Toggle above to switch between keyword search and direct hadith lookup
سنن ترمذي
Tirmidhi
كتاب البيوع عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلمThe Book on Business
بابChapter: Another Chapter on Buying and Selling (Sale and Conditions)
Hadith 1264
اُردوEn
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو كُرَيْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا طَلْقُ بْنُ غَنَّامٍ، عَنْ شَرِيكٍ، وَقَيْسٌ، عَنْ أَبِي حَصِينٍ، عَنْ أَبِي صَالِحٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ : قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " أَدِّ الْأَمَانَةَ إِلَى مَنِ ائْتَمَنَكَ وَلَا تَخُنْ مَنْ خَانَكَ " . قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى : هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ ، وَقَدْ ذَهَبَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ إِلَى هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ ، وَقَالُوا : إِذَا كَانَ لِلرَّجُلِ عَلَى آخَرَ شَيْءٌ فَذَهَبَ بِهِ ، فَوَقَعَ لَهُ عِنْدَهُ شَيْءٌ ، فَلَيْسَ لَهُ أَنْ يَحْبِسَ عَنْهُ بِقَدْرِ مَا ذَهَبَ لَهُ عَلَيْهِ ، وَرَخَّصَ فِيهِ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ مِنَ التَّابِعِينَ ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ : الثَّوْرِيِّ ، وَقَالَ : إِنْ كَانَ لَهُ عَلَيْهِ دَرَاهِمُ ، فَوَقَعَ لَهُ عِنْدَهُ دَنَانِيرُ فَلَيْسَ لَهُ ، أَنْ يَحْبِسَ بِمَكَانِ دَرَاهِمِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ يَقَعَ عِنْدَهُ لَهُ دَرَاهِمُ فَلَهُ حِينَئِذٍ ، أَنْ يَحْبِسَ مِنْ دَرَاهِمِهِ بِقَدْرِ مَا لَهُ عَلَيْهِ .
Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) reports that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Return the trust to the one who entrusted you, and do not betray the one who betrays you." __QUR_N__ __XREF_N__ __REF_N__
Imam Tirmidhi says:
1- This hadith is Hasan Gharib.
2- Some people of knowledge have followed this hadith. They say that when a person has something belonging to another in his charge, and he takes it away, then if something belonging to that person comes into his possession, it is not permissible for him to withhold from it as much as was taken from him.
3- Some of the Tabi'in among the people of knowledge have permitted this, and this is also the opinion of Sufyan al-Thawri. He says: If someone owes him dirhams, and dinars (as a trust) come into his possession, it is not permissible for him to withhold the dinars in exchange for his dirhams. However, if dirhams come into his possession, then it is permissible for him to withhold from the dirhams as much as is owed to him.
Imam Tirmidhi says:
1- This hadith is Hasan Gharib.
2- Some people of knowledge have followed this hadith. They say that when a person has something belonging to another in his charge, and he takes it away, then if something belonging to that person comes into his possession, it is not permissible for him to withhold from it as much as was taken from him.
3- Some of the Tabi'in among the people of knowledge have permitted this, and this is also the opinion of Sufyan al-Thawri. He says: If someone owes him dirhams, and dinars (as a trust) come into his possession, it is not permissible for him to withhold the dinars in exchange for his dirhams. However, if dirhams come into his possession, then it is permissible for him to withhold from the dirhams as much as is owed to him.
Related hadith on this topic
Brief Explanation
1؎: This command is obligatory because Allah says: «إن الله يأمركم أن تؤدوا الأمانات إلى أهلها» (an-Nisa: 58).
2؎: This command is recommended (mustahabb) because Allah says: «وجزاء سيئة مثلها» (ash-Shura: 40) "The recompense of an evil is an evil like it," and also He says: «وإن عاقبتم فعاقبوا بمثل ما عوقبتم به» (an-Nahl: 126). Both these verses indicate that one should take back one's right. Ibn Hazm's statement is that if one gains control over the property of the one who committed treachery, then it is obligatory to take back one's right, and this will not be considered treachery. Rather, treachery would be if he were to take more than his due right.
2؎: This command is recommended (mustahabb) because Allah says: «وجزاء سيئة مثلها» (ash-Shura: 40) "The recompense of an evil is an evil like it," and also He says: «وإن عاقبتم فعاقبوا بمثل ما عوقبتم به» (an-Nahl: 126). Both these verses indicate that one should take back one's right. Ibn Hazm's statement is that if one gains control over the property of the one who committed treachery, then it is obligatory to take back one's right, and this will not be considered treachery. Rather, treachery would be if he were to take more than his due right.
