Firstly: Bid manipulation (najsh)

1. Defining “najsh”

Linguistically: “Najsh” originates from “stimulation”. One might say, “najashtu al-sayd anjushuh najsha”, to mean “I provoked” or “stimulated the prey”. In the context of commodities, a person engaging in najsh is called a “najish” because they stimulate desire for the good, raising its price. Others said that the origin of the word is “praise” and “commendation”. [1256] Al-Sihah by Jawhari (3/1021), Lisan al-`Arab by Ibn Manzur (6/351), and Al-Misbah al-Munir (20/594). See also Tahrir Alfaz al-Tanbih by Nawawi, p. 184.

Technically: It is when one increases their bid for a commodity, not intending to buy it but to deceive others and entice them to increase their offer and purchase the item. [1257] See Sharh Sahih Muslim by Nawawi (10/159), Tabyin al-Haqa’iq by Zayla`i (4/67), Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/284), and Al-Taj wa al-Iklil by Mawwaq (4/377). Ibn `Uthaymin said: “An example of this is when a commodity is put up for auction, and people start bidding on it. One of these individuals increases the price, not because he wants to make a purchase, but for the benefit of the seller, as he is the owner. However, he does not want the commodity himself, or he wants to harm the buyer because he sees them as an enemy. Alternatively, he may want to benefit himself, such as having a similar commodity and raising its price to increase the value of his own goods. Or, he may simply want people to say, ‘So-and-so, by the will of Allah, raises the price of the commodity, which means that he is wealthy and a trader.’” Al-Sharh al-Mumti` (8/299).

2. The ruling on bid manipulation

Bid manipulation is prohibited.

Evidences:

Firstly, from the Sunnah:

Nafi` narrated from Ibn `Umar k, who said: “The Prophet g forbade bid manipulation.” [1258] Reported by Bukhari (2141) and Muslim (1516). The wording here is from Bukhari.

Abu Hurayrah h narrated that the Prophet g said: “A city-dweller should not sell on behalf of a nomad, and do not practice bid manipulation… [1259] Ibn Rajab said: “It is possible to interpret the prohibition against ‘bid manipulation’ in this narration in a broader sense. The root meaning of ‘najsh’ linguistically is to stir or provoke something with cunning, deceit, or trickery. In the context of buying and selling, a person engaging in deceptive practices is called ‘najish’. Linguistically, a hunter is also called a ‘najish’, because they stir or trick their prey with their cunning.   In this context, the intended meaning is: ‘Do not deceive one another, and do not engage in trickery and deceit.’ The prohibition includes any form of transaction involving cheating or similar practices, such as concealing defects, deceiving by selling a good product as a defective one, or exploiting someone's lack of knowledge.   Thus, the prohibition encompasses various types of transactions involving deception and fraud, including concealing defects, misrepresentation of goods, and any other form of dishonesty in business dealings.” Jami` al-`Ulum wa al-Hikam (2/264). ” [1260] Reported by Bukhari (2723) and Muslim (1413). The wording here is from Bukhari.

And secondly, from the scholarly consensus:

A consensus on this issue was related by Ibn al-Battal, [1261] Ibn al-Battal said: “The scholars unanimously agree that the person who engages in ‘najsh’ is disobedient [to Allah] in their actions.” Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (6/270). Ibn `Abd al-Barr, [1262] Ibn `Abd al-Barr said: “As for ‘najsh’, I am not aware of any disagreement among scholars regarding its meaning. It refers to a person giving something to another, who the seller has deceived and influenced regarding the merchandise, as a gift without intending to buy it, above its actual price, in order to entice the buyer into desiring it. Alternatively, the person may praise the merchandise with attributes it does not possess, leading the buyer to be deceived and willing to pay more for it. The seller might engage in this practice himself to attract people to his goods without revealing that he is the owner of the merchandise.   This is the meaning of ‘najsh’ according to scholars, and although the wording may differ, it does not contradict any of their intended meanings. This act is considered deceptive and not permissible according to the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah g who said, ‘Do not cheat one another.’ Scholars unanimously agree that one who engages in such practices is disobedient to Allah if they are knowledgeable about the prohibition.” Al-Tamhid (13/348). and Nawawi. [1263] Nawawi said: “As for ‘najsh’ it is spelled with a ba, then a nun, followed by a jeem with a sukun, and finally a dotted sheen. It refers to the act of increasing the price of a commodity not because one desires it but rather to deceive and entice others into buying it at an inflated price, and it is impermissible by consensus.” Sharh Sahih Muslim (10/159).

3. The ruling on the validity of bid manipulation

Bid manipulation is valid despite its prohibited nature, and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought: the Hanafis, [1264] Al-Hidayah by Marghinani (3/53) and Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq by Ibn Nujaym (6/107). Malikis, [1265] Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ?ala al-Sharh al-Kabir (3/68) and Sharh al-Zurqani `ala Mukhtasar Khalil (5/160). Shafi`is, [1266] Fath al-`Aziz by Rafi`i (8/225) and Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/416). and Hanbalis. [1267] Al-Mubdi` by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/417) and Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/284).

This is for the following reasons. Firstly, because the prohibition is directed at the one engaging in bid manipulation, not the one making the contract, so it does not affect the validity of the transaction. [1268] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/160).

Secondly, because the prohibition concerns the right of the human being, and it does not corrupt the contract, as is the case with going to meet trade caravans to buy from them before they reach the town or the sale of defective or misrepresented items. [1269] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/160).

