✍ Authored by: Shaykh Ghulām Mustafa Ẓahīr Amrpūrī
Sayyidunā Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
لَا تُصَرُّوا الْإِبِلَ وَالْغَنَمَ، فَمَنِ ابْتَاعَهَا بَعْدَ فَإِنَّهُ بِخَيْرِ النَّاظِرَيْنِ بَعْدَ أَنْ يَحْتَلِبَهَا، إِنْ شَاءَ أَمْسَكَهَا، وَإِنْ شَاءَ رَدَّهَا وَصَاعًا مِنْ تَمْرٍ
“Do not tie up the udders of camels and goats (to deceive the buyer into thinking they produce more milk). Whoever buys such an animal afterwards has two options: after milking it, if he wishes, he may keep it, or if he wishes, he may return it along with a sāʿ (approx. 2.5 kg) of dates.”
[Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī: 2148, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: 1524]
In another narration from Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim:
مَنِ ابْتَاعَ شَاةً مُصَرَّاةً فَهُوَ فِيهَا بِالْخِيَارِ ثَلَاثَةَ أَيَّامٍ، إِنْ شَاءَ أَمْسَكَهَا، وَإِنْ شَاءَ رَدَّهَا، وَرَدَّ مَعَهَا صَاعًا مِنْ تَمْرٍ، لَا سَمْرَاءَ
“Whoever buys a muṣarrāh goat (whose milk has been held back), he has the choice for three days. If he wishes, he may keep it, and if he wishes, he may return it with a sāʿ of dates — not wheat.”
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr رحمه الله (d. 463 AH) states:
هو حديث مجتمع على صحته وثبوته من جهة النقل
“There is consensus on the authenticity and transmission of this ḥadīth.”
[al-Tamhīd: 18/208]
Imām al-Tirmidhī رحمه الله writes:
العمل على هذا الحديث عند أصحابنا منهم الشافعي، وأحمد، وإسحاق
“Our companions including al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad, and Isḥāq act upon this ḥadīth.”
[Sunan al-Tirmidhī, under ḥadīth: 1252]
A Companion narrates:
مَنْ اشْتَرَى شَاةً مُصَرَّاةً أَوْ نَاقَةً… فَهُوَ مِنْهَا بِآخِرِ النَّاظِرَيْنِ، إِذَا هُوَ حَلَبَهَا، إِنْ رَدَّهَا، رَدَّ مَعَهَا صَاعًا مِنْ طَعَامٍ
“Whoever buys a muṣarrāh goat or she-camel... after milking it, has the final say. If he returns it, he should return a sāʿ of food (dates).”
[Musnad Aḥmad: 18819 – Chain authentic]
Muṣarrāh refers to an animal whose milk is intentionally withheld in its udders for one or two days to deceive the buyer into believing it produces more milk.
This is harām and deceitful.
ʿAllāmah Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd رحمه الله (d. 702 AH) said:
لا خلاف أن التصرية حرام
“There is no difference of opinion that withholding milk (to deceive) is forbidden.”
[Iḥkām al-Aḥkām: 2/112]
This deceptive act makes the animal defective. Hence, the buyer is given a three-day window to return it. If returned after milking, a sāʿ of dates must also be given in exchange for the milk consumed.
Despite the unanimous agreement on its authenticity, the People of Opinion (Ahl al-Ra’y) reject this ḥadīth, considering it against analogy (qiyās).
They raised objections, which ʿAllāmah Ibn al-ʿArabī rebutted convincingly in ʿĀriḍat al-Aḥwadhī. Below are selected objections and their responses.
The Ahl al-Ra’y say:
“The compensation of one sāʿ of dates for unknown quantities of milk lacks proportion and violates analogy. Furthermore, Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه, the narrator, is not a jurist, so we leave his narration in this case.”
[Nūr al-Anwār: 183, Uṣūl al-Shāshī: 75]
The narration of Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه is a clear text (naṣ), and to reject a naṣ based on analogy is impermissible.
