The discussion regarding the condition of ownership in sales and the ruling on disposing of another person's property.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and his Companions, and upon those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Judgment.
We have previously established that one of the conditions of a sale is that it be made by the owner or by one who stands in his place. What is the evidence for this condition? Kamal?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh :[An-Nisa 4:29] What is the aspect of indication?
The questioner : That...
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, who is the one who stands in his place? There are four, and they are?
The questioner : The guardian, the supervisor, the agent, and the wali.
The Shaykh : And the wali, okay, who is the wali?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, who is it before, before the division?
The questioner : ... the wali, and he is the one who takes charge ... .
The Shaykh : No, the one whose disposal is by permission of the Lawgiver, okay. This wali, whose disposal in the property of another is by permission of the Lawgiver, is he? Adam? The wali? How many categories does he have? Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Like the wali of an orphan over the property of the orphan, okay, well done. The agent? Khalid?
The questioner : He is the one who disposes of the property of another by permission of its owner during his lifetime.
The Shaykh : Okay, the guardian? Muhammad?
The questioner : The guardian is the one who disposes of the property of another after his death.
The Shaykh : The one who disposes of the property of another after his death. Okay, and the supervisor?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Wrong, the one who disposes of the endowment by permission of the endower, complete, okay. A man sold the property of another with ghabtah, meaning he knew that so-and-so would sell his car, and a person came to buy it for more than its value, so he sold it. Is this permissible? And what is the benefit of the condition? Is this from the owner?
The questioner : No, it is not from my property.
The Shaykh : Is he from those who stand in his place?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : So?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Let us leave aside the discussion of the condition that we have understood now.
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible or not permissible? Not permissible, yes, wait, we have not reached ...
this condition that we stipulated; it is not valid even if there is a benefit for the owner, the sale is not valid, okay. Is there another opinion, Ibrahim?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is there another opinion before we correct? Is there another opinion? And it is?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Meaning, if the owner approves it, it is permissible, okay. Which one is more correct?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The second is more correct? Explain or provide evidence?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It may not be in the interest.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So, it means you are correcting this opinion on the condition that there is a benefit for the owner.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This is it, in any case, he may approve without a benefit, but he considers my partner, we will not ruin the disposal, Khalid?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This is evidence.
The questioner : The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ... .
The Shaykh : to buy a sacrificial animal for a dinar. Right?
The questioner : And he sold it ... .
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : ... bought a sheep for a dinar ... .
The Shaykh : What is the indication?
The questioner : The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) approved it and confirmed it.
The Shaykh : This is athari evidence, the explanation, Samih?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The explanation, the explanation? The explanation?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It may not be in the benefit, my brothers.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The prevention of disposing of another person's property is out of consideration for the right of the other person. If permission is given, the cause is removed, okay. It is also possible to say that one can also argue with the verse[An-Nisa 4:29], for the generality of His saying includes consent before the contract and consent after the contract. Do we start a new lesson now, or did I forget where we stopped? Or he bought with the specific money of his ... benefit, did we explain it?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, if he bought with the specific money of his without his permission, it is not valid. An example of that? Sa'id? He bought with the specific money of his without his permission.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : But with the specific money of his, and what does ... mean?
The questioner : With the same money.
The Shaykh : And how, meaning? Illustrate the issue for me?
The questioner : A man to whom you gave fifty riyals, and he has fifty.
The Shaykh : And he has fifty.
The questioner : Yes, and he saved his money and bought with my money.
The Shaykh : What is the need for you to answer "and he has fifty." You gave him fifty riyals as a deposit.
The questioner : Yes, and he bought something with it.
The Shaykh : And he bought something with it with the same coins?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But what does his saying "with the specific money of his" mean?
The questioner : With his same money.
The Shaykh : Meaning, for example, I bought this radio for fifty riyals, then I took the fifty that you gave me and gave it to the men, is this it? Yes, wrong.
