Explanation of the author's statement: "And it is the exchange of wealth, even if it is in the debt"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then he said, "And it is the exchange of wealth, even if it is in the debt", and so on. The pronoun refers to the sale. His statement "the exchange of wealth, and so on" is its definition in technical terminology. It also has a definition in the language. Its definition in the language is broader than its definition in technical terminology. This is the case with all words and realities that have linguistic realities and legal realities; you will find that the linguistic realities are broader than the legal realities, except for some words. For example, faith in the language is located in the heart because it is the heart's affirmation of something. But in the law, what is it? It is broader, encompassing the speech of the tongue and the actions of the limbs, in addition to the affirmation of the heart. This is rare. But mostly, the linguistic meanings are broader than the legal meanings. All right.
So, the sale in the language is broader than the sale in the law. It is taking something and giving something, even if it is by way of a loan or a deposit. If you extend something to me and lend it to me, it is a sale in the language because it is derived from "ba'" (extension), as each of the two parties extends his hand to the other. But in technical terminology, it is said: "The exchange of wealth, even if it is in the debt, or a permissible benefit, such as the passage of a house, for the like of one of them, permanently, not riba or a loan". Pay attention to the conditions. First, the exchange of wealth. What is meant by wealth here? "Wealth is every tangible object whose benefit is permissible without need". This is wealth. It includes gold, silver, wheat, barley, dates, salt, cars, vessels, real estate, and others. Every tangible object whose benefit is permissible without need. Pay attention. Our saying "permissible benefit" means that it must have a benefit. A tangible object that has no benefit does not fall under this definition. Tangible objects that have no benefit do not fall under this definition. And our saying "permissible benefit" excludes that whose benefit is forbidden, such as wind instruments and musical instruments. These are not called wealth or do not fall under the name of wealth here. And our saying "without need" is to avoid what is permissible in benefit for the sake of need or dire necessity. For example, carrion is permissible, but when? For dire necessity. The skin of carrion, if tanned, is permissible for need. Also, what is permissible to use in dry matters is restricted, according to the well-known view of the school of jurisprudence.
So, this restriction is necessary. A tangible object whose benefit is permissible, what? Without need. All right.
A hunting dog is a tangible object whose benefit is permissible, but for need. Therefore, its benefit is restricted by a specific condition. So it becomes clear what wealth is here: "Every tangible object whose benefit is permissible without need". All right.
And his saying "even if it is in the debt". The word "lu" (even if) indicates that there is something in exchange. His saying "even if it is in the debt" indicates that there is something in exchange for what is in the debt, and that is so. What is in exchange for what is in the debt is the specific item. That is, the specific item, or in the debt. That is, the contract may be made on a specific item, and the contract may be made on something in the debt. This becomes clear by example. If I say, "I sold you this book for this book," a book... in front of him, what is this?
The questioner : Specific.
The Shaykh : Specific for specific, not in the debt. And if I say, "I sold you this book for ten riyals," this is specific for what? For what is in the debt, even if I said ten riyals, meaning I did not specify them. They are in my debt. All right.
So, his saying "even if it is in the debt" benefited us by showing that the wealth on which the contract is made is either specific or in the debt. An example of specific? This book for this book. "In the debt" This book for ten dirhams. Clear? All right.
The questioner : It is not clear.
The Shaykh : How is it not clear?
The questioner : Specific.
The Shaykh : Specific for what is in the debt.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : All right, I sold you this book for ten riyals. Where are the ten?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, they are not in front of you. I sold you this book for ten riyals, and you said, "I will bring ten riyals in the afternoon," for example, or they are in the hidden place, but I did not take them out of my hiding place and say, "These are the dirhams." This is specific for what? For what is in the debt. All right.
And his saying "even if it is in the debt" may include what is in the debt for what is in the debt, and that is also so. So I say, for example, "I bought from you a kilo of sugar for ten riyals." Then the seller went to weigh the sugar for me, and I took the dirhams out of my pocket and gave them to him. Here, the contract was made on what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No. No, there is no specific item.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This contract was made on something in the debt for something in the debt. There is no problem. A car, a crosswise matter, brothers. Clear, everyone? It is not clear. May Allah be the one who grants success. O Allah, make it clear. I bought from you a kilo of sugar for ten riyals, so you went to weigh the sugar for me, and I went to take the dirhams out of my pocket. The contract, when it was first made, was on what?
The questioner : On something in the debt.
