Firstly: Trade in impermissible commodities

It is impermissible to trade in unlawful commodities such as intoxicants, cigarettes, and other unlawful things. [1393] See the section entitled: “The commodity must be one that is permissible to benefit from according to the Shariah”.

Secondly: Trade in carrion

Trading in carrion is impermissible.

Evidences:

Firstly, from the Book:

The Statement of Allah Exalted: “Prohibited to you is carrion.”

Secondly, 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…” [1394] Reported by Bukhari (2236) and Muslim (1581).

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. [1395] Nayl al-Awtar by Shawkani (5/169).

And thirdly, from the scholarly consensus:

A consensus on this issue was related by Ibn al-Mundhir, [1396] Ibn al-Mundhir said: “The people of knowledge unanimously agree on the impermissibility of trading carrion. The trade of carrion is impermissible, therefore, according to the Book, Sunnah, and scholarly consensus.” Al-Awsat (10/9). Nawawi related it from him Al-Majmu` (9/230). Ibn Battal, [1397] Ibn Battal said: “The Muslim community unanimously agrees that it is not permissible to trade carrion or idols.” Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (6/360). Ibn Rushd al-Jadd, [1398] Ibn Rushd al-Jadd said: “As for that which is not allowed to be owned, then its trade is also not permissible by consensus. This applies to free individuals (i.e., human beings), intoxicants, swine, monkeys, blood, carrion, and the like.” Al-Muqaddimat al-Mumahhidat (2/62). Ibn Rush al-Hafid, [1399] Ibn Rushd al-Hafid said: “Impure things fall into two categories. There is a category for which Muslims unanimously agree on their prohibition for sale. This category includes alcohol, which is considered impure, except for a rare dissenting opinion – I mean, regarding its impurity – and carrion, with all its parts that can sustain life.” Bidayat al-Mujtahid (3/145). Ibn Qudamah, [1400] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/192). and Ibn Hajar. [1401] Ibn Hajar said: “They agreed on the impermissibility of trading carrion, intoxicants, and swine.” Fath al-Bari (4/426).

Thirdly: Trade in dogs

Trading in dogs is prohibited, [1402] Some scholars made an exception for those which are permissible to own, which they allowed the trade of. and this was the position of the majority – the Malikis in their most well-known stance, [1403] Al-Kafi fi Fiqh Ahl al-Madinah by Ibn `Abd al-Barr (2/675), Mawahib al-Jalil by Hattab (6/70), and Sharh al-Zurqani `ala Mukhtasar Khalil (5/31). the Shafi`is, [1404] Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (9/228) and Tuhfat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (4/234). and the Hanbalis [1405] Al-Mubdi` by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (3/352) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/154). – and it was a view of the Hanafis [1406] Some Hanafis took the view that trading dogs is impermissible but made an exception for trained dogs. Others made an exception for those that are capable of being trained. Al-Mabsut by Sarakhsi (11/199), Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq by Ibn Nujaym (1/109), Hashiyat Ibn `Abidin (5/227), and Al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah (3/114). and the view of the Zahiris [1407] Ibn Hazm said: “Selling a dog is not permissible in principle, whether it is a hunting dog, herding dog, or any other type. However, if someone is forced to sell a dog and cannot find anyone to give it to, then it is permissible for them to sell it. The transaction is considered permissible for the buyer but impermissible for the seller, and the seller may be compelled to return the price when possible. The same applies to bribery for the purpose of stopping oppression, paying ransom for a captive, and manufacturing weapons for an oppressor. There is no distinction.” Al-Muhalla bi al-Athar (7/492). See also Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/189). and a group of the predecessors [1408] Ibn Qudamah said: “Selling a dog is invalid, even if it is trained… and this was the view of al-Hasan, Rabi`ah, Hammad, Awza`i, Shafi`i, and Dawud.” Al-Mughni (4/189). See also Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (9/228). .

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.” [1409] Reported by Bukhari (2086).

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. [1410] Reported by Bukhari (2237) and Muslim (1567).

The Prophet g forbade the price of a dog in general and without restriction. [1411] Mawahib al-Jalil by Hattab (6/70).

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.’” [1412] Reported by Muslim (1586).

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. [1413] Ihkam al-Ahkam Sharh `Umdat al-Ahkam (2/126).

