The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

Trade linguistically is exchange in an unrestricted manner, and it is opposite to purchase. Trade is also used for purchase, just as purchase is used for trade. So it is said he (ba’a) purchased it from from him meaning he bought it, and they (shara) sold to them meaning they sold it so each of them is used for the other and the connotation specifies the meaning. As for trade in the Shar’a, it is exchanging property for property in placing in possession and being placed in possession by mutual agreement. Trade is permitted by the Book and Sunnah. Allah (swt) said:

And He (swt) said:

And:

And he (saw) said:

And Rufa’ah narrated

He also narrated via the way of Abu Said from the Prophet (saw) that he said:

It is a condition for the trader that there exists offer and acceptance by words indicating each one of them or what stands in the place of words like the signs of the mute person. Writing is considered from speech. As for practical trade like where the buyer takes the good and pays its price like buying bread, books, postal stamps and the like, it is looked into. If it is a good with a well-known price in the market without bargaining therein then the action indicates offer and acceptance so it is considered trade and it is what the fuqaha term trade of mutual taking. Whereas if the price of the good is not defined in the market and needs bargaining, then the trade of mutual taking is not valid therein because the action does not indicate offer and acceptance as it is possible for disputes to enter therein. This is opposite to what transactions must be since transactions must be of a form preventing disputes. So this trade of mutual taking is not considered trading due to the absence of the clear statement upon offer and acceptance. Accordingly this clarifies that since offer and acceptance are conditions of the validity of the trade, it is necessary for them to occur by words indicating them or an sign indicating them with a decisive indication not carrying (any possibility) other than the two together with the absence of dispute.

Trade is accomplished in other that what is measured, weighed or counted merely upon finishing the contract, and taking possession is not a condition to conclude the trade therein. If the sold thing spoils before its possession is taken, this is in the responsibility of the buyer and not the responsibility of the seller like the buying of the house, animal, car and what is similar to that which is not measured, weighed or counted. This is because of the Messenger (saw) saying:

The increase in this trade is for the buyer so its surety is upon him. So if he bought an animal and did not take possession of it then it give birth, its child is for the buyer not the seller. And (also) due to what ibn Umar narrated:

Disposition occurred therein before its possession was taken so it is excluded because it is not measured, weighed or counted. However if the trade occurs upon (something) measured, weighed or counted, the trade is not completed except upon taking possession of the sold thing so if the sold thing spoils before its possession is taken, then it is from the property of the seller. This is because the Prophet (saw) prohibited the sale of foodstuff before its possession is taken, and due to his (saw) statement:

And Muslim narrated from ibn Umar who said:

This indicates that the sold thing is in the responsibility of the seller. Were it to enter the responsibility of the buyer, it will be permitted for him to sell it and dispose it just like after taking its possession. So when he prohibited its sale before taking possession, he had prohibited disposal of it meaning that his ownership in it is not completed so it is in the responsibility of the seller, not the buyer. Accordingly even though the prohibition came regarding foodstuff, foodstuff is not free of being measured, weighed or counted. So the prohibition is placed upon measured, weighed and counted foodstuff so the prohibition covers selling everything measured, weighed or counted until its possession is taken whether it is foodstuff or not since it came in some ahadith stating the measured thing, some stating the merchandise and some stating a thing. Muslim narrated that the Prophet (saw) said:

And it is narrated from Hakeem bin Hazam who said:

It is narrated from Zayd bin Thabit:

And Ahmad narrated that the Prophet (saw) said:

All these ahadith indicate the generality of things measured, weighed or counted with the evidence of excluding things not measured, weighed or counted by the hadith of ibn Umar wherein it was mentioned that he i.e. the Messenger of Allah (saw) bought from Umar a camel and his gifting it to Abdullah bin Umar before taking its possession. So taking possession is not a condition therein contrary to measured, weighed and counted things where taking possession by the buyer of the sold thing is a condition for completing the sale. The taking possession considered taking possession by the Shar’a differs according to the difference of things. The taking possession of each thing is by confining it, so if it is measured and weighed then its taking possession is by measuring or weighing it due to what Al-Bukhari narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) who said:

And from Uthman who said:

Whereas if the sold thing was dirhams and dinars, then taking possession is by hand. If it is clothes then it is by moving them. If it were animals then its taking possession is by walking it from its place. And if it is from that which is not moved or transferred like the house and land, then its taking possession is by vacating between it and its buyer without any obstacle between them. This is because the word taking possession is a word with a deduced definition so if there came no Shar’i text upon it then its reality is considered what an indication to the people is. Taking possession is allowed before or after paying the price because delivery is from the contract’s requirements so whenever it exists after the contract then its reality has occurred. Similarly, taking possession of the price and taking possession of one of the two does not depend upon the other