Jump to content

Bay' al-Fuduli

Add links
Priority: c, Quality: c
From wikishia
Furu' al-Din
Religious rulings
هیچ
Prayer
Other Worships
Rullings of Tahara
Civil Law
Family Law
Criminal Law
Economic Laws
Contracts
Prohibitions
Related Laws
Other Laws


Bayʿ al-Fuḍūlī (Arabic:بیع الفُضولي) lit:Unauthorized sale, refers to the sale of another person's goods or property without their prior permission. Muslim jurists hold differing opinions regarding the validity of such transactions. According to the predominant view among Shi'a jurists, as well as their Hanafi and Maliki counterparts, bay' al-fuduli is considered valid provided the owner subsequently authorizes it. In this context, authorization refers to the owner's explicit consent granted after the sale contract is executed. The concept of bay' al-fuduli is typically examined within the trade section of jurisprudence. Al-Shaykh al-Ansari identified it as one of the most critical jurisprudential matters, thoroughly investigating its rulings in his work, al-Makasib, specifically under the conditions governing the contracting parties (muta'aqidayn).

Conversely, prominent Shi'a scholars such as al-Shaykh al-Tusi, Ibn Zuhra, al-Muhaqqiq al-Ardabili, and Yusuf al-Bahrani have argued that bay' al-fuduli is fundamentally invalid, even if the owner subsequently grants permission. Hanbali and Shafi'i jurists also share this perspective.

Definition and Status

Bay' al-fuduli is formally defined as the sale of another individual's goods or property without their explicit permission.[1] In jurisprudential terminology,[2] a "fuduli" is defined as a sane, autonomous, and adult individual who executes a transactional contract without possessing the legal right of disposal over the property, guardianship over the owner, or status as an appointed agent.[3] According to al-Mirza al-Qummi, prominent jurists maintain that the fuduli framework applies not merely to sales, but extends to various other contracts. These include lease, agency, marriage, sharecropping (muzara'a), sharecropping of trees (musaqat), and profit-sharing.[4] However, as noted by al-Shahid al-Awwal, there is a scholarly consensus that the fuduli principle is inapplicable to unilateral obligations (iqa'at).[5]

The legal rulings pertaining to Bay' al-fuduli are systematically addressed within the trade section of foundational jurisprudential texts.[6] Al-Shaykh al-Ansari classified bay' al-fuduli as one of the most significant jurisprudential topics,[7] comprehensively exploring its implications in his treatise al-Makasib, specifically under the prerequisites required for contracting parties (muta'aqidayn).[8] A primary condition for parties engaging in a transaction is that they must either be the rightful owners or possess explicit authorization from the owner to conduct the trade.[9] In the absence of this criterion, commerce can only proceed via the fuduli mechanism, for which specific legal rulings have been established.[10]

Rulings

There remains a significant divergence of opinion among Muslim jurists concerning the fundamental validity or invalidity of bay' al-fuduli:[11]

Proponents of its Validity

In his work Tadhkirat al-fuqaha', al-'Allama al-Hilli deemed bay' al-fuduli permissible and legally sound, contingent upon the owner's subsequent approval.[12] He noted that this position is widely accepted among Shi'a jurists.[13] Muhammad Hasan al-Najafi, interpreted this broad attribution to Shi'a scholars as evidence that the ruling is rooted in consensus.[14] Furthermore, both Yusuf al-Bahrani and al-Shaykh al-Ansari have aligned this perspective with the foremost Shi'a jurists.[15] These scholars base their conclusions on several primary arguments:

