Explanation of the author's statement: "Or the pledgee says, 'If you come to me with your right, otherwise the pledge is yours; the sale is not valid.'"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He said, "Or the pledgor says to the pledgee, 'If you come to me with your right at its due time'", meaning at the time it becomes due, "otherwise the pledge is yours, for the sale is not valid". "If you come to me with your right at its due time", its due time meaning the time of maturity. Otherwise, the pledge is yours, for the sale is not valid. Do we have a sale here? Yes, and it is his statement, "otherwise the pledge is yours." This is a sale because a specific formula for the offer is not required; rather, whatever indicates acceptance completes the sale. An example of this is a person who bought a hundred sa' of wheat from another and gave him a watch worth a hundred riyals, saying, "If you come to me with your right at its due time, meaning at the time we specified, otherwise the watch is yours," or "If you come to me with your right within two days, otherwise the watch is yours." If he did not come with his right within this period, the watch belongs to him. To whom? To the seller. This is, in reality, a suspended sale. They say it is not valid because it is a suspended sale, and a suspended sale is not valid. All right.
If someone were to say, "Is not the original ruling in transactions permissibility?" We would say, yes. So why is this not valid? For this reason, the stronger opinion is that it is valid. It is valid for the seller to give a pledge and say, "If you come to me with your right, meaning the price, within three days, otherwise the pledge is yours." We say the correct view is that it is valid. But suppose the buyer is detained by a coercive order and cannot pay, and the value of the pledge is many times the price for which he pledged it. Do we say in this case that it is valid despite the great loss, or do we say in this case that the contract is not valid?
The questioner : The second one.
The Shaykh : The second one, the second one is the correct one. Do you understand, 'Abd Allah 'Awad?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And Salim?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : All right, brothers, did you all understand? Yes. So the correct opinion in this issue is that the contract is valid, but if he is delayed beyond the due time by a coercive order and the value of the pledge is many times what he pledged, then here we say that the contract is not valid, or we say it is valid but the buyer has the option because he is suffering a loss. This opinion is a narration from Imam Ahmad. He once bought some necessities from a grocer and pledged his slippers to him. Imam Ahmad said to him, "If you come to me with your right at such-and-such a time, otherwise they are yours." This would be a second narration from Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) that this issue is permissible, and it is the stronger opinion, as you have learned.
If someone were to ask, "What is the evidence that this is not valid?" We would say, because it is a suspended sale, and because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said,Bulugh al-Maram 7:97. "La yughlaq" means it is not taken by force from its owner. It is said regarding this hadith that it is not evidence for this, because is the pledge here taken by force?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No, this is by what? By choice, and the buyer is the one who chose this. As forBulugh al-Maram 7:97, it means that it is not permissible for the pledgee, when the term matures, to take the pledge by force from the pledgor. But if it is by his choice, there is no taking by force. Yes.
So the rule is that every sale suspended on a condition, what is it? It is not valid according to the madhhab. According to the madhhab, it is not valid, and the correct view is that it is valid. All right. However, they made two exceptions to this rule. The first issue is suspending it on the will, the will of Allah, saying, "I sold this to you for such-and-such, if Allah wills." Then the sale is valid, and that is because suspending it on the will, then its occurrence, then its happening indicates that Allah willed it, because if Allah had not willed it, it would not have happened. And on this basis, if he suspends it on the will, meaning the will of Allah, then the sale is valid. Likewise, the sale of 'arabun. 'Arabun is known to us and is called 'arabun, and it has different forms. 'Arabun is when the buyer gives the seller something of the price and says, "If the sale is completed, this is the first part of the price, and if it is not completed, the 'arabun is yours and the sale has not been completed." Do you understand, Jamal? Is it clear? How? I bought something from 'Abd al-Mannan.
The questioner : I give him, for example, a thousand. I say, "This is 'arabun. If the sale is completed, it is fine and good, and if it is not completed..."
