Explanation of the author's statement: "And that the item be permissible in benefit without need"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The third condition is stated as "that the item be permissible in benefit without need". "That the item" means the one upon which the contract of sale is concluded; it must be permissible in benefit without need. This implies three conditions: that it has a benefit, that the benefit is permissible, and that the permissibility is not due to need. Pay attention, there are three conditions. By saying "permissible in benefit," we exclude that which is forbidden in benefit, such as instruments of amusement, for it is not permissible to sell instruments of amusement because their benefit is forbidden. Likewise, intoxicants are excluded because their benefit is forbidden. By saying "that it has a benefit," we exclude that which has no benefit, such as insects. Insects cannot be sold validly. If a person collected crickets in a container and said to someone, "I will sell you these crickets," do you know what crickets are? Is it permissible to sell them? Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : They have no benefit. But if he collected locusts in a container and said, "I will sell you these locusts."
The questioner : It is valid.
The Shaykh : Why? Because they have a permissible benefit. Okay. So, insects cannot be sold because they have no benefit. Okay.
And our saying "without need" is to guard against cases where the benefit is permissible only out of need, such as a dog. A dog's benefit is permissible, but not absolutely; rather, it is permissible out of need. What is the need? Hunting, farming, and livestock. Therefore, the sale of a dog is not valid, even if it is a hunting dog. Okay. Is it permissible to sell a cat? Okay, it has no benefit.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, it has a benefit. What is it? Yes, in reality, a cat has a benefit. It eats mice and insects, it eats moths, it eats crickets. Yes, some cats roam around a person when he sleeps, circling him, and you find a movement and sound on his chest. If it comes near the sleeping person, it swats any insect with its hand, and if it desires it, it eats it; otherwise, it leaves it. Is this a benefit or not? This is a benefit. For this reason, the jurists said that it is permissible to sell a cat. However, it was reported in "Sahih Muslim" that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) Therefore, the scholars differed on this matter. Some of them permitted it and interpreted the hadith containing the prohibition as referring to a cat that has no benefit, because most cats, indeed the majority of them, are aggressive and have no benefit, and they also commit aggression. But if we find a trained cat that is beneficial, the opinion that its sale is permissible is apparent, because it has a benefit. Okay. What about the sale of carrion? Carrion has a permissible benefit, but it is for dire necessity, not for need. It is for dire necessity. For this reason, its sale is forbidden. Okay.
So, it must be permissible without need. And we say "without dire necessity," or do we remain silent and suffice with mentioning need? We suffice with mentioning need, because if we say "without need," then it is without dire necessity a fortiori. Okay. If the item has a benefit, but it is a restricted benefit, not an absolute benefit, such as the skin of carrion when tanned, the well-known view in the school of jurisprudence is that it is not beneficial for everything, but only for dry goods. Based on this, they say its sale is not valid because its benefit is not absolute, but it is a restricted benefit, and it is required that the benefit be absolute. At that point, the conditions are: that the item has a benefit, that its benefit is permissible, that its permissibility is not due to need, and that it is not restricted. If the benefit is restricted, its sale is not valid, because the buyer does not acquire the right to general benefit. Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : They have no benefit. But if he collected locusts in a container and said, "I will sell you these locusts."
The questioner : It is valid.
The Shaykh : Why? Because they have a permissible benefit. Okay. So, insects cannot be sold because they have no benefit. Okay.
And our saying "without need" is to guard against cases where the benefit is permissible only out of need, such as a dog. A dog's benefit is permissible, but not absolutely; rather, it is permissible out of need. What is the need? Hunting, farming, and livestock. Therefore, the sale of a dog is not valid, even if it is a hunting dog. Okay. Is it permissible to sell a cat? Okay, it has no benefit.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, it has a benefit. What is it? Yes, in reality, a cat has a benefit. It eats mice and insects, it eats moths, it eats crickets. Yes, some cats roam around a person when he sleeps, circling him, and you find a movement and sound on his chest. If it comes near the sleeping person, it swats any insect with its hand, and if it desires it, it eats it; otherwise, it leaves it. Is this a benefit or not? This is a benefit. For this reason, the jurists said that it is permissible to sell a cat. However, it was reported in "Sahih Muslim" that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
He prohibited the sale of a cat
نهى عن بيع الهرSo, it must be permissible without need. And we say "without dire necessity," or do we remain silent and suffice with mentioning need? We suffice with mentioning need, because if we say "without need," then it is without dire necessity a fortiori. Okay. If the item has a benefit, but it is a restricted benefit, not an absolute benefit, such as the skin of carrion when tanned, the well-known view in the school of jurisprudence is that it is not beneficial for everything, but only for dry goods. Based on this, they say its sale is not valid because its benefit is not absolute, but it is a restricted benefit, and it is required that the benefit be absolute. At that point, the conditions are: that the item has a benefit, that its benefit is permissible, that its permissibility is not due to need, and that it is not restricted. If the benefit is restricted, its sale is not valid, because the buyer does not acquire the right to general benefit. Yes?