or anything of the sort; in all such cases the original owner may not reclaim the item unless the transaction was no more than a ruse to defeat repossession, for stratagems are forbidden and carry no legal weight.

These, then, are the recognised conditions for taking back the very article of merchandise from a bankrupt debtor. Some are taken from the explicit wording of the aḥādīth, while others arise from their evident purport. Allah knows best.

Differences among the scholars:

The Ḥanafīs maintain that the seller is not entitled to repossess his property when he finds it with a bankrupt buyer; the bankrupt himself has the stronger claim, for once the sale is concluded the commodity becomes the buyer’s property and within his liability, and allowing the seller to take it back would undo that ownership.

They therefore re-interpret the ḥadith, calling it a solitary report at odds with established principles, and limit it to a case in which the item was merely a deposit, a gratuitous loan for use, or a found object in the bankrupt’s hands—an interpretation that cannot stand. Had that been intended, the text would not have linked the ruling to bankruptcy, since one may reclaim such items whether the holder is bankrupt or not.

The correct view is the one held by the majority of scholars, who act upon the ḥadith as it is. Al-Shawkānī said: “To excuse oneself by alleging that the ḥadith conflicts with legal fundamentals is a faulty excuse, for sound Sunnah is itself among those fundamentals, and it is not to be abandoned except for evidence that is stronger; nothing of that sort exists here.”

Some scholars have stated that if a judge rules contrary to this ḥadith, his judgement must be overturned, because the text admits of no valid reinterpretation.

Were it not for the notoriety of the Ḥanafī dissent I would not have mentioned it; I have done so only to point out its weakness and to show that it is one of those opinions that collide with explicit texts.

From time to time in this book I shall mention certain weak positions, precisely because the scholars who hold them are well known and the proofs they rely on are flimsy, so that no one may fall into them out of imitation or misplaced trust. Infallibility belongs only to the Messengers—peace be upon them.