  • Narrations: According to al-Shaykh al-Ansari, the most prominent evidence cited by proponents is the Narration of 'Urwa al-Bariqi.[16] In this account, 'Urwa—one of the Companions of the Prophet (s)—was given a single dinar by the Prophet (s) to purchase one sheep. Acting on his own initiative, he bought two sheep, sold one for a dinar, and returned to the Prophet (s) with both a dinar and a sheep. The Prophet (s) explicitly praised and approved of this unauthorized, yet profitable, action.[17] Jurists additionally rely on other accounts, such as the "Authentic Hadith of Muhammad b. Qays,"[18] to further substantiate the validity of bay' al-fuduli.[19]
  • General Scriptural Principles: Proponents invoke broad rules derived from the Qur'an and prophetic narrations that affirm the permissibility of commerce and the sanctity of contracts.[20] Key examples include the Qur'an 5:1 ("Fulfill the contracts") and the Qur'an 2:275 ("Allah has permitted trade"). Consequently, certain jurists argue that the defining characteristics of a contract or sale are not negated simply by a temporary lack of the owner's consent. Instead, the overarching definitions of sales and contracts found in the Qur'an and Sunna are deemed applicable to Bay' al-fuduli; once the owner issues permission, all subsequent legal effects of a valid sale take force.[21]

Proponents of its Invalidity

Conversely, esteemed jurists such as al-Shaykh al-Tusi,[22] Ibn Zuhra,[23] al-Muhaqqiq al-Ardabili,[24] and Yusuf al-Bahrani[25] have maintained that bay' al-fuduli is fundamentally invalid. Their arguments rest on several foundational proofs:

  • Qur'anic Injunctions: They cite Qur'an 4:29, which explicitly prohibits the disposal or appropriation of another's property without their direct consent.[26]
  • Prohibitive Narrations: They reference numerous narrations that expressly forbid engaging in commerce with property not legally owned by the transacting parties.[27] Notably, al-Shaykh al-Ansari classified these specific narrations as mustafid (widely transmitted).[28]
  • Scholarly Consensus: Both al-Shaykh al-Tusi in al-Khilaf[29] and Ibn Zuhra in Ghunyat al-nuzu'[30] asserted that an established consensus exists regarding the nullity of bay' al-fuduli.
  • Rational Proof: A logical deduction is presented: First, the unauthorized disposal of another's property is rationally reprehensible. Second, because Bay' al-fuduli inherently involves this precise unauthorized action, it is both reprehensible and haram. Third, legal prohibitions and establishing sanctity within transactional contexts inherently dictate their juridical invalidity.[31]

View of Sunni Jurists

Within Sunni jurisprudence, Hanafi and Maliki scholars dictate that the validity of bay' al-fuduli is strictly contingent upon the owner's ex post facto permission; without it, the transaction is entirely void.[32] Conversely, Hanbali and Shafi'i jurists consider bay' al-fuduli categorically void from its inception. In their view, even subsequent authorization by the owner cannot transform it into a legally binding sale.[33]

Owner's Permission

In jurisprudential contexts, "permission" denotes the owner's consent expressed after the execution of the contract. This is fundamentally distinct from "authorization" (idhn), which is consent granted prior to the contract's execution.[34] For scholars who affirm the validity of bay' al-fuduli, the transaction's legitimacy hinges entirely upon securing this subsequent permission from the owner.[35] Jurists have delineated specific rulings concerning the nature of this permission:

  • "Transferring" vs. "Revealing" Permission: If the permission is deemed "transferring" (naqil), the legal effects of the sale only become active from the exact moment the owner grants permission. Alternatively, if it is considered "revealing" (kashif), it signifies that the sale was legally valid from the moment it was initially executed, and all transactional effects apply retroactively.[36]
  • Impact on Property Growth: According to al-Shaykh al-Ansari, the majority of Shi'a jurists classify the permission as "revealing."[37] Consequently, if the transacted property appreciates in quantity or quality between the initial contract and the owner's permission (e.g., a sheep that gains weight or reproduces), this added value belongs to the buyer under a "revealing" paradigm. Conversely, if the permission is legally treated as "transferring," any interim increase in the property's value remains with the seller.[38]
  • Conditions for the Permitter: The individual granting permission must possess the legal capacity to dispose of property (ja'iz al-tasarruf) at the precise time the permission is issued. This requires them to be sane, an adult, mature (rashid), and free from legal interdiction (interdicted).[39]