Imām Ibn Sīrīn رحمه الله said:
أول من قاس إبليس
“The first to use analogy (qiyās) was Iblīs.”
[Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah: 14/86 – ḥasan]
ʿAllāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī responded:
هذا الجواب باطل لا يلتفت إليه
“This answer is false and unworthy of attention.”
[Fayḍ al-Bārī: 3/23]
He further says:
“Saying that Abū Hurayrah was not a jurist and thus rejecting the ḥadīth because it opposes analogy — such views are baseless and not even supported by Abū Ḥanīfah or his students.”
[al-ʿUrf al-Shadhī: 3/33]
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar رحمه الله wrote:
هو كلام أذى قائله به نفسه
“The one who said this has harmed himself.”
[Fatḥ al-Bārī: 4/364]
Imām al-Dhahabī رحمه الله (d. 748 AH) laments such arguments in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ and says:
“Some reject hundreds of authentic narrations while accepting weak and baseless ones. They forget they all will stand before Allah. Where is the fairness in denying the mutawātir narrations about seeing Allah in the Hereafter?”
[Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ: 10/455]
Qāḍī Abū Ṭayyib narrates:
Once a young man from Khurāsān rejected the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah in a mosque gathering. Suddenly, a large snake fell from the ceiling. The boy fled in terror, and the snake disappeared.
[al-Muntaẓam by Ibn al-Jawzī: 17/106 – chain authentic]
مَنْ اشْتَرَى شَاةً مُحَفَّلَةً فَرَدَّهَا، فَلْيَرُدَّ مَعَهَا صَاعًا مِنْ تَمْرٍ
“Whoever buys a muṣarrāh goat and returns it, must return it with a sāʿ of dates.”
[Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī: 2149]
Mawlānā Maḥmūd al-Ḥasan writes:
“If Abū Hurayrah’s narration is rejected, what about the narration from Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه that al-Bukhārī also reports?”
[Naqār Mur Sh. al-Hind: 143]
Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī says:
“Who dares say that Abū Hurayrah was not a jurist? Even if we accept this, Ibn Masʿūd — the most learned of them — also narrated the same.”
[Fayḍ al-Bārī: 3/231]
Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī says:
“The ruling in the ḥadīth was for a specific case, but the narrator generalized it. The narration contradicts general principles.”
[Taqrīr Tirmidhī: p. 678]
This is a grave misconception. The use of مَنْ in the Prophet’s ﷺ words مَنِ اشْتَرَى شَاةً implies generality, and the fatwā of ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd supports this interpretation.
Ibn Ḥazm رحمه الله (d. 456 AH) replied powerfully:
“Those who say this ḥadīth opposes principles are liars. It is a foundational principle itself. The real contradictions lie in their bizarre opinions like: only laughter in prayer breaks wudū’, vomiting does not, whipping runaway slaves with fixed penalties, making ablution with wine, etc.”
[al-Muḥallā: 6/67–68]
Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī says:
“Since the milk was fed and consumed by the buyer, it became his property. So why should he pay a sāʿ in return?”
[Taqrīr Tirmidhī: p. 677]
This is the judgment of the Prophet ﷺ — and it is based entirely on justice.
Allah ﷻ says:
﴿وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ﴾
“It is not for a believing man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger decide a matter, to have any choice in it.”
[Surah al-Aḥzāb: 36]
If the animal is returned before milking, then no sāʿ is required, as agreed upon by consensus.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr رحمه الله affirms:
هذا ما لا خلاف فيه فقف عليه
“There is no difference of opinion in this matter. So accept it.”
[al-Istidhkār: 6/534, al-Tamhīd: 18/216]
Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī states:
"Imām Abū Ḥanīfah said: Muṣarrāh (the act of withholding milk to make the animal appear more productive) is not a defect. This is because the sale contract only requires that the item sold be free from defects. Since the milk is a benefit, and not the essence of the animal, it does not affect the actual transaction, regardless of whether the milk is little or much. Thus, neither the buyer nor the judge has the right to annul the sale.”