Explanation & Benefits
Shaykh Dr. Abdur Rahman Freywai
Explanation:
1:
This ruling is obligatory because Allah says:
﴿إِنَّ اللّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَن تُؤدُّواْ الأَمَانَاتِ إِلَى أَهْلِهَا﴾ ()
2:
This ruling is recommended (mustahabb), because Allah says:
﴿وَجَزَاء سَيِّئَةٍ سَيِّئَةٌ مِّثْلُهَا﴾ () (“The recompense of an evil is an evil like it.”) And also He says:
﴿وَإِنْ عَاقَبْتُمْ فَعَاقِبُواْ بِمِثْلِ مَا عُوقِبْتُم بِهِ﴾ () These two verses indicate that one should take back his right.
Ibn Hazm (rahimahullah) says that if someone has committed a breach of trust, then in the case of gaining control over his property, it is obligatory to take back one’s right.
And this will not be considered a breach of trust; rather, breach of trust would be if he takes more than his right.
1:
This ruling is obligatory because Allah says:
﴿إِنَّ اللّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَن تُؤدُّواْ الأَمَانَاتِ إِلَى أَهْلِهَا﴾ ()
2:
This ruling is recommended (mustahabb), because Allah says:
﴿وَجَزَاء سَيِّئَةٍ سَيِّئَةٌ مِّثْلُهَا﴾ () (“The recompense of an evil is an evil like it.”) And also He says:
﴿وَإِنْ عَاقَبْتُمْ فَعَاقِبُواْ بِمِثْلِ مَا عُوقِبْتُم بِهِ﴾ () These two verses indicate that one should take back his right.
Ibn Hazm (rahimahullah) says that if someone has committed a breach of trust, then in the case of gaining control over his property, it is obligatory to take back one’s right.
And this will not be considered a breach of trust; rather, breach of trust would be if he takes more than his right.
Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhi – Majlis ‘Ilmi Dar al-Da‘wah, New Delhi Edition, Page: 1264
Shaykh Umar Farooq Saeedi
Benefits and Issues:
Benefit: In general types of dealings, if someone commits an excess against another, then retaliation in kind is permissible. The Noble Qur’an, by the principle (And the recompense of an evil is an evil like it) (Ash-Shura: 40), has permitted this. However, in those rights where prescribed punishments (hudud) apply, their judgment is the responsibility of the ruler (hakim). Similarly, the matter of betrayal (khiyanah) is also specific. If someone has unjustly usurped a right and refuses to return it, and then by chance some trust (amanah) or borrowed item (ariyah) of the oppressor comes into the hands of the oppressed, then should he keep his right and return the rest, or should he return the trust in full? The aforementioned ahadith do not permit betrayal. And betrayal always involves deception and theft. Therefore, such general permission cannot be given to any Muslim. However, if he explicitly states that he is taking his such-and-such right, then it will be permissible.
Benefit: In general types of dealings, if someone commits an excess against another, then retaliation in kind is permissible. The Noble Qur’an, by the principle (And the recompense of an evil is an evil like it) (Ash-Shura: 40), has permitted this. However, in those rights where prescribed punishments (hudud) apply, their judgment is the responsibility of the ruler (hakim). Similarly, the matter of betrayal (khiyanah) is also specific. If someone has unjustly usurped a right and refuses to return it, and then by chance some trust (amanah) or borrowed item (ariyah) of the oppressor comes into the hands of the oppressed, then should he keep his right and return the rest, or should he return the trust in full? The aforementioned ahadith do not permit betrayal. And betrayal always involves deception and theft. Therefore, such general permission cannot be given to any Muslim. However, if he explicitly states that he is taking his such-and-such right, then it will be permissible.
Source: Sunan Abu Dawood – Commentary by Shaykh Umar Farooq Saeedi, Page: 3535
Shaykh Safi ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri
Takhrij:
«أخرجه أبواداود، البيوع، باب في الرجل يأخذ حقه من تحت يده، حديث:3535، الترمذي، البيوع، حديث:1264، والحاكم:2 /46 وصححه علي شرط مسلم، ووافقه الذهبي.* حميد الطويل عنعن، وانظر علل الحديث لابن أبي حاتم:1 /375، وللحديث شواهد.»©Explanation:
The aforementioned narration is weak in its chain of transmission; however, the issue that has been stated in it is correct in light of other evidences, as has been mentioned above.
And Allah knows best.
«أخرجه أبواداود، البيوع، باب في الرجل يأخذ حقه من تحت يده، حديث:3535، الترمذي، البيوع، حديث:1264، والحاكم:2 /46 وصححه علي شرط مسلم، ووافقه الذهبي.* حميد الطويل عنعن، وانظر علل الحديث لابن أبي حاتم:1 /375، وللحديث شواهد.»©Explanation:
The aforementioned narration is weak in its chain of transmission; however, the issue that has been stated in it is correct in light of other evidences, as has been mentioned above.
And Allah knows best.
Source: Bulugh al-Maram: Commentary by Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, Page: 752
