Indexed OCR Text

he said: "This item sells for R1000 in other shops, you can have it for
R900." Whereas, the value of that item is only R700. Does the buyer
have the right to cancel the transaction in these situations?
Answer
When the buyer was given an inferior item instead of a superior
quality one, he was deceived. Since superior and inferior are qualities
in the item, and a quality cannot be compared against a price, he does
not have the right to have the price reduced. However, because he did
not obtain the desired quality, the buyer has the right to return it. If
he wants, he may keep the item at its full price or he can return it.
In the second case, he was deceived into paying a higher price. This is
a deception and a lie. The buyer has the right to keep the item if he
wants or return it; but he has no right to have the price reduced.
ومن اشترى ثوباً على أنه عشرة أذرع بعشرة درابم، أو أرضاً على أنها مائة ذراع
بمائة دريم فوجدبا أقل فالمشتري بالخيار إن شاء أخذبا بجملة الثمن وإن شاء
ترك لأن الذراع وصف فى الثوب ألا ترى أنه عبارة عن الطول والعرض
والوصف لا يقابله شيء من الثمن كأطراف الحيوان، فلهذا يأخذه بكل
الثمن ... إلا أن يتخير لفوات الوصف المذكور لتغير المعقود عليه فيختل
الرضا. (الهداية: ٢٣/٣)
فإن اطلع المشتري على خيانة فى المرابحة فهو بالخيار عند أبي حنيفة إن شاء
أخذه بجميع الثمن وإن شاء تركه ... والتولية والمرابحة ترويج وترغيب فيكون
وصفاً مرغوباً فيه كوصف السلامة فيتخير بفواته. (الهداية: ٧١/٣، ٧٢)
وفي شرح العناية: قال لأن مطلق العقد يقتضي وصف السلامة أى سلامة
المعقود عليه عن العيب لما روي أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اشترى من
عداء بن خالد بن بوذة عبداً وكتب في عهدته "بذا ما اشترى محمد رسول الله
صلى الله عليه وسلم من العداء بن خالد بن بوذة عبداً لا داء ولا غائلة ولا
خبثة، بيع المسلم من المسلم." وفي بذا تنصيص على أن البيع يقتضي سلامة
المبيع عن العيب، ووصف السلامة يفوت لوجود العيب، فعند فواته يتخير لأن
59

الرضا داخل في حقيقة البيع، وعند فواته ينفى الرضا فيتضرر بلزوم ما لا
يرضى به. (شرح العناية على بامش فتح القدير: ٣٥٤/٦، دار الفكر)
فيض البارى:
في فتح القدير في باب الإقالة أن الغرر، إما قولي أو فعلي، فإن كان الغرر قولياً،
فالإقالة واجبة بحكم القاضي، وإن كان الثاني تجب عليه الإقالة ديانة، ولا
يدخل فى القضاء كيف! وأن الخدعات أشياء مستورة، ليس إلى علمها سبيل،
فلا يمكن أن تدخل تحت القضاء. (فيض البارى: ٢٣١/٣، كتاب البيوع)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Repossessing an item when it is not paid for
Question
Zayd bought a machine from 'Umar and promised to pay for it in
instalments of R500 a month. He paid the instalments for some time
but then stopped paying. Consequently 'Umar took the machine back.
Will he have to return the money which he collected from Zayd?
Answer
First of all, 'Umar is the owner of the machine. It was therefore not
permissible to take the machine back. If the seller still repossessed the
machine on the approval of the buyer, it will fall under the ruling of
iqālah. When there is iqalah and the item is repossessed, it is necessary
to return the money. If not, it will mean that one person has taken
possession of both the item and its price; and this is against the
Sharī ah law.
البيع مع تأجيل الثمن وتقسيط صحيح. أى والتأجيل لازم، فليس للبائع
حبس المبيع حتى يقبضه ولا المطالبة به قبل حلول الأجل. (شرح المجلة
لمحمد خالد الاتاسى، ١٦٦/٢)
We learn from this that when a transaction is agreed upon to be paid
in instalments, the buyer becomes the owner of the item. Therefore,
the seller cannot take possession of it. If he takes possession of it, it
will fall under the ruling of iqalah, and it will be necessary to return
the money which the buyer had paid.
60

