن العبرة بحاجة المشتري ، فإذا كان المحتاج البائع فهل نراعيه ؟
الطالب : لا يراعى .
الشيخ : إذا كان المحتاج البائع صاحب البستان هل نراعيه ولا لا ؟
الطالب : لا يراعى .
الشيخ : لا يراعى ؟! إي صاحب البستان يريد تمرا عنده عمال ما يأكلون إلا التمر ، ما يشترون الرطب وهو ما عنده ، هو ما عنده الآن ما عنده تمر قلنا له : اصبر حتى يتمر ، قال : هؤلاء العمال يجوعون ، بيتمر بعد شهرين أقول : انتظروا ، مُشكل فأنا محتاج ، فهل تقول : إن الشرع إذا أجاز للمشتري هذه الصفقة لحاجته للتفكه بالرطب ، فإجازته للبائع المحتاج للتمر لا تفكها من باب أولى ؟
الطالب : لا .
الشيخ : ولا واحد منكم يقول هكذا ؟
الطالب : الرطب أولى .
الشيخ : بس هذول عمال ما يعرفون الرطب .
الطالب : بعه واشتر الرطب .
الشيخ : طيب حتى هذا نقول بعه ، إذا كان المشتري محتاج للرطب نقول : بع التمر واشتر رطب ، على كل حال هذه المسألة فيها خلاف بين العلماء نعم ، وكنت أظن أن تكونوا على قولين ، كعادتكم ، لكن سبحان الله هذا إجماع منكم على أنه ما يجوز ، زين الحمد لله ، إذًا فيه علماء الحمد لله ،
العلماء اختلفوا في هذا على قولين :
منهم من قال : إن هذه المسألة خرجت من القياس وخرجت عن العموم فلا يتعدى بها النص ، عرفتم ؟! والحاجة في الحديث لمن ؟
الطالب : للمشتري .
الشيخ : للمشتري فلا نتعدى النص .
ومنهم من قال: إن الشارع لا يفرق بين حاجة المشتري أو حاجة البائع فإذا كانت تجوز للمشتري من أجل التفكه بالرطب فجوازها للبائع من أجل حاجته للتمر من باب أولى .
نعم ، والمسألة لا شك أنها تعارضها المعنيان أو تجاذبها الدليلان ، دليل القياس الذي قد يكون جليا أو مساوياً ودليل الاقتصار على النص فيما ورد فيه التخصيص .
طيب على كل حال فيها قولان ، وما دمتم أنتم الآن عندكم قولان في هذه المسألة فهذا ما أقول لكم .
طيب زين والله أنا تردد فيها ، متردد قد نقول : إن هذه مسألة خرجت عن العموم وعن القياس فيقتصر فيها عما ورد به النص ، وإن كان هذا ستنقوضه علي في مسألة العنب والتين ، المهم -وقد نعم نعم - وقد أقول : بأن الرخصة يستوي فيها البائع والمشتري والإيرداد الذي أوردته صحيح ، فيه لا شك أنه قد يكون أن البائع هذا صاحب النخل محتاج إلى تمر ، يحتاج إلى تمر عمال عنده ، أما هو محتاج ولا هم محتاجين العمال ؟ يمكن لو أعطاهم الرطب يبدى العامل ياكل الرطب جميعا ولا يبالي ، لأن الرطب لين نعم وذا عامل تعبان ويأكل كثير ولو وجد تمرة فيها يبوسة يقعد يمضغها شوي نعم حتى يخف الأكل عليه ، على كل حال إن هذه الحاجة وادرة .
الطالب : ... .
الشيخ : لا لا ما هي بأقوى ، لأن التمر بتمر ما في فرق بس هذا طيب وهذا رديء .
طيب المهم اعرفوا هذا الخلاف الآن وأن كلا واحد من القولين له معنى يجلبه .
طيب فيه أيضا من فوائد هذا الحديث : " أنه إذا تعذر اليقين رجعنا إلى غلبة الظن " وهذه قاعدة معروفة في الفقه ، إذا تعذر اليقين رجعنا إلى غلبة الظن من يعرف مأخذها ؟
الطالب : أنا لا نستطيع كيلها فرجعنا للظن .