Fourthly: Trade in human corpses

Trading in human corpses is not permitted, regardless of whether the deceased is a Muslim or disbeliever, [1414] It is permissible to sell the corpse of a non-Muslim who has no [covenant of] protection to be dissected for educational purposes in medical colleges. See Majmu` Fatawa Ibn Baz (13/365). and this was the position of the Hanifis, [1415] Al-Durr al-Mukhtar li al-Haskafi wa Hashiyat Ibn `Abidin (5/85) and Al-Binayah Sharh Al-Hidayah by `Ayni (1/429). Shafi`is, [1416] Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (3/140), Mughni al-Muhtaj by Shirbini (1/191), and Hashiyat al-Shabramallisi `ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj li al-Ramli (2/25). and Hanbalis [1417] Al-Insaf by Mardawi (1/74), Al-Mubdi` by Burhan al-Din Ibn Muflih (1/37). Just as the Hanbalis stated that any use of human corpses is impermissible, they also stated that their trade is impermissible. See also Al-Furu` li Ibn Muflih ma` Tashih Al-Furu` li al-Mardawi (2/81) and Matalib ‘Uli al-Nuha by Rahibani (3/16). and the implied view of the Maliki school of thought, [1418] The Malikis state that it is forbidden to use the skin of a human for any purpose and that it is obligatory to bury it, regardless of whether the person is a Muslim or non-Muslim. Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ?ala al-Sharh al-Kabir (1/54) and Minah al-Jalil by `Ulaysh (1/52). and was documented in a decision of the Islamic Fiqh Academy. [1419] The decision of the Islamic Fiqh Academy no. 1, dated 4/08/88 AH, on the issue of a person benefiting from the organs of another human who is either alive or deceased stated: “The assembly of the Islamic Fiqh Academy, convened for its fourth session in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from 18-23 Jumada al-Akhirah 1408 AH / 6-11 February 1988 CE., after reviewing the legal and medical research received regarding the topic of ‘Benefiting from the organs of another human who is either alive or deceased’… Seventhly, it should be noted that the consensus on the permissibility of organ transplantation in the specified cases is conditional on it not being done through the means of selling the organ. It is not permissible to subject human organs to sale under any circumstances.” Majallah Majma` al-Fiqh al-Islami, issue 4.

Firstly, because a human corpse is not a commodity to be sold. [1420] Majallah Majma` al-Fiqh al-Islami, issue 4.

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. [1421] Hashiyat Ibn `Abidin (5/58).

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. [1422] Majallat al-Buhuth al-Islamiyyah (53/337).

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: [1423] Ibn Qudamah said: “Allah Exalted has commanded hastening and forbidden engaging in trade after the call to prayer in His Statement c: ‘When the call to prayer is made on Friday, then proceed [diligently] to the remembrance of Allah and leave off [your] business’ (al-Jumu`ah, 9). The call mentioned is the one that occurs after the Imam has seated himself on the pulpit. The ruling is specifically linked to this call and not others, regardless of whether it occurs before or after the Sun begins to move away from the central meridian (before or after zawwal).” Al-Mughni (2/220). the Malikis, [1424] Al-Kafi fi Fiqh Ahl al-Madinah by Ibn `Abd al-Barr (1/250) and Al-Sharh al-Kabir by Dardir (1/388). Shafi`is, [1425] Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (4/500) and Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (2/47). and Hanbalis. [1426] Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/180) and Matalib ‘Uli al-Nuha by Rahibani (3/49).

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.” [1427] Reported by Bukhari (912).

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. [1428] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (2/220) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/180).

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.

Evidences:

Firstly, 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.” [1429] al-Jumu`ah, 9.