[Dars Tirmidhī, p. 675]
The right to return the animal is a grant from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and no one may override it. It is universally recognized that withholding milk to exaggerate productivity is deceit. If the buyer discovers the animal gives much less milk than implied, then it is a clear defect. The buyer has the right to rescind the sale — but whether he exercises it or not is his discretion.
Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī also says:
"If the buyer and seller agree mutually to reverse the transaction, then it is permissible.”
[Taqrīr Tirmidhī, p. 675]
In this matter, mutual consent is irrelevant. Only Sharīʿah holds authority. The Prophet ﷺ said:
إن شاء أمسك، وإن شاء ردها وصاع تمر
“If he wishes, he may keep it. If he wishes, he may return it with a sāʿ of dates.”
If the buyer chooses to act upon his right, the seller is obligated to comply — otherwise, he will be guilty of disobeying the Prophet ﷺ.
Mawlānā Sarfarāz Khān Ṣafdar argues:
“This ḥadīth contradicts the Qur’ānic rule: ﴿فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ﴾ (Retaliate in like manner). Compensation should be exact (either in kind or value). A sāʿ of dates is neither equivalent in form nor in value to the milk.”
[al-Kalām al-Mufīd, pp. 272–273; Khazāʾin al-Sunan, p. 548]
◈ To reject a ḥadīth claiming it opposes the Qur’an is the method of ḥadīth-rejecters, not Ahl al-Sunnah.
Even Mawlānā Ṣafdar himself wrote elsewhere:
“No authentic ḥadīth of the Ṣiḥāḥ Sittah contradicts any verse of the Noble Qur’an. If a contradiction appears to someone, it is due to their own misunderstanding.”
[Shawq Ḥadīth, p. 153]
Yet here, he opposes that principle.
◈ This Qur’ānic verse pertains to penal law (ʿuqūbāt), while the ḥadīth concerns financial matters. In such cases, compensation is sometimes exact, and sometimes determined by the Prophet ﷺ.
If dates are neither equivalent in value nor form, then they are a Sharʿī equivalent, as determined by the Prophet ﷺ himself — and no one has the right to object once the Prophet ﷺ has ruled.
Mawlānā Ṣafdar continues:
“This ḥadīth contradicts the principle of al-kharāj bi al-ḍamān (profit is linked with liability). The buyer bore the costs, so the milk belongs to him. He should not be required to give a sāʿ in return.”
[al-Kalām al-Mufīd, p. 273]
All such matters were well-known to the Prophet ﷺ, yet he ruled that a sāʿ of dates be given. Creating conflicts between aḥādīth only leads to confusion.
The rule al-kharāj bi al-ḍamān is general. The ḥadīth of muṣarrāh is specific — and in cases of conflict, specific rulings take precedence.
Imām Ṭaḥāwī raised this objection, to which ʿAllāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī replied:
أقول: إن هذا الجواب ليس بذاك القوي
“I say: This is not a strong response.”
[al-ʿUrf al-Shadhī: 1/368]
Mawlānā Ṣafdar says:
“Selling one type of food (ṭaʿām) for another on credit (nasīʾah) is not permitted. Since milk and dates are both foods, this contradicts Islamic rulings.”
[al-Kalām al-Mufīd, p. 273]
This is not a sale, but rather a compensation after the sale is annulled due to a discovered defect.
The rules on food-for-food on credit apply to sales, not compensation.
Additionally, milk is not among the specific items mentioned in ribā-related prohibitions.
Mawlānā Ṣafdar further says:
“It is not permitted to sell an estimated quantity (juzāf) against a weighed/measured quantity. Here, milk is estimated and dates are weighed.”
[al-Kalām al-Mufīd, p. 273]
This again assumes it is a sale, which it is not. It is a legal compensation (taʿwīḍ) determined by the Prophet ﷺ, which overrides all analogies.
Mawlānā Ṣafdar cites Imām Ṭaḥāwī, saying:
“The ḥadīth of Muṣarrāh predates the revelation of the verses prohibiting ribā, and is therefore abrogated.”