The questioner : And its example is that ... he tells him, go with this money to so-and-so specifically, so this man buys ... with this money, for example, goods or something, this is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Okay, meaning this man stopped at the food owner and said, give me fifty riyals worth of rice, for example, fifty kilos, then he took the coins out of his pocket and gave them to him.
The questioner : It is not permissible with the specific ones, no ... .
The Shaykh : Is this it? Wrong.
The questioner : He takes the fifty ... .
The Shaykh : Give me with these fifty.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes. Okay, correct, my brothers?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : Yes, because he is now buying with the specific money of his, the contract fell on the specific money, which is the price, so it is as if he sold the specific money of his, did you understand, my brothers?
The questioner : No. What is ... O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Okay, first, an interjected sentence, he says. Now I stopped at the shop owner and said, give me rice for fifty riyals, so he gave me, so I took the coins of Zayd from my pocket and gave them to him, here the sale is valid.
The second example, I said to the shop owner after I took the coins out of my pocket, give me rice with these coins? This is not valid. The difference is that the contract fell on the specific coins owned by another, whereas in the first case, the contract fell on my liability for a price in my liability, then I paid the price from the coins of another, did you understand, my brothers?
The questioner : ... meaning, is it conceivable in the two currencies.
The Shaykh : Even this, even this, if the contract falls on the specific price owned by another, the contract is invalid, just as if you sold his property. And if the contract falls on something unspecified, then you paid the price from the property of another, this is fine, meaning the sale is valid.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The difference is the specification. If the sale falls on the specific coins of another, the contract is defective, and the aspect of that is that he actually sold the property of another. And if it falls on his liability, then he paid it from the coins of another, the contract is valid. For this reason, the author stipulated and said "he bought with the specific money of his", is it clear, my brothers? And the difference is very clear. The difference is that if the property of another is specified, the contract falls on its specific entity, so he disposed of the property of another. And if the contract falls on what is in the liability, then he paid it from the property of another, the contract is valid. Then it returned to whether he takes from the property of another or not, this is what returned. Is it haram or halal? Okay.
And it is known from his saying "without his permission" that if he gave him permission, it is valid, okay.
We have previously established that one of the conditions of a sale is that it be made by the owner or by one who stands in his place. What is the evidence for this condition? Kamal?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh :
O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent
يا أيها الذين ءامنوا لا تأكلوا أموالكم بينكم بالباطل إلا أن تكون تجارة عن تراض منكمThe questioner : That...
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, who is the one who stands in his place? There are four, and they are?
The questioner : The guardian, the supervisor, the agent, and the wali.
The Shaykh : And the wali, okay, who is the wali?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, who is it before, before the division?
The questioner : ... the wali, and he is the one who takes charge ... .
The Shaykh : No, the one whose disposal is by permission of the Lawgiver, okay. This wali, whose disposal in the property of another is by permission of the Lawgiver, is he? Adam? The wali? How many categories does he have? Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Like the wali of an orphan over the property of the orphan, okay, well done. The agent? Khalid?
The questioner : He is the one who disposes of the property of another by permission of its owner during his lifetime.
The Shaykh : Okay, the guardian? Muhammad?
The questioner : The guardian is the one who disposes of the property of another after his death.
The Shaykh : The one who disposes of the property of another after his death. Okay, and the supervisor?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Wrong, the one who disposes of the endowment by permission of the endower, complete, okay. A man sold the property of another with ghabtah, meaning he knew that so-and-so would sell his car, and a person came to buy it for more than its value, so he sold it. Is this permissible? And what is the benefit of the condition? Is this from the owner?
The questioner : No, it is not from my property.
The Shaykh : Is he from those who stand in his place?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : So?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Let us leave aside the discussion of the condition that we have understood now.
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Is it permissible or not permissible? Not permissible, yes, wait, we have not reached ...
this condition that we stipulated; it is not valid even if there is a benefit for the owner, the sale is not valid, okay. Is there another opinion, Ibrahim?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is there another opinion before we correct? Is there another opinion? And it is?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Meaning, if the owner approves it, it is permissible, okay. Which one is more correct?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The second is more correct? Explain or provide evidence?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It may not be in the interest.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So, it means you are correcting this opinion on the condition that there is a benefit for the owner.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This is it, in any case, he may approve without a benefit, but he considers my partner, we will not ruin the disposal, Khalid?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This is evidence.
