Explanation of the author's statement: "Or he bought something for cash without having sold it on credit, or the reverse, is not permissible"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Now, the second issue, which he classified under the ruling of the first, he said: "Or he bought something for cash without having sold it on credit", and this is forbidden because it is also used as a ruse. He bought something for cash without having sold it on credit. I sold a car to Zayd for twenty thousand over a year; did I sell it on credit or not?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : I sold it on credit, meaning for a deferred price. Then I bought it back from this man for how much? I sold it for twenty thousand and bought it for eighteen thousand. This is forbidden and not permissible. Why? Because it is used as a ruse to sell the car in a nominal sale for twenty thousand, then I return and buy it for eighteen thousand, paying him in cash. So how much did he take from me? He took eighteen thousand from me, and I owe him how much?
The questioner : Twenty thousand.
The Shaykh : Twenty thousand. This is not permissible; it is a clear ruse. Do you understand, Abd al-Rahman? No? Okay, I sold you a car for twenty thousand over a year. Do you understand this? Okay, then during the period, I said, sell me the car that I bought from you for eighteen thousand in cash. I gave you eighteen thousand and took the car. Is this permissible?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Why? Because it may be a ruse to sell the car in a nominal sale over a year, then I return and buy it in cash for eighteen thousand, as if I gave you eighteen thousand now for twenty thousand. Is this riba or halal? It is riba. Do you understand now or not? Okay, this is called the issue of 'inah. Why? Because the man gave a commodity and took a commodity, and the commodity is cash, gold, and silver, and it is forbidden. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sunan Abi Dawud 3462Sahih (Al-Albani) Yes, so it is forbidden, and indeed it is among the major sins. Yes, or we may say it is not among the major sins because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) made it a major sin when these four things are gathered, and this is one of the four. In any case, this hadith indicates a warning against trading through 'inah. Is that clear, brothers?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Now, among the issues of 'inah, or among the ruses to circumvent riba, is what some people do today. A person needs a car and goes to a merchant and says, "I need such-and-such a car in such-and-such a showroom." The merchant goes and buys it from the showroom for a price, then sells it to the person who needs the car for more than the price, on a deferred basis. This is a clear ruse to circumvent riba, because the reality of the matter is that he lent him the current price of the car with an increase. Because if this man had not requested it, he would not have bought it or even approached it. This is a clear ruse, and unfortunately, many people have fallen into it. But the actions of people are not a standard; the standard is applying the rulings to the texts of the Shari'ah. Just as this ruse is now widespread among people, a previous ruse was also widespread among people. Do you know what it is? A poor man comes to a person and says, "I need one thousand riyals." The merchant goes to a shop owner who has bags of rice or anything else, and the merchant buys the bags from the shop owner, for example, for one thousand riyals. Then he sells them to the needy person for one thousand and two hundred. The method of taking possession: is it permissible to sell before taking possession? No. The method of taking possession: he wipes over them, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, twenty bags. This is taking possession, even though the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sunan Abi Dawud 3499Hasan li ghairih (Al-Albani) Where is this taking possession? This is taking possession. This is called counting, not taking possession. But they used to do this. Then the poor man goes to the shop owner who has these bags and sells them to the shop owner, because the poor man wants dirhams, not bags of food. He sells them to the shop owner for less than what the merchant bought them for. How much did the merchant buy them for? We said one thousand. So the poor man sells them to the shop owner for one thousand minus fifty riyals, or one hundred riyals. The poor man is eaten up from both sides: from the side of the first merchant and from the side of the shop owner. How much did the shop owner take from him? Fifty or one hundred. Yes, and the other took two hundred, the thousand plus the increase over the thousand. So he is eaten up from both sides. The Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) called this the triple ruse, because it consists of how many people? Three people. And issues of riba are not resolved by ruses.
Know that whenever a person resorts to a ruse to circumvent something forbidden, he only increases in evil. The forbidden is evil, so if he resorts to a ruse against it, it becomes more evil, because you have combined the reality of the forbidden with deceiving Allah, the Exalted. And Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, does not overlook anything: If not for the riba increase, you would not have known this man. And the strange thing, brothers, is that Satan deceives the son of Adam. He says, "We do this out of mercy for the poor man, to help his situation. If not for this, his situation would not improve. We are helping his situation." But I tell you, the poorer the person is, the more the increase is on him. Is this mercy or a calamity?