[al-Kalām al-Mufīd, p. 273]
This is a baseless claim without evidence.
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar notes:
لكنه يكثر من ادعائه النسخ بالاحتمال فجرى على عادته
“Imām Ṭaḥāwī often claims abrogation based on assumptions — it was his habit.”
[Fatḥ al-Bārī: 9/478]
Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله also warns:
“Many who reject authentic ḥadīths from Abū Ḥanīfah’s camp say it’s abrogated — without knowing the actual abrogation or producing any evidence.”
[Majmūʿ Fatāwā: 21/150]
Moreover, the fatwā of ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه supports this ḥadīth — proving it is not abrogated.
Citing Imām Ṭaḥāwī, Mawlānā Ṣafdar argues:
“This ḥadīth contradicts the narration: ‘Don’t sell debt for debt (al-kālī bil-kālī).’ The buyer hasn’t received the full milk, nor has the seller received the dates, so this is debt-for-debt.”
[al-Kalām al-Mufīd, pp. 273–274]
The narration of al-kālī bil-kālī is found in sources such as Sunan al-Dāraquṭnī, al-Bazzār, Ṭabarānī, and others — but its chain is weak due to Mūsá ibn ʿUbaydah, who is declared weak by majority scholars.
Ibn Kathīr states:
إن الربدي ضعيف عند الأكثرين
“Al-Rabadhī is weak according to most scholars.”
[Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr: 4/148]
Imām Zaylaʿī confirms:
“Al-Bayhaqī corrected Dāraquṭnī and Ḥākim, clarifying the weak narrator is Mūsá ibn ʿUbaydah.”
[Naṣb al-Rāyah: 4/40]
Hence, declaring this ḥadīth abrogated or opposing Muṣarrāh is unfounded.
Mawlānā Ṣafdar writes:
“The senior scholars of Deoband interpret the ḥadīth of Muṣarrāh as a suggestion for reconciliation, not as a legal obligation.”
[Khazāʾin al-Sunan, pp. 49–50]
The Prophet ﷺ did not present this as a suggestion, but as a decisive ruling. You cannot restrict a general ruling with such a conditional clause without evidence.
Ibn al-Qayyim رحمه الله states:
“A ḥadīth is itself a foundational principle. It is absurd to say that a foundational source contradicts the principles. The true principles are only the Qur’an and Sunnah. All other matters return to them. Thus, the ḥadīth of Muṣarrāh is in perfect harmony with correct reasoning and legal analogy. If not, then the entire Sharīʿah would contradict invalid analogies. It’s astonishing that people accept ablution with fermented wine as per analogy, but reject the ḥadīth of Muṣarrāh due to so-called analogy!”
[Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn: 2/311]
Mawlānā Ashraf ʿAlī Thānwī, sorrowfully remarked:
“Most of the blindly-following masses — even scholars — are so rigid that if a verse or ḥadīth contradicts their Imām’s saying, they don’t feel joy or openness of heart. Instead, denial arises, and they begin to force interpretations, no matter how far-fetched, even if the Imām’s evidence is only analogy. Their hearts refuse to leave the Imām’s statement in favor of the Prophet’s.”
[Tadhkirat al-Rashīd by ʿĀshiq Ilāhī: 1/131]
So let us wholeheartedly submit to the ḥadīths of the Prophet ﷺ, for in them lies success and salvation.
◈ The Ḥadīth
Sayyidunā Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
لَا تُصَرُّوا الْإِبِلَ وَالْغَنَمَ، فَمَنِ ابْتَاعَهَا بَعْدَ فَإِنَّهُ بِخَيْرِ النَّاظِرَيْنِ بَعْدَ أَنْ يَحْتَلِبَهَا، إِنْ شَاءَ أَمْسَكَهَا، وَإِنْ شَاءَ رَدَّهَا وَصَاعًا مِنْ تَمْرٍ
“Do not tie up the udders of camels and goats (to deceive the buyer into thinking they produce more milk). Whoever buys such an animal afterwards has two options: after milking it, if he wishes, he may keep it, or if he wishes, he may return it along with a sāʿ (approx. 2.5 kg) of dates.”
[Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī: 2148, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: 1524]
In another narration from Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim:
مَنِ ابْتَاعَ شَاةً مُصَرَّاةً فَهُوَ فِيهَا بِالْخِيَارِ ثَلَاثَةَ أَيَّامٍ، إِنْ شَاءَ أَمْسَكَهَا، وَإِنْ شَاءَ رَدَّهَا، وَرَدَّ مَعَهَا صَاعًا مِنْ تَمْرٍ، لَا سَمْرَاءَ
“Whoever buys a muṣarrāh goat (whose milk has been held back), he has the choice for three days. If he wishes, he may keep it, and if he wishes, he may return it with a sāʿ of dates — not wheat.”
◈ Scholarly Consensus
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr رحمه الله (d. 463 AH) states:
هو حديث مجتمع على صحته وثبوته من جهة النقل
“There is consensus on the authenticity and transmission of this ḥadīth.”
[al-Tamhīd: 18/208]
Imām al-Tirmidhī رحمه الله writes:
العمل على هذا الحديث عند أصحابنا منهم الشافعي، وأحمد، وإسحاق
“Our companions including al-Shāfiʿī, Aḥmad, and Isḥāq act upon this ḥadīth.”
[Sunan al-Tirmidhī, under ḥadīth: 1252]
◈ Another Supporting Report
A Companion narrates:
مَنْ اشْتَرَى شَاةً مُصَرَّاةً أَوْ نَاقَةً… فَهُوَ مِنْهَا بِآخِرِ النَّاظِرَيْنِ، إِذَا هُوَ حَلَبَهَا، إِنْ رَدَّهَا، رَدَّ مَعَهَا صَاعًا مِنْ طَعَامٍ
“Whoever buys a muṣarrāh goat or she-camel... after milking it, has the final say. If he returns it, he should return a sāʿ of food (dates).”
[Musnad Aḥmad: 18819 – Chain authentic]
❖ Definition of Muṣarrāh
Muṣarrāh refers to an animal whose milk is intentionally withheld in its udders for one or two days to deceive the buyer into believing it produces more milk.
This is harām and deceitful.
ʿAllāmah Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd رحمه الله (d. 702 AH) said:
لا خلاف أن التصرية حرام
“There is no difference of opinion that withholding milk (to deceive) is forbidden.”
[Iḥkām al-Aḥkām: 2/112]
This deceptive act makes the animal defective. Hence, the buyer is given a three-day window to return it. If returned after milking, a sāʿ of dates must also be given in exchange for the milk consumed.
❖ The People of Ra’y (Opinion) and the Ḥadīth of Muṣarrāh
Despite the unanimous agreement on its authenticity, the People of Opinion (Ahl al-Ra’y) reject this ḥadīth, considering it against analogy (qiyās).
They raised objections, which ʿAllāmah Ibn al-ʿArabī rebutted convincingly in ʿĀriḍat al-Aḥwadhī. Below are selected objections and their responses.
❖ Objection ①: The Dates vs. Milk Exchange Lacks Equivalence
The Ahl al-Ra’y say:
“The compensation of one sāʿ of dates for unknown quantities of milk lacks proportion and violates analogy. Furthermore, Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه, the narrator, is not a jurist, so we leave his narration in this case.”
[Nūr al-Anwār: 183, Uṣūl al-Shāshī: 75]
Response:
The narration of Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه is a clear text (naṣ), and to reject a naṣ based on analogy is impermissible.
Imām Ibn Sīrīn رحمه الله said:
أول من قاس إبليس
“The first to use analogy (qiyās) was Iblīs.”
[Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah: 14/86 – ḥasan]
ʿAllāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī responded:
هذا الجواب باطل لا يلتفت إليه
“This answer is false and unworthy of attention.”
[Fayḍ al-Bārī: 3/23]
He further says:
“Saying that Abū Hurayrah was not a jurist and thus rejecting the ḥadīth because it opposes analogy — such views are baseless and not even supported by Abū Ḥanīfah or his students.”
