Second: it puts needy consumers at a disadvantage by allowing the interceptor to pocket the entire profit. Muslim and the Sunan collections relate from Jābir that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “A townsman must not sell on behalf of a desert-dweller; leave people alone so that Allah may provide for some through others.”

4. The second clause—“Whoever is intercepted and someone buys from him, then when the seller reaches the market he has the choice”—affirms the seller’s right either to let the transaction stand or to rescind it.
   Shaykh al-Islām remarked that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) granted the riders this option because interception involves a kind of concealment and fraud.
   Ibn al-Qayyim explained that the prohibition was issued because it exposes the seller to deception: he does not know the market rate and so sells below value. Therefore the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) granted him the option once he reaches the marketplace.
   Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Qāsim comments in his marginal notes that although the hadith wording is unrestricted, it is qualified by what people customarily tolerate of minor price disparities.
   The contract itself remains valid, for the prohibition is confined to the act of interception; the Prophet did not say, “Do not buy.” There is no disagreement that the seller enjoys the option whenever the loss exceeds the normal range.

5. Islam gives priority to public welfare over private gain. Thus, even though intercepting caravans or a townsman’s selling on behalf of a desert-dweller brings a private benefit to the interceptor or agent, the community’s interest—namely, their ability to purchase goods at lower prices—takes precedence over the profit of one individual.

6. Shaykh al-Islām further stated that some sales are prohibited because they entail wrongdoing to one of the parties—such as the sale of a muṣarrāh (an animal whose udder has been tied to make it appear full of milk), the sale of defective goods, najsh (artificially inflating the price), and similar practices. The Lawgiver did not make such transactions binding like the permissible ones; rather, He left the choice to the wronged party: if he so wishes, he may annul the sale, and if he wishes, he may uphold it. The prohibition here is not due to a purely divine right—unlike the forbiddance of indecent acts, marriage to prohibited women, remarrying a woman thrice divorced, or usurious sales.

Some people imagine that this category belongs to the absolutely forbidden matters, and that the very presence of a prohibition necessitates