Explanation of the author's statement: "If it is not difficult to determine, the sale is valid for the known item at its proportion of the price."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : All right, "If it is not difficult to determine, the sale is valid for the known item at its proportion of the price". If it is not difficult to determine the unknown item, the sale is valid for the known item at its proportion of the price. This is because it is possible to apportion the price between the known and the unknown, and the price of the known item can be determined. An example of this is if he sold you the car that is here now, and another car in the garage. Is the other car in the garage unknown or not? It is unknown. He sold you the car here and the one in the garage for ten thousand, yes, for ten thousand. He asks: Is the sale valid for the one present or for the one in the garage?
The questioner : The one present.
The Shaykh : For the one present. The sale is not valid for the one in the garage because it is unknown. How do we apportion the price? We say: We estimate the value of the one in our hands now. They said its value is ten. What is the value of the other? They said its value is five. How do we distribute the price? We distribute it in thirds: two-thirds for the one present and one-third for the one absent. Do you understand? So the price is apportioned between the known present item and the unknown absent item. The price belonging to the known present item is taken, and that [portion for the unknown] is dropped. It is dropped because the sale is not valid for it. So the sale of the known with the unknown is divided into two categories: the first is that it is difficult to determine the unknown, and the second is that it is not difficult. If it is difficult to determine it, what is the sale?
The questioner : ... valid for the known, not the unknown.
The Shaykh : No. If it is difficult to determine it, the sale is not valid unless a price is estimated for each of them. For example, he says the known is for ten and the other is for two dirhams, or for five. Wait. The second is that the unknown is what? The second category is that it is not difficult to determine the unknown. Here, the sale is valid for the known item at its proportion of the price, while the sale is not valid for the unknown. Is it clear, everyone? I will repeat the example. He sold him this she-camel and what is in the belly of the other she-camel for one thousand dirhams in total, and did not estimate a price for each one?
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : Be patient, O Shaykh, ... it is not clear twice. We said ten thousand, then fifteen thousand.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is an estimate, because the price may be less than the value or it may be more.
Let us repeat it a second time. I say: if he sells something known and something unknown, it falls into two categories. The first category is that the unknown thing is difficult to know. What is the ruling? The sale is not valid unless he estimates a price for each of them, saying, for example, the known one is for ten and the second is for two dirhams, or for five. Be patient. The second is: what is the unknown thing? The second category is that the unknown thing is not difficult to know. In this case, the sale is valid for the known item according to its share of the price, but it is not valid for the unknown item. Is that clear, everyone? Let me repeat the example: he sold this she-camel and what is in the belly of the other she-camel for one thousand dirhams in total, and he did not estimate a price for each one?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The sale is not valid. He sold him this she-camel and what is in the belly of the other for one thousand dirhams, on the condition that the fetus is for two hundred and the one present is for eight hundred. Is it valid or not?
The questioner : It is valid.
The Shaykh : It is valid because he estimated the price. The one that is not difficult to determine: he sold him this she-camel that is with him, in front of him, and the she-camel in the pen. He sold the two she-camels for one thousand dirhams. Is it valid or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is valid for the known item at its proportion of the price, because it is not difficult to determine the unknown. We can go now and see its value and deduct it from the price. Do you understand? The author says "at its proportion of the price", and the meaning of that is that we estimate the price for both of them, then we look at the value of this one and the value of that one, and we deduct it from the price.
They said, for example, the she-camel that is present is worth ten, and the she-camel in the pen is worth five. What is the ratio? Five to ten is one-third. So one-third of the price is deducted for the she-camel in the pen, and the sale is valid for the known item at two-thirds of the price. All right. This is called one of the three transactions, because they have three transactions in which the sale is valid for what makes the contract valid, and not valid for the rest. This issue, if the validity of the known item at its proportion is not difficult, is one of the issues of separating the transaction. What does "transaction" mean? What is the meaning of "transaction"?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The contract, because they are contracting parties. Especially in the early times, if he sold, how much did you sell to me for? I sold to you for such-and-such, and he claps his hands. So the transaction is the contract. Separating it means validating some of it and invalidating some of it.