[al-ʿUrf al-Shadhī: 3/33]
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar رحمه الله wrote:
هو كلام أذى قائله به نفسه
“The one who said this has harmed himself.”
[Fatḥ al-Bārī: 4/364]
Imām al-Dhahabī رحمه الله (d. 748 AH) laments such arguments in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ and says:
“Some reject hundreds of authentic narrations while accepting weak and baseless ones. They forget they all will stand before Allah. Where is the fairness in denying the mutawātir narrations about seeing Allah in the Hereafter?”
[Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ: 10/455]
❖ The Miracle of Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه
Qāḍī Abū Ṭayyib narrates:
Once a young man from Khurāsān rejected the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayrah in a mosque gathering. Suddenly, a large snake fell from the ceiling. The boy fled in terror, and the snake disappeared.
[al-Muntaẓam by Ibn al-Jawzī: 17/106 – chain authentic]
❖ Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه’s Verdict
مَنْ اشْتَرَى شَاةً مُحَفَّلَةً فَرَدَّهَا، فَلْيَرُدَّ مَعَهَا صَاعًا مِنْ تَمْرٍ
“Whoever buys a muṣarrāh goat and returns it, must return it with a sāʿ of dates.”
[Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī: 2149]
Mawlānā Maḥmūd al-Ḥasan writes:
“If Abū Hurayrah’s narration is rejected, what about the narration from Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه that al-Bukhārī also reports?”
[Naqār Mur Sh. al-Hind: 143]
Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī says:
“Who dares say that Abū Hurayrah was not a jurist? Even if we accept this, Ibn Masʿūd — the most learned of them — also narrated the same.”
[Fayḍ al-Bārī: 3/231]
❖ Objection ②: The Ḥadīth is Contextual, Not a General Rule
Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī says:
“The ruling in the ḥadīth was for a specific case, but the narrator generalized it. The narration contradicts general principles.”
[Taqrīr Tirmidhī: p. 678]
Response:
This is a grave misconception. The use of مَنْ in the Prophet’s ﷺ words مَنِ اشْتَرَى شَاةً implies generality, and the fatwā of ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd supports this interpretation.
Ibn Ḥazm رحمه الله (d. 456 AH) replied powerfully:
“Those who say this ḥadīth opposes principles are liars. It is a foundational principle itself. The real contradictions lie in their bizarre opinions like: only laughter in prayer breaks wudū’, vomiting does not, whipping runaway slaves with fixed penalties, making ablution with wine, etc.”
[al-Muḥallā: 6/67–68]
❖ Objection ③: Milk Belongs to the Buyer; Why Pay for It?
Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī says:
“Since the milk was fed and consumed by the buyer, it became his property. So why should he pay a sāʿ in return?”
[Taqrīr Tirmidhī: p. 677]
Response:
This is the judgment of the Prophet ﷺ — and it is based entirely on justice.
Allah ﷻ says:
﴿وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَلَا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذَا قَضَى اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَمْرًا أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُمُ الْخِيَرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ﴾
“It is not for a believing man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger decide a matter, to have any choice in it.”
[Surah al-Aḥzāb: 36]
If the animal is returned before milking, then no sāʿ is required, as agreed upon by consensus.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr رحمه الله affirms:
هذا ما لا خلاف فيه فقف عليه
“There is no difference of opinion in this matter. So accept it.”
[al-Istidhkār: 6/534, al-Tamhīd: 18/216]
❖ Objection ④
Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī states:
"Imām Abū Ḥanīfah said: Muṣarrāh (the act of withholding milk to make the animal appear more productive) is not a defect. This is because the sale contract only requires that the item sold be free from defects. Since the milk is a benefit, and not the essence of the animal, it does not affect the actual transaction, regardless of whether the milk is little or much. Thus, neither the buyer nor the judge has the right to annul the sale.”