And thirdly, because the corruption mentioned is external to the essence of the contract and its conditions for validity. [1270] Al-Hidayah by Marghinani (3/53).

Secondly: Undercutting and outbidding

1. The ruling on undercutting and outbidding

It is prohibited for Muslims to undercut [1271] Likewise, it is not permissible to undercut or outbid a person of the covenant (dhimmi). Ibn `Abd al-Barr said: “I do not know of any difference of opinion regarding the fact that it is not permissible for anyone undercut a person of the covenant, and both the dhimmi and Muslim are equal in this regard. However, there was an exception made by Awza`i, who stated that there is no harm in a Muslim entering upon the bid of a dhimmi.” Al-Tamhid (13/318). or outbid [1272] Undercutting the trade of one’s brother involves telling the buyer of an item within the option period to annul the sale and then offering to sell them the same item at a lower or better price than the original. On the other hand, outbidding one’s brother involves telling the seller within the option period to annul the sale and then offering to buy the same item at a higher price than the original. One of the stipulations for the prohibition against undercutting the trade of one’s brother is that the new offer must be made before the contract has become binding and without the original seller’s permission. See Sharh Sahih Muslim by Nawawi (10/158), Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/416), Al-Mubdi` by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/384). each other.

Evidences:

Firstly, from the Sunnah:

Ibn `Umar k narrated that the Prophet g said: “Do not undercut each other and do not ask for the hand of a woman someone else has already asked for.” [1273] Reported by Bukhari (5142) and Muslim (1412). The wording here is from Muslim.

Abu Hurayrah h narrated that the Prophet g said: “…do not undercut each other, do not outbid each other, and do not have a city-dweller sell on behalf of a nomad.” [1274] Reported by Bukhari (2150) and Muslim (1515). The wording here is from Bukhari.

The Prophet g forbade a man undercutting his brother, and outbidding falls under the same meaning, with both causing harm. [1275] Mughni al-Muhtaj by Shirbini (2/37).

Secondly, from the scholarly consensus:

A consensus on this issue was related by Nawawi, [1276] Nawawi said: “The scholars unanimously agreed on the prohibited nature of interfering in the sale or purchase of or outbidding one’s brother. If someone violates this and enters into such a contract, it is considered sinful, but the trade is contracted. This was position of Shafi`i, Abu Hanifah, and others. However, Dawud stated that the trade would not be contracted. There are also two statements related from Malik, aligning with both positions.” Sharh Sahih Muslim (10/159). Zayn al-Din al-`Iraqi, [1277] Zayn al-Din al-`Iraqi said: “The prohibition against undercutting the trade of one’s brother, as mentioned, is when someone says to the buyer, during the period of the option of the assembly or stipulation, ‘Annul this transaction, and I will sell you a better or cheaper item’, and there is a consensus on this [prohibition]. It also extends to outbidding him, where one says to the seller during the period of option, ‘Annul this transaction, and I will buy from you at a higher price’, and again there is a consensus on its prohibition.” Tarh al-Tathrib (6/69). Ibn Hajar, [1278] Ibn Hajar said: “Scholars have stated that undercutting a trade is impermissible, as is outbidding. This occurs when someone says to an individual who has purchased an item, during the option period: ‘Cancel the deal, and I will sell it to you for less.’ The same goes for saying to the seller [during the option period], ‘Cancel the deal, and I will buy it from you for more’, and there is a consensus on the impermissibility of both.” Fath al-Bari (4/353). San`ani, [1279] San`ani said: “The form of selling based on a previous sale occurs when a sale has already been concluded with an option, and then within the option period, someone approaches the buyer saying, ‘Cancel this sale, and I will sell you a similar item for a lower price or a better quality.’ Similarly, buying based on a previous purchase is when someone says to the seller within the option period: ‘Cancel the sale, and I will buy it from you for more than this price.’   As for the form of auctioning, it happens when the owner of the goods and the interested buyer agree on the sale but haven't finalised it. Then another person says to the seller, ‘I will buy it from you for more’, after they had already agreed on the price. Scholars unanimously agree on the prohibition of these forms, and the one who engages in such actions is committing a sinful act.” Subul al-Salam (3/23). and Ibn Taymiyyah related a consensus on this ruling for selling but not buying. [1280] Ibn Taymiyyah was asked about someone selling [an item] to one individual after they have already sold [it] to another individual, and he said: “What the seller did in this case is not permissible by the consensus of the Muslims. In fact, it deserves a severe punishment… The seller did not abandon the initial sale because he believed it was prohibited, but so that he could sell [the item] to the second person, and such an action is impermissible by the consensus of the Muslims.” Majmu` al-Fatawa (29/228-229).

And thirdly, because it causes harm to a Muslim and ruins their transaction, so it is prohibited, as is the case with insulting a Muslim. [1281] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/161) and Al-Mubdi` by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/383).

2. The ruling on outbidding a fellow Muslim [1282] “Outbidding” refers to a situation where the owner of the commodity and the prospective buyer have agreed on a trade without finalising it, and then another person says to the seller: “I will buy it from you for more.” See Sharh Sahih Muslim by Nawawi (10/158) and Subul al-Salam by San`ani (3/23).

