This ever moving phenomena of `give and take' `demand and supply' continue enabled in one way or the other. One of the channels of human want and their satisfaction is the most common practice of Buying and Selling which on account of ever rising level of dealings has become more and more complex and irrigated in number and nature. Islam being the Deen of Divine Ordination has given due importance to this phase of human dealings to their minutest details so that greed and avarice, which by way bargain in commercial transaction may not spoil the purity and sanctity. If one hand, Islam teaches and guides the finer and succinct aspects of worship, social and domestic virtues in our personal and corporate life it on the other hand, has given us detailed and essential instruction and commandants in this most common and important department of human life namely `Business Transaction' or simply `Buying and Selling'.

PROBLEM:- In the Shariat terminology the word `Bai-e' meaning sale (or buying and selling stands for the transaction which is earned on (1) through exchange of things with things (known in modern language of commerce as BARTER SYSTEM) or (2) exchange of things with money. This transaction is done either through words of mouth or by deeds. In the former case the basic principles are Eajab-o-Qubool (profferment or presentation of things and the acceptance thereof).

PROBLEM:- In a `buying - selling', one party (may a person or a group of persons) which purchases any thing commodity is called as `Mushtari' or purchaser - buyer, while the other party, that of sellers is called Ba'ye, the seller (the individual or the group). We shall call them as buyer and seller respectively.

PROBLEM:- In this deal of buying - selling, there are certain conditions which must be fulfilled before any transaction will be accepted as fair and equitable.

PROBLEM:- In respect of selling what is commanded is that the article of sale should be handed over to the purchaser and the seller should be owner (possessive) of the price value of the things sold. However if the transaction is kept in abeyance till a particular time, then the deal shall be completed when as the appointed time the sale is completed will mutual consent, the exchange of the article and the price come in respective possession.

PROBLEM:- The process of Eejab (offer of sale) and the Qubool (acceptance of sale) is determined in the order of priority, which also confirm the deal in respect of transfer of the article and the price thereof.

PROBLEM:- The agreement of sale and purchase should be either in the past tense (sold, purchased) or in the present tense (I sell, I purchase/buy) or one in the present tense and the other in past tense (I sell, I purchased). But in any case, it should not in the future tense.

PROBLEM:- The terms of purchase must be in clear words. Any condition imposed in business transaction which may give different interpretation in respect of thing sold/purchased or the mode of payment in cash or in barter exchange will not be correct in terms of these Shariat Laws.

PROBLEM:- Proposal for sale of nay article/good and its affirmation (eijab-o-qubool) must be done in the same sitting. If the man who accepts the sale becomes absent from the sitting, then the whole process becomes void. However if the buyer conveys his affirmation through some person when the sitting is not over, then the deal will be correct.

PROBLEM:- In between the two persons making proposal for sale and the other who accepts, the latter has a right to accept or reject it in the same sitting (This acceptance or rejection of a deal is known as Khay'ar-e-Qabool, the right to accept). There is inheritance in Khayare Qabool meaning that if the buyer dies the deal is complete, then his inheritors can not use the right of the deceased as a matter of course. In that event, the Eijab (presenting for sale) lapses and as such the question of inheritance to use the right of the deceased does not arise.

PROBLEM:- If of the two namely purchaser and the seller, goes away from the sitting (before transaction has taken effect) or the proposer engages himself in some affair other the present deal, then the transaction become void. The seller can withdraw his offer but once the offer has been accepted, it can not the withdrawn.

PROBLEM:- When Eijab-o-Qabool (offer and acceptance0 are over then the transaction becomes complete and binding, now no charge can be made without the consent of the party concerned. It is also necessary that before entering into any bargain both the seller and the buyer must obtain, personally or otherwise satisfaction of one another as regards their merits etc.

PROBLEM:- Articles/goods obtained form shopkeeper on credit and the prices paid according to agreed manner, the transaction in this way is permissible.

PROBLEM:- Wheat, rice barley and all others grain, can be sold and purchased on measurement as well by weight, either by actual weighting or by guess. But by guess only the grain is purchased in some other exchange. Sale of Grain for exchange of cash id permissible, but grain for grain must be exchanged by actual weight or measurement, otherwise any quantity becoming more or less than actual quantity will come within the purview of interest (su'd, which is haram). However if the difference in quantity is less than half a saa, then it is permissible because in less than half a saa in weight/measurement does not amount to deal in interest (su'd).