الإقالة جائزة فى البيع بمثل الثمن الأول ... فإن شرطا أكثر من أو أقل فالشرط
باطل ويرد مثل الثمن الأول. (الهداية: ٦٩/٣)
Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah:
It is not prohibited to have a difference in price for paying cash and
taking on credit, but the instalments must be specified. Furthermore,
if a certain instalment is not paid on time, there can be no increase on
the price nor can the instalments which were paid be appropriated
together with the motorcycle. If this is the case, the transaction is not
permissible according to the Shari'ah. In fact, it will entail usury and
gambling; and both are explicitly prohibited in the Qur'an and Hadith.1
Āp Ke Masā'il Aur Oen Kā Hull:
It is not permissible to lay down this condition: If the buyer does not
fulfil the three-month instalments, the seller will repossess the vehicle
and the instalments which were paid will be forfeited. The seller has
the right to collect his instalments through legal means, but he does
not have the right to repossess the vehicle nor to appropriate the
instalments which were paid.2
Ahsan al-Fatāwā:
It is permissible to take a price because of credit, but the precondition
of repossessing the item and appropriating all the instalments if the
full amount is not paid is an invalid condition. This transaction is
therefore not permissible.3
Some scholars say that when the buyer does not pay the price, the
seller can effect a one-sided cancellation of the transaction and
repossess the item. In today's times, this is an easier opinion and it
would be better to pass a fatwa on this view.
ومن قال لآخر اشتريت مني بذه الجارية فأنكر الآخر إن أجمع البائع على
ترك الخصومة وسعر أن يطأبا لأن المشتري لما جحد كان فسخاً من جهته إذا
الفسخ يثبت به كما إذا تجاحدا فإذا عزم البائع على ترك الخصومة تم الفسخ
1 Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah, vol. 16, p. 46.
2 Āp Ke Masā'il Aur Oen Kā Hull, vol. 6, p. 154.
Ahsan al-Fatāwā, vol. 6 ,p. 519.
61

وبمجرد العزم وإن كان لا يثبت الفسخ فقد اقترن بالفعل وہو إمساك
الجارية ونقلها وما يضابيه ولأن لما تعذر استيفاء الثمن من المشتري فات
رضاء البائع فيستبد بفسخه. (الهداية، ١٤٦/٣، باب التحكيم)
However, another text of al-Hidāyah seems to be the opposite:
قال: ومن اشترى عبداً فغاب والعبد في يد البائع وأقام البائع البينة أنه باعه
إياه فإن كانت غيبته معروفة لم يبع في دين البائع لأنه يمكن إيصال البائع
إلى حق بدون البيع. (الهداية: ١٠٣/٣، مسائل منثورة)
The buyer disappeared before he could pay the price, and his
whereabouts are known. In such a case, it is not permissible to sell the
item and collect its price. This is because the seller can collect his dues
(through the ruling of a judge).
However, an answer to this is that in this case, it is possible to collect
the money because it is easy to do so once the case is presented to a
judge. This is not possible nowadays. If the seller opens a case in court,
he will have to wait for several years. Also, he will have to bear the
expenses for the court case. Therefore, the better option is to effect a
one-sided cancellation and repossess the item - as per the previous
quotation from al-Hidāyah.
Hadrat Muftī Walī Hasan Sahib rahimahullah used to issue the latter
fatwā.
Further details on this ruling can be found in the next ruling.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
A one-sided cancellation when the price is not paid
Question
A person sold his valuable property to someone at a specified price.
The buyer promised to pay the amount after six months and made a
down payment as a deposit. After six months, he was asked to pay the
balance but he has neither paid it nor cancelled the transaction. After
a considerable passage of time, the seller cancelled the transaction and
sold the property to someone else. Is this permissible?
62

Answer
In matters of this nature, Hadrat Muftī Walī Hasan Sahib and Muftī
Rashid Ahmad Ludhyanwī used to issue the verdict of cancelling the
transaction. If the buyer neither cancels the transaction nor pays the
price, the seller can effect a one-sided cancellation.
On one occasion, the Dar al-Ifta' of Binnaurī Town received a question
from Hadrat Hakim Akhtar Sahib which is similar to the above
situation. The name of the questioner was alluded. Hadrat Muftī Walī
Hasan wrote a short answer without any references, and stated that
the seller could effect a one-sided cancellation. A few days later, the
question was re-posed and it was stated that because Zayd is himself a
muftī, he would like references. Hadrat Muftī Wali Hasan quoted the
following statement from volume three of al-Hidāyah:
ولأنه لما تعذر استيفاء الثمن من المشتري فات رضا البائع فيستبد بفسخه.
(الهدايه: ١٤٧/٣، كتاب ادب القاضى، مسائل شتى من كتاب القضاء)
No further questions were received. This question had been posed by
Hadrat Muftī Rashid Sahib rahimahullah. He concurred with the
answer and wrote the same ruling in his Ahsan al-Fatawā, vol. 6, p. 506.
Although the author of al-Hidayah wrote the above with reference to a
specific issue, it is considered to be a principle.
Objection
An objection is made to the above.
In the issue which mentions a one-sided cancellation, the buyer is
denying the transaction. This is why the seller can effect a one-sided
cancellation. This is because the transaction has terminated from the
side of the buyer. Whereas the author of al-Hidayah writes on the same
page [under discussion]:
لأن أحد المتعاقدين لا يتفرد بالفسخ. (الهداية: ١٤٧/٣، مسائل شتى من كتاب
القضاء)
Similarly, it is stated in Sharh al-Majallah (vol. 2, p. 258) that where the
other party affirms the transaction but does not pay the money, the
opposing party cannot cancel the transaction.
Furthermore, the following is stated in Badā'i' as-Sanā'i':
63