Outbidding a fellow Muslim’s trade is prohibited, and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought: the Hanafis, [1283] Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq by Ibn Nujaym (5/277) and Hashiyat Ibn `Abidin (5/101). See also Fath al-Qadir by al-Kamal ibn al-Humam (6/476). Malikis, [1284] Hashiyat al-`Adawi `ala Kifayat al-Talib al-Rabbani (2/189) and Risalat Ibn Abi Zayd ma` al-Fawakih al-Dawani (2/107-109). Shafi`is, [1285] Tuhfat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (4/313) and Mughni al-Muhtaj by Shirbini (2/37). and Hanbalis [1286] Al-Furu` by Ibn Muflih (6/173), Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/183), and Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat by Bahuti (2/23). and the preferred opinion of Ibn Hazm, [1287] Ibn Hazm said: “It is not permissible for anyone to outbid or offer a higher price than another person’s existing bid or undercut another person’s existing sale – regardless of whether they are a Muslim or person of the covenant (dhimmi). If someone engages in such an action, then trade is void.” Al-Muhalla bi al-Athar (7/370). and a consensus was reported to that effect. [1288] Nawawi said: “The scholars unanimously agreed on the prohibited nature of interfering in the sale or purchase of or outbidding one’s brother.” Sharh Sahih Muslim (10/159). See also Subul al-Salam (3/23).

Evidences:

Firstly, from the Sunnah:

Abu Hurayrah h narrated: “The Messenger of Allah g forbade meeting trade caravans to buy from them before they reach the town, a Muhajir buying on behalf of a Bedouin, a woman stipulating the divorce of their sister, and for a man to outbid their brother, and he forbade bid manipulation and leaving milk in the udder of an animal in order to deceive people into buying it.” [1289] Reported by Bukhari (2727) and Muslim (1515). The wording here is from Bukhari.

Abu Hurayrah h narrated: “The Messenger of Allah g said: ‘A Muslim should not outbid [1290] The phrase “la yasum” is accusative (jazm) case due to the presence of the “la” of prohibited. The phrase is also transmitted as “la yas?m”, a phrase of negation, as is found in the [other] hadith of Abu Hurayah where he narrated that the Messenger of Allah g said: ‘A Muslim does not outbid their brother or ask for the hand of a woman someone else has already asked for.’ Here, the phrase is informative, but again also serves as a prohibition. See Mughni al-Muhtaj by Shirbini (2/37). their brother or ask for the hand of a woman someone else has already asked for.’” [1291] Reported by Muslim (1413).

The Prophet g forbade interfering in the trade of one’s brother, and forbidding indicates impermissibility. [1292] Mughni al-Muhtaj by Shirbini (2/37).

And secondly, because it causes harm to the buyer by diverting the seller from the trade after the price has been agreed, and the fact that the sale depends on the completion of the contract. [1293] Tuhfat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (4/313).

3. The validity of a transaction where a person undercuts or outbids their fellow Muslim

A transaction where a person undercuts or outbids their fellow Muslim is valid despite its prohibited nature, [1294] For the ruling on its impermissibility, see the section on “the ruling on undercutting and outbidding”. and this was the position of the Hanafis [1295] The Hanafis made no distinction between outbidding and undercutting. Tabyin al-Haqa’iq by Zayla`i (4/67) and Hashiyat Ibn `Abidin (5/101). and Shafi`is, [1296] Minhaj al-Talibin by Nawawi, p. 98, and Mughni al-Muhtaj by Shirbini (2/35 onwards). a view of the Malikis, [1297] Al-Taj wa al-Iklil by Mawwaq (4/379, 380), Hashiyat al-`Adawi `ala Kifayat al-Talib al-Rabbani (2/189), and Al-Qabas fi Sharh Muwatta’ Malik ibn Anas by Ibn al-`Arabi, p. 683. Ibn ?Abd al-Barr and Ibn Rushd also attributed this view to the Maliki madhhab. See Al-Tamhid by Ibn ?Abd al-Barr (13/317) and Bidayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd (3/183). and one of two opinions held by the Hanbalis. [1298] Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/239). This is because the prohibition is not directed at the transaction itself but rather at the harm and damage caused by such behavior, which is external to the agreement. [1299] Bada’i` al-Sana’i` by Kasani (5/232).

4. The ruling on the transaction agreement if a person interferes in the trade of their brother and then enters the trade themselves

If a person interferes in the trade of their brother and then enters the trade themselves, the transaction agreement is valid despite its prohibited nature, [1300] For the ruling on its impermissibility, see the section on “the ruling on outbidding a fellow Muslim”. and this was the position of the majority – the Hanafis, [1301] Al-`Inayah by Babarti (6/477). See also Bada’i` al-Sana’i` by Kasani (5/232). Shafi`is, [1302] Minhaj al-Talibin by Nawawi, p. 98, and Mughni al-Muhtaj by Shirbini (2/35-37). and Hanbalis [1303] Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/239), Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/183), and Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat (2/24). – and a view of the Malikis. [1304] Al-Taj wa al-Iklil by Mawwaq (4/379, 380), Hashiyat al-`Adawi `ala Kifayat al-Talib al-Rabbani (2/189), and Al-Qabas fi Sharh Muwatta’ Malik ibn Anas by Ibn al-`Arabi, p. 683. Ibn ?Abd al-Barr and Ibn Rushd also attributed this view to the Maliki madhhab. See Al-Tamhid by Ibn ?Abd al-Barr (13/317) and Bidayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd (3/183). This is because the prohibition is specifically related to interfering and is external to the trade itself. [1305] Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/183).

