Explanation of the author's statement: "Let it be annulled and a new contract made with him, and the contract between them is void"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says "Let it be annulled and a new contract made with him". The word "let it be annulled" is the reason for the prohibition. It is to be annulled and a new contract made with him, and it is understood from this that if it were not in this manner—for example, if the buyer wanted many goods and bought ten items from so-and-so for ten, but this buyer continued to seek from people, and a man said to him, "I will give it to you for nine," while he knew that he would not annul the first contract because he wanted many goods—then there is no harm in that, because in this case there is no harm, as the author indicated. However, here we may say that although he will not annul the contract, he might feel something against the first seller because he was shortchanged. Therefore, avoiding this absolutely is in accordance with the apparent meaning of the hadith and is further from the occurrence of enmity and hatred between Muslims.
Do you understand this? Adham Zakariya, do you understand? Is there no question? Now, illustrate the issue for me? Selling on top of a sale? Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Illustrate, meaning illustrate what the example is. The author mentioned it in the main text. The example, the author mentioned it in the main text, yes? Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : For the one who bought, as if he says, for the one who bought an item.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, I will give you one like it for nine, is that right? This is a sale, yes, the example of buying on top of his buying, yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Buying on top of a purchase.
The questioner : As if he says that ... .
The Shaykh : I will give you ten for it, okay, correct?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, did you understand, my brother?
The questioner : Shaykh, the point after that ... I didn't understand it?
The Shaykh : Yes, did you understand this or not?
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Okay, he does that in order to annul the contract and make a contract with the second person. We said that this reasoning indicates that if the seller or the buyer wants many goods, then there is no harm in that. The example is that a man bought ten pieces from Zayd for ten riyals, then he started looking in the market for these pieces, and a man came to him and said, "I will sell it to you for nine." This is selling on top of his sale, but we know that the first buyer will not annul the contract, why?
The questioner : Because he wants.
The Shaykh : Because he needs many goods, whether the price increases or decreases. We say this is not forbidden, but according to the apparent wording of the author. However, we mentioned that it can be said to be forbidden because it causes what?
The questioner : Enmity and hatred.
The Shaykh : Enmity and hatred between the buyer and the seller, did you understand? Okay.
Then he said, may Allah have mercy on him, "and the contract between them is void", meaning in selling on top of his sale and buying on top of his purchase, it is void. The reason?
The questioner : Because of the prohibition.
The Shaykh : Because of the prohibition of that, and the prohibition of a thing itself necessitates its invalidity, because if we validated it, that would be a contradiction of the ruling of Allah and His Messenger. So the prohibition of a thing itself necessitates its invalidity. For this reason, if a person fasts on the day of Eid, his fast is forbidden and invalid because it is prohibited. Similarly, if he sells on top of his brother's sale, the sale is forbidden and invalid. Okay, other than selling on top of his brother's sale, for example, if he leases on top of his brother's lease, what is the ruling?
The questioner : It takes the ruling.
The Shaykh : One, the ruling is one, because a lease is a sale of benefits. Okay, if he proposes marriage on top of his brother's proposal?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible either, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited that, and because the reason is the same.
Then he said, "And whoever sells a riba item on credit and exchanges its price for something that is not sold on credit, it is not permissible". He sold a riba item on credit, meaning for a deferred price, and exchanged its price for something that is not sold on credit, meaning something that is not sold by the one who sold it on credit, then it is not valid.
Do you understand this? Adham Zakariya, do you understand? Is there no question? Now, illustrate the issue for me? Selling on top of a sale? Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Illustrate, meaning illustrate what the example is. The author mentioned it in the main text. The example, the author mentioned it in the main text, yes? Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : For the one who bought, as if he says, for the one who bought an item.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, I will give you one like it for nine, is that right? This is a sale, yes, the example of buying on top of his buying, yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Buying on top of a purchase.
The questioner : As if he says that ... .
The Shaykh : I will give you ten for it, okay, correct?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, did you understand, my brother?
The questioner : Shaykh, the point after that ... I didn't understand it?
The Shaykh : Yes, did you understand this or not?
The questioner : Yes, indeed.
The Shaykh : Okay, he does that in order to annul the contract and make a contract with the second person. We said that this reasoning indicates that if the seller or the buyer wants many goods, then there is no harm in that. The example is that a man bought ten pieces from Zayd for ten riyals, then he started looking in the market for these pieces, and a man came to him and said, "I will sell it to you for nine." This is selling on top of his sale, but we know that the first buyer will not annul the contract, why?
The questioner : Because he wants.
The Shaykh : Because he needs many goods, whether the price increases or decreases. We say this is not forbidden, but according to the apparent wording of the author. However, we mentioned that it can be said to be forbidden because it causes what?
The questioner : Enmity and hatred.
The Shaykh : Enmity and hatred between the buyer and the seller, did you understand? Okay.
Then he said, may Allah have mercy on him, "and the contract between them is void", meaning in selling on top of his sale and buying on top of his purchase, it is void. The reason?
The questioner : Because of the prohibition.
The Shaykh : Because of the prohibition of that, and the prohibition of a thing itself necessitates its invalidity, because if we validated it, that would be a contradiction of the ruling of Allah and His Messenger. So the prohibition of a thing itself necessitates its invalidity. For this reason, if a person fasts on the day of Eid, his fast is forbidden and invalid because it is prohibited. Similarly, if he sells on top of his brother's sale, the sale is forbidden and invalid. Okay, other than selling on top of his brother's sale, for example, if he leases on top of his brother's lease, what is the ruling?
The questioner : It takes the ruling.
The Shaykh : One, the ruling is one, because a lease is a sale of benefits. Okay, if he proposes marriage on top of his brother's proposal?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible either, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited that, and because the reason is the same.
Then he said, "And whoever sells a riba item on credit and exchanges its price for something that is not sold on credit, it is not permissible". He sold a riba item on credit, meaning for a deferred price, and exchanged its price for something that is not sold on credit, meaning something that is not sold by the one who sold it on credit, then it is not valid.