Continuation of the benefits of the hadith: (That the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade selling fruits until they ripen . . . ).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Among the benefits is the prohibition of selling fruits until their goodness becomes apparent. If the contract is concluded before the goodness becomes apparent, what is the status of the contract?
The student: Falsehood.
The Shaykh : It is invalid.
And among them is: the permissibility, indeed the obligation, of asking about a word whose meaning is not clear except by asking, because they asked Anas ibn Malik about the ripening and he explained it to them.
And among them is: that it is not permissible to sell date palms until they turn red or yellow, but this applies to those that turn red or yellow. As for some date palms that remain green but bear fruit, in those it is sufficient that the taste is good, and there is no need for the color.
And among the benefits of this hadith is: if the color appears in one date palm and not in another, then the sale of the palm in which the color appeared is valid, and the sale of the other palm is not valid. Why? Because the ruling revolves around its cause. In this one, the color was found, so its sale is valid, and in this one it was not found, so its sale is not valid.
Now, if a person sells his entire orchard, is it sufficient for the color to appear in just one of them because the transaction is one, and what has not shown color is a follower? Or must the color be in every tree? Or is it sufficient for the color to be in every type?
These are three possibilities:
The first, brother, yes?
The student: Me?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The student: It bears fruit.
The Shaykh : Is it a condition, or is it sufficient?
The student: That one ripens and the rest follow.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is one.
The student: Or one from each color ripens, one from each color.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And the third is that.
The Shaykh : Zayd.
The student: The color in every type.
The Shaykh : Correct, did you understand or not? Now, these are three possibilities:
Some scholars said the first, and said: if the orchard is sold and there is one colored date palm in it, but it is one transaction, the sale is valid.
And some of them said: the sale is not valid unless the color is found in every tree individually.
And some of them distinguished and said: if the type is one, it is permissible, otherwise it is not. And this opinion, as you see, is a middle position, and generally the best of things is the middle. And on this basis, if he sells the entire orchard and there are four types in which the color has appeared in one of each type, the sale is valid. And if the color is found in only three types, the fourth is not valid. In two types, the third and fourth are not valid. In one, the second, third, and fourth are not valid. And I think the example is clear.
Now, if I said: what do you say if he sold a type of date palm and the goodness did not appear except in one fruit from one tree, and he sold the type in one transaction, is it permissible?
This is sugar date palm, ten date palms, a person sold it and there was only one fruit from one tree, is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible. Now, he said: if he climbed the tree and ate it, and ate it, then sold it after he ate it?
The student: It is permissible.
Another student: It is not permissible.
The student: Actually?
The Shaykh : Yes, this happened; it is not hypothetical now. This happened. They were selling date fruits and complained whether there was something in them or not. So one person climbed the tree and found a colored fruit in it, ate it, then came down. Is the sale of it valid? Yes?
The student: It is valid, because he identified it.
The Shaykh : It appears to me that it is valid, yes. Why? Because the goodness has appeared in it, and the fact that he eats or does not eat has no effect. Yes, if it were assumed that he ate before the matter was investigated and we did not know, we would say: do not sell it until it changes color.
The student: Falsehood.
The Shaykh : It is invalid.
And among them is: the permissibility, indeed the obligation, of asking about a word whose meaning is not clear except by asking, because they asked Anas ibn Malik about the ripening and he explained it to them.
And among them is: that it is not permissible to sell date palms until they turn red or yellow, but this applies to those that turn red or yellow. As for some date palms that remain green but bear fruit, in those it is sufficient that the taste is good, and there is no need for the color.
And among the benefits of this hadith is: if the color appears in one date palm and not in another, then the sale of the palm in which the color appeared is valid, and the sale of the other palm is not valid. Why? Because the ruling revolves around its cause. In this one, the color was found, so its sale is valid, and in this one it was not found, so its sale is not valid.
Now, if a person sells his entire orchard, is it sufficient for the color to appear in just one of them because the transaction is one, and what has not shown color is a follower? Or must the color be in every tree? Or is it sufficient for the color to be in every type?
These are three possibilities:
The first, brother, yes?
The student: Me?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The student: It bears fruit.
The Shaykh : Is it a condition, or is it sufficient?
The student: That one ripens and the rest follow.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is one.
The student: Or one from each color ripens, one from each color.
The Shaykh : Yes.
The student: And the third is that.
The Shaykh : Zayd.
The student: The color in every type.
The Shaykh : Correct, did you understand or not? Now, these are three possibilities:
Some scholars said the first, and said: if the orchard is sold and there is one colored date palm in it, but it is one transaction, the sale is valid.
And some of them said: the sale is not valid unless the color is found in every tree individually.
And some of them distinguished and said: if the type is one, it is permissible, otherwise it is not. And this opinion, as you see, is a middle position, and generally the best of things is the middle. And on this basis, if he sells the entire orchard and there are four types in which the color has appeared in one of each type, the sale is valid. And if the color is found in only three types, the fourth is not valid. In two types, the third and fourth are not valid. In one, the second, third, and fourth are not valid. And I think the example is clear.
Now, if I said: what do you say if he sold a type of date palm and the goodness did not appear except in one fruit from one tree, and he sold the type in one transaction, is it permissible?
This is sugar date palm, ten date palms, a person sold it and there was only one fruit from one tree, is it permissible or not?
The student: It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible. Now, he said: if he climbed the tree and ate it, and ate it, then sold it after he ate it?
The student: It is permissible.
Another student: It is not permissible.
The student: Actually?
The Shaykh : Yes, this happened; it is not hypothetical now. This happened. They were selling date fruits and complained whether there was something in them or not. So one person climbed the tree and found a colored fruit in it, ate it, then came down. Is the sale of it valid? Yes?
The student: It is valid, because he identified it.
The Shaykh : It appears to me that it is valid, yes. Why? Because the goodness has appeared in it, and the fact that he eats or does not eat has no effect. Yes, if it were assumed that he ate before the matter was investigated and we did not know, we would say: do not sell it until it changes color.