Explanation of the author's statement: "And the like of the seller stipulating that he may reside in the house for a month, or that he may ride the camel to a specific location"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said, and this is the beginning of today's lesson: "And the like of the seller stipulating that he may reside in the house for a month". That the seller stipulates that he may reside in the house for a month. If this is the case, the condition is valid. His saying "the house" contains the definite article for mental reference, meaning the house that is being sold. For a month, for example, he might say, "I sold you this house of mine for one hundred thousand dirhams on the condition that I reside in it for one month." The sale is valid and the condition is valid. The evidence for this is both general and specific. As for the general, it is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): Sunan Ibn Majah 2521Sahih (Darussalam) And his saying: As for the specific, the evidence is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) bought a she-camel from Jabir ibn Abdullah, and Jabir stipulated that he could ride it to Madinah, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) agreed to that. This is a known benefit in the item sold. A known benefit in the item sold is like residing in the house for a month, because it is a known benefit in what?
The questioner : In the item sold.
The Shaykh : In the item sold. All right. The author's statement "residing in the house for a month" implies that if one stipulates residing in a house other than the one being sold, it is not valid. If he said, "I sold you this house for one hundred thousand dirhams on the condition that you let me reside in your house for a year or a month," for a month as the author said, then in this case, neither the sale nor the condition is valid, based on what will follow regarding the fact that stipulating two contracts in one contract invalidates the contract. So the benefit must be in what? In the very item sold upon which the contract was made. If it is in something else, it is a combination of a sale and a lease, and it is not valid.
He said: "and riding the camel", meaning that one stipulates riding the camel to a specific location. This is specification by place, whereas the first, residing in the house, is specification by time. "riding the camel to a specific location". For example, he might say, "I sold you this camel on the condition that I travel on it to Makkah and return." The sale is valid and the condition is valid. In the case of a car, if he said, "I sold you this car for fifty thousand on the condition that I perform Hajj on it and return," then the sale is valid and the condition is valid, because it is a known benefit in the item sold. All right. If someone were to say, "What if he said, 'I sold you this car for fifty thousand on the condition that I use it to search for my lost item'?" Then the condition is not valid. Why? Because it is unknown, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade the sale of gharar (excessive uncertainty). If the condition is unknown, the price is unknown, because the portion of the price corresponding to the unknown condition is not known. The ignorance of the price leads to the invalidity of the sale, because knowing the price is one of the conditions of a sale. Is that clear? All right, what comes next? I have a mixed explanation.
Every conditions that is not in the Book of Allah (SWT) is invalid
كل شرط ليس في كتاب الله فهو باطلThe Muslims are bound by their conditions, except a condition that makes the haram lawful or the halal haram
المسلمون على شروطهم إلا شرطا أحل حراما أو حرّم حلالاThe questioner : In the item sold.
The Shaykh : In the item sold. All right. The author's statement "residing in the house for a month" implies that if one stipulates residing in a house other than the one being sold, it is not valid. If he said, "I sold you this house for one hundred thousand dirhams on the condition that you let me reside in your house for a year or a month," for a month as the author said, then in this case, neither the sale nor the condition is valid, based on what will follow regarding the fact that stipulating two contracts in one contract invalidates the contract. So the benefit must be in what? In the very item sold upon which the contract was made. If it is in something else, it is a combination of a sale and a lease, and it is not valid.
He said: "and riding the camel", meaning that one stipulates riding the camel to a specific location. This is specification by place, whereas the first, residing in the house, is specification by time. "riding the camel to a specific location". For example, he might say, "I sold you this camel on the condition that I travel on it to Makkah and return." The sale is valid and the condition is valid. In the case of a car, if he said, "I sold you this car for fifty thousand on the condition that I perform Hajj on it and return," then the sale is valid and the condition is valid, because it is a known benefit in the item sold. All right. If someone were to say, "What if he said, 'I sold you this car for fifty thousand on the condition that I use it to search for my lost item'?" Then the condition is not valid. Why? Because it is unknown, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade the sale of gharar (excessive uncertainty). If the condition is unknown, the price is unknown, because the portion of the price corresponding to the unknown condition is not known. The ignorance of the price leads to the invalidity of the sale, because knowing the price is one of the conditions of a sale. Is that clear? All right, what comes next? I have a mixed explanation.