Majmu' al-Fatawa - Ibn Taimiya - (29/240)

Majmu' al-FatawaIbn Taimiya

He was also asked:

About goods sold under exclusive concessions in shops, such as sesame oil and other foodstuffs, as well as non-food items. This arrangement involves someone undertaking to sell a particular commodity exclusively, on condition that no one else sells any of it. He says to the owner of a shop, caravanserai, or other premises:

“I undertake to pay you such-and-such an amount each month, on condition that I buy and sell here a commodity that no one else may sell, or carry out such-and-such work”—specifying a particular activity—“on condition that no one else may do the same.”

Is it permissible to buy these goods from this person when one can obtain goods of the same kind elsewhere? Is it permissible to use these very goods because obtaining alternatives entails hardship, whether or not necessity requires their use?

He replied:

Praise be to Allah. If one has no need to buy from him, one should refrain from doing so, for he acts unjustly by preventing others from selling. Even if there were nothing doubtful about his wealth, it would still be preferable to avoid dealings with him and shun him as far as possible.

[As for buying from him—especially when there is a need—it is not judged unlawful] (*). Nor

(*) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd (p. 222) said: His statement, “Nor is it judged unlawful,” is either a slip of the pen by the shaykh—may Allah have mercy on him—or a copyist’s oversight. The correct wording is “Nor is it judged lawful.” The shaykh—may Allah have mercy on him—said elsewhere (29/273): “If their wealth includes both lawful and unlawful property, dealings with them involve an element of doubt. Such dealings are not judged unlawful unless one knows that the other party is giving one something unlawful to give, nor are they judged lawful unless one knows that he has given one something lawful.” And Allah Most High knows best.

وَسُئِلَ: عَنْ الْأَعْيَانِ الْمُضَمَّنَةِ مِنْ الْحَوَانِيتِ. كالشيرج وَغَيْرِهِ مِنْ الْأَطْعِمَةِ وَغَيْرِهَا وَهِيَ أَنَّ إنْسَانًا يَضْمَنُ بَيْعَ شَيْءٍ مِنْ الْأَشْيَاءِ وَحْدَهُ بِشَرْطِ أَنْ لَا يَبِيعَ غَيْرُهُ شَيْئًا مِنْ ذَلِكَ. فَيَقُولُ: عِنْدِي كَذَا وَكَذَا كُلَّ شَهْرٍ لِمَالِكِ حَانُوتٍ أَوْ خَانٍ أَوْ مَوْضِعٍ آخَرَ عَلَى أَنْ أَشْتَرِيَ وَأَبِيعَ فِيهِ شَيْئًا لَا يَبِيعُهُ غَيْرِي أَوْ أَعْمَلُ كَذَا وَكَذَا - يَعْنِي شَيْئًا يَذْكُرُهُ - عَلَى أَنَّ غَيْرِي لَا يَعْمَلُ مِثْلَهُ. فَهَلْ يَجُوزُ الشِّرَاءُ مِنْ هَذَا الْإِنْسَانِ مِنْ هَذِهِ الْأَعْيَانِ الَّتِي يَبِيعُهَا مَعَ التَّمَكُّنِ مِنْ مُشْتَرِي غَيْرِهَا مِنْ جِنْسِهَا أَمْ لَا؟ وَهَلْ يَجُوزُ اسْتِعْمَالُ شَيْءٍ مِنْهَا بِالْأَعْيَانِ بِاعْتِبَارِ مَشَقَّةٍ عِنْدَ تَحْصِيلِ غَيْرِ ذَلِكَ الشَّيْءِ أَمْ لَا؟ سَوَاءٌ كَانَتْ الضَّرُورَةُ دَاعِيَةً إلَى ذَلِكَ الِاسْتِعْمَالِ أَمْ لَا؟. فَأَجَابَ: الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ، أَمَّا مَعَ الْغِنَى عَنْ الِاشْتِرَاءِ مِنْهُ فَيَنْبَغِي أَنْ لَا يَشْتَرِيَ مِنْهُ؛ فَإِنَّهُ ظَالِمٌ بِمَنْعِ غَيْرِهِ وَلَوْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي مَالِهِ شُبْهَةٌ فَمُجَانَبَتُهُ وَهَجْرُهُ أَوْلَى بِحَسَبِ الْإِمْكَانِ. [وَأَمَّا الشِّرَاءُ مِنْهُ - لَا سِيَّمَا مَعَ الْحَاجَةِ - فَلَا يُحْكَمُ بِتَحْرِيمِهِ] (*) . وَلَا

(*) قال الشيخ ناصر بن حمد الفهد (ص ٢٢٢): وقوله (ولا يحكم بتحريمه) إما أن يكون سبق قلم من الشيخ رحمه الله، أو سهو من الناسخ، وصوابه (ولا يحكم بتحليله)، وقد قال الشيخ رحمه الله في موضع آخر (٢٩/ ٢٧٣): (إذا كان في أموالهم حلال وحرام، ففي معاملتهم شبهة، لا يحكم بالتحريم إلا إذا عرف أنه يعطيه ما يحرم إعطاؤه، ولا يحكم بالتحليل إلا إذا عرف أنه أعطاه من الحلال)، والله تعالى أعلم.