ونوع لا يرتفع إلا بالإقالة وبو حكم كل بيع لازم وبو البيع الصحيح الخالي
عن الخيار. (بدائع الصنائع: ٣٠٦/٥، سعيد)
The honourable Hadrat Maulana Muftī Muhammad Taqī 'Uthmānī also
wrote in the same vein. That is, a one-sided cancellation is not
possible.
Answer
If one ponders over the text of al-Hidayah and observes it in the light of
its annotators, it becomes absolutely clear that the fundamental basis
is on the collection of the money. If it is not possible to collect the
money or extremely difficult to do so, a one-sided cancellation will be
permissible.
لما تعذر استيفاء الثمن يستبد وبهنا لما أقر المشتري في مكانه بالشراء لم يتعذر
الاستيفاء فلا يستبد بالفسخ. (العناية على بامش فتح القدير: ٣٣٤/٧، دار
الفكر)
In other words, if the buyer attests to the price, it is possible to collect
it. This is why a one-sided cancellation cannot be effected. There was
an Islamic judicial system in the past, and a person who was wronged
could easily claim his right and the price could be recovered.
Nowadays, the constant delaying and deferring has made it almost
impossible to recover the price. Going to the court will result in
nothing but regret. It is synonymous to placing one's self into distress
for many years.
The above-quoted text of Bada'i' which states that in a binding
transaction, the only way of termination is iqalah (cancellation), then
this is practical in normal conditions. But where it is not possible to
recover the price or item, a one-sided cancellation is possible. If in a
transaction, a slave runs away before he can come into the possession
of the buyer, then although the transaction was completed, a judge
can annul the transaction. As stated in ad-Durr al-Mukhtar (vol. 4, p.
292).
Although Hadrat Muftī Muhammad Taqī 'Uthmānī Sahib did not
consider a one-sided annulment to be permissible in the above-
mentioned issue, we learn of its permissibility from one of his other
books:
64

فإن الخادع يجب عليه ديانة أن يفسخ البيع أو يقيل المخدوع إذا طلب منه
الإقالة وقد صرح به فى الدر المختار والشامى. (تكملة فتح الملهم: ٣٣٣/١)
He states in Taqrīr Tirmidhī:
However, the latter day Hanafi jurists issue a verdict on the basis of
Mālikī jurisprudence because of the proliferation of deception and
cheating in our times ... Therefore, if a person resorts to deception a
buys an item at a lower price or sells it at a higher price, then the one
who suffered the deception ought to receive the right of revocation -
as in the jurisprudence of Imam Malik rahimahullah. Thus, nowadays
the fatwa is issued on the basis of Maliki jurisprudence. Therefore, the
one who was cheated will have khiyar-e-maghbun (the right of the one
who has been defrauded).1
'Allāmah Anwar Shah Kashmīrī writes:
إن الغرر إما قولي أو فعلي فإن كان الغرر قولياً فالإقالة واجبة بحكم القاضي
وإن كان الثاني تجب عليه الإقالة ديانة، ... وبكذا أقول فيما إذا اشترى سلعة،
فلم يؤد ثمنها حتى أفلس، أن يكون فيه أسوة للغرماء عندنا قضاءً، ويجب
عليه أن يرد المبيع إلى البائع خفيةً ديانةً، فإنه أحق به، لكنه حكم الديانة
دون القضاء. (فيض البارى: ٢٣٢/٣)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
When an item is destroyed before the buyer can take possession of it
Question
A man bought an item. It got destroyed along the way, before it could
reach him. Who will pay its compensation?
Answer
As long as the buyer does not take possession of it - as per societal
norms - it will be considered to be in the ownership of the seller. In
the case where it is destroyed, the seller will have to pay
compensation. Yes, if - as per societal norms - the buyer is considered
1 Tagrīr Tirmidhī, vol. 1, p. 169.
65