Thirdly: A city-dweller selling on behalf of a nomad

1. Definition of a city-dweller selling on behalf of a nomad

A city-dweller selling on behalf of a nomad happens when a nomad (who is a stranger) comes to the town to sell their goods for the going price but is unaware of that price, and a resident of that city intends to take charge of selling those goods. [1306] See Al-Muqni` by Ibn Qudamah, p. 156, and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/184). Ibn Baz said: “’The city-dweller’ refers to the resident, the one who is settled in the city, whilst ‘the nomad’ refers to the one coming from outside, like the Bedouins who stay away from San`a. When they bring goods to San`a, the resident does not take charge of selling to them; rather, they sell for themselves. Similarly, someone from outside Riyadh, when goods are brought to Riyadh, sells them himself, and the resident does not sell on his behalf. If the resident sells, he raises the prices for the people.   As for the Bedouin, if he sells by himself, he keeps the prices lower for the people. That is why the Prophet g prohibited the resident from selling on behalf of the Bedouin. When a group of Bedouins comes with livestock, milk, or other goods, they sell for themselves to benefit the people. If they come to San`a, Ta`z, Riyadh, al-Ahsa’, Ha’il, or Madinah, the resident does not take charge of selling to them; rather they sell for themselves. This is closer to the people’s interest. The Prophet g said: ‘Leave the people, and Allah will grant them provision from each another.’ If the resident takes charge, he increases the prices for the people.” The Official Website of Shaykh Ibn Baz.

2. The ruling on a city-dweller selling on behalf of a nomad

A city-dweller selling on behalf of a nomad is prohibited, and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought [1307] Each of the maddhabs stipulated their own conditions, as will be elucidated, but Ibn Hazm, Shawkani, and Ibn `Uthaymin took a view of absolute prohibition, based on the apparent meaning of the hadith. See Al-Muhalla bi al-Athar by Ibn Hazm (7/380), Nayl al-Awtar by Shawkani (5/195), and Fath Dhi al-Jalal wa al-Ikram bi Sharh Bulugh al-Maram by Ibn `Uthaymin (3/579). : the Hanafis, [1308] The Hanafis stated the disliked nature of this if the trade involves harm, and when they use the term “disliked”, it means impermissible. They have stipulated its impermissibility if there is a state of drought and shortage. However, if there is no drought and shortage, then it is permissible due to the absence of harm. Al-`Inayah by Babarti (6/478) and Hashiyat Ibn `Abidin (5/102). See also Fath al-Qadir by al-Kamal ibn al-Humam (6/476). Malikis, [1309] The Malikis attached the condition of the nomad being unaware of market prices. Sharh al-Zurqani `ala Mukhtasar Khalil (5/162), Al-Taj wa al-Iklil by Mawwaq (4/378), and Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ?ala al-Sharh al-Kabir (3/69). Shafi`is, [1310] The Shafi`is stipulate that being aware of the prohibition is a condition for its impermissibility. Additionally, they require that the commodity in question be one that is commonly needed, such as food and the like. Commodities that are rarely needed do not fall under the prohibition. Furthermore, it is required for it to be the city-dweller who offered the proposition the Bedouin and invited them to it. Fath al-`Aziz by Rafi`i (8/217) and Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/414). and Hanbalis. [1311] The Hanbalis stipulated that the city-dweller must be the one who sought out the nomad with the intention of taking charge of that and that the nomad must be ignorant of the price of the goods, because if the nomad knows their price, then he is just like the city-dweller. Moreover, it is required that the Bedouin brings the goods for the purpose of selling them. If he brings them for storage, then there is no harm to the people. Also, the Bedouin should intend to sell them at a price consistent with the market value, and there should be a potential harm to the people if there is a delay in their sale. Al-Mubdi` by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/384) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/184). See also Al-Kafi fi Fiqh al-Imam Ahmad by Ibn Qudamah (2/16).

Evidences:

Firstly, from the Sunnah:

Jabir h narrated: “The Messenger of Allah g said: ‘A city-dweller should not sell on behalf of a nomad. Leave the people and Allah will grant them provision from one another.’” [1312] Reported by Muslim (1522).

Ibn `Abbas k narrated: “The Messenger of Allah g said: ‘Do not meet trade caravans to buy from them before they reach the town and do not have a city-dweller sell on behalf of a nomad.’”

He (i.e., one of the narrators) said: “I asked Ibn `Abbas: ‘What is the meaning of his statement, “do not have a city-dweller sell on behalf of a nomad”?’

He said: ‘He should not act as his agent.’” [1313] Reported by Bukhari (2158) and Muslim (1521). The wording here is from Bukhari.

And secondly, if the newcomer is left to sell their goods directly, the people will be able to buy from him at a lower price. However, if the city-dweller takes charge of selling on their behalf, they will sell at a higher price, causing harm to people. [1314] Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/184).

3. Validity of a transaction in which a city-dweller sells on behalf of a nomad

A transaction in which a city-dweller sells on behalf of a nomad is valid despite being prohibited, [1315] For the ruling on its impermissibility, see the previous section. and this was the position of the Hanafis [1316] Al-Hidayah by Marginani (3/54) and Al-Binayah Sharh Al-Hidayah by `Ayni (8/214). See also Bada’i` al-Sana’i` by Kasani (5/232). and Shafi`is [1317] Fath al-`Aziz by Rafi`i (8/218) and Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/414). , a statement related from Ahmad, [1318] Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/240). See also Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/163). and a view of the Malikis that was given precedence by Ibn `Abd al-Barr. [1319] Ibn `Abd al-Barr said: “Similarly, there is a difference between his (i.e., Malik’s) view and the view of his companions regarding whether the trade of a city-dweller on behalf of a nomad can be revoked or not. Some say it can be revoked, whilst others argue that it is not. Another opinion suggests that it can be revoked so long as the [legislated] timeframe to do so has not expired, whilst others maintain that it cannot be, regardless of whether the timeframe has expired or not. Some said that the habitual practice of such transactions should lead to disciplinary action, whilst others said that no disciplinary action should be taken. All these views align with the school of thought of Malik. In my view, the trade is finalised, and there is no option to revoke it.” Al-Kafi fi Fiqh Ahl al-Madinah (2/739).

