The discussion regarding the separation of a sale.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The sale, or the separation of a sale, has three forms. The first?
The questioner : The first form is that ... .
The Shaykh : A mistake.
The questioner : That it does not become difficult.
The Shaykh : That it does not become difficult? The first form is that he sold.
The questioner : Two forms.
The Shaykh : Which is the first form? He sold what?
The questioner : He sold ... .
The Shaykh : No. My brothers, is there anyone behind me? Yes?
The questioner : If he sold something known and something unknown ... .
The Shaykh : This is if he sold something known and something unknown whose knowledge is difficult to ascertain. This is one of the forms of separating a sale? Do you agree with me?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : They disagreed with you, so you violated their consensus. Yes?
The questioner : He sold a shared portion between him and another.
The Shaykh : The first form? What is this? If he sold what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If he sold something unknown and something known, and its knowledge is not difficult to ascertain, is that right? Some people disagree with you.
The questioner : If he sold something known and something unknown, and its knowledge is not difficult to ascertain.
The Shaykh : What do you say? Is it correct? If he sold something known and something unknown, and its knowledge is not difficult to ascertain, is it correct? It is valid regarding the known item and not valid regarding the unknown item, and the price is apportioned between them. The example, Musa? I sold you this car
The questioner : and one like it ... .
The Shaykh : One like it in description.
The questioner : The second car ... .
The Shaykh : Perfect, you sold both of them together for a thousand, perfect, may Allah bless you. If he said, "I sold you this sheep and what is in the belly of the other"?
The questioner : In this case, it is ...
The Shaykh : Separation of a sale. Is there separation of a sale here?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So what is the ruling?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This does not have two conditions. I sold you this sheep and what is in the belly of the other.
The questioner : ... it was not specified ... the sale is not valid.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : Because the price of each one was not specified.
The Shaykh : Okay, and if it was not specified?
The questioner : If it was not specified, the knowledge of the unknown item becomes difficult to ascertain, in this case.
The Shaykh : Apportionment is not possible? Correct, everyone?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, he says it is not valid for all of them. As for the fetus, it is apparent. And as for the known item, it is because the price cannot be apportioned between it and the unknown item due to the difficulty of knowing it. May Allah bless you. Okay. The second issue of separating a sale? Yes?
The questioner : Selling a shared portion between him and another, and it is ... .
The Shaykh : The price is by parts, so in that case?
The questioner : It is valid for my share ... .
The Shaykh : Perfect, it is valid for his share and not valid for the share of the other, and the price is apportioned between them. Okay. He sold two items, one belonging to another and the second belonging to him, meaning he sold his slave and the slave of another. The brother?
The questioner : It is valid for his slave and not valid for the other.
The Shaykh : How do we handle the price?
The questioner : We can calculate it.
The Shaykh : Is it apportioned between them? Okay, what is the difference between this and our saying he sold a shared portion between him and another? What is the difference? What is the difference in description, not in ruling? The ruling is the same.
The questioner : That this shared portion ... .
The Shaykh : It is known that I have half and you have half.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, it is not a description. I sold a car where I have half and you have half. What is the difference?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And this? This distinguishes the ownership of each one from the other, but the transaction occurred on both of them. The first is a shared item, meaning one person owns half and the other owns half, or one owns a quarter and the other owns three quarters, or something similar. Yes. A man sold his son and the son of another. What do you say, Abd al-Rahman? Which one is valid?
The questioner : It is not sold.
The Shaykh : How? It is not sold? Why? He sold his son and the son of another. What do you say, Abdullah?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : His son is free? And if it is the son of a female slave, because the son of a female slave is a slave of the free man.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He is not freed because he belongs to the master of the mother, not to his father.
The questioner : He is not his son and the son of another.
The Shaykh : Yes, the son of another.
The questioner : The other one as well?
The Shaykh : The son of another, let us see.
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : In any case?
The questioner : Unless ... .
The Shaykh : Do you understand the question, everyone? He sold his son and the son of another.
The questioner : If the master appointed him as an agent, meaning.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : It is permissible for his son, meaning ...
The Shaykh : And the son of another?
The questioner : If the master appointed him as an agent for his son, it is permissible. And for the son of another, if he is an agent, otherwise, if his value is known, it is apportioned like the previous issue.
The Shaykh : Okay, the son of another, even if he belongs to him?
The questioner : How can he be his son and a slave of his?
The Shaykh : Yes, the female slave belongs to this man and is married to a stranger.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And she gave birth to a child.
The questioner : Yes ... because ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, okay, correct. This gives the impression of how it can be his son and the son of another. His son would be free like him. We say no, it is not necessary. Yes, in any case, this can be considered under the category of *mu'ayayah* (sale of a specific item). Okay.