Notes

  1. ↑ Baḥrānī, Ḥadāʾiq al-nāḍira, vol. 18, p. 378.
  2. ↑ Group of authors, Farhang-i fiqh-i Fārsī, vol. 5, p. 696.
  3. ↑ Shahīd al-Awwal, Ghāyat al-murād, vol. 3, p. 37; Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 346.
  4. ↑ Mīrzā-yi Qummī, Jāmiʿ al-shatāt, vol. 2, p. 305.
  5. ↑ Shahīd al-Awwal, Ghāyat al-murād, vol. 3, p. 37.
  6. ↑ Group of authors, Farhang-i fiqh-i Fārsī, vol. 1, p. 259.
  7. ↑ Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 345.
  8. ↑ Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 345.
  9. ↑ ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī, Tadhkirat al-fuqahāʾ, vol. 10, p. 14; Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 345; Makārim Shīrāzī, Anwār al-faqāha (kitāb al-bayʿ), p. 243.
  10. ↑ Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 345; Makārim Shīrāzī, Anwār al-faqāha (kitāb al-bayʿ), p. 243.
  11. ↑ Baḥrānī, Ḥadāʾiq al-nāḍira, vol. 18, p. 376; Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 345.
  12. ↑ ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī, Tadhkirat al-fuqahāʾ, vol. 10, p. 215.
  13. ↑ ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī, Tadhkirat al-fuqahāʾ, vol. 10, p. 215; Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 349.
  14. ↑ Najafī, Jawāhir al-kalām, vol. 22, p. 273.
  15. ↑ Baḥrānī, Ḥadāʾiq al-nāḍira, vol. 18, p. 377; Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 349.
  16. ↑ Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 351.
  17. ↑ Ibn Abī Jumhūr, ʿAwālī al-laʾālī, vol. 3, p. 205; Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, pp. 350-351.
  18. ↑ A person sold his father's slave girl without permission, and the buyer had a child from that slave girl, and Imam 'Ali (a) judged the dispute between them.
  19. ↑ For example, see: Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 353; Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī, Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa, vol. 21, p. 203; Group of authors, al-Mawsūʿat al-fiqhiyya, vol. 5, p. 18.
  20. ↑ Group of authors, al-Mawsūʿat al-fiqhiyya, vol. 5, p. 16.
  21. ↑ Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Riyāḍ al-masāʾil, vol. 8, p. 120; Najafī, Jawāhir al-kalām, vol. 22, p. 274; Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 350.
  22. ↑ Ṭūsī, al-Mabsūṭ fī fiqh al-Imāmiyya, vol. 2, p. 158; Ṭūsī, al-Khilāf, vol. 3, p. 168.
  23. ↑ Ibn Zuhra, Ghunyat al-nuzūʿ, pp. 207-208.
  24. ↑ Muḥaqqiq al-Ardabīlī, Majmaʿ al-fāʾida wa l-burhān, vol. 8, p. 158.
  25. ↑ Baḥrānī, al-Ḥadāʾiq al-nāḍira, vol. 18, p. 378.
  26. ↑ Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 364.
  27. ↑ See: Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī, Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa, vol. 18, p. 47; Ṭabrisī, al-Iḥtijāj, vol. 2, p. 480; Baḥrānī, Ḥadāʾiq al-nāḍira, vol. 18, p. 379.
  28. ↑ Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 365.
  29. ↑ Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, al-Khilāf, vol. 3, p. 168.
  30. ↑ Ibn Zuhra, Ghunyat al-nuzū, p. 207.
  31. ↑ Group of authors, al-Mawsūʿat al-fiqhiyya, vol. 5, p. 23.
  32. ↑ Group of authors, al-Mawsūʿat al-fiqhiyya al-Kuwaytiiyya, vol. 32, p. 172.
  33. ↑ Group of authors, al-Mawsūʿat al-fiqhiyya al-Kuwaytiyya, vol. 32, p. 172.
  34. ↑ Group of authors, Farhang-i fiqh-i Fārsī, vol. 1, p. 259.
  35. ↑ ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī, Tadhkirat al-fuqahāʾ, vol. 10, p. 215.
  36. ↑ Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 399.
  37. ↑ Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Kitāb al-Makāsib, vol. 3, p. 399.
  38. ↑ Group of authors, Farhang-i fiqh-i Fārsī, vol. 1, pp. 259-260.
  39. ↑ Sabzawārī, Muhadhdhab al-aḥkām, vol. 16, p. 328.