Secondly, from the scholarly consensus:

A consensus on this issue was related by Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, [1430] Ibn Rajab said: “Ishaq ibn Rahawayh reported a consensus on the impermissibility of trade after the call [to prayer].” Fath al-Bari (8/194). Ibn Rushd, [1431] Ibn Rushd said: “This is only mentioned in the Shariah during the time when walking to the Friday prayer is obligatory, based on the Statement of Allah Exalted: ‘When the call to prayer is made on Friday, then proceed [diligently] to the remembrance of Allah and leave off [your] business’ (al-Jumu`ah, 9). This is a matter of consensus – I mean the prohibition of trade during the call to prayer that occurs after zawwal when the imam is on the pulpit.” Bidayat al-Mujtahid (3/186). Ibn al-`Arabi, [1432] Ibn al-`Arabi said: “The Statement of Allah Exalted: ‘and leave off [your] business’ (al-Jumu`ah, 9). This must be adhered to by consensus, and there is no difference of opinion regarding the impermissibility of trade [at that time].” Ahkam al-Qur’an (4/249). and al-Tahtawi. [1433] Tahtawi said: “The phrase, ‘and it is obligatory to abstain from trade’, is disliked due to its implication of prohibition from both parties’ perspectives according to the school of thought. It is valid to describe it as ‘prohibited’… for all of these disliked actions are prohibited, and we do not know of any difference of opinion regarding their sinful nature.” Hashiyat al-Tahtawi `ala Maraqi al-Falah, p. 335.

And thirdly, because sitting or standing to conduct a transaction at this time means neglecting an obligatory act, which is hastening to the Friday prayer. [1434] Tabyin al-Haqa’iq by Zayla`i (4/68).

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, [1435] For the ruling on its impermissibility, see the previous section. and this was the position of the Hanafis [1436] Al-Hidayah by Marghinani (3/54) and Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq by Ibn Nujaym (2/169). and Shafi`is [1437] Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (4/500) and Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (2/47). , a view of the Malikis, [1438] Bidayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd (2/169) and Al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah by Ibn Juzayy (1/57). a statement related from the Hanbalis, [1439] Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/234). and is attributed to the people of knowledge at large. [1440] Al-Zamakhshari said: “The majority of scholars agree that such actions do not necessitate the invalidity of the trade. They state that the trade is not impermissible in its own right, but rather due to the deviation from the obligatory that it entails. It is like performing prayers on stolen land whilst wearing stolen clothing or performing ablution with stolen water.” Tafsir al-Zamakhshari (4/536). See also Tafsir al-Qurtubi (18/108).

Evidences:

Firstly, 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.” [1441] al-Jumu`ah, 9.

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. [1442] Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (4/500).

And secondly, because the prohibition against trading is not a prohibition of the act itself but rather of its timing. [1443] Fath al-Bari by Ibn Rajab (5/433).

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, [1444] Hashiyat al-Tahtawi, p. 335, and Hashiyat Ibn `Abidin (5/101). Malikis, [1445] According to the Malikis, the relied-upon opinion is that it is disliked. Sharh al-Zurqani `ala Mukhtasar Khalil (2/114), Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ?ala al-Sharh al-Kabir (1/386), and Minah al-Jalil by `Ulaysh (1/446). Shafi`is, [1446] Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (4/500) and Hashiyata Qalyubi wa `Umayrah (1/335). and Hanbalis. [1447] Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/234) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/180).

Evidences:

Firstly, 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.” [1448] al-Jumu`ah, 9.

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. [1449] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (2/220) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/180).

And secondly, 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. [1450] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (2/220).

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, [1451] Like selling juice to someone known to turn it into an intoxicant, weapons during times of strife or to non-Muslim combatants, or anything the seller knows that the buyer intends to use for something impermissible. and this was the position of the majority: [1452] The Hanafis stated that the impermissibility applies when the sin is inherent in the trade itself. If the sin is not inherent in the trade itself, then it is not prohibited. That is why they permit the sale of juice to someone who turn it into wine. Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq by Ibn Nujaym (5/155) and Al-Durr al-Mukhtar li al-Haskafi wa Hashiyat Ibn `Abidin (4/268, 6/391). the Malikis, [1453] Sharh al-Zurqani `ala Mukhtasar Khalil (5/20), Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ?ala al-Sharh al-Kabir (3/7), and Minah al-Jalil by `Ulaysh (4/443). Shafi`is, [1454] Nihayat al-Muhtaj by Ramli (3/397) and Al-Ghurar al-Bahiyyah by Zakariyya al-Ansari (2/400). and Hanbalis. [1455] Al-Furu` by Ibn Muflih (6/169), Matalib ‘Uli al-Nuha by Rahibani (3/52), and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/181).

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.” [1456] al-Ma’idah, 2.