Evidences:

Firstly, from the Sunnah:

Jabir h narrated: “The Messenger of Allah g said: ‘A city-dweller should not sell on behalf of a nomad. Leave the people and Allah will grant them provision from one another.’” [1320] Reported by Muslim (1522).

Abu Hurayrah h narrated that the Messenger of Allah g said: “Do not meet the importer before they reach the town. [1321] “Meeting the importer” refers to the act of leaving the town the supplies or commodities are being brought to in order to meet with their owners and sell to or buy from them before they reach the market and learn of the market prices. See the section on “meeting trade caravans”. Whoever meets them and buys from them, then when the owner of the goods reaches the market, they have the option of declaring the previous transaction null and void.” [1322] Reported by Muslim (1519).

The prohibition against a city-dweller selling on behalf of a nomad has the same meaning as the prohibition against meeting trade caravans before they reach the town, so an analogy can be drawn between them. [1323] See Al-Kafi fi Fiqh Ahl al-Madinah by Ibn `Abd al-Barr (2/739) and Bidayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd (2/167). It is established that if a person meets a trade caravan and purchases from it, the seller of the commodity has the option of declaring the transaction void, and such an option only exists in the case of a legitimate transaction. [1324] See Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/165).

4. The wisdom behind the prohibition against a city-dweller selling on behalf of a nomad

The wisdom behind prohibiting a city-dweller selling on behalf of a nomad is that people far from their homeland will be unfamiliar with local prices. Therefore, those who are aware of the prices are prevented from selling on their behalf, allowing the residents to benefit by obtaining what the travellers bring at a lower cost. The Shariah considers the collective welfare of people in such matters, and collective welfare dictates looking out for the interests of the community over the individual. When the nomad sells on their own behalf, all the market traders would benefit and buy the goods at cheaper prices, all the residents of the town would benefit in turn. Therefore, in this context, the Shariah prioritises the collective wellbeing of the people of the town over the wellbeing of the individual nomad. [1325] Al-Muntaqa Sharh al-Muwatta’ by Baji (5/104) and Sharh Sahih Muslim by Nawawi (10/163). See also Sharh al-Talqin by Mazari (2/1022).

Fourthly: Meeting trade caravans (jalab transactions)

1. Defining “meeting trade caravans (talaqqi al-rukban)”

Linguistically: “Rukbaan” refers to a group of camel riders during travel, excluding other types of animals, and its singular form is “rakb”. Arabs also use the term “rakkab al-safinaH” for those riding a ship. As for the terms “rukbaan”, “urkoob”, and “rakb”, they are specifically used for those riding animals. [1326] Tahdhib al-Lughah by Azhari (10/123) and Mukhtar al-Sihah by Razi, p. 127.

Technically: “Talaqqi al-rukbaan (meeting trade caravans)” is when people leave their town, to which provisions or goods are being brought, to meet those coming to sell to them or to buy from them before they reach the market and become aware of the prices. [1327] See Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/415), Al-Muntaqa Sharh al-Muwatta’ by Baji (5/101), and Ma`alim al-Qurbah fi Talab al-Hisbah by Diya` al-Din al-Qurashi, p. 67. This is like the reception provided by brokers or intermediaries to car owners at the outskirts of the market in order to buy the cars from them before they reach the market, the reception provided by traders to livestock owners, and so on.

2. The ruling on meeting trade caravans

Meeting trade caravans to buy from them before they reach the town is prohibited but the transaction is valid, [1328] Whilst affirming the seller’s option [to revoke the trade] if they were cheated in a manner that exceeds the norm. This was the position of the Shafi`is and Hanbalis. See Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/415) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/211). and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought: the Hanafis, [1329] Al-`Inayah by Babarti (6/479, 479), Hashiyat al-Shalabi `ala Tabyin al-Haqa’iq li al-Zayla`i (4/68), and Hashiyat Ibn `Abidin (5/101). Malikis, [1330] Mawahib al-Jalil by Hattab (6/252), Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ?ala al-Sharh al-Kabir (3/70), Minah al-Jalil by `Ulaysh (5/63). Shafi`is, [1331] Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/415) and Tuhfat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (4/311). and Hanbalis. [1332] Al-Mubdi` by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/416), Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/286), and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/211).

Evidences:

Firstly, from the Sunnah:

Abu Hurayrah h narrated that the Messenger of Allah g said: “The caravans should not be met before they reach the town for trade, do not undercut each other, do not outbid each other, do not have a city-dweller sell on behalf of a nomad, and do not withhold milk in the udders of camels and sheep to deceive people into buying them. Whoever buys them after that has been done has two options after milking them. He may keep them if he is pleased with them, or he may return them along with a sa` of dates if he is not.” [1333] Reported by Bukhari (2148) and Muslim (1515). The wording here is from Muslim.

Abu Hurayrah h narrated that the Messenger of Allah g said: “Do not meet the importer before they reach the town. Whoever meets them and buys from them, then when the owner of the goods reaches the market, they have the option of declaring the previous transaction null and void.” [1334] Reported by Muslim (1519).

