Explanation of the author's statement: "And if he excepted from an animal that is eaten its head, its skin, and its extremities, it is valid"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And if he excepted from an animal that is eaten its head, its skin, and its extremities, it is valid" Is it valid?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Yes. And if he excepted from an animal that is eaten its head, the head is the object of the verb "excepted." For this reason, if the author (may Allah have mercy on him) had said, "And if he excepted the head of an edible animal," the expression would have been better and clearer. For this reason, Juhdaz, one of the great students, erred in this. So we say: "And if he excepted from an animal that is eaten its head," the head being the object of "excepted," and its skin and its extremities, meaning the legs, for example, then this exception is valid. Why? Because it is known that the head... is like a lump of meat, and the extremities are the same, and the skin is the same. The skin, although it sometimes differs in thinness and softness or thickness and transparency, this is a slight difference that is excused. So if he said, "I sold you this sheep except for its head," the sale is valid. But the problem is if the seller demands the head and the buyer refuses to slaughter it. Yes, so what do we do? We say: if he stipulated that it be slaughtered, he must be compelled to do so. And if he did not stipulate that it be slaughtered, it remains his. And if the buyer wants to sell it, he says, "Who will bid on the sheep except for its head?" Why? Because the head is not his. Yes, fine. In this case, if it is said that if he refuses to slaughter it, then maintaining the partnership is a harm and the dispute remains forever, do we say that in this case we appraise it and compel the seller to accept the appraisal, or not? We appraise it. We say, "People, if this head were separate, what would it be worth?" They say, "It is worth two riyals, and the value of the sheep is one hundred riyals." In this case, we compel the seller—no, the buyer is the one who is demanding now; he wants the sheep to be pure and says, "I do not want to slaughter the sheep, and he was not stipulated to slaughter it." We say to the seller, "Take this value of the head, and the whole sheep remains for whom?" For the buyer. Fine, and the same is said regarding the legs and the skin. Fine, if he excepted from an animal that is eaten its rump, and the rump is in sheep, is it permissible or not? By analogy to the head, it is permissible, because this is an independent organ known by observation, so it is valid. And if he excepted from a goat its tail, does it have value? Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Now it has no value. In any case, if he excepted it, it is valid, but it has no value. And his saying "if he excepted from an animal that is eaten," "eaten" is a description of the animal. If he excepted from an animal that is not eaten, such as if he said, "I sold you this donkey except for its head"?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid? Why? Because he does not benefit from the head in any way. He does not benefit from the head except by eating it, and eating it is forbidden, and the forbidden has no value. And on this basis, it is necessary that the one from which the head, skin, and extremities are excepted be something that is eaten. Fine, the buyer bought the sheep except for its head; the seller excepted the head, yes. So when the buyer took the sheep, he found that the sheep was blind. Is blindness a defect or not?
The questioner : It is a defect.
The Shaykh : Does it reduce the value?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, he said, "I want to annul the sale." The buyer says, "I want to annul the sale because it is blind." The seller said, "The blindness is in the head, and the head is mine, not yours, so there is no annulment." So what do we say? Does he have the right to annul or not?
The questioner : No, he does not.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : There is a distinction in this.
The Shaykh : There is no detail at all; he has the right to annul, by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) So it is necessary that this defect affects the rest of the body. And if it is estimated that it did not affect it because it is in the head and ends there, like blindness, for example, then it affects the value. And I bought it from you for one hundred on the condition that it was sound. And if it is blind, it will be at a lower price, so the value is reduced. And on this basis, we say to the buyer: annulment is for what is specific to the excepted part, and it is not possible for the seller to say, "This is in what I excepted," and it is not possible for you to return it, because the evidence, as I told you, is from the hadith. And if it is estimated that the effect of this defect has disappeared, we return to what? The reasoning by value. Fine.
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : Yes. And if he excepted from an animal that is eaten its head, the head is the object of the verb "excepted." For this reason, if the author (may Allah have mercy on him) had said, "And if he excepted the head of an edible animal," the expression would have been better and clearer. For this reason, Juhdaz, one of the great students, erred in this. So we say: "And if he excepted from an animal that is eaten its head," the head being the object of "excepted," and its skin and its extremities, meaning the legs, for example, then this exception is valid. Why? Because it is known that the head... is like a lump of meat, and the extremities are the same, and the skin is the same. The skin, although it sometimes differs in thinness and softness or thickness and transparency, this is a slight difference that is excused. So if he said, "I sold you this sheep except for its head," the sale is valid. But the problem is if the seller demands the head and the buyer refuses to slaughter it. Yes, so what do we do? We say: if he stipulated that it be slaughtered, he must be compelled to do so. And if he did not stipulate that it be slaughtered, it remains his. And if the buyer wants to sell it, he says, "Who will bid on the sheep except for its head?" Why? Because the head is not his. Yes, fine. In this case, if it is said that if he refuses to slaughter it, then maintaining the partnership is a harm and the dispute remains forever, do we say that in this case we appraise it and compel the seller to accept the appraisal, or not? We appraise it. We say, "People, if this head were separate, what would it be worth?" They say, "It is worth two riyals, and the value of the sheep is one hundred riyals." In this case, we compel the seller—no, the buyer is the one who is demanding now; he wants the sheep to be pure and says, "I do not want to slaughter the sheep, and he was not stipulated to slaughter it." We say to the seller, "Take this value of the head, and the whole sheep remains for whom?" For the buyer. Fine, and the same is said regarding the legs and the skin. Fine, if he excepted from an animal that is eaten its rump, and the rump is in sheep, is it permissible or not? By analogy to the head, it is permissible, because this is an independent organ known by observation, so it is valid. And if he excepted from a goat its tail, does it have value? Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Now it has no value. In any case, if he excepted it, it is valid, but it has no value. And his saying "if he excepted from an animal that is eaten," "eaten" is a description of the animal. If he excepted from an animal that is not eaten, such as if he said, "I sold you this donkey except for its head"?
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : It is not valid? Why? Because he does not benefit from the head in any way. He does not benefit from the head except by eating it, and eating it is forbidden, and the forbidden has no value. And on this basis, it is necessary that the one from which the head, skin, and extremities are excepted be something that is eaten. Fine, the buyer bought the sheep except for its head; the seller excepted the head, yes. So when the buyer took the sheep, he found that the sheep was blind. Is blindness a defect or not?
The questioner : It is a defect.
The Shaykh : Does it reduce the value?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Fine, he said, "I want to annul the sale." The buyer says, "I want to annul the sale because it is blind." The seller said, "The blindness is in the head, and the head is mine, not yours, so there is no annulment." So what do we say? Does he have the right to annul or not?
The questioner : No, he does not.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : There is a distinction in this.
The Shaykh : There is no detail at all; he has the right to annul, by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)