الشيخ : فرجعنا إلى الظن صح ، اعتبار الخرص وهو أمر ظني من أجل تعذر اليقين وهذا أمر مطرد ، أنه إذا تعذر رجعنا إلى غلبة الظن ، كذا ولا لا !؟ ولكن هذا الرجوع إلى غلبة الظن أمر مطرد ولا إيش ؟ يعني أحيانا نقول : ارجع إلى غلبة ظنك وأحيانا نقول : ارجع إلى اليقين ، أحيانا نقول : لا بد من اليقين ، فالظاهر لي بعد تتبع بعض المسائل أن ما كان من العبادات اكتفي فيه بغلبة الظن . The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about selling fresh dates for dried dates, so he said: “Do they decrease in weight when they dry out?” They said: “Yes.” So he prohibited it. However, in the case of *al-‘araya*, the Lawgiver permitted buying fresh dates with dried dates. Why? Because the prohibition of selling fresh dates for dried dates is a prohibition of means, out of fear that it would lead to *riba al-fadl* (usury of excess in a like-for-like exchange). People would gradually say: if selling by *kharv* (estimation) is permitted for fresh dates with dried dates, then it should also be permitted for dried dates with dried dates, and in that case they would fall into *riba*. Since the prohibition of that is a prohibition of means, the Lawgiver permitted it due to the need for it. Among such cases is the prohibition of silk for men; the need permits it. The skin condition that affects a person allows him to wear silk to relieve the discomfort. Among such cases is coating vessels with silver; the need permits it. Why? Because the original prohibition of this is out of fear that a person would gradually proceed from it to making a complete vessel of silver and using it for eating and drinking. So the prohibition of coating with silver is a prohibition of means, and the need permitted it. Why do we not say *darurah* (dire necessity)? Because he is able to drink from another vessel, and he is able to coat it with iron or lead or something similar. Among such cases is also the prohibition of looking at the face of a non-mahram woman, which is a prohibition of means because it is a means to *zina* (unlawful sexual intercourse). For this reason, looking at her face is permitted for the need, such as in the case of a suitor. The suitor is permitted to look at the face of the woman he intends to marry. If the prohibition were a prohibition of the goal and the end, it would not be permitted, because the suitor’s looking at the woman he intends to marry is not a *darurah* (dire necessity), since he can appoint a trustworthy woman to look at her. So, this rule has several forms: what is prohibited as a prohibition of means is permitted by the need, even if one is not in *darurah* (dire necessity) for it. Among the benefits of the hadith is the permissibility of *al-‘araya* in palm fruit, based on his statement in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah: “by *kharv* of them for dried dates.” Does this apply to palm trees and what is other than them, such as figs and grapes, so that a person who needs to snack on grapes buys them with raisins, or needs fresh figs and buys them with dried figs? The scholars differed on this. Some scholars said: it is not permissible to apply *qiyas* (analogical reasoning) because we have a general hadith: “He prohibited the sale of *al-muzaynah*.” He prohibited the sale of *al-muzaynah*, is that clear? *Al-‘araya* was excepted from it, and this is a specification. So the general ruling remains in its generality, and the case of specification, which is *al-‘araya* in dates, is excluded from it, while for others it is not permissible. They said: if *al-‘araya* were permitted in anything other than dates, it would be permitted between grain and crops. Grain and crops are not permissible, meaning it is not permissible for a person to buy crops with grain while he wants the ears of grain. Pay attention, and this case is prohibited by consensus, as far as I know. However, some scholars held the view that *al-‘araya* is permissible in grapes and figs and the like of what is used for snacking and can be estimated by *kharv*. They argued for this by saying that the Shari'ah is consistent and does not differentiate between two similar things, nor does it combine two different things. It is consistent and contains no contradiction. *Al-‘araya* was mentioned in dates because that was the transaction they used to do. Grapes were not abundant among them, so raisins came to them from Sham and elsewhere. Figs were the same. Madinah had mostly dates, so *al-‘ariyah* came in dates because that was the abundant item among them. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and others held this view, and this is the correct opinion. As for the objection regarding the issue of grain with crops, there is no objection. There is no objection. Why? Because the grain in the ear is hidden, and it cannot be estimated by *kharv*. For this reason, the Sunnah did not come with estimating crops on their owners to extract their *zakah* (the obligatory alms). The Sunnah came with estimating the fruits of palm trees, but not crops. Some scholars even reported the consensus of the scholars that crops are not estimated to determine the amount of *zakah* in them, and they reasoned this by saying that it is not possible to encompass them, since the grain is surrounded by husk, and the husk has a stalk, which we call *al-sabil*. For this reason, we cannot analogize the fresh dates that are seen, known, and can be estimated to what is covered by its husks. So, among the benefits of the hadith is the restriction of the issue of *al-‘araya* to be in less than five *awsaq* (a dry measure of about 3 kg). Is this condition in a single transaction or in multiple transactions? There is disagreement. Some scholars said: it is a condition in the single transaction. Others said: it is a condition in all