Chapter 17: Purchase And Sales
Law: Where one is not aware
of the laws of purchase and sales, whereby one is able to ascertain which type
of transaction is permissible and which type is regarded as impermissible. Then
until the time he becomes aware, he should not do business. [Alamgiri]
Law: The sale of human
faeces is disallowed, but the sale of cow dung is not disallowed. If sand or
ash mixes with human faeces and is in a larger amount, such as in the case of
manure, in which sand is more, then in such a case its sale is also permissible
and to make use or it, in the fields (i.e. as compost) is also permissible. [Hidaya]
Law: If it is known that a
Kaneez (handmaid) belongs to a particular person and some other person is selling
her. However, this seller is saying that the owner has appointed him as his
agent for this purpose, or he claims that he has purchased her from him (the owner),
or he says that she was given to him as a gift, then in such a situation, it is
permissible to purchase her and to make ‘watee’ with her. On condition that the
person (who is making these claims) is Thiqa[1],
or when one knows there is a greater likelihood pointing to the fact that the
said person is telling the truth. If one feels there is a greater likelihood
that he is not honest in the information he is giving, then for him to act in
this manner is not permissible. Now, if one does not know that she belongs to
someone else, and the seller himself mentions that she belongs to so and so
person, and that he has been appointed as an agent to sell her. In this case,
one finds the seller to be reliable and trustworthy, or one finds that there is
a greater likelihood pointing to him being true in his claim, then to buy her
etc. is permissible. [Hidaya]
Law: The ruling is similar,
when one has knowledge regarding any other entity (i.e. item of sale) which one
knows belongs to a particular person. However, the seller claims that he has
been appointed by the owner to make the sale, or that he has purchased it (from
the owner), or that it has been given to him as a gift, then for him (the
buyer) to buy such items and to profit from them is only permissible, based on
the conditions that have been mentioned.
Law: The person who is
selling a particular item, did not disclose that he has received it in a
particular manner (i.e. he did not disclose that he has been appointed an agent
to sell it etc.), and the Mushtari[2]
knows that the particular entity belongs to a particular person, then until he
(the buyer) does not know for sure that the particular entity has come to him
(the seller) in this way (i.e. in a legal manner), he should not purchase it.
If the buyer has no knowledge that the particular item belongs to some other
person, then it is permissible for him to buy that item. As it serves as
evidence of it being his property as it is in his possession, and there is
nothing contradicting this fact, and there is no other reason to merely assume
that it belongs to someone else. However, if the item is such that it could not
belong to such a person; for example, if the item is very valuable and the
person (seller) does not seem to be the kind of person who would own such an
item, or if there are books (being sold) by an ignorant person and neither were
any of his elders (father or grandfather etc.) Aalims, whereby he would have
received them (the books) as an inheritance, then in such a situation, it is
better to abstain from purchasing such items. However, if he still purchases the
item, the purchasing is still regarded as permissible, as the buyer has
purchased it having trust based on evidence in light of the Shariah. In other
words, Possession is regarded as evidence of ownership[3].
[Hidaya]
Law: One should not sell
his share in a shared item, unless the partner is informed of the sale. If the
partner wishes to purchase it, then it is fine, otherwise he may sell it to
whosoever he pleases. This means that it is Mustahab to inform the shareholders
and if it is sold without the shareholder being informed, then this is Makruh.
This does not mean that it is impermissible to conduct the sale without the
permission (of the shareholder or partner). [Alamgiri]
Law: If the market traders
purchase goods from such persons whose merchandise is pre-dominantly Haraam
and, usury (interest) and sinister dealings are common within them, then doing
business with them is based on three conditions: (a) if there is pre-dominant probability
regarding any merchandise, which is being sold that it has been snatched by
them unjustly and brought to the market place for sale, then such goods should
not be purchased. (b) The second situation is that Haraam merchandise[4]
is specifically present, but it has become mixed with Halaal merchandise[5]
to such an extent, that to separate it is impossible; (then in such a case) by
becoming mixed in this manner, it has become his property, but even such merchandise
should not be purchased. Until such time that the seller does not convince the
(proper) owner of the merchandise by compensating him for it. However, if one
has already purchased it, then it will be regarded as the property of the
buyer, but it will still be regarded as repulsive. The third situation is where
one knows that the actual merchandise which was usurped (i.e. forcefully or
wrongfully taken), or some stolen merchandise is now not actually present (i.e.
