The ruling on increasing the price for some buyers and decreasing it for others
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The question: We also have a question from the brother Muhammad ibn Ali al-Zarri from Dammam. He says: I currently have questions about buying and selling. The first question is: I sell watches and other items. For example, the price of a watch is one hundred and fifty riyals. A man comes to me and I sell it to him for one hundred and forty-five riyals. Another comes and I sell it to him for one hundred and thirty-five riyals in cash. A friend comes, and because of the friendship, I give it to him for one hundred and twenty-five riyals. And if someone I know comes and says, "I will take the watch for one hundred and fifty, but the payment will be deferred until the salary," is the sale permissible? May Allah guide you.
The answer: It is obligatory for the believer not to deceive people, but rather to seek the appropriate price that does not harm people. If the price of watches is one hundred and fifty, like the people, meaning he sells what people like him sell for one hundred and fifty; but he concedes to some people if they insist, or because they are a friend or a relative, there is no harm in that. It is not harmful for him to concede to some relatives or some friends by selling for less than the usual price.
As for deceiving people, if he sees the weak and ignorant, he increases the price for them, and if he sees the skilled and knowledgeable, he gives them the usual price, this is not permissible for him. Rather, it is obligatory for him to treat the ignorant as he treats the other, selling at a price known to everyone, not deceiving anyone with it and not betraying anyone with it. Rather, he sells at the known price that people sell at, so that he does not deceive people. And if he lowers the price for some loved ones, some companions, or some relatives, or gives it to them as a gift without a price, there is no harm. That is up to him. But he must not seek to oppress the ignorant and those who do not know the prices by selling to them at increased prices. Rather, it is obligatory for him to have a consistent, known price, like what people sell at, with the skilled and with the unskilled. This is what is obligatory upon him.
As for his lowering the price for some people, as mentioned before, there is no harm. As for selling until the salary, deferred until the salary, this is a matter of consideration. If the salary is known, meaning until the end of the month, there is no harm. But until a salary whose time of disbursement is unknown, and there is ambiguity and excessive uncertainty in it, this is not permissible. But if there is a known agreement between them, meaning he sold at the beginning of the month and the term between them is until the end of the month, because it is the known, usual salary, there is no harm with this. Yes.
The presenter: But I believe, Your Eminence, it would be different if, for example, he gave him a loan until he receives his salary, and he is a student, for example. Is that permissible or not?
A loan is better. A loan is a broad matter. There is no harm in a loan, but as for selling, he does not sell with a term that contains excessive uncertainty. If the salary is known, there is no harm, like the end of the month, or the end of the second month, or the third, there is no harm.
The answer: It is obligatory for the believer not to deceive people, but rather to seek the appropriate price that does not harm people. If the price of watches is one hundred and fifty, like the people, meaning he sells what people like him sell for one hundred and fifty; but he concedes to some people if they insist, or because they are a friend or a relative, there is no harm in that. It is not harmful for him to concede to some relatives or some friends by selling for less than the usual price.
As for deceiving people, if he sees the weak and ignorant, he increases the price for them, and if he sees the skilled and knowledgeable, he gives them the usual price, this is not permissible for him. Rather, it is obligatory for him to treat the ignorant as he treats the other, selling at a price known to everyone, not deceiving anyone with it and not betraying anyone with it. Rather, he sells at the known price that people sell at, so that he does not deceive people. And if he lowers the price for some loved ones, some companions, or some relatives, or gives it to them as a gift without a price, there is no harm. That is up to him. But he must not seek to oppress the ignorant and those who do not know the prices by selling to them at increased prices. Rather, it is obligatory for him to have a consistent, known price, like what people sell at, with the skilled and with the unskilled. This is what is obligatory upon him.
As for his lowering the price for some people, as mentioned before, there is no harm. As for selling until the salary, deferred until the salary, this is a matter of consideration. If the salary is known, meaning until the end of the month, there is no harm. But until a salary whose time of disbursement is unknown, and there is ambiguity and excessive uncertainty in it, this is not permissible. But if there is a known agreement between them, meaning he sold at the beginning of the month and the term between them is until the end of the month, because it is the known, usual salary, there is no harm with this. Yes.
The presenter: But I believe, Your Eminence, it would be different if, for example, he gave him a loan until he receives his salary, and he is a student, for example. Is that permissible or not?
A loan is better. A loan is a broad matter. There is no harm in a loan, but as for selling, he does not sell with a term that contains excessive uncertainty. If the salary is known, there is no harm, like the end of the month, or the end of the second month, or the third, there is no harm.
Source
binbaz.org.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.