Explanation of the author's statement: "And if one combines a sale with a manumission contract or a sale with currency exchange, it is valid in cases other than the manumission contract, and the consideration is apportioned between them."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said: "And if one combines a sale with a manumission contract or a sale with currency exchange, it is valid in cases other than the manumission contract". This combination of two contracts: if one combines two contracts, if it is with a condition, the contract is not valid; if it is without a condition, the contract is valid. An example of this is if someone says, "I sold you my house for one hundred thousand on the condition that you rent me your house for ten thousand." He says, "I accept, I have no objection." The contract is not valid, neither the sale nor the lease, because he conditioned a contract within a contract, so it is not valid. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Sunan an-Nasa'i 4630Sahih (Darussalam) This is the school of thought, and the correct view is that it is permissible if it does not include a prohibited matter in the Shari'ah, and the need is a driver for it. One might say, "I do not like to sell you my house until I am guaranteed that I will be residing in another house." So I say, "I sold you the house for one hundred thousand on the condition that you rent me your house for ten thousand or one thousand." What is the objection to this? There is no objection. As for the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) , the phrase is absolute, so it is understood in the context of the restricted, which are the two conditions that necessarily lead to falling into a prohibited matter in the Shari'ah. Now, if it is without a condition, combining a sale with a manumission contract, or a sale with currency exchange, or a sale with a lease, or a sale with a bridal gift, the contract is valid. But he said "in cases other than the manumission contract," meaning in cases other than when one combines a sale with a manumission contract, the sale is not valid. Do we need to give an example, or not?
The questioner : It is not needed.
The Shaykh : Now, if one combines a sale with a lease, he says, "I sold you my house for one hundred thousand and I leased you the second house for ten thousand." He says, "I accepted this?" Is it valid? Or he says, "I sold you my house and I leased you my house for one hundred thousand." This is also valid, and the consideration is apportioned between them when there is a need. Now.
Between a sale and a manumission contract, he said to his slave, "I sold you this car and I manumitted you for ten thousand." Is the price one or multiple?
The questioner : One.
The Shaykh : And the transaction?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : One. I sold you this car and I manumitted you for ten thousand. Now.
The author says: "The sale is not valid" in this case. Why is it not valid? Because he sold his ownership over his ownership, correct?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : He sold his ownership over his ownership. Did this slave whom he manumitted exit from his ownership? No, he does not exit until he pays. So if he sold his ownership over his ownership, it is not valid. Now, there is disagreement in this issue, but this is the school of thought, and the reasoning, as you heard, is that one of the conditions of a sale is that one sells to one who has full ownership, and this person does not have full ownership because he is still under the ownership of his master. Now.
Sale and currency exchange. In reality, currency exchange is a sale, but it is specific in that it is the exchange of currency for currency. This is the difference, and it has known rulings. But the discussion is about exchanging dinars for dirhams? Currency exchange. Dinars for clothes?
The questioner : Sale.
The Shaykh : Sale, not currency exchange. And currency exchange is undoubtedly a sale, but because currency exchange has specific rulings, they singled it out in their discussion.
Sale and currency exchange. He said, for example, "I sold you these dinars and this car for ten thousand dirhams." The transaction?
The questioner : One.
The Shaykh : And the price?
The questioner : One.
The Shaykh : One. The sale is valid. If the price is taken possession of, there is no problem. If it is not taken possession of, it is valid for the car but not for the currency exchange, because if you sell dirhams for dinars, it is necessary, what? That you take possession and be given possession. It is necessary to take possession before parting.
The author said: "It is valid in cases other than the manumission contract". The apparent meaning of his words, may Allah have mercy on him, is that in cases other than the manumission contract, the manumission contract is not valid. And that is not the case. Rather, the meaning is that the sale is not valid, while the manumission contract is valid. If someone asks, "What is your evidence for this? This contradicts the apparent meaning of the author's words." We say, because the discussion here is about the sale, or about the manumission contract?
The questioner : About the sale.
The Shaykh : About the sale. So if one combines a sale and a manumission contract, we say the manumission contract is valid and the sale is not valid.
He said: "And the consideration is apportioned between them". "Apportioned" means the consideration is distributed between them, and that is when there is a need. An example of this: I sold you this car and I leased you this house for one hundred thousand. The price? One. And the contract? One. Now. Suppose the house collapsed, rains came and destroyed it, so the lease is annulled. The lease is annulled because the item contracted upon was destroyed. How do we distribute the price now? Or how do we distribute the consideration, which is better, because this consideration includes rent and includes a price. How do we distribute this consideration? It is distributed by value. It is said, "For how much is the house rented?" They say, "It is rented for twenty thousand." What is the value of the car? What is the value of the car?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The price is one hundred?
The questioner : Eighty.