[Dars Tirmidhī, p. 675]
Refutation:
The right to return the animal is a grant from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and no one may override it. It is universally recognized that withholding milk to exaggerate productivity is deceit. If the buyer discovers the animal gives much less milk than implied, then it is a clear defect. The buyer has the right to rescind the sale — but whether he exercises it or not is his discretion.
❖ Objection ⑤
Mawlānā Ḥusayn Aḥmad Madanī also says:
"If the buyer and seller agree mutually to reverse the transaction, then it is permissible.”
[Taqrīr Tirmidhī, p. 675]
Refutation:
In this matter, mutual consent is irrelevant. Only Sharīʿah holds authority. The Prophet ﷺ said:
إن شاء أمسك، وإن شاء ردها وصاع تمر
“If he wishes, he may keep it. If he wishes, he may return it with a sāʿ of dates.”
If the buyer chooses to act upon his right, the seller is obligated to comply — otherwise, he will be guilty of disobeying the Prophet ﷺ.
❖ Objection ⑥
Mawlānā Sarfarāz Khān Ṣafdar argues:
“This ḥadīth contradicts the Qur’ānic rule: ﴿فَاعْتَدُوا عَلَيْهِ بِمِثْلِ مَا اعْتَدَىٰ عَلَيْكُمْ﴾ (Retaliate in like manner). Compensation should be exact (either in kind or value). A sāʿ of dates is neither equivalent in form nor in value to the milk.”
[al-Kalām al-Mufīd, pp. 272–273; Khazāʾin al-Sunan, p. 548]
Refutation:
◈ To reject a ḥadīth claiming it opposes the Qur’an is the method of ḥadīth-rejecters, not Ahl al-Sunnah.
Even Mawlānā Ṣafdar himself wrote elsewhere:
“No authentic ḥadīth of the Ṣiḥāḥ Sittah contradicts any verse of the Noble Qur’an. If a contradiction appears to someone, it is due to their own misunderstanding.”
[Shawq Ḥadīth, p. 153]
Yet here, he opposes that principle.
◈ This Qur’ānic verse pertains to penal law (ʿuqūbāt), while the ḥadīth concerns financial matters. In such cases, compensation is sometimes exact, and sometimes determined by the Prophet ﷺ.
If dates are neither equivalent in value nor form, then they are a Sharʿī equivalent, as determined by the Prophet ﷺ himself — and no one has the right to object once the Prophet ﷺ has ruled.
❖ Objection ⑦
Mawlānā Ṣafdar continues:
“This ḥadīth contradicts the principle of al-kharāj bi al-ḍamān (profit is linked with liability). The buyer bore the costs, so the milk belongs to him. He should not be required to give a sāʿ in return.”
[al-Kalām al-Mufīd, p. 273]
Refutation:
All such matters were well-known to the Prophet ﷺ, yet he ruled that a sāʿ of dates be given. Creating conflicts between aḥādīth only leads to confusion.
The rule al-kharāj bi al-ḍamān is general. The ḥadīth of muṣarrāh is specific — and in cases of conflict, specific rulings take precedence.
Imām Ṭaḥāwī raised this objection, to which ʿAllāmah Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī replied:
أقول: إن هذا الجواب ليس بذاك القوي
“I say: This is not a strong response.”
[al-ʿUrf al-Shadhī: 1/368]
❖ Objection ⑧
Mawlānā Ṣafdar says:
“Selling one type of food (ṭaʿām) for another on credit (nasīʾah) is not permitted. Since milk and dates are both foods, this contradicts Islamic rulings.”
[al-Kalām al-Mufīd, p. 273]
Refutation:
This is not a sale, but rather a compensation after the sale is annulled due to a discovered defect.
The rules on food-for-food on credit apply to sales, not compensation.
Additionally, milk is not among the specific items mentioned in ribā-related prohibitions.
❖ Objection ⑨
Mawlānā Ṣafdar further says:
“It is not permitted to sell an estimated quantity (juzāf) against a weighed/measured quantity. Here, milk is estimated and dates are weighed.”