it is no more existent), then (in such a case) it is permissible to buy from
that merchant. [Alamgiri]
Law: A trader should not
become so engrossed in his business that it causes his Faraa’id (obligatory
duties) to be omitted. Actually, at the time of Namaaz, he should stop his business
transactions and immediately fulfil his Namaaz. [Alamgiri]
Law: It is permissible to
sell clothing which is Najis[6],
but if one knows that there is a probability that the buyer will wear it to perform
his Namaaz, then in such a case, he should be informed that the clothes are in
an impure state. [Alamgiri]
Law: If the seller was
given more than the amount due for the item that was purchased, then unless the
buyer does not mention that ‘this extra is halaal upon you’, or unless the
buyer does not say ‘I have made you the owner of it’, to take that extra amount
is impermissible. [Alamgiri]. There are many who take a gratuity after the transaction has
already been done. In other words, after the sale of the items at the
stipulated price, they take a bit more than what was agreed upon. Without the
seller agreeing to it, this is impermissible to take, and one should not ask
for gratuity, as it is regarded as a type of begging (i.e. it is like asking
for a hand-out) and to beg without a real need is not permitted.
Law: If items such as meat,
fish or fruit etc. which become spoilt easily was sold to someone and the buyer
has vanished (i.e. he has not returned to finalise payment and collect the
items). Where the seller fears that waiting for him will cause the items to be
spoilt, then under such circumstances, he is allowed to sell the said items to some
other person. The one who is aware of this, is also permitted to purchase it. [Alamgiri]
Law: The father, son or
brothers of an ill person are permitted to purchase items such as medicines etc.
which are necessary for him, even without his permission. [Alamgiri]
Law: To sell wholesome and
clean wheat by adding dust to it is impermissible, even though it may be the
norm there to add (dust etc. to the wheat). [Alamgiri].
Similarly, to sell milk by adding water to it
is also impermissible.
Law: In a place where the
price of bread and meat is fixed in the entire market place and it is (well-known)
that it is sold at the said fixed rate. If someone made a purchase and the
seller gave him less, but the buyer was not aware at the time that it was less,
and only realised this shortage later, then he may claim whatever is the shortfall,
as long as the buyer is also aware of the fixed rate. If the buyer is from out
of town and not from that locality, then he may claim back whatever is the
shortage in the bread. He will not be able to claim the shortfall for the meat
because the price for bread is more or less the same in all towns and this is
not the case with meat. [Zail’i]
Law: It is Makruh to sell
iron and brass rings etc. which are impermissible for both males and females. [Alamgiri] To consume
opium is impermissible, so to sell opium etc., to those who consume it is also
impermissible, as it is to assist in sin.
Law: If an unbeliever owes
money to a Muslim and he sells alcohol and then uses the money attained from
this sale to pay off his debt to the Muslim. The Muslim has knowledge that this
money is from the sale of alcohol, it is still permissible for the Muslim to
accept this money, as it is permissible for a kaafir to sell alcohol to a kaafir
and that amount which he received as a payment is permissible (legal). Thus the
Muslim may accept it towards payment of a debt. If a Muslim sold alcohol, then
because this type of sale is impermissible, the amout attained from it is also
impermissible and to take this money in payment of debt is thus not
permissible. [Durr-e-Mukhtar]. The same ruling applies in every such case where one knows that
the money is precisely the money which is haraam and impure. To take such money
is impermissible, such as when one knows that the money (or item) is stolen
property or that which has been usurped.
Law: The payment which
dancing girls (i.e. prostitutes etc.) receive from singing and dancing etc. is
also regarded as being tainted money. If it is given to someone in payment of a
debt or for any other account, then to accept it is impermissible. The wealth (money)
of a person which he attained by unjust means or through usury (interest),
should not be taken by his heirs after his death, as this is Haraam wealth. Actually
if the heirs are aware that he had taken it unjustly from a particular person
(or persons), they should return it to the person from whom the testator had
taken it. If one does not know who he took it from, it should be distributed
amongst the needy, as this is the ruling regarding such wealth. [Raddul Muhtar]
Law: Money is (sometimes)
lent to a grocer and he is told that the amount will continue being deducted
from the goods. Even if this condition of it being deducted from the goods is
not stipulated at the time of lending the money, but one knows that this is
what will be done anyway, then to give him money (i.e. a loan) in this way is disallowed,
because this type of loan is yielding a profit, since by him keeping (the
money) with him, there is the probability of it being depleted (i.e. lost). Now
this probability does not exist anymore. (It must be noted) that to yield profits
from (such) a loan is not permissible. [Durr-e-Mukhtar]
Law: Ihtikar is disallowed.