PROBLEM:- When a house is purchased then all the constructed and unremovable articles come with in the purview of sale / purchase shariat laws.

PROBLEM:- On purchasing fish if a pearl comes out, then if it is in the shell, it belongs to the buyer. If it is the pearl without the shell, then it should be returned to seller provided the fish was caught in the bait. The pearl will remain a trust (amanat) with the fish catcher. If no trace of its real owner is available, even after due publicity, then the pearl should be sold and the amount given is charity. If a pearl is discovered in the stomach of the hen then it should be returned to the seller.

PROBLEM:- The cultivation /agriculture standing on piece of land belongs to the seller if it is sold without an agreement as regards the crops etc. Similarly the tree/trees bearing fruit on being sold the purchaser will have to make a clear understanding with the seller, otherwise the fruits on the trees in question will go to the seller. These conditions also apply to the plant, of (sweet smelling) flower, prior understanding a right to be reached, before plants are handed over to the buyer.

PROBLEM:- When an agricultural land or a fruit bearing tree is sold, it is obligatory to cut the crop and pluck the fruits before handing over possession to the buyer provided the cost of land/tree is paid, otherwise the seller will be allowed to keep the crops/fruits till the transaction is complete.

PROBLEM:- In the above mentioned if the seller desires to keep the crop/fruits standing for some time and he is prepared to pay the cost thereof, then he can do so with he consent of the buyer.

PROBLEM:- If the tree is purchased with intentions to cut it, then the land below the tree is not included in the deal. However if it is purchased to keep it standing, then the land below the tree is included in the deal and it will go to the purchaser.

PROBLEM:- IF a tree has been purchased with the intentions to cut it down, then the buyer shall be asked to cut and take the tree away. He can not leave it standing. However, if he has purchased the tree to keep it standing, in that case the buyer shall not asked to cut it. If he cuts the tree, he can plant another tree there, because the price of land now belongs to the buyer.

PROBLEM:- To sell the agricultural land before the ripening of the crops on the condition that the land will remain with the seller till the crop is ripe, is impermissible. It is also impermissible in respect of an agricultural where the crop is standing to ask the buyer to let the crop stand till it is ripe for harvesting.

PROBLEM:- In the sale of land, all those things are included which are meant for preservation such as trees, houses, whether there is specific mention in the sale agreement or not, However dry trees bamboos grass are not included as they are not preservable.

PROBLEM:- The sale of orchard (fruit-garden) before the blossoming of flowers buds and the fruits is not permissible, even if some fruits have appeared and the rest are expected (it is also imperssible). The buyers shall have clear the trees by plucking the fruits. He can not be allowed to let all the fruits get ripened before be vacates the tree. However if in more fruits appear after the sale of the tree (which were not included in the sale) then the sale shall become in valid because now there remains no distinction in the sale of the previous an those appearing late. On the event of a decision if so derived, as to which fruits belong to the buyer and the seller, an oath will have to be taken between them.

PROBLEM:- If fruits on at the trees are purchased without mention the condition as to when the fruits be removed from the trees. If the seller permits to pluck the fruits and if more fruits appear, they are the rightful property of the buyer (the rest of the details in this problem are merely hypothetical and a bit complex). The same also applies to the next problem.

PROBLEM:- Part or parts of thing including animal on which exclusive right of the buyer is valid, can be exempted from the sale of that article for example, from the bulk of grains, some quantity can be purchased. It is not obligatory that the whole bulk be purchased. Similarly from the herd of goats, a single goat can be purchased. The things so picked up from the bulk are known as exceptions.

PROBLEM:- IF the thing meant for sale is to be measured, weighed or counted and extra payment is to be made on there accounts, then the payment is to be borne by the seller.

PROBLEM:- The payment of brokerage to the broker is to be made to by the seller, it the former has arranged the sale of goods with his permission. If the broker has only worked as a middle man and the selling was done by the owner of the goods, then the payment of the brokerage may be done as is customary at that place.