to have taken possession of it, and then it was destroyed, then the
onus will be on the buyer.
فتاوى الشامى:
تفيد الملك بالقبض أى يثبت بالبيع أو بالشراء. (فتاوى الشامى: ٦/١٣٠، كتاب
الاكراه)
شرح المجلة:
المبيع إذا بلك في يد البائع قبل أن يقبض المشتري يكون من مال البائع ولا
شيء على المشتري ... وإذا بلك المبيع بعد القبض بلك من مال المشتري ولا
شيء على البائع. (شرح المجلة لمحمد خالد الاتاسى، ٢/٢٢٣، ٢٢٥)
Jadīd Fiqhī Mabāhith:
The Qur'an and Sunnah do not explain any particular manner of taking
possession. In fact, the Ahadith mention several ways of it. A narration
of Hadrat 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar radiyallahu 'anhu states that possession
is realized when the item is moved from the place of purchase to
another place. A narration of Hadrat Zayd ibn Thabit radiyallahu 'anhu
states that this happens when traders move their purchased items to
the saddles of their camels. A narration of Hadrat Abu Hurayrah
radiyallahu 'anhu classifies the measuring and weighing of an item as
"taking possession" of it. This is why the jurists concur that the
societal norms will be the criteria. The extent of control over an item
which is considered to be "taking possession" of it will be accepted by
the Shari'ah as taking possession with respect to that item.
‘Allāmah Kāsānī rahimahullāh writes:
ولا يشترط القبض بالبراجم، لأن معنى القبض بو التمكين والتخلي وارتفاع
الموانع عرفاً وعادة حقيقة. (بدائع الصنائع: ١٤٨/٥، سعيد. الفتاوى الهندية:
١٠١٦/٣
1 Jadīd Fighī Mabahith, vol. 2, p. 151.
66

Fiqhī Maqālāt:
The Shari'ah rules that risk is not transferred merely by the
completion of a transaction and the transfer of ownership, until and
unless the buyer takes possession of it. Thus, if the buyer or his
representative does not take possession of the item - whether taking
possession is in reality or based on societal norms - compensation for
it will not be transferred to the buyer.1
Islām Aur Jadīd Ma'āshī Masā'il:
The seller absolves himself by saying to the buyer: "This wheat which
you bought is in my warehouse. You may take it whenever you want.
After today, I am not responsible for it. If the wheat is destroyed or
gets rotten, it is your responsibility." In such a case, although the
buyer did not take physical possession of his goods, they have come
under his liability. Any losses suffered to them will be to the buyer's
liability. Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullah is of the view that physical
possession is not necessary. Takhliyah is sufficient. Takhliyah means
that the buyer is given the power to come and take possession of the
item whenever he wants. As long as no obstacle from taking
possession of it remains, we will conclude that takhliyah has taken
place. For example, there is a chest which contains several items. The
buyer is given the key to it. Once he receives the key, possession of the
chest has taken place irrespective of whether he takes the chest now
or not. Imām Bukhārī rahimahullah gives preference to the view of
Imam Abu Hanīfah rahimahullah and narrates the tradition of Hadrat
Jābir radiyallāhu 'anhu as a mausul narration. Rasūlullah sallallahu
'alayhi wa sallam bought a camel from Hadrat Jābir radiyallahu 'anhu
who then travelled on it to Madinah. He did not get off that camel, but
takhliyah was established. Imām Bukhārī rahimahullah says that we
learn from this incident that possession takes place once takhliyah is
effected.2
Further reading: 'Itr Hidāyah, pp. 88-91; Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar'ī Ahkām,
vol. 1, pp. 40-42; Qāmūs al-Fiqh, vol. 4, pp. 466-467.
To sum up, after the buyer takes possession of the item, it comes under
his control and he will be responsible for it. The seller will be
responsible before the buyer takes possession. Taking possession is
based on societal norms. These differ with respect to the nature of the
items.
1 Fiqhī Maqālāt, vol. 3, p. 73.
2 Islām Aur Jadīd Ma'āshī Masā'il, vol. 2, pp. 98, 100.
67

Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Selling a property which belongs to a minor
Question
The guardian of a minor sold the latter's property for whatever reason.
Is this permissible?
Answer
If the guardian is known to have affection for the minor, or it is
unknown but he sold it after bearing in mind the interests of the
minor, then it is permissible.
فتاوى الشامى:
ولو البائع أباً فإن محموداً عند الناس أو مستور الحال يجوز، ابن كمال، وقال فى
الشامية: قوله يجوز فليس للصغير نقضه بعد بلوغ إذ للأب شفقة كاملة ولم
يعارض بذا المعنى معنى آخر فكان بذا البيع نظراً للصغير وإن كان الأب فاسداً
لم يجز بيع العقار فلم نقض بعد بلوغه بو المختار إلا إذا باعه بضعف
القيمة إذ عارض ذلك المعنى معنى آخر، تنبيه: ظابر كلامهم بنا أن لا يفتقر
بيع الأب عقار ولده إلى المسوغات المذكورة فى الوصي ونقل الحموي في حواشى
الأشباه من الوصايا أن الأب كالوصي لا يجوز له بيع العقار إلا فى المسائل
المذكورة كما أفتى به الحانوتي. ثم رأيت في مجموعة شيخ مشايخنا منلا على
التركماني قد نقل عبارة الحموى المذكورة ثم قال ما نصه: وبو مخالف لإطلاق
ما فى الفصول وغيره ولم يستند الحانوتي في ذلك إلى نقل صحيح ولكن إذا
صارت المسوغات في بيع الأب أيضاً كما فى الوصي صار حسناً مفيداً أيضاً لأن
الأخذ بالاتفاق أوفق بكذا أفادني شيخنا الشيخ محمد مراد السقاميني رحمه
الله تعالى. (فتاوى الشامى: ٧١١/٦، سعيد)
68