The issue we have now: if he sold a known and an unknown item, and it is not difficult to determine it, did we separate the transaction or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We validated it in what is valid and invalidated it in what is invalid.
The questioner : The one present.
The Shaykh : For the one present. The sale is not valid for the one in the garage because it is unknown. How do we apportion the price? We say: We estimate the value of the one in our hands now. They said its value is ten. What is the value of the other? They said its value is five. How do we distribute the price? We distribute it in thirds: two-thirds for the one present and one-third for the one absent. Do you understand? So the price is apportioned between the known present item and the unknown absent item. The price belonging to the known present item is taken, and that [portion for the unknown] is dropped. It is dropped because the sale is not valid for it. So the sale of the known with the unknown is divided into two categories: the first is that it is difficult to determine the unknown, and the second is that it is not difficult. If it is difficult to determine it, what is the sale?
The questioner : ... valid for the known, not the unknown.
The Shaykh : No. If it is difficult to determine it, the sale is not valid unless a price is estimated for each of them. For example, he says the known is for ten and the other is for two dirhams, or for five. Wait. The second is that the unknown is what? The second category is that it is not difficult to determine the unknown. Here, the sale is valid for the known item at its proportion of the price, while the sale is not valid for the unknown. Is it clear, everyone? I will repeat the example. He sold him this she-camel and what is in the belly of the other she-camel for one thousand dirhams in total, and did not estimate a price for each one?
The questioner : Clear.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : Be patient, O Shaykh, ... it is not clear twice. We said ten thousand, then fifteen thousand.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is an estimate, because the price may be less than the value or it may be more.
Let us repeat it a second time. I say: if he sells something known and something unknown, it falls into two categories. The first category is that the unknown thing is difficult to know. What is the ruling? The sale is not valid unless he estimates a price for each of them, saying, for example, the known one is for ten and the second is for two dirhams, or for five. Be patient. The second is: what is the unknown thing? The second category is that the unknown thing is not difficult to know. In this case, the sale is valid for the known item according to its share of the price, but it is not valid for the unknown item. Is that clear, everyone? Let me repeat the example: he sold this she-camel and what is in the belly of the other she-camel for one thousand dirhams in total, and he did not estimate a price for each one?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The sale is not valid. He sold him this she-camel and what is in the belly of the other for one thousand dirhams, on the condition that the fetus is for two hundred and the one present is for eight hundred. Is it valid or not?
The questioner : It is valid.
The Shaykh : It is valid because he estimated the price. The one that is not difficult to determine: he sold him this she-camel that is with him, in front of him, and the she-camel in the pen. He sold the two she-camels for one thousand dirhams. Is it valid or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is valid for the known item at its proportion of the price, because it is not difficult to determine the unknown. We can go now and see its value and deduct it from the price. Do you understand? The author says "at its proportion of the price", and the meaning of that is that we estimate the price for both of them, then we look at the value of this one and the value of that one, and we deduct it from the price.
They said, for example, the she-camel that is present is worth ten, and the she-camel in the pen is worth five. What is the ratio? Five to ten is one-third. So one-third of the price is deducted for the she-camel in the pen, and the sale is valid for the known item at two-thirds of the price. All right. This is called one of the three transactions, because they have three transactions in which the sale is valid for what makes the contract valid, and not valid for the rest. This issue, if the validity of the known item at its proportion is not difficult, is one of the issues of separating the transaction. What does "transaction" mean? What is the meaning of "transaction"?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The contract, because they are contracting parties. Especially in the early times, if he sold, how much did you sell to me for? I sold to you for such-and-such, and he claps his hands. So the transaction is the contract. Separating it means validating some of it and invalidating some of it.
The issue we have now: if he sold a known and an unknown item, and it is not difficult to determine it, did we separate the transaction or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : We validated it in what is valid and invalidated it in what is invalid.