on the seller, as in livestock markets and the like. If he sells his goods for a sum of money and part of that price is taken from him, he has been wronged, but the remainder of his money is lawful for him. The buyer has purchased with his own money, and the price may even have been raised to account for the levy, so that he pays extra. How, then, could there be any doubt about the lawfulness of what he has purchased? If the levy is collected from the buyer, he has paid the seller the price, with an additional payment to cover that governmental charge. This casts no doubt on the lawfulness of the transaction for either the seller or the buyer, since the benefits have been acquired in return for the payment rightfully due, and the buyer has paid what he owes and more.

If it is said:

“This is, in reality, an injustice to the seller, since he is entitled to the entire price,”

the reply is:

“Granted that this is so, the buyer has not wronged him. Rather, the one who took his money has wronged him, just as if the seller had received the entire price and the governmental charge had then been taken from him.”

In reality, the burden falls on both of them. If the seller knows that he must pay a charge, he raises the price; and if the buyer knows that he must pay a charge, he reduces the price he offers. Thus, both are wronged by the collection of the charge, while neither has wronged anyone. There is therefore no doubt about the lawfulness of their property on this account. Whatever Muslims sell, provided that it belongs to them, is not rendered doubtful by the levies collected from them.

As for a man who takes on a concession for a particular class of goods on condition that he alone may sell them,