الهداية:
ولا يجوز بيع الوصي ولا شراؤه إلا بما يتغابن الناس في مثل لأنه لا نظر فى
الغبن الفاحش بخلاف اليسير لأنه لا يمكن التحرز عنه ففي اعتباره
انسداد بابه. (الهداية: ٦٩٨/٤، باب الوصى وما يملك)
وفى الشامي: قوله ولو مصلحاً إنما ذكره لأنهم صرحوا بأن شرط بيع الأب
عقار الصغير بمثل القيمة كونه محموداً أو مستوراً فلو كان مفسداً لا يجوز إلا
بضعف القيمة. (فتاوى الشامى: ٤٢٦/٥، سعيد)
وفيه أيضاً: قوله وعلى قول المتأخرين أى في وصي اليتيم أنه ليس له بيع العقار
إلا فى المسائل السبع الآتية وبو المفتى به وعند المتقدمين لم البيع مطلقاً،
واختاره الاسبيجابي وصاحب المجمع وكثير كما فى التحفة المرضية قوله سبع
مسائل ونصر وجاز بيع عقار صغير من أجنبي لا من نفسه بضعف قيمته أو
لنفقة الصغير أو دين الميت أو وصية مرسلة لا إنفاذ لها إلا منه أو تكون
غلته لا تزيد على مؤنته أو خوف خرابه أو نقصانه أو كونه في يد متغلب.
(فتاوى الشامى: ١٨٣/٤، باب العشر والخراج، سعيد)
وللاستزادة انظر: الفتاوى الخانية على بامش الهندية: ٥١٧/٣. وشرح العناية:
٥٨٨/١٠)
After quoting the text of Shamī rahimahullah, Hadrat Hakim al-
Ummat rahimahullāh writes:
This narration proves that in itself, it is not permissible for the mother
to sell the property of a minor. Instead, when there is a need, she will
have to revert to a Muslim judge. I have not come across a ruling in the
case where there is no Muslim judge. However, since the need is
genuine and inconvenience is removed, it seems that it will be
permissible at the time of necessity.1
1 Imdād al-Fatāwā, vol. 3, p. 25.
69

Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Trading in greeting cards
Question
Like we have 'id cards, Christians use birthday cards, mother's day
cards, etc. They are also known as greeting cards. Can Muslims trade in
these cards? Some of these cards contain small images of animate
objects.
Answer
It is permissible to trade in cards of this nature because the images are
not the objective; they are subservient to the message. This is similar
to images which we see on the labels of many items. The jurists say
that it is permissible to trade in them without any reprehensibility.
However, one should be careful about covering items having images in
one's business or house so that one will not be acting against the
Hadith in this regard.
قال في رد المختار: لكن فى الخزانة إن كانت الصورة مقدار طير يكره وإن
كانت أصغر فلا. (رد المحتار: ٦٤٨/١، سعيد)
Based on the above principle, since trading in the card is the objective
and not the image, it is not impermissible.
The jurists give the same ruling with regard to trading in grape juice:
وذكر قاضيخان في فتاواه أن بيع العصير ممن يتخذ خمراً إن قصد به التجارة
فلا يحرم وإن قصد به لأجل التخمير حرم. (الأشباه والنظائر: ١٠٢/١)
Kifāyatul Muftī:
It is not permissible to trade in images of animate things irrespective
of whether they are small or large in size, and whether they are toys
for children or for some other purpose. However, if the object is not to
trade in the image, e.g. a matchbox has an image of an animal, but it is
not the objective to sell the image [but the matches], then it can be
permissible to trade in such items.1
Question: A roll of fabric contains the company label which has an
image of an animate object on it, or a carton has a similar image but it
1 Kifāyatul Muftī, vol. 9, p. 235.
70