Ihtikar means to hold back or hoard food items, and to only sell it when it
becomes more expensive. There are severe admonitions in the Holy Qur’an
regarding this. It has been mentioned in one Hadith as follows: ‘If a person
makes Ihtikar (i.e. hoards or monopolises the sale of food items) for forty days,
Allah will cause him to be afflicted with leprosy and poverty’. It has been
mentioned in another Hadith that a person who hoards these food items is free
from blessing of Allah, and Allah is not responsible for him.
It has been mentioned in a third Hadith that the curse of Allah,
the Angels and all the people befalls him. Neither will Allah accept his Nafil
(optional deeds) nor his Fard (obligatory prayers). Ihtikar takes place in the
food items consumed by humans, such as grain, grapes and almonds etc., as well
as in the fodder which is required for animals, such as hay and straw. [Durr-e-Mukhtar, Raddul Muhtar]
Law: (An action) will only
be regarded as Ihtikar if it is detrimental for him to hold back the grain there.
In other words, if it may become very expensive due to this, or if the
situation is such that all the grain is solely in his possession and holding it
back (i.e. hoarding it), can lead to famine (i.e. shortage of food) and grain
is not obtainable from anywhere else. [Hidaya]
Law: The person who is
responsible for Ihtikar will be commanded by the Qazi to keep only that which
is sufficient to feed him and his family, and the remainder should be sold. If
he now acts contrary to the command of the Qazi, i.e. he refuses to sell the
surplus grain, then the Qazi may declare a befitting punishment for him and the
Qazi will personally sell whatever is surplus in his possession, as this is the
only way to be protected from mass disaster.
Law: If the king fears that
his subjects will be afflicted severely (i.e. they may die due to hunger etc.)
then he has the right to take away grain from the one who is responsible for
Ihtikar and have it distributed amongst the subjects (i.e. citizens). Then,
afterwards when all of them have grain in their possession (i.e. after
scarcity), then he should return whatever he has taken. [Durr-e-Mukhtar]
Law: To hold back produce
from your own field is not regarded as Ihtikar. However, if he (does so) waiting
for the price to escalate or for there to be a scarcity etc. then he is sinful
in doing this and even in this situation, if the masses require grain and grain
cannot be obtained, then the Qazi will compel him to sell the grain. [Durr-e-Mukhtar, Raddul Muhtar]
Law: If he purchased grain
from some other place (i.e. if he imported it into his city) and grain is
generally imported here from there, then to hold back this grain is also
regarded as Ihtikar. If it is not the routine there to bring in grain from the
said place, then to hold it back is not regarded as Ihtikar. However, even in
this situation, it is Mustahab to sell the grain, as holding it back in this situation
bears a type of abhorrence. [Durr-e-Mukhtar,
Raddul Muhtar]
Law: The Ruler should not
stipulate a fixed price for items. It has been mentioned in the Hadith Shareef
that the people said, ‘Ya Rasool’Allah صلَّی اللہ
تعالٰی علیہ وسلَّم! The (market) price has increased drastically. We wish that you
should fix the prices’. He said, ‘Indeed Allah is the One Who fixes the
prices, The One Who causes complexity, The One Who makes plentiful and The One
Who gives sustenance, and I wish that I should meet Allah in a manner whereby
nobody demands of me for any unjust act I did against him, neither in blood nor
in property’.
Law: If the traders have
increased the price of the goods (i.e. food items) drastically, and the prices
cannot be controlled without it being fixed. Then after consulting with the
Ahlur Rai[7],
the Qazi has the right to stipulate a fixed price, and that sale which has
taken place based on the stipulated price is regarded as a permissible transaction.
This sale (transaction) cannot be regarded as a Makruh transaction because
here, there is no compulsion, as the Qazi has not forced the trader to sell. He
has the right of either selling it or not. All the Qazi has done is that he has
stipulated a price, and ruled that the item should not be sold higher than the
stipulated price. [Hidaya]
Law: To stipulate (a market
price) for the food items required by humans and fodder for animals is permissible,
based on the above mentioned circumstance and this ruling also applies to other
things as well. If the traders have increased the prices drastically, then even
in such circumstances, the ruling is that the price can be stipulated. [Durr-e-Mukhtar]
[1] Thiqa refers to a reliable and trustworthy person.
[2] Mushtari refers to the Buyer.
[3] In Shariah, possession is regarded as evidence of ownership,
unless proven otherwise.
[4]
Haraam merchandise here refers to that which was taken unjustly or
stolen merchandise etc.
[5] Halaal merchandise here refers to legally attained merchandise.
[6] Najis refers to that which is soiled by impurity.
[7] Ahlur Rai refers to the People of Opinion (Judgement).
0 comments:
Post a Comment