As for its impermissibility, this is indicated by the apparent meaning of the prohibition, and as for its validity, this is indicated by the fact that the Prophet g confirmed the seller’s option to declare the transaction void, and such an option only applies to a legitimate transaction. [1335] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/165). The prohibition is not due to the general meaning of the sale, but rather relates to a form of deception that can be rectified by establishing the validity of the option of voiding the transaction, as is the case with transactions with a contingency. [1336] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/165).

Ibn `Abbas k narrated: “The Messenger of Allah g said: ‘Do not meet trade caravans to buy from them before they reach the town and do not have a city-dweller sell on behalf of a nomad.’”

He (i.e., one of the narrators) said: “I asked Ibn `Abbas: ‘What is the meaning of his statement, “do not have a city-dweller sell on behalf of a nomad”?’

He said: ‘He should not act as his agent.’” [1337] Reported by Bukhari (2158) and Muslim (1521). The wording here is from Bukhari.

Secondly, because when trade caravans are met before they reach the town, there is a possibility of the travellers being misled concerning the prices of their commodities. [1338] Tuhfat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (4/312).

And thirdly, because there is a fear that the buyer will withhold the things they have purchased and thereby cause hardship to the people of the town. [1339] Tuhfat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (4/312). See also Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/165).

Fifthly: Hoarding

1. Defining “hoarding”

Linguistically: Accumulating and withholding foodstuffs and similar. [1340] Lisan al-`Arab by Ibn Manzur (4/208) and Taj al-`Arus by Zabidi (11/72).

Technically: It is when someone purchases goods for trade that people need and refrains from selling them immediately. Instead, they withhold the goods despite the people’s need in order to raise the price. [1341] Mughni al-Muhtaj by Shirbini (2/38) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/187).

2. The ruling on hoarding

Hoarding essential goods for humans

Hoarding essential goods for humans is impermissible, and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought: the Hanafis, [1342] The Hanafis stated the disliked nature of hoarding, and when they use the term “disliked” it suggests impermissibility. They restricted this to [the hoarding of] essential supplies for human beings or animals if it causes harm and said that it is not disliked when it does not cause harm. Al-`Inayah by Babarti (10/58) and Al-Binayah Sharh Al-Hidayah by `Ayni (12/209, 210). See also Bada’i` al-Sana’i` by Kasani (5/129). Malikis, [1343] The Maliki school states that hoarding applies to anything that may harm people, such as food, seasonings, cotton, wool, saffron, and other things. Mawahib al-Jalil by Hattab (6/11, 12) and Al-Taj wa al-Iklil by Mawwaq (4/380). Shafi`is, [1344] The Shafi`is restricted its impermissibility to staple goods, such as dates and raisins, and said that it did not apply to all foodstuffs. Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/413) and Tuhfat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (4/317). and Hanbalis. [1345] The Hanbalis restricted its impermissibility to essential supplies for human beings. Al-Furu` by Ibn Muflih (6/179) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/187).

Evidences:

Firstly, from the Sunnah:

Sa`id ibn al-Musayyib narrated from Ma`mar ibn `Abdillah that the Messenger of Allah g said: “No-one hoards but a sinner.” [1346] Reported by Muslim (1605).

The Prophet g describes the hoarder as a sinner (i.e., someone who disobeys), and an act of disobedience is impermissible. Therefore, hoarding is impermissible. [1347] Sharh Sahih Muslim by Nawawi (11/43) and Bada’i` al-Sana’i` by Kasani (5/129).

Secondly, because it involves essential goods, which are the right of the public. Withholding them from sale impinges their right and causes them hardship. [1348] Al-Binayah Sharh Al-Hidayah by `Ayni (12/211).

And thirdly, because it falls under the category of injustice, as what is sold in a country is connected to the rights of the public. If the buyer refrains from selling it in their times of severe need, he deprives them of their right, and depriving someone of their right is an act of injustice. [1349] Bada’i` al-Sana’i` by Kasani (5/129).

Hoarding anything that would harm the population, whether food, clothing, or anything else

Hoarding anything that would harm the population, whether food, clothing, or anything else is prohibited, and this was the position of the Malikis [1350] Mawahib al-Jalil by Hattab (6/11, 12) and Al-Taj wa al-Iklil by Mawwaq (4/380). and of Abu Yusuf from the Hanafis, [1351] Al-Hidayah by Marghinani (4/377) and Tabyin al-Haqa’iq by Zayla`i (6/27). a view of the Hanbalis, [1352] Al-Furu` by Ibn Muflih (6/179) and Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/244). the preferred opinion of Ibn Hazm, [1353] Ibn Hazm said: “The type of hoarding that harms people is impermissible, regardless of whether it occurs in the act of purchasing or in holding onto what has been purchased, and it is forbidden to engage in that.” Al-Muhalla bi al-Athar (7/572). Ibn Baz, [1354] Ibn Baz said: “Any hoarding that harms Muslims, including foodstuffs, and anything similar according to the soundest view, is not permissible. This includes reserving goods that people need, causing their prices to rise, and selling them at inflated prices. This prohibition applies not only to black market activities but also to regular markets. It is not allowed for a Muslim to hoard items that would harm other Muslims, causing an increase in prices. Some scholars restricted this to foodstuffs, but the most accurate view is that it is not restricted to foodstuffs. Rather, any hoarding of an item that harms Muslims is prohibited.” Fatawa Nur `ala al-Darb (19/85, 86). and Ibn `Uthaymin, [1355] Ibn `Uthaymin said: “The apparent meaning of the narration indicates the general prohibition of hoarding for all items. Some scholars have restricted the prohibition against hoarding to essential supplies that people need, whilst allowing hoarding for non-essential items or luxury goods. However, the correct opinion is the generality of the prohibition, because what is considered essential or luxury can be relative and varies among different groups of people. Therefore, [hoarding in general] is considered wrong.” Fath Dhi al-Jalal wa al-Ikram bi Sharh Bulugh al-Maram (3/596). and the basis for the ruling of the Permanent Committee. [1356] The verdict of the Permanent Committee stated: “It is not permissible to stockpile or accumulate any item the people need. The practice is named ‘hoarding’ because of the statement of Prophet g, ‘No one hoards but a sinner’, which was related by Ahmad, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Nasa’i, and Ibn Majah, and because of the harm it causes to the Muslim community.” Fatawa al-Lajnah al-Da’imah (13/184).

