and His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, have forbidden, that would constitute opposition to Allah and His Messenger. For prohibition requires keeping away from a matter and refraining from engaging in it, whereas declaring it valid entails engaging in it and giving it legal effect. This is opposition to Allah and His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him.

If someone were to ask: Why do you not say that it is unlawful but valid, as you said concerning intercepting incoming goods before they reach the market?

The answer is that the difference between the two is clear. First, regarding such interception, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “When its owner reaches the market, he has the choice.” (1) The existence of this option is contingent upon the validity of the contract; thus, the hadith indicates that the contract is valid.

Second, the prohibition of intercepting incoming goods is not a prohibition of the contract in itself; rather, it is a prohibition due to the right of another, since the arriving seller may be deceived and the interceptor may purchase his goods at a lower price. This is why the right to uphold the sale or rescind it is granted to him. As for our case, the prohibition concerns the sale itself. Whatever is prohibited in itself cannot be deemed valid, whether in acts of worship or transactions, because declaring valid that which has itself been prohibited amounts to affirming what the Lawgiver has forbidden. What the Lawgiver has prohibited is something He wants us to abandon and avoid; therefore, to rule it valid is to oppose Allah’s command, Exalted is He.

Accordingly, we say that selling after the second call to prayer for Friday is unlawful