from the continued practice in Medina contrary to what we have set out above. A report from Ibn Umar, the narrator of the hadith, indicates that its apparent meaning had ceased to be acted upon in Medina during the time of the Companions, either because they knew it had been abrogated or because they interpreted it differently. He said: “I entered into a sale with Uthmān, the Commander of the Faithful, exchanging the property in the valley for property of mine at Khaybar. Once we had concluded the transaction, I turned back and left his presence, lest he seek to undo the sale. The Sunnah used to be that the two parties to a sale had the option of withdrawal so long as they had not separated.”
One only says, “Such and such used to be the case,” of something that once existed but has ceased, not of something that still remains in force. Yet his statement—may Allah be pleased with him—“The Sunnah used to be,” referring to the time of his transaction with Uthmān—may Allah be pleased with him—presents a difficulty, since this occurred after the Prophet’s death, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and abrogation cannot occur after his death. Thus, in my view—and Allah knows best—his words, “The Sunnah used to be,” can only mean: “That was the Sunnah as I understood it and according to the position I held,” based on his understanding that separation in the hadith meant physical separation. This indicates that he—may Allah be pleased with him—abandoned his position that the two parties to a sale retain the option of withdrawal until they physically separate, adopting instead the view that the sale becomes binding upon both parties once it is concluded verbally, even if they have not left the place where they transacted.
Section
If it is objected: “If you say that the two parties to a sale in the hadith, ‘The two parties to a sale have the option of withdrawal,’ mean the two parties negotiating a sale, the hadith serves no purpose. No one doubts that each negotiating party retains the option of withdrawing from the transaction with the other until the sale is concluded verbally. This is instinctively understood and needs no explanation.”
The answer is that the hadith does not thereby lose its purpose. According to our interpretation, it teaches that a sale becomes binding upon the mere conclusion of the contract, unless an option of withdrawal has been stipulated, in which case that option applies according to its stipulated terms. The exception expressed in his words, “except a sale subject to an option,” is thus entailed and indicated by the wording of the hadith. It is as though he said: “Each of the two parties to a sale retains the option of withdrawing from the transaction with the other so long as they have not separated. Once they have separated”—meaning verbally—“neither has an option of withdrawal, except in a sale subject to an option.” This is clear.
Section
It is also possible that the point and intended meaning of the hadith, according to those who hold that separation