PROBLEM:- The sale of the article is to be done on cash payment on the spot, then the buyer has no right to impose any condition as regards payment or not be quality of the goods/article, without paying the price he can not take possession of the article. The Seller has a right to stop handing over the articles. If the article of sale is not present on the spot, the seller can not demand the cash payment. If the sale is in the form of exchange of goods on both sides, then the articles should be presented simultaneously, to complete the deal.

PROBLEM:- If the purchaser makes some change in the article of purchase for which possession is not necessary, then this change is not valid. If he make the change when possession before payment is necessary, then this change/alteration is permissible.

PROBLEM:- If the buyer keeps the article with some one as a trust or kept it for use temporarily or he lets the seller to keep with some one else which he does, then in all these cases the possession takes place, or he keeps the article with the seller, for temporary use or on hire or he places the article as pawn, after making part payment, then in the latter event, possession does by the buyer does not place.

PROBLEM:- The buyer buys oils and tells the seller to send it to some one by his man, now if the bottles falls and breaks on the way, there the loss shall be of the buyer. However if he tells the shopkeeper with any one of his men and the loss occurs then the loss shall be of the seller.

PROBLEM:- If after purchasing an article it was left with the seller telling him he shall it the next day. Supposing the thing sold was an animal which died during the night. In this case the loss shall be of the seller, because the buyer had not the possession, the purchaser has nothing to do with the loss.

PROBLEM:- A thing was sold but the price was not paid, It was kept with third person with the promise that the buyer will pay the price and take the thing, the thing was lost with the third person. In this case also the loss is of the seller. If that third man after receiving part price he hands over the thing to the buyer of which incident the seller is not aware of , now the seller can take the thing back from the buyer.

PROBLEM:- Suppose a piece of cloth is purchased the price of which has not been paid which would entitle the purchaser to take it in his possession. He told the seller to place the cloth with another person on the plea that the buyer would pay the price. The buyers kept the cloth with the third person where it was lost. In this case also the loss in that of the seller, because the possession is still the seller. Therefore the loss shall be of the seller.

PROBLEM:- In a sale deed any thing change made at the behest the buyer will amount to the possession of the buyer even if m thing remains with the seller and the price has not been paid by the buyer. (The buyer will have to pay the price and take possession of the thing.)

PROBLEM:- K.S is not permissible before making a commitment to undertake a deal definitely. If there is a difference of opinion between the buyer and the seller, One says that K.S. was there in the deal while the other denies this, then the party claiming K.S. should be asked to produce witnesses in support of his stand.If he fails to do so, then the other party's stand will be taken as correct.

PROBLEM:- The time limit of K.S. is maximum three days. It can be less, but not more. It the deal is in respect of a thing which is perishable and the buyer has the K.S. for only three days (the thing may not last for that time). In such a case ,the buyer will be asked to cancel the deal or declare the deal as valid (in spite of K.S.). If some one purchase this perishable thing without K.S., but remains absent or disappears without making payment or taking possession, then the seller has the right to deal with another person.

PROBLEM:- If there is no mention of K.S. or the period is not quite clear or any other ambiguous condition then in all there cases K.S. is faulty or inoperative.

PROBLEM:- The time limit for K.S. was fixed for more than three days, but before the expiry of his period the party holding K.S. declares the deal as valid. This is so, but if three days are over to without declaring the deal as valid, then the deal becomes invalid.

PROBLEM:- The buyer said to the seller, `If I do not pay the price with in three days, then the deal between us shall be treated as canceled.' This plea is permissible under K.S. IF he pays the price in time the deal is finalised, otherwise it becomes withdrawn.

PROBLEM:- The seller kept the K.S. to himself and as such the article for sale did not come out in the open, but the buyer took possession either with the permission of the seller or by force and it was destroyed/lost while in the possession of the "buyer", then latter (buyer)will have to pay a reasonable amount as ransom

PROBLEM:- If the K.S. is with the seller, then the price does not in the hands of the purchaser, but it does not go in the possession of the seller.

PROBLEM:- If the buyer has kept the K.S. with himself then the article of sale goes out of the possession of the seller.

