Explanation of the author's statement: "And no sale of the pits in dates, the wool on the back, or radishes and the like before they are uprooted."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says, "Likewise, the sale of pits in dates is not valid". Do you know what pits are? It is well known. Fine, if a person has a container of dates and says to him, "Sell me the pits of these dates; you will eat the dates, so sell me the pits," and he says, "Yes, I will sell you the pits," then the sale is not valid because it is like the fetus in the womb. Fine, and is the sale of dates with their pits valid? Just as the sale of a pregnant woman with her fetus is valid. Fine, why is the sale of pits in dates not valid? Because it is unknown, and thus it falls under the sale of excessive uncertainty. And you know that the pits vary, even within the same variety. Perhaps you eat a date and find a large pit in it, and perhaps you eat a date of this variety, or even from the same container, and find a small pit. Therefore, the sale of pits in dates is not valid. And it is understood from his statement "sale of pits in dates" that if one removes the pits from the dates and sells them, the sale is valid because it is known.
"And no wool on the back". The wool on the back is not permissible to sell due to a hadith that was reported prohibiting it, and because it is a part of the animal or connected to the animal, so its sale is not permissible, just as the sale of a part of the animal is not permissible. So we have evidence and we have a reasoning. The wool on the back: for example, a person has a sheep, and someone comes to spin the wool and says, "Sell me the wool on your sheep," and he sells it to him. It is said that this is not permissible. ... Yes, it is said that this is because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited it, and because it is connected to the animal, so its sale is not permissible, like a part of its parts, just as if he sold the hand or sold the leg or something similar to this.
The second opinion is that the sale of wool on the back is valid because it is seen and known, and there is no obstacle to its sale. The sale does not include a prohibited element. This opinion is the correct one. If someone asks, "What is the answer to the hadith that was cited as evidence, which is the hadith of Ibn Abbas?" We say the answer is: if the hadith is authentic, then it was prohibited because the animal may be harmed by shearing, especially if it is sheared in days of what? Winter. So the prohibition is not due to the cause of ignorance, but due to the cause of harm. This is if the hadith is authentic. As for the analogy, which is that it is connected to the animal, so it is like a part of its parts, our answer to that is from two angles. The first angle is that we do not accept the prohibition of selling a known, visible part, such as selling the head, or selling the neck, or selling the hand from the arm. That is, we do not accept that the sale of this is forbidden because it is what? It is seen and known, and there is no excessive uncertainty or ignorance in it. The second thing is that the analogy is not valid because the hair or wool is in the ruling of being detached. How can it be made in the ruling of a part? And it is amazing that the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) said that touching a woman with desire invalidates the ablution, but touching her hair does not invalidate the ablution. They said it is because it is in the ruling of being detached. What is this contradiction?
So the stronger opinion in this issue is that the sale of wool on the back is permissible, but we stipulate that no harm befall the animal. If harm befalls the animal, it is prohibited, not because it is unknown, but because of the harm to the animal. Fine.
He says, may Allah have mercy on him, "And no radishes and the like before they are uprooted". Radishes are well known, right, Abdullah? What are they? Did you understand radishes? Fine. The sale of radishes is not valid until they are uprooted from the ground and seen, because they are buried in the ground, so it is not valid. They may be large, medium, or small. And his statement "and the like" is like what? Onions and carrots, and many things like this. Yes?
The questioner : Potatoes.
The Shaykh : Potatoes? It is amazing, are potatoes buried?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, in any case, everything whose intended part is in the ground is unknown, so its sale is not valid until it is uprooted. If it is uprooted and becomes prominent and visible on the ground, then it is sold. And there is also disagreement among the scholars on this issue. The second opinion in this issue is that its sale is valid, because even if its intended part is hidden, it is known to those with expertise; they know it. And this is what is practiced. It is possible to come to the farmer and say, "Sell me this piece of land with the onions or garlic or radishes in it for such and such," and that is after its growth is complete. Its sale is valid. Fine. And this opinion is more correct, and it is what has been practiced for a long time. We have seen people come to the farmers and say, "Sell me, for example, these beds of onions," and he sells to them, and they do not see any ignorance in this. Then, if it is determined that there is ignorance, it is slight ignorance that does not constitute excessive uncertainty.
"And no wool on the back". The wool on the back is not permissible to sell due to a hadith that was reported prohibiting it, and because it is a part of the animal or connected to the animal, so its sale is not permissible, just as the sale of a part of the animal is not permissible. So we have evidence and we have a reasoning. The wool on the back: for example, a person has a sheep, and someone comes to spin the wool and says, "Sell me the wool on your sheep," and he sells it to him. It is said that this is not permissible. ... Yes, it is said that this is because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited it, and because it is connected to the animal, so its sale is not permissible, like a part of its parts, just as if he sold the hand or sold the leg or something similar to this.
The second opinion is that the sale of wool on the back is valid because it is seen and known, and there is no obstacle to its sale. The sale does not include a prohibited element. This opinion is the correct one. If someone asks, "What is the answer to the hadith that was cited as evidence, which is the hadith of Ibn Abbas?" We say the answer is: if the hadith is authentic, then it was prohibited because the animal may be harmed by shearing, especially if it is sheared in days of what? Winter. So the prohibition is not due to the cause of ignorance, but due to the cause of harm. This is if the hadith is authentic. As for the analogy, which is that it is connected to the animal, so it is like a part of its parts, our answer to that is from two angles. The first angle is that we do not accept the prohibition of selling a known, visible part, such as selling the head, or selling the neck, or selling the hand from the arm. That is, we do not accept that the sale of this is forbidden because it is what? It is seen and known, and there is no excessive uncertainty or ignorance in it. The second thing is that the analogy is not valid because the hair or wool is in the ruling of being detached. How can it be made in the ruling of a part? And it is amazing that the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) said that touching a woman with desire invalidates the ablution, but touching her hair does not invalidate the ablution. They said it is because it is in the ruling of being detached. What is this contradiction?
So the stronger opinion in this issue is that the sale of wool on the back is permissible, but we stipulate that no harm befall the animal. If harm befalls the animal, it is prohibited, not because it is unknown, but because of the harm to the animal. Fine.
He says, may Allah have mercy on him, "And no radishes and the like before they are uprooted". Radishes are well known, right, Abdullah? What are they? Did you understand radishes? Fine. The sale of radishes is not valid until they are uprooted from the ground and seen, because they are buried in the ground, so it is not valid. They may be large, medium, or small. And his statement "and the like" is like what? Onions and carrots, and many things like this. Yes?
The questioner : Potatoes.
The Shaykh : Potatoes? It is amazing, are potatoes buried?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, in any case, everything whose intended part is in the ground is unknown, so its sale is not valid until it is uprooted. If it is uprooted and becomes prominent and visible on the ground, then it is sold. And there is also disagreement among the scholars on this issue. The second opinion in this issue is that its sale is valid, because even if its intended part is hidden, it is known to those with expertise; they know it. And this is what is practiced. It is possible to come to the farmer and say, "Sell me this piece of land with the onions or garlic or radishes in it for such and such," and that is after its growth is complete. Its sale is valid. Fine. And this opinion is more correct, and it is what has been practiced for a long time. We have seen people come to the farmers and say, "Sell me, for example, these beds of onions," and he sells to them, and they do not see any ignorance in this. Then, if it is determined that there is ignorance, it is slight ignorance that does not constitute excessive uncertainty.