The questioner : The first form is that ... .
The Shaykh : A mistake.
The questioner : That it does not become difficult.
The Shaykh : That it does not become difficult? The first form is that he sold.
The questioner : Two forms.
The Shaykh : Which is the first form? He sold what?
The questioner : He sold ... .
The Shaykh : No. My brothers, is there anyone behind me? Yes?
The questioner : If he sold something known and something unknown ... .
The Shaykh : This is if he sold something known and something unknown whose knowledge is difficult to ascertain. This is one of the forms of separating a sale? Do you agree with me?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : They disagreed with you, so you violated their consensus. Yes?
The questioner : He sold a shared portion between him and another.
The Shaykh : The first form? What is this? If he sold what?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If he sold something unknown and something known, and its knowledge is not difficult to ascertain, is that right? Some people disagree with you.
The questioner : If he sold something known and something unknown, and its knowledge is not difficult to ascertain.
The Shaykh : What do you say? Is it correct? If he sold something known and something unknown, and its knowledge is not difficult to ascertain, is it correct? It is valid regarding the known item and not valid regarding the unknown item, and the price is apportioned between them. The example, Musa? I sold you this car
The questioner : and one like it ... .
The Shaykh : One like it in description.
The questioner : The second car ... .
The Shaykh : Perfect, you sold both of them together for a thousand, perfect, may Allah bless you. If he said, "I sold you this sheep and what is in the belly of the other"?
The questioner : In this case, it is ...
The Shaykh : Separation of a sale. Is there separation of a sale here?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : So what is the ruling?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : This does not have two conditions. I sold you this sheep and what is in the belly of the other.
The questioner : ... it was not specified ... the sale is not valid.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : Because the price of each one was not specified.
The Shaykh : Okay, and if it was not specified?
The questioner : If it was not specified, the knowledge of the unknown item becomes difficult to ascertain, in this case.
The Shaykh : Apportionment is not possible? Correct, everyone?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, he says it is not valid for all of them. As for the fetus, it is apparent. And as for the known item, it is because the price cannot be apportioned between it and the unknown item due to the difficulty of knowing it. May Allah bless you. Okay. The second issue of separating a sale? Yes?
The questioner : Selling a shared portion between him and another, and it is ... .
The Shaykh : The price is by parts, so in that case?
The questioner : It is valid for my share ... .
The Shaykh : Perfect, it is valid for his share and not valid for the share of the other, and the price is apportioned between them. Okay. He sold two items, one belonging to another and the second belonging to him, meaning he sold his slave and the slave of another. The brother?
The questioner : It is valid for his slave and not valid for the other.
The Shaykh : How do we handle the price?
The questioner : We can calculate it.
The Shaykh : Is it apportioned between them? Okay, what is the difference between this and our saying he sold a shared portion between him and another? What is the difference? What is the difference in description, not in ruling? The ruling is the same.
The questioner : That this shared portion ... .
The Shaykh : It is known that I have half and you have half.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, it is not a description. I sold a car where I have half and you have half. What is the difference?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : And this? This distinguishes the ownership of each one from the other, but the transaction occurred on both of them. The first is a shared item, meaning one person owns half and the other owns half, or one owns a quarter and the other owns three quarters, or something similar. Yes. A man sold his son and the son of another. What do you say, Abd al-Rahman? Which one is valid?
The questioner : It is not sold.
The Shaykh : How? It is not sold? Why? He sold his son and the son of another. What do you say, Abdullah?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : His son is free? And if it is the son of a female slave, because the son of a female slave is a slave of the free man.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He is not freed because he belongs to the master of the mother, not to his father.
The questioner : He is not his son and the son of another.
The Shaykh : Yes, the son of another.
The questioner : The other one as well?
The Shaykh : The son of another, let us see.
The questioner : It is not valid.
The Shaykh : In any case?
The questioner : Unless ... .
The Shaykh : Do you understand the question, everyone? He sold his son and the son of another.
The questioner : If the master appointed him as an agent, meaning.
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : It is permissible for his son, meaning ...
The Shaykh : And the son of another?
The questioner : If the master appointed him as an agent for his son, it is permissible. And for the son of another, if he is an agent, otherwise, if his value is known, it is apportioned like the previous issue.
The Shaykh : Okay, the son of another, even if he belongs to him?
The questioner : How can he be his son and a slave of his?
The Shaykh : Yes, the female slave belongs to this man and is married to a stranger.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And she gave birth to a child.
The questioner : Yes ... because ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, okay, correct. This gives the impression of how it can be his son and the son of another. His son would be free like him. We say no, it is not necessary. Yes, in any case, this can be considered under the category of *mu'ayayah* (sale of a specific item). Okay.