Evidences:

Firstly, from the Sunnah:

Sa`id ibn al-Musayyib narrated from Ma`mar ibn `Abdillah that the Messenger of Allah g said: “No-one hoards but a sinner.” [1357] Reported by Muslim (1605).

The narration declares hoarding impermissible in general, without restriction. [1358] Fath Dhi al-Jalal wa al-Ikram bi Sharh Bulugh al-Maram (3/597).

And secondly, because of the harm that hoarding such items would cause the public. [1359] Hashiyat al-Shalabi `ala Tabyin al-Haqa’iq li al-Zayla`i (6/27).

3. The wisdom behind the prohibition against hoarding

The wisdom behind the prohibition against hoarding is to protect the general population from harm. [1360] Nawawi said: “The wisdom behind the prohibition against hoarding is that it protects the general public from harm.” Sharh Sahih Muslim (11/43).

4. Imposing prices on hoarders [1361] See the section on “the ruling on pricing”.

It is permitted to impose prices on hoarders, and this was stipulated by the Malikis [1362] Mawahib al-Jalil by Hattab (6/12). and Ibn Taymiyyah [1363] Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The hoarder is the one who intentionally buys what people need, such as food, and withholds it from them, intending to sell it at an inflated price. This is an act of injustice towards the buyers, and therefore, the authorities should compel people to sell what they have at a fair value when there is a need [for that item]. For example, if someone has surplus food that they do not need, and people are in dire need of it, the authorities have the right to force them to sell it at a fair price.   It is clear from this perspective that pricing can be unjust and prohibited, as well as just and permissible. Unjust pricing involves causing harm to people or coercing them to sell at an unfair price. On the other hand, just pricing ensures fairness among people by setting a price that is equivalent to the market value and preventing them from taking an excessive profit that goes beyond what is fair.   As for the first scenario, if pricing involves causing harm to people or coercing them without justification, it is considered impermissible. However, if pricing is done justly, ensuring fairness among people and preventing them from taking an unfair advantage, then it is not only permissible but may even be obligatory.   The second scenario involves the hoarding of goods when people are in dire need of them. In such cases, the authority has the right to compel sellers to sell at a fair value, preventing them from exploiting the situation. This ensures justice and prevents harm to the community.   In summary, fair pricing is permissible and, in some cases, obligatory, while unjust and exploitative pricing is prohibited. The overarching principle is to prevent harm and ensure justice in economic transactions.” Majmu` al-Fatawa (28/75, 76). , and this is to protect the general population from harm. [1364] Al-`Inayah by Babarti (10/59).

5. Compelling hoarders to sell foodstuffs

It is permitted for a ruler to compel hoarders of foodstuffs to sell if they fear a public harm, and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought: the Hanafis, [1365] Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq by Ibn Nujaym (8/230). Malikis, [1366] Mawahib al-Jalil by Hattab (6/12, 52). See also Rawdat al-Mustabin by Ibn Buzayzah (2/998). Shafi`is, [1367] Nihayat al-Muhtaj by Ramli (3/472) and Hashiyata Qalyubi wa `Umayrah (2/196). and Hanbalis, [1368] Al-Mubdi` by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/387) and Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat by Bahuti (2/27). and a consensus was reported to that effect. [1369] Nawawi said: “The scholars unanimously agree that if an individual possesses food and the people are forced to go to him, unable to find an alternative, then he should be compelled to sell it prevent harm to the community.” Sharh Sahih Muslim (11/43). This is based on the principle of prioritising averting general harm over individual harm when both are present.

Sixthly: Deception in trade

Deception in trade is prohibited. [1370] This includes misleading and lying in describing [the commodity], as well as other things.

Evidences:

Firstly, from the Sunnah:

Abu Hurayrah h narrated that the Messenger of Allah g passed by a heap of food and put his hand in it, and his fingers became wet. “What is this, O the owner of the food?” he asked.

“It was affected by the rain, O Messenger of Allah”, the man replied.

“Why did you not put the wet part on top of the food so that the people could see it?” the Messenger of Allah g said. “Whoever deceives is not from me.” [1371] Reported by Muslim (102).

Deception is one of the major sins, and the Prophet g disassociated himself from the one who committed it. The Prophet g disassociating himself from the doer of an action is one of the signs that the action is a major sin, and he the generality of his statement encompasses deception in all contexts. [1372] Fath Dhi al-Jalal wa al-Ikram bi Sharh Bulugh al-Maram (3/605).

`Abdullah ibn al-Harith narrated from Hakim ibn Hizam that the Prophet g said: “Both parties in a transaction have a choice so long as they have not separated. If they both speak the truth and make things clear, their transaction will be blessed for them, but if they conceal and lie, the blessing of their transaction will be erased.” [1373] Reported by Muslim (1532).

