Explanation of the author's statement: "And not a slave from among his slaves, nor any exception except a specified one."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said, in a list of what is not valid due to lack of knowledge: "And not a slave from among his slaves". This means that it is not valid to sell a slave from among his slaves, and that is due to the lack of specification. Yes, the item being sold must be specified. If it is not specified, the sale is not valid. The apparent meaning of the author's words (may Allah have mercy on him) is that the sale is not valid even if the values are equal, meaning if the value is the same. There is disagreement among the scholars on this matter, for some say that if the values are equal, the sale is valid. There is also some consideration in this opinion, because the values may be equal while the characteristics differ. For example, this one is worth one hundred because he is fat, the second is worth one hundred because he is a carrier, and the third is worth one hundred because he is large in build, is that not so? Are you with us or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, so the equality of values in reality does not remove the ambiguity if the intended object is the specific item being sold. But if the intended purpose is trade, then if the values are equal, there is no ambiguity, because what is sought in trade is what? The price or the value. So if the values are equal, yes, there is no harm in saying that the sale is valid if the intended purpose is trade. But if the intended purpose is the specific item being sold, it must be specified. The equality of values may occur with different purposes. I gave you an example that covered three cases: this is a pregnant sheep but it is thin, this is a fat sheep but it is small in build, and this is a large sheep in build but it is thin. The values? They are the same. The pregnancy raised the value of the pregnant one, the fatness raised the value of the small fat one, and the large build raised the value of the one with little meat. But a person may have a purpose; he may have a purpose for the pregnant one over the fat one, or for the fat one over the pregnant one, or for the fat one over the large one. So the criterion is what? We can say that it is permissible to sell a slave from among his slaves if the purpose is not lost. But if the purpose is lost, specification is necessary.
He said: "And not any exception except a specified one". Okay, there is a sale that people engage in today where he has a pile of chickpeas, do you know them? It is called "jah" in the colloquial language. If he says to you, "I sold you one from this pile for two riyals, you choose," the custom of people today is that the sale is valid and binding, and the buyer, if he takes the bean he wants, the seller either approves it or prevents it. But the seller knows that the highest price this group could reach is two riyals, knowing that he is not being cheated. So in such a case, it should be said to be valid, because people have agreed on this sale and do not see any ambiguity or excessive uncertainty in it. The original rule in transactions and contracts is what? Permissibility and validity. And each person does not see anything wrong with this. Likewise, a sheep from a flock: for example, someone comes to a flock of sheep and says to him, "Choose whatever you want for one hundred riyals from these sheep." This has also become customary. But if he chooses, the seller has known that the highest it could reach is one hundred riyals, yes. He said, "And not any exception except a specified one," meaning that it is not valid to except a slave from the slaves unless he is specified. So if he said, "I sold you these slaves except one," is the sale?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : Why? Yes, why?
The questioner : Due to the ambiguity.
The Shaykh : Due to the ambiguity. How was there ambiguity? They said because the ambiguity of the excepted item necessitates the ambiguity of the item from which it is excepted. The item from which it is excepted is now known... ten slaves. But if he excepts one, the item being sold becomes what? Unknown, because this one might be worth half the value of the total. And on this basis, this exception is not valid. How is the solution if we want to except one? Specify it. I say, "except the slave named Muhammad" or "named 'Abdullah" or something similar. And with this, the prohibition is removed. Okay, if he said, "I sold you these slaves except this one" and pointed to him?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : How? ... specified? By what?
The questioner : By pointing.
The Shaykh : By pointing, perfect. Okay.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said, in a list of what is not valid due to lack of knowledge: "And not a slave from among his slaves". This means that it is not valid to sell a slave from among his slaves, and that is due to the lack of specification. Yes, the item being sold must be specified. If it is not specified, the sale is not valid. The apparent meaning of the author's words (may Allah have mercy on him) is that the sale is not valid even if the values are equal, meaning if the value is the same. There is disagreement among the scholars on this matter, for some say that if the values are equal, the sale is valid. There is also some consideration in this opinion, because the values may be equal while the characteristics differ. For example, this one is worth one hundred because he is fat, the second is worth one hundred because he is a carrier, and the third is worth one hundred because he is large in build, is that not so? Are you with us or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, so the equality of values in reality does not remove the ambiguity if the intended object is the specific item being sold. But if the intended purpose is trade, then if the values are equal, there is no ambiguity, because what is sought in trade is what? The price or the value. So if the values are equal, yes, there is no harm in saying that the sale is valid if the intended purpose is trade. But if the intended purpose is the specific item being sold, it must be specified. The equality of values may occur with different purposes. I gave you an example that covered three cases: this is a pregnant sheep but it is thin, this is a fat sheep but it is small in build, and this is a large sheep in build but it is thin. The values? They are the same. The pregnancy raised the value of the pregnant one, the fatness raised the value of the small fat one, and the large build raised the value of the one with little meat. But a person may have a purpose; he may have a purpose for the pregnant one over the fat one, or for the fat one over the pregnant one, or for the fat one over the large one. So the criterion is what? We can say that it is permissible to sell a slave from among his slaves if the purpose is not lost. But if the purpose is lost, specification is necessary.
He said: "And not any exception except a specified one". Okay, there is a sale that people engage in today where he has a pile of chickpeas, do you know them? It is called "jah" in the colloquial language. If he says to you, "I sold you one from this pile for two riyals, you choose," the custom of people today is that the sale is valid and binding, and the buyer, if he takes the bean he wants, the seller either approves it or prevents it. But the seller knows that the highest price this group could reach is two riyals, knowing that he is not being cheated. So in such a case, it should be said to be valid, because people have agreed on this sale and do not see any ambiguity or excessive uncertainty in it. The original rule in transactions and contracts is what? Permissibility and validity. And each person does not see anything wrong with this. Likewise, a sheep from a flock: for example, someone comes to a flock of sheep and says to him, "Choose whatever you want for one hundred riyals from these sheep." This has also become customary. But if he chooses, the seller has known that the highest it could reach is one hundred riyals, yes. He said, "And not any exception except a specified one," meaning that it is not valid to except a slave from the slaves unless he is specified. So if he said, "I sold you these slaves except one," is the sale?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : Why? Yes, why?
The questioner : Due to the ambiguity.
The Shaykh : Due to the ambiguity. How was there ambiguity? They said because the ambiguity of the excepted item necessitates the ambiguity of the item from which it is excepted. The item from which it is excepted is now known... ten slaves. But if he excepts one, the item being sold becomes what? Unknown, because this one might be worth half the value of the total. And on this basis, this exception is not valid. How is the solution if we want to except one? Specify it. I say, "except the slave named Muhammad" or "named 'Abdullah" or something similar. And with this, the prohibition is removed. Okay, if he said, "I sold you these slaves except this one" and pointed to him?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : How? ... specified? By what?
The questioner : By pointing.
The Shaykh : By pointing, perfect. Okay.