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, correct. This is valid. If it is asked, "How do you validate this when the seller took something without compensation?" The answer is that we say he took it by the choice of the buyer. That is one point. The second is that there is compensation, because if the item is returned, its value decreases in the eyes of people. For example, if it is said that this man bought this car for fifty thousand and gave five hundred riyals as 'arabun, then the seller came and said, "I have lowered what I want; I do not want it," then people will say, "If there were no defect in it, he would not have returned it." So the value will decrease, and taking the 'arabun means the reason for its permissibility is first that it is with the consent of the buyer, and the buyer might say, "No, it does not matter to me as long as I am rid of this, so it does not matter to me."
The second thing is that it has compensation, which is the decrease in the value of the returned item, because this is the common case. For this reason, it was narrated from 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that it is valid, although some scholars differed on that.
If someone were to say, "Is not the original ruling in transactions permissibility?" We would say, yes. So why is this not valid? For this reason, the stronger opinion is that it is valid. It is valid for the seller to give a pledge and say, "If you come to me with your right, meaning the price, within three days, otherwise the pledge is yours." We say the correct view is that it is valid. But suppose the buyer is detained by a coercive order and cannot pay, and the value of the pledge is many times the price for which he pledged it. Do we say in this case that it is valid despite the great loss, or do we say in this case that the contract is not valid?
The questioner : The second one.
The Shaykh : The second one, the second one is the correct one. Do you understand, 'Abd Allah 'Awad?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And Salim?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : All right, brothers, did you all understand? Yes. So the correct opinion in this issue is that the contract is valid, but if he is delayed beyond the due time by a coercive order and the value of the pledge is many times what he pledged, then here we say that the contract is not valid, or we say it is valid but the buyer has the option because he is suffering a loss. This opinion is a narration from Imam Ahmad. He once bought some necessities from a grocer and pledged his slippers to him. Imam Ahmad said to him, "If you come to me with your right at such-and-such a time, otherwise they are yours." This would be a second narration from Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) that this issue is permissible, and it is the stronger opinion, as you have learned.
If someone were to ask, "What is the evidence that this is not valid?" We would say, because it is a suspended sale, and because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said,
A pledge does not become lost to its owner
لا يغْلق الرهن من صاحبهThe questioner : No.
The Shaykh : No, this is by what? By choice, and the buyer is the one who chose this. As for
A pledge does not become lost to its owner
لا يُغْلق الرهن من صاحبهSo the rule is that every sale suspended on a condition, what is it? It is not valid according to the madhhab. According to the madhhab, it is not valid, and the correct view is that it is valid. All right. However, they made two exceptions to this rule. The first issue is suspending it on the will, the will of Allah, saying, "I sold this to you for such-and-such, if Allah wills." Then the sale is valid, and that is because suspending it on the will, then its occurrence, then its happening indicates that Allah willed it, because if Allah had not willed it, it would not have happened. And on this basis, if he suspends it on the will, meaning the will of Allah, then the sale is valid. Likewise, the sale of 'arabun. 'Arabun is known to us and is called 'arabun, and it has different forms. 'Arabun is when the buyer gives the seller something of the price and says, "If the sale is completed, this is the first part of the price, and if it is not completed, the 'arabun is yours and the sale has not been completed." Do you understand, Jamal? Is it clear? How? I bought something from 'Abd al-Mannan.
The questioner : I give him, for example, a thousand. I say, "This is 'arabun. If the sale is completed, it is fine and good, and if it is not completed..."
The Shaykh : Yes, yes, correct. This is valid. If it is asked, "How do you validate this when the seller took something without compensation?" The answer is that we say he took it by the choice of the buyer. That is one point. The second is that there is compensation, because if the item is returned, its value decreases in the eyes of people. For example, if it is said that this man bought this car for fifty thousand and gave five hundred riyals as 'arabun, then the seller came and said, "I have lowered what I want; I do not want it," then people will say, "If there were no defect in it, he would not have returned it." So the value will decrease, and taking the 'arabun means the reason for its permissibility is first that it is with the consent of the buyer, and the buyer might say, "No, it does not matter to me as long as I am rid of this, so it does not matter to me."
The second thing is that it has compensation, which is the decrease in the value of the returned item, because this is the common case. For this reason, it was narrated from 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that it is valid, although some scholars differed on that.