how much I bought it for, but he knows that I am an experienced trader who is not taken advantage of in buying.

According to the authoritative position of the school, this is not permissible. However, as mentioned earlier, based on the view that it is permissible to sell at the price at which people generally sell, or at the price at which a particular person sells, it may be held permissible—and this is the correct view. Many people, when they know that someone trades in a particular commodity and is skilled in it, will trust him. Indeed, if they wished to purchase it themselves, they might go to him and seek his advice. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that it is preferable and better for the price to be known, for a person may estimate the price of a commodity to be low when it is actually high. This happens frequently. Once the sale has been concluded and become binding, he may feel too embarrassed to say, “I have changed my mind.” Therefore, we say that there is no doubt that it is preferable for the seller to disclose the price to the buyer, for the following reasons:

First: to avoid the area of scholarly disagreement.

Second: because it is more reassuring to the heart. However, regarding this as a condition is open to question. Rather, we say that if the seller who sells at cost is known for skill in trade, it is sufficient to rely on his expertise and commercial experience.

It says in al-Rawd (1): “Both the buyer and the seller must know the original cost.” The author omitted the words “and the seller,” whereas the commentator included them, saying, “and the seller.” The author omitted them because the seller will usually know the original cost. Yet he may not know it; indeed, this often occurs, such as when the seller is a merchant with agents, and his agent purchases a piece of land for him, and then—