The Shaykh : The value of the car is eighty. So how much is deducted from the consideration? Twenty. If it is determined that at the time of valuation it equals two hundred thousand, and they say the value of the lease is twenty thousand, and we are now, the contract is how much? One hundred. We say twenty thousand out of two hundred corresponds to what? Ten out of one hundred, because twenty thousand out of two hundred is ten in one hundred. Ten in one hundred, we say, so we return to the price, which is one hundred, and we deduct ten from one hundred.
This is the meaning of the author's statement: "And the consideration is apportioned between them", meaning if we need to distribute the consideration, it is apportioned according to the value of the sold item and the rent.
I think we are finished with questions? Yes?
It is not permissible to lend on the condition of a sale, or to stipulate two conditions in one transaction
لا يحل سلف وبيع ولا شرطان في بيعTwo conditions in a sale.
شرطان في بيعThe questioner : It is not needed.
The Shaykh : Now, if one combines a sale with a lease, he says, "I sold you my house for one hundred thousand and I leased you the second house for ten thousand." He says, "I accepted this?" Is it valid? Or he says, "I sold you my house and I leased you my house for one hundred thousand." This is also valid, and the consideration is apportioned between them when there is a need. Now.
Between a sale and a manumission contract, he said to his slave, "I sold you this car and I manumitted you for ten thousand." Is the price one or multiple?
The questioner : One.
The Shaykh : And the transaction?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : One. I sold you this car and I manumitted you for ten thousand. Now.
The author says: "The sale is not valid" in this case. Why is it not valid? Because he sold his ownership over his ownership, correct?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : He sold his ownership over his ownership. Did this slave whom he manumitted exit from his ownership? No, he does not exit until he pays. So if he sold his ownership over his ownership, it is not valid. Now, there is disagreement in this issue, but this is the school of thought, and the reasoning, as you heard, is that one of the conditions of a sale is that one sells to one who has full ownership, and this person does not have full ownership because he is still under the ownership of his master. Now.
Sale and currency exchange. In reality, currency exchange is a sale, but it is specific in that it is the exchange of currency for currency. This is the difference, and it has known rulings. But the discussion is about exchanging dinars for dirhams? Currency exchange. Dinars for clothes?
The questioner : Sale.
The Shaykh : Sale, not currency exchange. And currency exchange is undoubtedly a sale, but because currency exchange has specific rulings, they singled it out in their discussion.
Sale and currency exchange. He said, for example, "I sold you these dinars and this car for ten thousand dirhams." The transaction?
The questioner : One.
The Shaykh : And the price?
The questioner : One.
The Shaykh : One. The sale is valid. If the price is taken possession of, there is no problem. If it is not taken possession of, it is valid for the car but not for the currency exchange, because if you sell dirhams for dinars, it is necessary, what? That you take possession and be given possession. It is necessary to take possession before parting.
The author said: "It is valid in cases other than the manumission contract". The apparent meaning of his words, may Allah have mercy on him, is that in cases other than the manumission contract, the manumission contract is not valid. And that is not the case. Rather, the meaning is that the sale is not valid, while the manumission contract is valid. If someone asks, "What is your evidence for this? This contradicts the apparent meaning of the author's words." We say, because the discussion here is about the sale, or about the manumission contract?
The questioner : About the sale.
The Shaykh : About the sale. So if one combines a sale and a manumission contract, we say the manumission contract is valid and the sale is not valid.
He said: "And the consideration is apportioned between them". "Apportioned" means the consideration is distributed between them, and that is when there is a need. An example of this: I sold you this car and I leased you this house for one hundred thousand. The price? One. And the contract? One. Now. Suppose the house collapsed, rains came and destroyed it, so the lease is annulled. The lease is annulled because the item contracted upon was destroyed. How do we distribute the price now? Or how do we distribute the consideration, which is better, because this consideration includes rent and includes a price. How do we distribute this consideration? It is distributed by value. It is said, "For how much is the house rented?" They say, "It is rented for twenty thousand." What is the value of the car? What is the value of the car?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The price is one hundred?
The questioner : Eighty.
The Shaykh : The value of the car is eighty. So how much is deducted from the consideration? Twenty. If it is determined that at the time of valuation it equals two hundred thousand, and they say the value of the lease is twenty thousand, and we are now, the contract is how much? One hundred. We say twenty thousand out of two hundred corresponds to what? Ten out of one hundred, because twenty thousand out of two hundred is ten in one hundred. Ten in one hundred, we say, so we return to the price, which is one hundred, and we deduct ten from one hundred.
This is the meaning of the author's statement: "And the consideration is apportioned between them", meaning if we need to distribute the consideration, it is apportioned according to the value of the sold item and the rent.
I think we are finished with questions? Yes?