The questioner : A calamity.
The Shaykh : A calamity. That means, a person of moderate means comes and borrows from this man; he sells him what is worth a thousand for one thousand and two hundred. A poor man comes and borrows to feed himself and his family; he sells him what is worth a thousand for one thousand and five hundred. Why? He says, "This one is not going to pay this back. When will he pay? Where is the mercy? If his intention was mercy for the poor man, this second one would be more deserving of mercy than the first, the one of moderate means. But Satan plays with the sons of Adam.
In any case, we now know what the issue of 'inah is. The issue of 'inah is that one sells what? Something for a deferred price, then buys it back for less than what he sold it for, in cash. This is it. This is the issue of 'inah.
Its form is: a man sells a car to a person for twenty thousand over a year, then buys the same car from him for eighteen thousand in cash. This is the form of 'inah, and it is forbidden, indeed it is among the major sins, and it is not permissible.
He said, may Allah have mercy on him: "Or he bought something for cash without having sold it on credit, is not permissible". Wait, brothers, let us understand the ruling of this issue: it is forbidden.
If it is the reverse, and the phrase "or the reverse" in the text of the matn can mean the reverse of the issue of 'inah, and it can mean that "or the reverse" is more than what he sold it for on credit, or the same as what he sold it for on credit. Because the author described the issue by saying: "without having sold it on credit". So his saying: "or the reverse" can mean the reverse of the issue of 'inah, which is to sell something for cash for a price, then buy it back on a deferred basis for more. Leave this point dormant until we know the second meaning of his saying: "or the reverse", meaning: "or the reverse", no.
The questioner : The same as the price.
The Shaykh : Not the same as the price, and not more than the price. Because we have either that he buys it for less, which is the author's issue, or for the same, or for more. So the saying: "or the reverse" means for the same or for more. An example of that: I sold this man a car for twenty thousand over a year, then I returned and bought it from him for twenty thousand in cash. Is this permissible or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is it permissible? It is permissible. There is no riba now. I sold it for twenty and gave him twenty. I sold it to him for twenty and bought it for twenty. There is no riba. So this is permissible. If someone asks, how is this possible? How do you sell it to him for twenty on a deferred basis, then buy it for twenty in cash? Is this reasonable? We say, yes, it is reasonable. Prices change; the value of cars goes up, so I buy it for more. And likewise, if I bought it for the same, if I bought it for the same as what I sold it for, it is permissible. Do you know, brothers?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Or for the same, meaning I sold for twenty and bought for twenty. I sold it for twenty and bought it for twenty. This is the same. I sold it for twenty and bought it for twenty-five. Is this permissible or not?
The questioner : It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because there is no riba in this. And as for my giving him more than what I sold it for, this is in his benefit. The essence of riba is injustice, and this has no injustice; this has an excess. Okay, the reverse of the issue of 'inah is that I sell him something for cash for a price, then I buy it from him on a deferred basis for more. As if I sell him the car for twenty thousand in cash, and he pays me for it, then I buy it from him for twenty-five over a year. Do you understand? This is the reverse of the issue of 'inah, or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Al-Qathami?
The questioner : I did not understand.
The Shaykh : I did not understand. This is the apparent meaning. No, it is not 'inah. 'inah is that he sells it for a deferred price, then buys it in cash for less. This one sold it in cash for a price, then bought it on a deferred basis for more. The reverse of it, exactly.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is the reverse of it, or not?
The questioner : The reverse of it.
The Shaykh : The reverse of the *'inah* issue: is it permissible or not? The apparent meaning of the author's statement is that the reverse is permissible. He says, "Not in the reverse," meaning that the reverse is permissible because the danger of *riba* in it is remote. However, there are two narrations from Ahmad regarding this: one narration states that it is like the *'inah* issue, and the second narration states that it is permissible without any stratagem. So, there are two narrations from Imam Ahmad: one that it is permissible without stratagem, and the second is what? That it is like the *'inah* issue, meaning it is not permissible.