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. [1457] Hashiyat al-Rawd al-Murbi` (4/374). See also Matalib ‘Uli al-Nuha by Rahibani (3/52).

And secondly, 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. [1458] I`lam al-Muqi`in by Ibn al-Qayyim (3/134).

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 [1459] Al-Kafi fi Fiqh Ahl al-Madinah by Ibn `Abd al-Barr (2/677) and Mawahib al-Jalil by Hattab (6/70). and Hanbalis, [1460] Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (1/181) and Matalib ‘Uli al-Nuha by Rahibani (12/377). the view of a group of the predecessors, [1461] Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The declaration of the predecessors indicates the prohibition and invalidity of such trades. This is the opinion of the peoples of the Hijaz and Levant, as well as the scholars of Hadith who follow the ways of the early generations. Ibn Wahb narrated from Sa`id ibn Abi Ayyub, from Sa`id, from Mujahid, that a man said to Ibn `Abbas: ‘I have grapes which I press them to make wine, and I manumit slaves with the proceeds, and I use the horses in the path of Allah, and I give charity to the poor and needy.’ Ibn `Abbas said to him: ‘It is sinful whether you spend or not.’ The man then went back and uprooted every grapevine he owned. `Abd al-Malik ibn Habib narrated in al-Wadihah from Shurahbil ibn Bukayr that he asked Ibn `Umar about the sale of juice, and he said: ‘It is not permissible.’ Shurahbil asked: ‘If I press it and drink it in my place?’ Ibn `Umar replied: ‘Then there is no harm.’ Shurahbil asked: ‘So why is selling it prohibited whilst drinking it is allowed?’ Ibn `Umar said to him: "I do not know if you came to seek knowledge or to argue with me.’ Ibn Habib said: ‘He forbade its sale because it is likely to be turned into an intoxicant unless it is a small amount and its buyer is trustworthy and he knows that he is buying it to drink as juice, as it currently is, in which case there is no harm in it.’ Similarly, selling grapes is not allowed if there is a fear that the buyer may purchase them to turn them into wine.” Al-Fatawa al-Kubra (6/288). and the preferred opinion of Ibn Hazm, [1462] Ibn Hazm stipulated that this is only the case if the seller is certain that the buyer will turn it into an intoxicant. He said: “The sale of juice is permissible to someone who the seller is not certain will turn it into wine. However, if they become certain that the buyer will turn it into wine, selling it to them is not permissible at all and the transaction is voided.” Al-Muhalla bi al-Athar (12/377). Ibn Taymiyyah, [1463] Ibn Taymiyyah said: “In the statement, ‘its seller, its buyer, its carrier, the one it is carried to, and the one who consumes its price’, this includes the intoxicant, its juice, and its grapes. Just as grapes and juice are included in the presser and the pressed, because among those who are cursed, some only deal with the actual wine, such as the pourer and the drinker, whilst others deal only with grapes and juice, like the presser and the pressed, and there are those who deal with both. This is clarified by what Ahmad related with his chain of transmission from Mus`ab ibn Sa`id, who said: ‘Sa`d was asked (i.e., Ibn Abi Waqqas, one of the ten who were promised Paradise): “Do you sell your grapes to someone who will make it into juice?” He said: ‘What a terrible old man I would be if I sold wine!”’ Muhammad ibn Sirin narrated: ‘Sa`d ibn Malik had a land with grapes on it. When his supervisor came to the land, he asked: “When its grapes show, what shall I do with them?” “Sell them”, he replied. “There are a lot of them”, he said. “Make them into raisins”, he replied. “No raisins will come”, he said. So, Sa`d rode and the people rode with him until they came to the land containing grapes. He ordered for the grapes to be pulled up from their roots and ploughed the land [afresh].’ `Aqar ibn al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah narrated: ‘I asked Ibn `Umar: “Would you sell my grapes as juice?” “No, but make them into raisins and then sell them”, he replied. (In another transmission, `Abdullah ibn `Umar was asked about the sale of juice, and he said: “It is not beneficial.”) “How about drinking it?” I asked. “There is no harm in that”, he replied. Ahmad narrated: ‘The Messenger of Allah g forbade the sale of weapons during times of strife.’ Then, in the sense of all these transactions, whether it be a sale, lease, gift, or loan, if it facilitates committing a sin and the intention is apparent, then it is impermissible. However, if the intention to commit the sin ceases, [in situations] such as selling weapons to disbelievers, oppressors, highway robbers, or those involved in sedition, or selling a slave to someone who disobeys Allah in handling them, and other contexts, it is analogous to the presser of an intoxicant. It is known that such transactions deserve condemnation, and their sale or lease becomes invalid if it becomes evident that the buyer or hirer intends to use them for sinful purposes, using his wealth and abilities to support wrongdoing.” Al-Fatawa al-Kubra (6/288). and Ibn `Uthaymin. [1464] Ibn `Uthaymin said: “His statement, ‘and it is not valid to sell the juice to someone who makes it into wine,’ means that selling juice to someone who turns it into wine is not valid, and the evidence for that is the Statement of Allah Exalted: ‘and do not cooperate in sin and transgression’ (al-Ma’idah, 2). If someone asks, ‘What will make me know whether a certain person is buying the juice to turn it into an intoxicant or to drink it immediately?’, we say, ‘If the predominant assumption that this person is one of the people that buys juice to turn it into an intoxicant, that is sufficient, and the sale becomes impermissible. This is because it falls under the category of assisting in sin and transgression. Allah c has prohibited this, and otherwise, the default ruling on the trade is that it is permissible and not prohibited.’” Al-Sharh al-Mumti` (8/193).