contains trade goods inside. If that roll of fabric or carton is stored in
one's shop, will it be considered to be a display of animate objects?
Answer: Since it is not the objective to trade in the images, there is
leeway on the basis of necessity.1
'Itr Hidāyah:
... if such an image is on a book, utensil, etc. and this increases the
value or interest in the item, then it is makruh. Even if it does not
create an interest, it is not free from detestability. Yes, if it is difficult
to save one's self from these images, e.g. on coins, money, paper,
tickets, cards on which images are printed, then the one who had them
printed will be sinning. The general public will not be sinful.2
Āp Ke Masā'il:
Question: How should newspapers containing images be brought into a
house?
Answer: It was the practice of some of our seniors to first cover the
images. Others used to place their hands over the images. For people
like us, it will be a boon if we could just read the newspapers and fold
them away without displaying the images.3
Kitab al-Fatāwā:
Unfortunately, nowadays, images are attached to labels to which the
images have no connection whatsoever. When a label is removed, the
genuineness of the item is doubted. The image is not the objective
when trading in the item, the actual item is the objective. In the
present circumstances, it will be permissible to trade in such items.
However, it is the duty of Muslim manufacturers to abstain from
resorting to these ignoble means to make their goods appealing.
Instead, they should divert the attention of people to the quality and
excellent features of their goods.4
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
1 Kifāyatul Muftī, vol. 9, p. 241.
2 'Itr Hidayah, pp. 153-154.
Ap Ke Masa'il Aur Oen Kā Hull, vol. 7, p. 68.
4 Kitab al-Fatāwā, vol. 5, p. 209.
71

Trading in garments which have animate images
Question
Can a person sell garments which have animate images to non-
Muslims?
Answer
The Shari'ah prohibits trading in pictures, images and figurines of
animate objects. Trading in statues and figurines is impermissible. In
the same way, trading in an image which is the object of the sale is
impermissible. However, the labels on garments which have images
are not generally the objective. It is the garment or that item which is
the objective. This is why we will not say that it is impermissible to
trade in them. Selling them to non-Muslims makes the issue lighter
because they are not addressed with regard to subsidiary matters of
Dīn. Yes, one ought to abstain from trading in garments having large
images which are sold as fashion, and where the image is the objective.
عن جابر رضي الله عنه قال نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن الصورة
فی البیت ونهی أن یصنع ذلک، حديث جابر رضي الله عنه حدیث حسن
صحيح. (رواه الترمذى فى باب ما جاء فى الصورة: ٣٠٥/١)
‘Itr Hidāyah:
A Hadith curses the person who makes images of animate things.
Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam said that the angels of mercy do
not enter the house which has dogs and images. (Mishkāt)
Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam said that Allāh ta'ālā says: "Who
can be more unjust than the one who imitates Me in the creation." I
challenge him to create an ant or a grain of wheat." (Mishkat as quoted
from Bukhārī and Muslim)
Hadrat 'Ā'ishah radiyallahu 'anha narrates that Rasūlullah sallallahu
'alayhi wa sallam would not allow items with images to lie around in
the house. (Bukhārī and Muslim)
Creating an image, getting it created, trading in it - whether hand-
drawn or a duplication, in statue form or embossed, whether the face
only or the entire body - is a major sin. It is haram. If such an image is
on a book, utensil, etc. and this increases the value or interest in the
item, then it is makruh. Even if it does not create an interest, it is not
free from detestability. Yes, if it is difficult to save one's self from these
images, e.g. on coins, money, paper, tickets, cards on which images are
72

printed, then the one who had them printed will be sinning. The
general public will not be sinful.1
Some people furnish the following narration of Tirmidhi:
وعن عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن عتبة أنه دخل على أبي طلحة الأنصاري رضي
الله عنه يعوده فوجد عنده سهل بن حنيف رضي الله عنه قال: فدعا أبو طلحة
رضي الله عنه إنساناً ينزع نمطاً تحته فقال له سهل لم تنزعه، قال: لأن فيها
تصاویر وقال فيه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ما قد علمت، قال سهل رضي الله
عنه: أو لم يقل إلا ما كان رقماً في ثوب قال: بلى ولكنه أطيب لنفسي، بذا
حديث حسن صحيح. (رواه الترمذى: ٣٠٥/١)
قال ابن بطال: اختلف العلماء فى الصور فكره ابن شهاب ما نصب منها وما
بسط كان رقماً أو لم يكن، على حديث نافع عن القاسم عن عائشة رضي الله
تعالى عنها، وقال طائفة: إنما يكره من التصاوير ما كان في حيطان البيوت،
وأما ما كان رقماً في ثوب فهو جائز على حديث زيد بن خالد عن أبي طلحة
رضي الله عنه، وسواء كان الثوب منصوباً أو مبسوطاً وبه قال القاسم. (شرح
صحيح البخارى لابن بطال: ١٧٩/٩، كتاب اللباس، باب من كره القعود على
الصور)
Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah:
It is not permissible to buy books and magazines which are bought
because of the images which they contain. This is because the
objective is taken into account. If the objective is to read proper
articles, it will be permissible to buy them. The images are subordinate
to the articles, and they should be obliterated.
Taswīr Ke Shar'ī Ahkām:
If images are not the objective in a transaction but are subordinate to
other things, e.g. most garments have images, utensils and other goods
commonly have images - then their trade is subordinately permissible.
1 'Itr Hidayah, pp. 153-154.
73