PROBLEM:- The article of sale is in the possession of the buyer and it has been damaged, then price shall be paid by the buyer and if the K.S with the seller, then the cost is due on the buyer.

PROBLEM:- Both the seller and the buyer have K.S. with them, then the article will not go out of authority of the seller, nor will the price will not be out of the possession (i.e. property or milkiyat) of the buyer. Then, if the seller makes any use (Tasarruf) of it, then the deal will become void. If the buyer makes any use of the price, then the deal shall become from the buyers's side.

PROBLEM:- Who so ever has the K.S. with him, either seller, the buyer or any third party, when he declares the deal as valid, then it becomes valid for all intents and purposes, whether or not the other person come to know bout it. However if both had the K.S. then declaration by one party will not be taken as the finality of the deal.

PROBLEM:- If the man having K.S. cancels the deal, then there are two possibilities, if he declares cancellation by words of mouth, then the other party should know within the time limit. If the other person does not know at all about it or comes to know after the time limit, then the cancellations is not valid which means that the deal must be finalised.

PROBLEM:- If, one who has the K.S. declares the deal as valid (in order) or cancels his K.S., then no K.S remains operative and the deal will be compulsorily finalised.

PROBLEM:- If the person having the K.S. dies within the time limit, the K.S. becomes null and void. It can not be transferred to his heirs, because there is no inheritance in the K.S.

PROBLEM:- If the buyer has the K.S. then unless the time limit of K.S expires the seller can not demand the cost/price> However if the buyer has given the cash, then the seller will have to hand over the article to the buyer. If the seller has handed over the article, then the buyer will have to hand over the price, but he has the right to annul the deal.

PROBLEM:- When the buyer exercise his authority by using the object of sale in order to its usefulness (on final deal) and the part of test in such that he could also on any other thing which he has no possession, then in that event the K.S. (the power of condition) will not lapse. If his method of testing was not all necessary or this test on any thing not in his possessive right is not permissible then in the latter case his power of condition (K.S) will be invalid, it will lapse.

PROBLEM:- When some definite conditions are made prior to finalising a deal, which are not predictable, then the deals become invalid. For example when buying a she-goat if a definite milk is demanded from her or that it should be pregnant, then this deal will be invalid. However if the buyer demands that it should yield good quality of milk, the deal will be in order.

PROBLEM:- If among some things, the buyer wants one among them, he can select any piece of his choice. This is known as Authority / power of selection, and in Shariat terminology it is called `Khaya'r-e-Ta'een'. For this there are certain condition: (1) The buyer should fix/select any one thing for purchasing and not all the things in the lot. (2) From two or things he may select any one, but not one among four or more things. (3) The buyer should be told to pick up one (thing) which he likes. (4) The time limit for this choice should be maximum three days. (5) This power of fixation or selection should be confined on tare or high priced and not in things the like of which are available.

PROBLEM:- After fixing the price, the question of compensation arises, when the customer takes the thing with intention to purchase and it is damaged en-routes. Other wise not.

PROBLEM:- Suppose a customer takes a piece of cloth from the shopkeeper on condition if it is found suitable but the piece of cloth is lost. In this case no compensation is due, However if he takes the cloth saying if it is found suitable, he would pay Rs.10 as its price. If the said piece of cloth is lost, the customer will have to pay the compensation(because after fixing the price, the thing has become the property of the customer.

PROBLEM:- When a thing (packed or invisible from out side) is found unsuitable after inspecting it or not according to standers (mentioned by the seller) the customer has a right to cancel the deal.

PROBLEM:- Even if the customer expresses his intention to purchase it, without seeing or inspecting it and the thing is found unsuitable, he has still the right to cancel the deal, because has not exercised his right of inspection.

PROBLEM:- There is no time limit for K.R. (Khaya'r-e-Ruyet or right of inspection) after which this right can not the exercised, because this authority or right comes in force only on and after inspection of the thing under deal, and this exists unless and until, the customer personally or through some one after having inspecting the thing expresses his willingness or otherwise about it.