This is for the following reasons.

Firstly, 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. [1465] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/168).

And secondly, because it is a contract based on a specific intention to commit disobedience to Allah, making it invalid. [1466] Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah (4/168).

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.

Evidences:

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…’” [1467] Reported by Bukhari (2358) and Muslim (108). The wording here is from Muslim.

Jabir ibn `Abdillah k narrated: “The Messenger of Allah g forbade the trade of surplus water.” [1468] Reported by Muslim (1565).

Abu Hurayrah h narrated that the Messenger of Allah g said: “Surplus water should not be withheld, depriving the plants thereby.” [1469] Reported by Bukhari (2353) and Muslim (1566).

And secondly, from the scholarly consensus:

A consensus on this issue was related by Abu al-`Abbas al-Qurtubi. [1470] Qurtubi said: “The water of rivers, springs, and wells in uninhabited areas which are not owned, is unanimously agreed upon as not permissible to be withheld or sold.” Al-Mufhim (4/441).

Transactions that are prohibited because they involve usury: [1471] See “The Book of Usury (Kitab al-Riba’)”.

The effects of invalid trades: [1472] The majority of scholars do not distinguish between “void (fasid)” and “invalid (batil)”, except for the Hanafis. Although the majority of scholars use “fasid” and “batil” interchangeably, they do make distinctions between them in particular issues. For example, in the context of marriage, they differentiate between a marriage that is “fasid” and a marriage that is “batil”. This distinction is also applied in the field of rituals (manasik) and various other jurisprudential issues. See Nihayat al-Sul by Isnawi, p. 28, and Rawdat al-Nazir by Ibn Qudamah (1/183).

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, [1473] Al-`Inayah by Babarti (6/404) and Al-Binayah Sharh Al-Hidayah by `Ayni (8/140). Malikis, [1474] Al-Kafi fi Fiqh Ahl al-Madinah by Ibn `Abd al-Barr (2/724) and Hashiyat al-`Adawi `ala Kifayat al-Talib al-Rabbani (2/150). Shafi`is, [1475] Fath al-`Aziz by Rafi`i (8/212), Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (9/369), and Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/410). and Hanbalis. [1476] Al-Iqna` by Hajawi (2/83) and Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat by Bahuti (2/60).

This is for the following reasons. Firstly, 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. [1477] Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat by Bahuti (2/60). See also Al-`Inayah by Babarti (6/404).

And secondly, 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. [1478] Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (9/369), and Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/410).

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, [1479] Al-`Inayah by Babarti (6/404) and Al-Binayah Sharh Al-Hidayah by `Ayni (8/140). Malikis, [1480] Al-Kafi fi Fiqh Ahl al-Madinah by Ibn `Abd al-Barr (2/724) and Hashiyat al-`Adawi `ala Kifayat al-Talib al-Rabbani (2/150). Shafi`is, [1481] Fath al-`Aziz by Rafi`i (8/212), Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (9/369), and Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/410). and Hanbalis. [1482] Al-Iqna` by Hajawi (2/83) and Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat by Bahuti (2/60).