You see, this speech is clear in Arabic, if Allah wills. Now, regarding his statement "not in the reverse," Muhammad, is your name Muhammad?
The questioner : No, Jabir.
The Shaykh : Come on, Jabir, what does he mean by "not in the reverse"?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The reverse of the *dun*?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, that is one possibility. What is the second possibility?
The questioner : The second possibility is that it is the reverse of ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : That the buyer does not sell you a car for twenty in cash and buy it from him in cash from the owner on credit.
The Shaykh : Correct. In this issue, there are two narrations from Ahmad, and the author says there is no harm in it. Now, then he said.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes? There are two narrations from Ahmad, there is a narration.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : I sold it on credit, meaning for a deferred price. Then I bought it back from this man for how much? I sold it for twenty thousand and bought it for eighteen thousand. This is forbidden and not permissible. Why? Because it is used as a ruse to sell the car in a nominal sale for twenty thousand, then I return and buy it for eighteen thousand, paying him in cash. So how much did he take from me? He took eighteen thousand from me, and I owe him how much?
The questioner : Twenty thousand.
The Shaykh : Twenty thousand. This is not permissible; it is a clear ruse. Do you understand, Abd al-Rahman? No? Okay, I sold you a car for twenty thousand over a year. Do you understand this? Okay, then during the period, I said, sell me the car that I bought from you for eighteen thousand in cash. I gave you eighteen thousand and took the car. Is this permissible?
The questioner : It is not permissible.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible. Why? Because it may be a ruse to sell the car in a nominal sale over a year, then I return and buy it in cash for eighteen thousand, as if I gave you eighteen thousand now for twenty thousand. Is this riba or halal? It is riba. Do you understand now or not? Okay, this is called the issue of 'inah. Why? Because the man gave a commodity and took a commodity, and the commodity is cash, gold, and silver, and it is forbidden. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.
إذا تبايعتم بالعينة وأخذتم بأذناب البقر ورضيتم بالزرع وتركتم الجهاد سلط الله عليكم ذلا لا ينزعه من قلوبكم حتى ترجعوا إلى دينكمThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Now, among the issues of 'inah, or among the ruses to circumvent riba, is what some people do today. A person needs a car and goes to a merchant and says, "I need such-and-such a car in such-and-such a showroom." The merchant goes and buys it from the showroom for a price, then sells it to the person who needs the car for more than the price, on a deferred basis. This is a clear ruse to circumvent riba, because the reality of the matter is that he lent him the current price of the car with an increase. Because if this man had not requested it, he would not have bought it or even approached it. This is a clear ruse, and unfortunately, many people have fallen into it. But the actions of people are not a standard; the standard is applying the rulings to the texts of the Shari'ah. Just as this ruse is now widespread among people, a previous ruse was also widespread among people. Do you know what it is? A poor man comes to a person and says, "I need one thousand riyals." The merchant goes to a shop owner who has bags of rice or anything else, and the merchant buys the bags from the shop owner, for example, for one thousand riyals. Then he sells them to the needy person for one thousand and two hundred. The method of taking possession: is it permissible to sell before taking possession? No. The method of taking possession: he wipes over them, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, twenty bags. This is taking possession, even though the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
forbade to sell the goods where they are bought until the tradesmen take them to their houses
نهى أن تباع السلع حيث تبتاع حتى يحوزها التجار إلى رحالهمKnow that whenever a person resorts to a ruse to circumvent something forbidden, he only increases in evil. The forbidden is evil, so if he resorts to a ruse against it, it becomes more evil, because you have combined the reality of the forbidden with deceiving Allah, the Exalted. And Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, does not overlook anything:
Actions are only by intentions
إنما الأعمال بالنياتThe questioner : A calamity.
The Shaykh : A calamity. That means, a person of moderate means comes and borrows from this man; he sells him what is worth a thousand for one thousand and two hundred. A poor man comes and borrows to feed himself and his family; he sells him what is worth a thousand for one thousand and five hundred. Why? He says, "This one is not going to pay this back. When will he pay? Where is the mercy? If his intention was mercy for the poor man, this second one would be more deserving of mercy than the first, the one of moderate means. But Satan plays with the sons of Adam.