كما يستفاد من بلوغ القصد والمرام معزياً للهيثمي (بلوغ المرام: ص ١٨) ولما
بو من القواعد المسلمة من فقر الأحناف أن كثيراً من الأفعال لا يجوز قصداً
ويجوز تبعاً كما صرحوا في جواز بيع الحقوق تبعاً للدار ولا أصالة وقصداً.
However, if the images are the objectives of a trade, it will be
impermissible to buy and sell them. If an image is made of clay, then
its value is not obligatory on anyone. If it is made of metal or wood,
only that amount will be obligatory which makes up the metal or
wood, while disregarding the actual image itself.1
Further reading: Kitab al-Fatāwā, vol. 5, p. 265; Imdād al-Ahkām, vol. 3, p.
384; Jawāhir al-Fatāwā, vol. 3, p. 227 (Muftī Muhammad 'Abd as-Salām
Chātgāmī); Taswīr Ke Shar'ī Ahkām)
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
Trading in opium
Question
Is it permissible to trade in opium?
Answer
It is permissible to trade in opium. It does not fall exactly under the
ruling of alcohol. It has benefits; it is used in medicines, etc. The
principle is that if something has a lawful use, then trading in it is
permissible. Yes, if one is convinced that the person who is buying it
will use it in an impermissible manner, then it is makruh to sell it to
him.
وصح بيع غير الخمر ومفاده صحة بيع الحشيشة والأفيون. وفى الشامية: قوله
وصح بيع غير الخمر أى عنده خلافاً لهما فى البيع والضمان، لكن الفتوى
على قوله فى البيع. (الدر المختار مع فتاوى الشامى: ٤٥٤/٦، كتاب الاشربة،
سعيد)
وفي حاشية الطحطاوي على الدر: ويجوز بيعها ويضمن متلفها قيمتها عنده
وقالا: لا يجوز البيع ولا يضمن المتلف وعن أبي يوسف يجوز بيعها إذا طبخ
1 Muftī Muhammad Shafi': Taswīr Ke Shar'ī Ahkām, p. 88.
74

فذبب أكثر من النصف وأقل من الثلثين والفتوى على قوله فى البيع. (حاشية
الطحطاوى على الدر المختار: ٢٢٥/٤، كوئته)
Kifāyatul Muftī:
The buying and selling of opium is permissible even though the law of
the country is that it can be sold only if a person has a licence. The
Shari'ah does not lay down this condition. The income which is
derived from its sale is permissible and halāl.1
Ahsan al-Fatāwā:
In the past, opium was rarely used for medical treatment. Instead, it
was used mostly as an intoxicant. This is why some jurists say that it is
makrūh to trade in it. Nowadays, it is used profusely for medical
treatment and has acquired much prominence and popularity. In fact,
it has reached the level of necessity. Therefore, it is permissible to
trade in it without any reprehensibility. However, if one is quite
convinced that a certain person will use it as an intoxicant, it will be
makrūh tahrīmī to sell it to him.2
Muftī Taqī 'Uthmānī writes:
A principle related to trade and commerce is that if something has a
lawful use, trading in it will be permissible even if it is generally used
for impermissible things. In other words, it is the duty of the buyer to
use it for the correct purpose.3
Opium is an intoxicant, and is generally used in impermissible ways.
However, it is permissible to trade in it because it is possible to use
opium in lawful ways. In other words, in medicines, for medical
treatment, external treatment in the form of a paste, etc. Since it can
be used in these lawful ways, it is permissible to trade in it.4
Further reading: Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah, vol. 16, p. 123.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
1 Kifāyatul Muftī, vol. 9, p. 124.
2 Ahsan al-Fatāwā, vol. 6, p. 494.
3 Islām Aur Jadīd Ma'āshī Masā'il, vol. 4, p. 17.
4 Ibid. vol. 4, p. 13.
75

Reserving certain sale items for one's self
Question
A person purchases a shopping complex from someone. At the time of
the sale agreement, the seller lays down this condition: "In this
shopping complex, I will receive one shop which will be rent-free." Is
it permissible to lay down a condition of this nature?
Answer
A pre-condition which is not in line with the transaction renders the
transaction invalid. The above-described transaction is invalid. Yes, a
permissible way to do this will be to sell the entire complex while
excluding one particular shop. That one shop will belong to the seller,
while the remaining shops will belong to the buyer. The seller can
then use that shop as his own. There will be no rental for it. This is
similar to selling a heap of fruit while excluding ten kilos for one's self.
This is permissible.
ولا يجوز أن يبيع ثمرة ويستثنى منها أرطالاً معلومة خلافاً لمالك لأن الباقي
بعد الاستثناء مجهول بخلاف ما إذا باع واستثنى نخلاً معيناً لأن الباقي معلوم
بالمشابدة قال: قالوا: بذه رواية الحسن وبو قول الطحاوي، أما على ظابر الرواية
ينبغي أن يجوز لأن الأصل أن ما يجوز إيراد العقد عليه بانفراده يجوز استثناؤه
من العقد وبيع قفيز من صبرة جائزة فكذا استثناؤه. (الهداية: ٢٧/٣، كتاب
البيوع)
وللاستزادة: انظر فتاوى الشامى: ٥٥٩،٥٥٨/٤، سعيد. والقول الراجح: ٢:١٠)
'Allāmah Shāmī rahimahullāh provides another way in which it can be
made permissible. He quotes this from Jāmi' al-Fusūlayn:
After the transaction is complete, the seller takes a promise from the
buyer that he will give him one shop rent-free. If the buyer agrees to
it, it will become necessary for him to give the seller the shop. It is
obligatory to fulfil a promise of this nature.
وقال فى شرح المجلة: فلو ألحق الشرط الفاسد بالعقد، قيل: يلتحق عند
الإمام وقيل: لا، وبو الصحيح. نقل (ابن عابدين) عن جامع الفصولين أيضاً
76