This is for the following reasons. Firstly, 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. [1483] Bada’i` al-Sana’i` by Kasani (4/159).

And secondly, 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. [1484] Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (9/369), and Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/410).

Thirdly: Splitting the invalid trade (separating the transaction) [1485] For example, if a seller has two items, wine and vinegar, and he sells them together, is the trade invalidated in the prohibited part (i.e., the wine) whilst remaining valid in the permissible part (i.e., the vinegar), or are both parts of the trade invalidated?

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, [1486] The division of a transaction according to the Hanbalis has three forms, to sell something known and something unknown in value; to sell a jointly owned property without the consent of the co-owner, or to sell one’s own servant together with someone else’s servant without their consent; and to combine the sale of a servant and a free person or vinegar and wine in a single transaction. Al-Insaf by Mardawi (4/229) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/178). preponderant view of the Shafi`is, [1487] Minhaj al-Talibin by Nawawi, p. 98, Nihayat al-Muhtaj by Ramli (3/478), and Hashiyat al-Shirwani `ala Tuhfat al-Muhtaj li Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (4/323). and preferred opinion of Ibn `Uthaymin. [1488] Ibn `Uthaymin said: “In the statement, ‘or a servant and a free person’, a free person is not owned. Therefore, if he is sold together with a servant in a single transaction, the trade is valid for the servant but not for the free person, because a sale contract is not valid for a free person. In the statement, ‘or vinegar and wine in a single transaction’, there are two items, the wine and the vinegar. If he sells them together, the trade is valid for the vinegar but not for the wine.” Al-Sharh al-Mumti` (8/182).

This is for the following reasons. Firstly, because each part of the transaction has its own ruling. [1489] Nihayat al-Muhtaj by Ramli (3/478).

And secondly, because the contract is directed only towards what is permissible to sell, rendering the other part as if it is non-existent. [1490] Mughni al-Muhtaj by Shirbini (2/398).

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 [1491] According to the Hanafis, the buyer is not allowed to take the profit and must give it in charity. However, the seller is permitted to take profit if the price is in currency. In contrast, according to the Shafi`is and the Hanbalis, the profit and any additional amount belong to the seller, not the buyer. – the Hanafis, [1492] Tabyin al-Haqa’iq by Zayla`i (4/66) and Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq by Ibn Nujaym (6/106). Shafi`is, [1493] Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/411) and Al-Ghurar al-Bahiyyah by Zakariyya al-Ansari (2/435). and Hanbalis [1494] Al-Iqna` by Hajawi (2/83) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/198). – and that is because the commodity from an invalid trade is like an unlawfully seized item in the hands of the buyer. [1495] Al-Ghurar al-Bahiyyah by Zakariyya al-Ansari (2/435).

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, [1496] Al-Mabsut by Sarakhsi (13/7) and Al-Binayah Sharh Al-Hidayah by `Ayni (8/55). Malikis, [1497] Al-Taj wa al-Iklil by Mawwaq (4/380) and Mawahib al-Jalil by Hattab (6/254). Shafi`is, [1498] Fath al-`Aziz by Rafi`i (8/212), Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (9/369), and Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/412). and Hanbalis. [1499] Al-Iqna` by Hajawi (2/83) and Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat by Bahuti (2/60).

This is for the following reasons. Firstly, 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. [1500] Al-Taj wa al-Iklil by Mawwaq (4/380) and Al-Iqna` by Hajawi (2/83).

And secondly, 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. [1501] Al-Mabsut by Sarakhsi (13/7).

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 [1502] According to the Hanafis, there are certain conditions under which the voiding is cancelled, contrary to the majority opinion. – the Malikis, [1503] Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ?ala al-Sharh al-Kabir (3/71) and Minah al-Jalil by `Ulaysh (5/66). Shafi`is, [1504] Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/410, 411) and Al-Majmu` by Nawawi (9/369). and Hanbalis. [1505] Al-Iqna` by Hajawi (2/83) and Kashshaf al-Qina` by Bahuti (3/198). 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. [1506] Rawdat al-Talibin by Nawawi (3/410, 411).