Explanation of the author's statement: "Or if he bought with the specific property of another without his permission, it is not valid"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, he says "Or if he bought with the specific property of another without his permission, it is not valid". "Bought", do you have "for him"? All right, meaning if he bought with the specific property of a person without his permission, it is not valid. How does one buy with the specific property? Buying with the specific property is like when a person gives you dirhams and says, "Take these dirhams and deliver them to so-and-so." You are now a trusted messenger, so you pass through the market with these dirhams and you buy a commodity with these dirhams, meaning you tell the seller, "I am buying this garment from you with these dirhams." So, did he buy with the specific property or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He bought with the specific property, so the sale is not valid, because buying with the specific property is like selling the specific property. Is that clear? All right. Just as it is not permissible for me to take Zayd's book and sell it, so it is not permissible for me to sell the specific property of another. Buying with the specific property is, in reality, selling the specific property. Therefore, it is not valid. All right.
The apparent meaning of the author's words is that this is not valid, even if there is a benefit in it. The apparent meaning of his words is also that it is not valid even if the owner permits it. Why? Because the condition is missing. However, the correct view is that if the owner permits it, the sale is valid. The evidence for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) Look now, he was entrusted to buy a sacrificial animal, so he bought two sacrificial animals. Is there a benefit in this or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : There is a benefit, without a doubt. Then he sold one of the two sacrificial animals for a dinar. Is there a benefit in this or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : There is a benefit. So he returned to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) with his dinar and a sheep, and he saidSunan ad-Daraqutni 13:26 So he would not buy dirt without profiting from it by the blessing of the supplication of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). According to the author's statement, this transaction would be incorrect. But the correct view is that it is permissible and effective if the owner permits it. All right. If someone asks, is it permissible for a person to proceed to sell the property of another without his permission? We say it is permissible with an indication. What is the indication? I know that my friend wants to sell his house or his car; let us say his house. So a person comes and buys the house for one hundred thousand, while it is worth ninety thousand. And I know that the owner of the house wants to sell his house. Is it permissible for me to sell it for one hundred thousand? Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, because there is a benefit. The man wants to sell his house for eighty thousand, so if a person comes to buy it for one hundred thousand, that is a benefit. It is permissible for me to proceed with the transaction. Otherwise, the original ruling is to refrain from proceeding with the transaction because it is the property of another. But if you see a benefit in it, there is no harm. All right.
The author also says "bought with the specific property of another", and this is less significant than the first case. Because a person does not care whether he takes this dirham or that dirham. So if he bought with the specific property of another, the school of thought says it is not valid because it is like selling the specific property of another. But it may be said that there is a difference, because the buyer who buys with the specific property of another, if he gives the owner of the dirhams dirhams, it does not matter to him whether he gives him his original dirhams or dirhams in their place.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He bought with the specific property, so the sale is not valid, because buying with the specific property is like selling the specific property. Is that clear? All right. Just as it is not permissible for me to take Zayd's book and sell it, so it is not permissible for me to sell the specific property of another. Buying with the specific property is, in reality, selling the specific property. Therefore, it is not valid. All right.
The apparent meaning of the author's words is that this is not valid, even if there is a benefit in it. The apparent meaning of his words is also that it is not valid even if the owner permits it. Why? Because the condition is missing. However, the correct view is that if the owner permits it, the sale is valid. The evidence for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
Al-Ja'd ibn 'Urwah was entrusted to buy a sacrificial animal for him, and he was given a dinar. So he bought two sacrificial animals for one dinar, then he sold one of them for a dinar.
وكّل الجعد بن عروة أن يشتري له أضحية وأعطاه دينارا فاشترى أضحيتين بدينار واحد ثم باع إحداهما بدينارThe questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : There is a benefit, without a doubt. Then he sold one of the two sacrificial animals for a dinar. Is there a benefit in this or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : There is a benefit. So he returned to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) with his dinar and a sheep, and he said
O Allah, bless him in his sale.
اللهم بارك له في بيعهThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, because there is a benefit. The man wants to sell his house for eighty thousand, so if a person comes to buy it for one hundred thousand, that is a benefit. It is permissible for me to proceed with the transaction. Otherwise, the original ruling is to refrain from proceeding with the transaction because it is the property of another. But if you see a benefit in it, there is no harm. All right.
The author also says "bought with the specific property of another", and this is less significant than the first case. Because a person does not care whether he takes this dirham or that dirham. So if he bought with the specific property of another, the school of thought says it is not valid because it is like selling the specific property of another. But it may be said that there is a difference, because the buyer who buys with the specific property of another, if he gives the owner of the dirhams dirhams, it does not matter to him whether he gives him his original dirhams or dirhams in their place.