In any case, we now know what the issue of 'inah is. The issue of 'inah is that one sells what? Something for a deferred price, then buys it back for less than what he sold it for, in cash. This is it. This is the issue of 'inah.
Its form is: a man sells a car to a person for twenty thousand over a year, then buys the same car from him for eighteen thousand in cash. This is the form of 'inah, and it is forbidden, indeed it is among the major sins, and it is not permissible.
He said, may Allah have mercy on him: "Or he bought something for cash without having sold it on credit, is not permissible". Wait, brothers, let us understand the ruling of this issue: it is forbidden.
If it is the reverse, and the phrase "or the reverse" in the text of the matn can mean the reverse of the issue of 'inah, and it can mean that "or the reverse" is more than what he sold it for on credit, or the same as what he sold it for on credit. Because the author described the issue by saying: "without having sold it on credit". So his saying: "or the reverse" can mean the reverse of the issue of 'inah, which is to sell something for cash for a price, then buy it back on a deferred basis for more. Leave this point dormant until we know the second meaning of his saying: "or the reverse", meaning: "or the reverse", no.
The questioner : The same as the price.
The Shaykh : Not the same as the price, and not more than the price. Because we have either that he buys it for less, which is the author's issue, or for the same, or for more. So the saying: "or the reverse" means for the same or for more. An example of that: I sold this man a car for twenty thousand over a year, then I returned and bought it from him for twenty thousand in cash. Is this permissible or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is it permissible? It is permissible. There is no riba now. I sold it for twenty and gave him twenty. I sold it to him for twenty and bought it for twenty. There is no riba. So this is permissible. If someone asks, how is this possible? How do you sell it to him for twenty on a deferred basis, then buy it for twenty in cash? Is this reasonable? We say, yes, it is reasonable. Prices change; the value of cars goes up, so I buy it for more. And likewise, if I bought it for the same, if I bought it for the same as what I sold it for, it is permissible. Do you know, brothers?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Or for the same, meaning I sold for twenty and bought for twenty. I sold it for twenty and bought it for twenty. This is the same. I sold it for twenty and bought it for twenty-five. Is this permissible or not?
The questioner : It is permissible.
The Shaykh : It is permissible, because there is no riba in this. And as for my giving him more than what I sold it for, this is in his benefit. The essence of riba is injustice, and this has no injustice; this has an excess. Okay, the reverse of the issue of 'inah is that I sell him something for cash for a price, then I buy it from him on a deferred basis for more. As if I sell him the car for twenty thousand in cash, and he pays me for it, then I buy it from him for twenty-five over a year. Do you understand? This is the reverse of the issue of 'inah, or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Al-Qathami?
The questioner : I did not understand.
The Shaykh : I did not understand. This is the apparent meaning. No, it is not 'inah. 'inah is that he sells it for a deferred price, then buys it in cash for less. This one sold it in cash for a price, then bought it on a deferred basis for more. The reverse of it, exactly.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is the reverse of it, or not?
The questioner : The reverse of it.
The Shaykh : The reverse of the *'inah* issue: is it permissible or not? The apparent meaning of the author's statement is that the reverse is permissible. He says, "Not in the reverse," meaning that the reverse is permissible because the danger of *riba* in it is remote. However, there are two narrations from Ahmad regarding this: one narration states that it is like the *'inah* issue, and the second narration states that it is permissible without any stratagem. So, there are two narrations from Imam Ahmad: one that it is permissible without stratagem, and the second is what? That it is like the *'inah* issue, meaning it is not permissible.
You see, this speech is clear in Arabic, if Allah wills. Now, regarding his statement "not in the reverse," Muhammad, is your name Muhammad?
The questioner : No, Jabir.
The Shaykh : Come on, Jabir, what does he mean by "not in the reverse"?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The reverse of the *dun*?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Okay, that is one possibility. What is the second possibility?
The questioner : The second possibility is that it is the reverse of ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : That the buyer does not sell you a car for twenty in cash and buy it from him in cash from the owner on credit.
The Shaykh : Correct. In this issue, there are two narrations from Ahmad, and the author says there is no harm in it. Now, then he said.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes? There are two narrations from Ahmad, there is a narration.