This narration is evidence of the impermissibility of deception and fraud because it is based on lying, lying is false, and whatever is built upon falsehood is also false. [1374] See Bahjat Qulub al-Abrar wa Qurrat `Uyun al-Akhyar by Sa`di, p. 99, and Sharh Riyad al-Salihin by Ibn `Uthaymin (6/162).

And secondly, from the scholarly consensus:

A consensus on this issue was related by Ibn al-`Arabi, [1375] Ibn al-`Arabi said: “Trickery is prohibited by the consensus of the Muslim community because it is the antithesis of sincerity.” `Aridat al-Ahwadhi (6/55). al-Fakihani, [1376] Fakihani said: “I do not know of any difference of opinion regarding the impermissibility of trickery and deception.” Hashiyat al-`Adawi `ala Kifayat al-Talib al-Rabbani (6/55). Nafrawi, [1377] Nafrawi said: “The impermissibility of trickery is agreed upon by consensus because of the statement of the Prophet g: ‘Whoever cheats us is not from us.’” Al-Fawakih al-Dawani (2/285). San`ani, [1378] San`ani said, regarding the narration of Abu Hurayrah about the owner of the food: “The narration is evidence of the impermissibility of trickery, and its impermissibility according to the Shariah is agreed upon by consensus.” Subul al-Salam (2/39). and Shawkani. [1379] Shawkani said, regarding the narration of Abu Hurayrah about the owner of the food: “It indicates the impermissibility of trickery, which is agreed upon by consensus.” Nayl al-Awtar (5/251).

Seventhly: Trickery in trade

Impermissible trickery in trade is not permitted, [1380] “Impermissible trickery in trade” refers to finding ways to evade obligations or engage in forbidden actions through subtle methods, where the outward appearance suggests permissibility whilst the reality is impermissibility. See Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (3/43) and Manzumat Usul al-Fiqh wa Qawa`idah by Ibn `Uthaymin, p. 230. and this was agreed upon by the four jurisprudential schools of thought: the Hanafis, [1381] Al-Binayah Sharh Al-Hidayah by `Ayni (11/387), Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq by Ibn Nujaym (6/216), and Radd al-Mukhtar by Ibn `Abidin (5/265, 6/147). Malikis, [1382] Mawahib al-Jalil by Hattab (7/393). See also Al-Talqin by Mazari (2/320). Shafi`is, [1383] The Shafi`is considered the trick of waiving the right of pre-emption after it becomes obligatory invalid. Mughni al-Muhtaj by Shirbini (2/302) and Hashiyata Qalyubi wa `Umayrah (3/257). and Hanbalis, [1384] Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat by Bahuti (2/334) and Matalib ‘Uli al-Nuha by Rahibani (4/101). and was the view of a group of the predecessors. [1385] Ibn Qudamah said: “Ahmad, as related by Isma`il ibn Sa`id, was asked about the trick to invalidate the right of pre-emption, to which he replied: ‘No tricks are permissible in this matter, nor is invalidating the right of a Muslim.’ This view was also adopted by Abu Ayyub, Abu Khaythamah, Ibn Abi Shaybah, and Abu Ishaq al-Juzjani. Abdullah ibn `Umar stated: ‘Whoever deceives Allah will be deceived by Him.’ Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani remarked: ‘They deceive Allah as they would deceive a child. If they approached the matter in a straightforward manner, I would have found that easier.’” Al-Mughni (5/262).

Evidences:

Firstly, from the Book:

The Statement of Allah Exalted: “Cooperate with one another in goodness and righteousness, and do not cooperate in sin and transgression.” [1386] al-Ma’idah, 2.

The meaning of “cooperating in sin and transgression” is embodied in using trickery to nullify a right or achieve a falsehood. [1387] Al-Mabsut by Sarakhsi (30/181).

Secondly, from the Sunnah:

Abu Hurayrah h narrated: “The Messenger of Allah g said: ‘Do not commit what the Jews committed, lest you make permissible the things Allah declared impermissible by the lowest of tricks.’” [1388] Reported by Ibn Battah in Ibtal al-Hiyal, p. 47. Graded hasan by Ibn Taymiyyah in Al-Qawa`id al-Nuraniyyah (174) and Sakhawi in Al-Ajwibat al-Mardiyyah (1/214). Its chain was graded jayyid by Ibn al-Qayyim in Ighathat al-Lahfan (1/513), Ibn Kathir in Tafsir al-Quran (1/154), and Albani in Adab al-Zifaf (120). The narration was graded sahih by Ibn Baz in Majmu` al-Fatawa (19/230).

Abu Hurayrah h narrated: “The Messenger of Allah g said: ‘May Allah condemn the Jews! The fat of certain animals was made impermissible to them, so they sold it and consumed its price.’” [1389] Reported by Bukhari (2224) and Muslim (1583). The wording here is from Muslim.

Secondly, because Allah Exalted punished a nation for trickery they employed, transforming them into apes and declaring them transgressors. He made this a warning and lesson for the pious, encouraging them to take heed and refrain from similar actions. Some exegetes have interpreted the verse, “and a lesson to all who are mindful of Allah”, [1390] al-Baqarah, 66. as a reference to the nation of the Prophet Muhammad g. [1391] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/43).

And thirdly, because Allah Exalted has prohibited impermissible things due to their corruption and harm, and this harm persists so long as their essence remains, even if trickery is employed to make their use appear lawful. [1392] Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (2/76).