Muslim

Hadith Commentary:
"If that item has changed, for example, gold was purchased and then made into jewelry, now all creditors will have equal right to it.
The Hanafis have adopted a position contrary to this hadith and have acted upon analogy (qiyas), even though they claim that analogy should be abandoned when it contradicts a hadith.
The hadith is clear in its content: when a person buys something from another and has taken possession of it, but has not yet paid the price and then becomes insolvent,
then if the original item is still with him, the seller alone will be entitled to it, and the other creditors will have no right to it.
This is also the position of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, as is evident from this hadith.
This is also the fatwa of Imam Shafi'i rahimahullah."

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
The matter will be presented before the court, and after investigation, if the court concludes that the property indeed belongs to him, it will declare him entitled and hand over the property to him. He is not authorized to seize it on his own.

(2)
According to the heading established by Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, the various scenarios are as follows:
In the case of sale: If someone sold his property on credit to another, and thereafter the buyer became insolvent, and the seller finds the very item he sold still with the buyer, then he has a greater right to it than the other creditors.
In the case of a loan: If someone lent something to another, and then the debtor became bankrupt, if the creditor finds his property itself with the debtor, he has a greater right to it than the other creditors.
In the case of trust (amanah): If someone deposited a trust with another and then the trustee became insolvent, the owner of the trust has a greater right to it. There is no disagreement in this matter; however, in the cases of sale and loan, some jurists have differed.

(3)
This hadith is clear in its meaning: When a person buys something from another and takes possession of it, but has not yet paid for it and then becomes bankrupt, if the purchased item itself is still present with him, the seller is entitled to it; the other creditors have no right to it. However, if the item has changed:
For example:
If he bought gold and then made jewelry out of it, in this case, the seller alone will not be entitled to it; rather, all the creditors will share equally in it. This is also what justice and fairness demand.
The fatwa of Imam Shafi'i rahimahullah is also in accordance with this.

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues: Bankruptcy is when a person becomes needy of every penny, because he no longer has any fils (money), and the judge has declared him bankrupt, such that he cannot dispose of his wealth, but even after selling all his assets, his debt cannot be paid off. This hadith proves that if a person buys something from another and does not pay the price in cash, and then, before paying the price, becomes needy of every penny, but the goods he purchased remain with him in their original state without any change or alteration, then those goods will belong to the seller; other creditors will have no share in them. This is the position of the majority of the imams—Malik, Shafi’i, Ahmad, Ishaq, and others. However, the Hanafi imams hold the opposite view, that all creditors will have a share in it, and they have interpreted this hadith as referring to the return of usurped property (ghasab), borrowed items (‘ariyah), and trusts (amanah), etc. However, in the following narration, it is explicitly stated: (innahu li sahibihi alladhi ba’ahu) — this item belongs to its owner, the one who sold it. And Allamah Anwar Shah, in order to avoid the implication of this hadith, has considered it an issue of trustworthiness (diyanah), that the buyer should return this property to its owner, the seller, before the matter goes to court, because if the case goes to court, then the seller will also be just another creditor like the rest.

(Fayd al-Bari, vol. (3), p. 313)

But Allamah Taqi Usmani, after presenting all the excuses and arguments of the Hanafis, has expressed his own view that the madhhab of the majority is more in accordance with the wording of the hadith; the words of the hadith support the position of the majority.

(Takmilah, vol. (1), p. 500)

And Allamah Abdul Hayy Lucknawi has also preferred the opinion of the majority in al-Ta’liq al-Mumajjad.

(Takmilah, vol. (1), p. 501)

And Allamah Saeedi, after quoting the arguments of the Hanafis, has also written: “Although the view of Imam Abu Hanifah is stronger in terms of analogy (qiyas) and reasoning (dirayah), the authentic and explicit ahadith of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam take precedence.”

(Sharh Muslim, vol. (4), p. 284)

It is not clear what the Hanafis gain by proving authentic ahadith to be contrary to analogy and reasoning, why they do not consider such analogy and reasoning to be incorrect, and why they present them in opposition to authentic ahadith to mislead people, and, despite being followers (muqallid), exert every effort to prove the incorrect position of the Imam to be correct, whereas the simple matter is that the Imam was not aware of this authentic hadith, so he relied on analogy and personal reasoning.

Benefits and Issues:
Benefit:
In the situation mentioned in the hadith, if the seller has not received any payment and the goods are present in their original form, the sale will be considered annulled and the goods will be returned.
If any disposition has been made regarding those goods,
then other creditors may also take their share from it.

Benefits and Issues:
Benefit:
In this hadith, the creditor is permitted to take back his property without any condition.
In previous ahadith, which are authentic,
its conditions have been mentioned: that the recipient must be alive,
and if the giver has not received any part of the price, then he may take back his property exactly as it was.
Otherwise, such a creditor will be counted among the other creditors,
and will receive a share according to the same proportion.
Imam Abu Dawud, after narrating this hadith, has clarified that this hadith is weak.
From this, the reader will understand
that those who make a claim or issue a fatwa based on this hadith, allowing someone to take back his property,
will not be acceptable,
because this hadith is weak.
However, some scholars have considered this hadith to be hasan (good).
In that case, its generality will be restricted in light of the previous ahadith.
That is, for taking back (the property), it will be necessary to observe those conditions which have been mentioned in other ahadith.

The bankrupt (muflis) is a person upon whom so much debt has accumulated that he is no longer able to pay it off. In our language, such a person is called "diwala" (insolvent). This person is restricted from making any transactions with his wealth; rather, his assets are sold and whatever is obtained is distributed among the creditors. The remaining debt is then forgiven. For example: if he owes ten thousand rupees in debt but all his assets are sold for only five thousand rupees, then each creditor will be given half of what they are owed, and the rest will be forgiven.