The questioner : The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ... .
The Shaykh : to buy a sacrificial animal for a dinar. Right?
The questioner : And he sold it ... .
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : ... bought a sheep for a dinar ... .
The Shaykh : What is the indication?
The questioner : The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) approved it and confirmed it.
The Shaykh : This is athari evidence, the explanation, Samih?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The explanation, the explanation? The explanation?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It may not be in the benefit, my brothers.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The prevention of disposing of another person's property is out of consideration for the right of the other person. If permission is given, the cause is removed, okay. It is also possible to say that one can also argue with the verse
but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent
إلا أن تكون تجارة عن تراض منكمby mutual consent
عن تراضThe questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, if he bought with the specific money of his without his permission, it is not valid. An example of that? Sa'id? He bought with the specific money of his without his permission.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : But with the specific money of his, and what does ... mean?
The questioner : With the same money.
The Shaykh : And how, meaning? Illustrate the issue for me?
The questioner : A man to whom you gave fifty riyals, and he has fifty.
The Shaykh : And he has fifty.
The questioner : Yes, and he saved his money and bought with my money.
The Shaykh : What is the need for you to answer "and he has fifty." You gave him fifty riyals as a deposit.
The questioner : Yes, and he bought something with it.
The Shaykh : And he bought something with it with the same coins?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But what does his saying "with the specific money of his" mean?
The questioner : With his same money.
The Shaykh : Meaning, for example, I bought this radio for fifty riyals, then I took the fifty that you gave me and gave it to the men, is this it? Yes, wrong.
The questioner : And its example is that ... he tells him, go with this money to so-and-so specifically, so this man buys ... with this money, for example, goods or something, this is not permissible.
The Shaykh : Okay, meaning this man stopped at the food owner and said, give me fifty riyals worth of rice, for example, fifty kilos, then he took the coins out of his pocket and gave them to him.
The questioner : It is not permissible with the specific ones, no ... .
The Shaykh : Is this it? Wrong.
The questioner : He takes the fifty ... .
The Shaykh : Give me with these fifty.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes. Okay, correct, my brothers?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : Yes, because he is now buying with the specific money of his, the contract fell on the specific money, which is the price, so it is as if he sold the specific money of his, did you understand, my brothers?
The questioner : No. What is ... O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : Okay, first, an interjected sentence, he says. Now I stopped at the shop owner and said, give me rice for fifty riyals, so he gave me, so I took the coins of Zayd from my pocket and gave them to him, here the sale is valid.
The second example, I said to the shop owner after I took the coins out of my pocket, give me rice with these coins? This is not valid. The difference is that the contract fell on the specific coins owned by another, whereas in the first case, the contract fell on my liability for a price in my liability, then I paid the price from the coins of another, did you understand, my brothers?
The questioner : ... meaning, is it conceivable in the two currencies.
The Shaykh : Even this, even this, if the contract falls on the specific price owned by another, the contract is invalid, just as if you sold his property. And if the contract falls on something unspecified, then you paid the price from the property of another, this is fine, meaning the sale is valid.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The difference is the specification. If the sale falls on the specific coins of another, the contract is defective, and the aspect of that is that he actually sold the property of another. And if it falls on his liability, then he paid it from the coins of another, the contract is valid. For this reason, the author stipulated and said "he bought with the specific money of his", is it clear, my brothers? And the difference is very clear. The difference is that if the property of another is specified, the contract falls on its specific entity, so he disposed of the property of another. And if the contract falls on what is in the liability, then he paid it from the property of another, the contract is valid. Then it returned to whether he takes from the property of another or not, this is what returned. Is it haram or halal? Okay.
And it is known from his saying "without his permission" that if he gave him permission, it is valid, okay.