References

  • ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī, Ḥasan b. Yūsuf. Tadhkirat al-fuqahāʾ. Qom: Al al-Bayt Institute, 1414 AH.
  • Baḥrānī, Shaykh Yūsuf. Ḥadāʾiq al-nāḍira fī aḥkām al-ʿitra al-ṭāhira. Qom: Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī, [n.d].
  • Ibn Abī Jumhūr, Muḥammad b. Zayn al-Dīn. ʿAwālī al-laʾālī al-ʿazīziyya fī al-aḥādīth al-dīniyya. Qom: Sayyid al-Shuhada (a) Institute, 1403 AH.
  • Ibn Zuhra, Ḥamza b. ʿAlī. Ghunyat al-nuzūʿ ilā ʿilmay al-uṣūl wa l-furūʿ. Qom: Imam al-Sadiq (a) Institute, [n.d].
  • Group of authors. Al-Mawsūʿat al-fiqhiyya al-Kuwaytiyya. Kuwait: Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, 1427 AH.
  • Group of authors. Al-Mawsūʿat al-fiqhiyya. Qom: Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence Institute, first edition, 1423 AH.
  • Group of authors. Farhang-i fiqh-i Fārsī. Qom: Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence Institute, 1387 Sh.
  • Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī, Muḥammad b. Ḥasan. Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa. Qom: Al al-Bayt Institute, 1412 AH.
  • Muḥaqqiq al-Ardabīlī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad. Majmaʿ al-fāʾida wa l-burhān fī sharḥ Irshād al-adhhān. Qom: Islamic Publication Office affiliated with the Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom, 1379 Sh.
  • Makārim Shīrāzī, Nāṣir. Anwār al-faqāha (kitāb al-bayʿ). Qom: Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (a) School, 1425 AH.
  • Mīrzā-yi Qummī, Abu l-Qāsim. Jāmiʿ al-shatāt. Tehran: Kayhan Publications, 1375 Sh.
  • Najafī, Muḥammad Ḥasan. Jawāhir al-kalām. Beirut: Dar Ihya' al-Turath al-'Arabi, 1362 Sh.
  • Sabzawārī, Sayyid ʿAbd al-Aʿlā. Muhadhdhab al-aḥkām fī bayān ḥalāl wa l-ḥarām. Qom: Dar al-Tafsir, [n.d].
  • Shahīd al-Awwal, Muḥammad b. Makkī. Ghāyat al-murād fī sharḥ nukt al-Irshād. Qom: Islamic Propagation Office, first edition, 1414 AH.
  • Shaykh al-Anṣārī, Murtaḍā. Kitāb al-Makāsib. Qom: Majmaʿ al-Fikr al-Islāmī, 1418 AH.
  • Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. Ḥasan. Al-Khilāf. Qom: Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī, [n.d].
  • Shaykh al-Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. Ḥasan. Al-Mabsūṭ fī fiqh al-Imāmiyya. Tehran: Al-Maktabat al-Murtadawiyya li-Ihya' al-Athar al-Ja'fariyya, third edition, 1387 AH.
  • Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Sayyid ʿAlī. Riyāḍ al-masāʾil. Qom: Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī, first edition, 1412 AH.
  • Ṭabrisī, Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. Al-Iḥtijāj. Mashhad: Murtada Publication, first edition, 1403 AH.
  • "Qānūn-i Madanī", Website of the Islamic Consultative Assembly Research Center, accessed: July 7, 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikishia.net/w/index.php?title=Bay%27_al-Fuduli&oldid=208144"