transactions. The explanation is this: a man has a large family and needs ten *awsaq*, so he buys three from one farmer, three from another, and four from a third. Each transaction individually does not reach five *awsaq*, but the total is ten. Is the consideration each transaction individually, or is the consideration the person’s need, and he buys what exceeds five, or five and more in another transaction? There is disagreement among the scholars. It was said: whenever a person buys less than five *awsaq*, he does not buy more, even in a second, third, or fourth transaction. But the correct view is that the consideration is the need, and that it be in less than five *awsaq* in the single transaction. On this basis, if a person has a large family, or is a generous man whom people visit, and he needs more than five *awsaq* but buys from several sellers, then there is nothing wrong with it. The evidence is that if a man buys less than five *awsaq* and then eats them, does he buy more or not? He buys more. So the criterion is the need, the criterion is the need, but it does not reach five *awsaq* in each transaction. So, among the benefits of the hadith is that the consideration is the need of the buyer. If the one in need is the seller, do we consider him? The student: He is not considered. The Shaykh: If the one in need is the seller, the owner of the orchard, do we consider him or not? The student: He is not considered. The Shaykh: He is not considered? Yes, the owner of the orchard wants dates. He has workers who eat nothing but dates. He does not buy fresh dates, and he does not have any now. He does not have dates now. We told him: wait until they become dates. He said: these workers are hungry. It will be in two months. I say: wait. It is difficult. I am in need. So do you say: if the Lawgiver permitted this transaction for the buyer due to his need to snack on fresh dates, then permitting it for the seller in need of dates is even more so? The student: No. The Shaykh: And none of you says this? The student: Fresh dates are more deserving. The Shaykh: But these workers do not know fresh dates. The student: Sell and buy fresh dates. The Shaykh: Okay, even for this we say sell. If the buyer is in need of fresh dates, we say: sell the dates and buy fresh dates. In any case, there is disagreement among the scholars on this issue. Yes, and I thought you would be on two opinions, as is your custom, but *subhan Allah* (Glory be to Allah), this is a consensus from you that it is not permissible. Good, praise be to Allah. So there are scholars, praise be to Allah. The scholars differed on this in two opinions: some said that this issue went out of *qiyas* (analogical reasoning) and went out of the generality, so the text is not extended beyond it. Do you understand? The need in the hadith is for whom? The student: For the buyer. The Shaykh: For the buyer, so we do not extend the text. Others said: the Lawgiver does not differentiate between the need of the buyer or the need of the seller, so if it is permitted for the buyer for the sake of snacking on fresh dates, then its permissibility for the seller for the sake of his need for dates is even more so. Yes, and the issue is undoubtedly opposed by two meanings or pulled by two proofs: the proof of *qiyas* (analogical reasoning), which may be clear or equal, and the proof of restricting to the text in what was specified in it. So, in any case, there are two opinions, and since you now have two opinions on this issue, this is what I tell you. Okay, good, by Allah I am hesitant in it, hesitant. We may say that this is an issue that went out of the generality and the *qiyas* (analogical reasoning), so it is restricted to what the text came with. And if this is the case, you will refute me in the issue of grapes and figs. The important thing—and yes, yes—and I may say that the *rukhsah* (dispensation) is equal for the seller and the buyer, and the argument you brought is correct. There is no doubt that the seller may be the owner of the palm trees in need of dates. He needs dates for his workers. Is he in need or are the workers in need? It is possible that if he gave them fresh dates, the worker would eat all the fresh dates and not care, because fresh dates are soft. Yes, and this is a tired worker who eats a lot. If he found a date with some dryness, he would sit and chew it a little, yes, to make the eating easier for him. In any case, this need is strong. The student: ... . The Shaykh: No, no, it is not stronger, because dates are dates, there is no difference, but this is good and this is bad. Okay, the important thing is to know this disagreement now, and that each of the two opinions has a meaning that draws it. Okay, there is also among the benefits of this hadith: “that when certainty is difficult, we return to the preponderance of probability.” This is a known rule in *fiqh* (Islamic jurisprudence). When certainty is difficult, we return to the preponderance of probability. Who knows its source? The student: We are not able to weigh it, so we returned to probability. The Shaykh: So we returned to probability, correct. Considering *kharv* (estimation), which is a matter of probability, due to the difficulty of certainty, and this is a consistent matter: when it is difficult, we return to the preponderance of probability. Is that so or not? But this return to the preponderance of probability is a consistent matter, or what? Meaning, sometimes we say: return to your preponderance of probability, and sometimes we say: return to certainty. Sometimes we say: certainty is necessary. So it appears to me, after following up on some issues, that what is from the acts of worship, the preponderance of probability is sufficient in it.