In this hadith, an exception is made: if someone’s property is found in its original form with the bankrupt person—whether it was lent to him or sold to him, and he has not yet paid any part of its price—then that item will be returned in full to its owner. That item will not be sold and distributed among all the creditors. However, if he has paid some part of its price, then it will be sold along with the rest of the assets, and its owner will be paid in proportion along with the other creditors. For example: if the creditors are being given half of their debt, then he too will be given half of his due.

The majority of scholars accept this exception, but the Hanafis do not accept it, because, according to them, this would be unfair to the other creditors: they would receive, for example, only half of their debt, while this person would get his entire item back. According to them, this item should also be sold along with the rest of the assets, and this person should be paid in proportion along with the other creditors.

The position of the Hanafis is not correct, because this person has an advantage over the other creditors: his item is still present in its original form with the bankrupt person, whereas the property of the other creditors has perished. Now, it is absolutely incorrect that the item should be sold while its owner is present and not returned to him. Consider it as if the sale has become void, since no payment has yet been made; therefore, the item is returned to its original owner.

Benefits and Issues:
➊
When a person’s debt becomes so great that he is unable to pay it, declaring him bankrupt is legislated.

➋
The belongings of the bankrupt person’s house will be sold and the creditors’ debts will be repaid.

➌
If the bankrupt person has something belonging to a creditor in his possession, then there are two scenarios:

(a)
If the bankrupt person has not paid any of its price at all, then the creditor will take back his item, and it will be considered as if this item was never sold or purchased.

(b)
If the debtor has paid the full price or part of the price for this item, then now it belongs to the debtor (the bankrupt person).
While distributing the belongings among the creditors, if this item falls into the share of that creditor, then that is fine; otherwise, whoever’s share it falls into will take it.
This creditor does not have more right to this item than the other creditors.

Takhrij:
«أخرجه البخاري، الاستقراض، باب إذا وجد ماله عند مفلس، حديث:2402، ومسلم، المساقاة، باب من أدرك ما باعه عند المشتري وقد أفلس، حديث:1559، ورواية أبي بكر بن عبدالرحمن أخرجه أبوداود، البيوع، حديث:3520، ومالك:2 /678، والبهقي:6 /46 وهو حديث صحيح، ورواية، عمر بن خلدة أخرجه أبوداود، البيوع، حديث:3523، وابن ماجه، الأحكام، حديث:2360، والحاكم:2 /51 وسنده حسن.»©Explanation:
The issue discussed in this hadith is as follows: If a person purchases some kind of property and its price remains as a debt upon him, and afterwards he becomes insolvent and destitute, having nothing left to pay off the debt, then in this situation, the seller of that property has the right that if the item he sold is still present in its original form, he may, without hesitation, reclaim it and annul the contract of sale.

This is the view of the majority (jumhur).

However, according to the Hanafi scholars, he cannot take that property alone; rather, he is considered just like any other creditor. He will receive repayment of his debt in proportion to what the other creditors receive.

But this is contrary to the hadith.

In the mursal hadith of Abu Bakr bin Abdur Rahman narrated by Imam Abu Dawud rahimahullah and Imam Bayhaqi rahimahullah—which they have also narrated in a connected (mawsul) form—there is a narrator, Isma'il bin 'Ayyash, who has been declared weak. However, Imam Bukhari rahimahullah says that if Isma'il narrates from the Syrians (Shamis), then his narration is sound, and in this hadith, he has narrated from Harith Zubaidi, who is a Shami. Nevertheless, Imam Abu Dawud has considered the mursal version to be the most authentic, and in the narration of 'Umar bin Khulda, Abu Mu'tamir has been declared unknown (majhul) by Imam Abu Dawud, Tahawi, and Ibn Mundhir, and Imam Ibn Abi Hatim has mentioned that only Ibn Abi Dhi'b narrates from him. For this reason, Imam Abu Dawud has declared it weak.

(al-Talkhis) However, our esteemed researcher has considered the narration of Abu Bakr bin Abdur Rahman to be authentic (sahih) and the narration of 'Umar bin Khulda to be hasan in its chain, and their opinion appears to be closer to correctness.

And Allah knows best.

Narrators of the Hadith:
«حضرت ابوبکر بن عبدالرحمن رحمہ اللہ » Abu Bakr bin Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham bin Mughira al-Makhzumi al-Madani.
He was a judge (qadi) of Madinah Munawwarah.
Regarding his name, one opinion is that his name was Muhammad, and another opinion is that his name was Mughira.
It has also been said that his name was Abu Bakr and his kunyah was Abu Abdur Rahman.
And it has also been said that his kunyah itself was his name.
He was a great jurist (faqih), devout worshipper, and trustworthy (thiqah) person.
He has been counted among the third generation (tabi'in).
He passed away during the caliphate of Walid bin Abdul Malik.
His hearing (sama') from Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu is established.
Al-Sha'bi and al-Zuhri and others have narrated from him.
He died in 73, 74, or 75 AH.

«حضرت عمر بن خلدہ رحمہ اللہ » His kunyah was Abu Hafs.
He was among the Ansar of Madinah Munawwarah.
He held the position and office of judge (qada).
He was extremely pious, chaste, and pure, very brave, a sharp sword against his opponent, and a person of great awe.
He narrated from Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu, and from him narrated Rabi'ah al-Ra'y.
And the "kha" in Khulda is with a fatha.
It is said that Khulda was his grandfather, and his father's name was Abdur Rahman.