أنه لو ذكر البيع بلا شرط، ثم ذكر الشرط على وجه العدة جاز البيع ولزم الوفاء
بالوعد، إذ المواعيد قد تكون لازمة، فيجعل لازماً لحاجة الناس، ويظهر لي
أنه متى وقع الشرط بعد العقد لا يكون إلا على وجه العدة، وحكمه أنه يجب
الوفاء به. (شرح المجلة لمحمد خالد الاتاسى، فصل فى حق البيع بشرط: ٦٠/٢)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Cancelling a transaction when the value of an item increases
Question
A man was in severe need, so he sold one of his houses to his sister and
brother-in-law in the presence of his wife and three of his brothers. He
sold it for R220 000 cash. The matter was then taken to al-Barakah
Bank which asked for the title-deeds and other papers. Because these
could not be presented, the entire amount could not be paid and al-
Barakah Bank refused to handle the transaction. The buyer and seller
made an arrangement between themselves. The buyer paid R50 000 in
cash, with the balance to be paid in instalments. The monthly
instalment figure was not specified; it was left to the good intent of the
buyer. The seller refused to accept any instalment in April 2008.
However, when the buyer sent a cheque on 25 April via a bank, the
seller accepted it. He now says that the amount [which they had
agreed upon] is very little because the value of the house has
increased. He is therefore not happy with the original price. The buyer
has already paid five instalments, and has only R40 000 left to pay.
Who is the owner of the house according to the Shari'ah? Does the
seller have the right to cancel the transaction?
Answer
The offer and acceptance were concluded by the agreement of both
parties. The transaction was therefore completed and the buyer
became the owner of the house. The seller does not have the right to
cancel it. The seller had himself agreed to receive the agreed-upon-
amount in instalments. Because al-Barakah Bank asked for the papers
which the seller did not have, the entire amount was not collected.
The prices of properties, houses, lands and other essentials - in fact,
even items for personal use - increase by the day and become more
expensive. This does not mean that when the price increases, the
house which was sold can be taken back. Rather, the price which was
agreed upon will remain until the entire amount is paid.
77

When there is an agreement for a sale, the market value is considered.
If the value increases or decreases after the transaction, it will not
affect the agreement in any way. Rather, the price which both parties
had agreed upon will be considered. This is irrespective of whether the
market value has increased or dropped. The instalments will also be
paid according to the agreed price; they will not be changed. If the
buyer pays more, it will be his favour and it is permissible. Apart from
this, the seller does not have the right to demand more than the
agreed price.
The seller left the instalments to the good intent of the buyer and did
not specify a time limit. Even then, the transaction is valid and correct.
The buyer will have the choice of paying whatever amount he wants
on a monthly basis. However, he will have to pay some amount or the
other. Yes, it is necessary to specify the full amount at the time of the
transaction so that there are no disputes later on. In this case, the full
price of R220 000 was specified, so the transaction is valid and correct.
After receiving five instalments and only R40 000 remaining, the seller
says: "I am not happy", then this is not right. It will not affect the
transaction and agreement in any way.
Refer to the following proofs:
يأَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ امَنُوا لاَ تَأْكُلُوْاْ أَمْوَالَكُمْ بَيْنَكُمْ بِالْبَاطِلِ إِلَّ أَنْ
تَكُوْنَ تِجَارَةً عَنْ تَرَاضٍ مِّنْكُمْ
O believers! Do not devour the wealth of each other
among yourselves wrongfully unless it be a
transaction by mutual consent.1
صحيح البخارى:
حدثنا أبو النعمان قال حدثنا حماد بن زيد قال حدثنا أيوب عن نافع عن ابن
عمر رضى الله تعالى عنهما قال قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: البيعان بالخيار
ما لم يتفرقا أو يقول أحدبما لصاحبه اختر وربما قال: أو يكون بيع خيار.
1 Sūrah an-Nisa', 4: 29.
78