The Shaykh : Something in the debt for something in the debt. But if I took out the ten dirhams and put them here on the table, and you came with the kilo of sugar and put it on the table and said, "I bought from you this kilo for these dirhams," it became specific for specific. As for the first one, we did not specify the dirhams. I did not say, "These are the dirhams," nor did I say to you, "This is the kilo." So now it is specific for specific, and specific for what is in the debt. What? And what is in the debt for what is in the debt. Complete? All right.
So, the sale in the language is broader than the sale in the law. It is taking something and giving something, even if it is by way of a loan or a deposit. If you extend something to me and lend it to me, it is a sale in the language because it is derived from "ba'" (extension), as each of the two parties extends his hand to the other. But in technical terminology, it is said: "The exchange of wealth, even if it is in the debt, or a permissible benefit, such as the passage of a house, for the like of one of them, permanently, not riba or a loan". Pay attention to the conditions. First, the exchange of wealth. What is meant by wealth here? "Wealth is every tangible object whose benefit is permissible without need". This is wealth. It includes gold, silver, wheat, barley, dates, salt, cars, vessels, real estate, and others. Every tangible object whose benefit is permissible without need. Pay attention. Our saying "permissible benefit" means that it must have a benefit. A tangible object that has no benefit does not fall under this definition. Tangible objects that have no benefit do not fall under this definition. And our saying "permissible benefit" excludes that whose benefit is forbidden, such as wind instruments and musical instruments. These are not called wealth or do not fall under the name of wealth here. And our saying "without need" is to avoid what is permissible in benefit for the sake of need or dire necessity. For example, carrion is permissible, but when? For dire necessity. The skin of carrion, if tanned, is permissible for need. Also, what is permissible to use in dry matters is restricted, according to the well-known view of the school of jurisprudence.
So, this restriction is necessary. A tangible object whose benefit is permissible, what? Without need. All right.
A hunting dog is a tangible object whose benefit is permissible, but for need. Therefore, its benefit is restricted by a specific condition. So it becomes clear what wealth is here: "Every tangible object whose benefit is permissible without need". All right.
And his saying "even if it is in the debt". The word "lu" (even if) indicates that there is something in exchange. His saying "even if it is in the debt" indicates that there is something in exchange for what is in the debt, and that is so. What is in exchange for what is in the debt is the specific item. That is, the specific item, or in the debt. That is, the contract may be made on a specific item, and the contract may be made on something in the debt. This becomes clear by example. If I say, "I sold you this book for this book," a book... in front of him, what is this?
The questioner : Specific.
The Shaykh : Specific for specific, not in the debt. And if I say, "I sold you this book for ten riyals," this is specific for what? For what is in the debt, even if I said ten riyals, meaning I did not specify them. They are in my debt. All right.
So, his saying "even if it is in the debt" benefited us by showing that the wealth on which the contract is made is either specific or in the debt. An example of specific? This book for this book. "In the debt" This book for ten dirhams. Clear? All right.
The questioner : It is not clear.
The Shaykh : How is it not clear?
The questioner : Specific.
The Shaykh : Specific for what is in the debt.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : All right, I sold you this book for ten riyals. Where are the ten?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, they are not in front of you. I sold you this book for ten riyals, and you said, "I will bring ten riyals in the afternoon," for example, or they are in the hidden place, but I did not take them out of my hiding place and say, "These are the dirhams." This is specific for what? For what is in the debt. All right.
And his saying "even if it is in the debt" may include what is in the debt for what is in the debt, and that is also so. So I say, for example, "I bought from you a kilo of sugar for ten riyals." Then the seller went to weigh the sugar for me, and I took the dirhams out of my pocket and gave them to him. Here, the contract was made on what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No. No, there is no specific item.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This contract was made on something in the debt for something in the debt. There is no problem. A car, a crosswise matter, brothers. Clear, everyone? It is not clear. May Allah be the one who grants success. O Allah, make it clear. I bought from you a kilo of sugar for ten riyals, so you went to weigh the sugar for me, and I went to take the dirhams out of my pocket. The contract, when it was first made, was on what?
The questioner : On something in the debt.
The Shaykh : Something in the debt for something in the debt. But if I took out the ten dirhams and put them here on the table, and you came with the kilo of sugar and put it on the table and said, "I bought from you this kilo for these dirhams," it became specific for specific. As for the first one, we did not specify the dirhams. I did not say, "These are the dirhams," nor did I say to you, "This is the kilo." So now it is specific for specific, and specific for what is in the debt. What? And what is in the debt for what is in the debt. Complete? All right.