this item for nine, whereas he bought it for ten.” In this case, there is nothing wrong with it, because an attempt to rescind the sale in such a situation is unlikely.

His statement, “so that he may rescind it and contract with him”: the phrase “so that he may rescind it” explains the reason for the prohibition. From this it is understood that if the matter is otherwise—such as when the buyer wants a large quantity of goods and has bought ten items from someone for ten, but is still seeking them from other people, and someone says to him, “I will give them to you for nine,” while knowing that he will not rescind the first contract because he wants a large quantity of goods—then there is nothing wrong with this. In that case, there is no deception involved, according to the position adopted by the author.

However, one might say here: although he will not rescind the contract, he may nevertheless feel resentment toward the first seller because he overcharged him. Thus, avoiding this altogether is preferable; it accords with the apparent meaning of the hadith and is less likely to lead to hostility and hatred among Muslims.

Another example: A man buys ten pieces from Zayd for ten riyals, then comes to seek more of these pieces in the marketplace. Another man approaches him and says, “I will sell them to you for nine.” This is selling over his sale. We know that the buyer will not rescind the contract, because he needs a large quantity of goods, whether the price increases or decreases. So we say that, according to the apparent wording of the author, this is not prohibited. But we have mentioned that it may be deemed prohibited because it creates hostility and hatred between the buyer and the seller.

His statement, “and the contract is invalid in both cases,” means selling over another’s sale and purchasing over another’s purchase. The evidence is the prohibition of that, and a prohibition directed at the act itself entails invalidity, for if we were to deem it valid, that would constitute opposition