[al-Kalām al-Mufīd, p. 273]
Refutation:
This again assumes it is a sale, which it is not. It is a legal compensation (taʿwīḍ) determined by the Prophet ﷺ, which overrides all analogies.
❖ Objection ⑩
Mawlānā Ṣafdar cites Imām Ṭaḥāwī, saying:
“The ḥadīth of Muṣarrāh predates the revelation of the verses prohibiting ribā, and is therefore abrogated.”
[al-Kalām al-Mufīd, p. 273]
Refutation:
This is a baseless claim without evidence.
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar notes:
لكنه يكثر من ادعائه النسخ بالاحتمال فجرى على عادته
“Imām Ṭaḥāwī often claims abrogation based on assumptions — it was his habit.”
[Fatḥ al-Bārī: 9/478]
Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله also warns:
“Many who reject authentic ḥadīths from Abū Ḥanīfah’s camp say it’s abrogated — without knowing the actual abrogation or producing any evidence.”
[Majmūʿ Fatāwā: 21/150]
Moreover, the fatwā of ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه supports this ḥadīth — proving it is not abrogated.
❖ Objection ⑪
Citing Imām Ṭaḥāwī, Mawlānā Ṣafdar argues:
“This ḥadīth contradicts the narration: ‘Don’t sell debt for debt (al-kālī bil-kālī).’ The buyer hasn’t received the full milk, nor has the seller received the dates, so this is debt-for-debt.”
[al-Kalām al-Mufīd, pp. 273–274]
Refutation:
The narration of al-kālī bil-kālī is found in sources such as Sunan al-Dāraquṭnī, al-Bazzār, Ṭabarānī, and others — but its chain is weak due to Mūsá ibn ʿUbaydah, who is declared weak by majority scholars.
Ibn Kathīr states:
إن الربدي ضعيف عند الأكثرين
“Al-Rabadhī is weak according to most scholars.”
[Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr: 4/148]
Imām Zaylaʿī confirms:
“Al-Bayhaqī corrected Dāraquṭnī and Ḥākim, clarifying the weak narrator is Mūsá ibn ʿUbaydah.”
[Naṣb al-Rāyah: 4/40]
Hence, declaring this ḥadīth abrogated or opposing Muṣarrāh is unfounded.
❖ Objection ⑫
Mawlānā Ṣafdar writes:
“The senior scholars of Deoband interpret the ḥadīth of Muṣarrāh as a suggestion for reconciliation, not as a legal obligation.”
[Khazāʾin al-Sunan, pp. 49–50]
Refutation:
The Prophet ﷺ did not present this as a suggestion, but as a decisive ruling. You cannot restrict a general ruling with such a conditional clause without evidence.
Ibn al-Qayyim رحمه الله states:
“A ḥadīth is itself a foundational principle. It is absurd to say that a foundational source contradicts the principles. The true principles are only the Qur’an and Sunnah. All other matters return to them. Thus, the ḥadīth of Muṣarrāh is in perfect harmony with correct reasoning and legal analogy. If not, then the entire Sharīʿah would contradict invalid analogies. It’s astonishing that people accept ablution with fermented wine as per analogy, but reject the ḥadīth of Muṣarrāh due to so-called analogy!”
[Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn: 2/311]
Conclusion
- The Ḥadīth of Muṣarrāh is authentic by chain and content.
- Its narrator Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه was indeed a jurist.
- To declare him non-jurist based on sectarian bias is unjust and an insult to a noble companion.
Mawlānā Ashraf ʿAlī Thānwī, sorrowfully remarked:
“Most of the blindly-following masses — even scholars — are so rigid that if a verse or ḥadīth contradicts their Imām’s saying, they don’t feel joy or openness of heart. Instead, denial arises, and they begin to force interpretations, no matter how far-fetched, even if the Imām’s evidence is only analogy. Their hearts refuse to leave the Imām’s statement in favor of the Prophet’s.”
[Tadhkirat al-Rashīd by ʿĀshiq Ilāhī: 1/131]
So let us wholeheartedly submit to the ḥadīths of the Prophet ﷺ, for in them lies success and salvation.
