logo
lang Lang
العربية

| 2 feqhia

Section 3: Transactions that are prohibited because the commodity is impermissible:

Firstly: Trade in impermissible commodities
It is impermissible to trade in unlawful commodities such as intoxicants, cigarettes, and other unlawful things.

Secondly: Trade in carrion
Trading in carrion is impermissible.

Evidence:
(1) From the Book:
The Statement of Allah Exalted, “Prohibited to you is carrion.”

(2) From the Sunnah:
Jabir ibn `Abdillah k narrated that he heard the Messenger of Allah g saying during the Year of the Liberation, whilst he was in Makkah: “Indeed, Allah and His Messenger have prohibited the sale of intoxicants, carrion, pigs, and idols…”

Both the verse and narration are evidence of the impermissibility of trading in carrion, for trading anything that Allah has made impermissible to His Servants is also forbidden because of the impermissibility of its price, except with things for which a specific evidence indicates otherwise.

(3) From the scholarly consensus:
A consensus on this issue was related by Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Battal, Ibn Rushd al-Jadd, Ibn Rush al-Hafid, Ibn Qudamah, and Ibn Hajar.

Thirdly: Trade in dogs
Trading in dogs is prohibited, and this was the position of the majority – the Malikis in their most well-known stance, the Shafi`is, and the Hanbalis – and it was a view of the Hanafis and the view of the Zahiris and a group of the predecessors .

Evidence from the Sunnah:
Abu Juhayfah h narrated: “The Prophet g forbade the price of a dog or of blood; forbade the profession of tattooing, getting tattooed, the one who consumes usury, and the one who receives it; and cursed illustrators of animate beings.”

Abu Mas`ud al-Ansari h narrated that the Messenger of Allah g forbade the price of a dog, the income of a prostitute, and the earnings of a fortune-teller.

The Prophet forbade the price of a dog in general and without restriction.

Al-Sa’ib ibn Yazid said: “Rafi` ibn Khadij narrated to me that the Messenger of Allah g said: ‘The price of a dog is impure, the income of a prostitute is impure, and the earnings of a cupper are impure.’”

Declaring the price of a dog to be impure implies generality unless a specific evidence is found to suggest otherwise for certain dogs, and such an evidence is not established.

Fourthly: Trade in human corpses
Trading in human corpses is not permitted, regardless of whether the deceased is a Muslim or disbeliever, and this was the position of the Hanifis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis and the implied view of the Maliki school of thought, and was documented in a decision of the Islamic Fiqh Academy.

Firstly, because a human corpse is not a commodity to be sold.

Secondly, because a human being, even if a disbeliever, is honored in the Shariah. Entering into a contract involving his corpse, demeaning it, and treating it like an inanimate object is a form of disrespect.

And thirdly, because the parts of a human being are not owned by the individual. Rather, they are collectively subject to human authority in order to obey their Creator and meet the person’s needs.

Transactions that are forbidden and impermissible for external reasons:
Firstly: Trade at the time of the call to the Friday prayer
1. The ruling on trade at the time of the call to the Friday prayer
The ruling on trade at the time of the first call to the Friday prayer:
Trade is allowed after the first call to prayer, and this was the position of the majority: the Malikis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis.

Evidence from the Sunnah:
Sa’ib ibn al-Yazid narrated: “At first, the call to the Friday prayer was made when the imam sat on the pulpit during the time of the Prophet g and the times of Abu Bakr and `Umar k. Then, when it was the time of `Uthman h and the people increased, a third call was added at al-Zawra’.” Abu `Abdillah said: “Al-Zawra’ was a place at the market of Madinah.”

The second call to prayer is the one in front of the minbar, because this was the one that took place during the time of the Prophet g, and rulings are attached to this call. As for the first call to prayer, it was introduced during the time of `Uthman h.

The ruling on trade at the time of the second call to the Friday prayer:

Trade is prohibited after the second call to the Friday prayer.

Evidence:
(1) From the Book:
“O believers! When the call to prayer is made on Friday, then proceed diligently to the remembrance of Allah and leave off your trading. That is best for you, if only you knew.”

(2) From the scholarly consensus:
A consensus on this issue was related by Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, Ibn Rushd, Ibn al-`Arabi, and al-Tahtawi.

(3) Because sitting or standing to conduct a transaction at this time means neglecting an obligatory act, which is hastening to the Friday prayer.

The ruling on the validity of a transaction conducted at the time of the second call to the Friday prayer:
A transaction conducted at the time of the second call to the Friday prayer is valid despite its prohibited nature, and this was the position of the Hanafis and Shafi`is , a view of the Malikis, a statement related from the Hanbalis, and is attributed to the people of knowledge at large.

Evidence:
(1) From the Book:
“O believers! When the call to prayer is made on Friday, then proceed diligently to the remembrance of Allah and leave off your trading.”

The prohibition is not specific to the transaction agreement, so it does not invalidate its validity, as is the case with performing prayers on usurped land.

(2) Because the prohibition against trading is not a prohibition of the act itself but rather of its timing.

The trading of a person who is not obligated to attend the Friday prayer at the time of its call:

A person who is not obligated to attend the Friday prayer is not prohibited from trading at the time of its call, and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought: the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis.

Evidence:
(1) From the Book:
“When the call to prayer is made on Friday, then proceed diligently to the remembrance of Allah and leave off your trading.”

Allah Exalted prohibited those who are commanded to hasten to the Friday prayer from trading, so those not addressed with this command are not included in the prohibition.

(2) Because the impermissibility of trading at this time is because it distracts from Friday prayer, and this is not applicable to those not obligated to attend.

Secondly: Trade in things through which the unlawful is intended

1. The ruling on trade in things through which the unlawful is intended
Trading in things through which the unlawful is intended is not permissible, and this was the position of the majority: the Malikis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis.

Evidence:
(1) From the Book:
The Statement of Allah Exalted: “Cooperate with one another in goodness and righteousness, and do not cooperate in sin and transgression.”

Allah Exalted has forbidden us from cooperating in sin and transgression, and trading in things through which the unlawful is intended is an example of cooperating in sin and transgression.

(2) Because the evidence and principles of the Shariah manifest that intention in contracts is significant. It influences the validity or invalidity of the contract, as well as its permissibility or impermissibility.

2. The validity of a trade through which the unlawful is intended
The trade of something through which the unlawful is intended, like a person who sells juice to someone who they know will turn it into an intoxicant, is invalid, and this was the position of the Malikis and Hanbalis, the view of a group of the predecessors, and the preferred opinion of Ibn Hazm, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibn `Uthaymin.

This is for the following reasons:
(1) Because the prohibition here pertains to the rights of Allah Exalted and it corrupts the contract, as is the case with selling a dirham for two dirhams.
(2) Because it is a contract based on a specific intention to commit disobedience to Allah, making it invalid.

Thirdly: Trade in the surplus water of rivers, wells, and springs that do not belong to anyone

Trading in the surplus water of rivers, wells, and springs that do not belong to anyone is not permitted.

Evidence:
Firstly, from the Sunnah:
Abu Hurayrah h narrated: “The Messenger of Allah g said: ‘There are three types of people Allah will neither speak to on the Day of Judgement, look at, or purify, and they will have a painful punishment: a man with surplus water in the wilderness and withholds it from a wayfarer…’”

Jabir ibn `Abdillah k narrated: “The Messenger of Allah g forbade the trade of surplus water.”

Abu Hurayrah h narrated that the Messenger of Allah g said: “Surplus water should not be withheld, depriving the plants thereby.”

(2) From the scholarly consensus:
A consensus on this issue was related by Abu al-`Abbas al-Qurtubi.

Transactions that are prohibited because they involve usury:

The effects of invalid trades:

Firstly: Returning items in invalid transactions

An invalid transaction does not transfer ownership and it is obligatory to return the commodity to its seller, and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought: the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis.

This is for the following reasons:

(1) Because the presence of this sale is the same as its absence and it does not transfer ownership, so the commodity must be returned to the seller.
(2) Because the commodity in an invalid sale is like something unlawfully seized in the hands of the buyer, and it is therefore obligatory to return it.

Secondly: Dealing in invalid transactions

A buyer’s dealing with the commodity of an invalid transaction is also invalid, and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought: the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis.

This is for the following reasons:
(1) Dealing with the commodity of an invalid transaction is dealing with something one does not own, for a falsehood does not exist except in terms of form.
(2) Because its presence is the same as its absence, so the buyer’s actions do not have an effect on it, as is the case with taking by force.

Thirdly: Splitting the invalid trade (separating the transaction)

If a permissible and impermissible trade are combined in one transaction, the impermissible part of the transaction is invalid and the permissible part is valid, and this is the position of the Hanbalis, preponderant view of the Shafi`is, and preferred opinion of Ibn `Uthaymin.

This is for the following reasons:
(1) Because each part of the transaction has its own ruling.
(2) Because the contract is directed only towards what is permissible to sell, rendering the other part as if it is non-existent.

Fourthly: The ruling on profit from an invalid trade
It is not permissible for the buyer to take the profit of a commodity in his possession from an invalid trade, and this was the position of the majority – the Hanafis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis – and that is because the commodity from an invalid trade is like an unlawfully seized item in the hands of the buyer.

Fifthly: The guarantee against the destruction of the commodity in an invalid trade
The guarantee against the destruction of the commodity in an invalid trade falls upon the person in possession of it when it is damaged or destroyed, and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought: the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis.

This is for the following reasons:
(1) Because if the commodity is destroyed before the buyer takes possession of it, then it is under the guarantee of the seller because it is still their property. If it perishes after the buyer takes possession, it is under the guarantee of the buyer, as would be the case with an item that had been unlawfully seized.
(2) Because what is taken possession of through the purchase of an invalid trade falls under the same category as what is unlawfully seized or acquired for the purchase price in regards to the guarantee.

Sixthly: Is the voiding of an invalid trade cancelled if the commodity is lost?
The voiding of an invalid trade is not cancelled, even if returning the commodity becomes difficult, and the obligation to return its value remains, and this was the position of the majority – the Malikis, Shafi`is, and Hanbalis. This is because it is an invalid contract that neither establishes ownership nor bestows the authority to dispose of the commodity, and it is obligatory to return the commodity to the seller and the price to the buyer.

Previous
Next