PROBLEM:- The K.R. or right of inspection can take place at four places. (1) In the out-right purchase of the things so chosen (2) Through the monopoly or the holder of monopoly (proprietor) (3) In division or distribution and (4) Compromise or on agreed formula for disposal of a particular object/thing. (Note: There is no right of inspection in respect of a thing received by way of compromise in the matter of Qisas (the Law of Retaliation). Similarly, there is no K.R. un respect of bed, liability, or in cash dealings in currencies. However\ever inspection is permissible in respect of articles of gold and silver.)

PROBLEM:- The buyer sells a thing which he has not seen e.g. a thing received in inheritance (Mira's). This deal is correct. But if on seeing the thing he wants to cancel the transaction, this he can not do.

PROBLEM:- In respect of thing which are received through division /distribution, all the possible rights can be exercised, namely, Khaya'r-e-Shart (or K.S.) (right of imposing conditions), Khayare Ruyet (or K.R.)(right of inspection) and Khay'ar-e-Aib (or K.A.) (right of disclosing/discovering defects) we shall deal this last named power/ a right after present the Khaya'r-e-Ruyet.

PROBLEM:- The deal of thing purchased without first having seen it can he canceled, because this deal was not binding on the buyer.

PROBLEM:- If the buyer takes possession of a thing (of sale), and expressed his willingness to retain it, or some defect takes place afterwards or he handles the things resulting some defect which can not be removed, in all these conditions the right of inspection (K.R.) can not be revoked, it has lapsed. He can not cancel the deal.

PROBLEM:- IF the deal of a thing which the holder has taken in his possession sells it to another person who returns it after having seen defect in it, or takes it back after having kept it as pawn or breaks the monopoly, then the changes taking place on account of different handling aspect on it, the power of inspection has already lapsed can no be revived.

PROBLEM:- If some part of the article of sale is damaged, though it may be serious nature or a slight one, the right of inspection (K.R.) becomes is lost.

PROBLEM:- Unless and until the buyer suspends or withdraws the right of inspection, the seller can not demand the price.

PROBLEM:- If the buyer dies after making purchase, his heirs shall not have the K.R.(Khyar-e-ruyet) or the right of inspection which means they do not have the right to cancel the deal.

PROBLEM:- If some change takes place in the article after the deal has been finalised, the buyer retains the right of inspection. But if the condition is the same as it was at the time of purchased then the K.R. (right of inspection) does not exist. How if at the time of agreement it was not known to the buyer that the thing he is buying is the same which is with him now, the-right of inspection will be available to the buyer.

PROBLEM:- The seller says that the thing which had sold is the same and no change has taken place in it, while the buyer says that the change has occurred, then the buyer will have to prove his stand by producing witnesses. IF the buyer does not produce witnesses, then the state of the seller, on oath, will be accepted.

PROBLEM:- In the cancellation of deal on the basis of exercise of the right of inspection (Khay'ar-e-Ruyet) the decision of the Qazi is required nor the willingness of the seller.

PROBLEM:- When the deal is rejected by the buyer on account of K.R. (khay'ar-e-Ruyet), the seller should be informed of this, otherwise he will be under the impression that the deal has been finalised. This will now necessitate finding another customer. In the absence of the required knowledge, he will not search a new customer and might suffer loss in the end.

PROBLEM:- Inspection/examination of the object of deal does not mean that it should be seen in full and no part should not be left unseen. The Ruyet (looking into) inspection means that the essential part should be seen, for example in respect of the things which are given in measurement or by weighing only a sample thereof should be enough. However in respect of things which are packed or stuffed in bags, the buyer has a right to revise the deal if he finds some defects in quantity/quality on examining the packed contents.

PROBLEM:- The buyer says that the things is not like that which he had seen and the seller says that the thing is the same which he had sold. In this state of dispute the opinion/decision of learned honest men should be accepted and abided by.

PROBLEM:- A man purchases a thing without seeing it and deputes another man as his attorney who sees the thing and accepts it. In the circumstances the deal becomes final and if he disapproves it, then the deal can be cancelled.

PROBLEM:- The buyer sends some one as his emissary to the seller to see the thing and take its possession. In this case the seeing

PROBLEM:- The sale and purchase by blind man is both valid. If he sells something, he will not the right to cancel the deal, however, he will have this right if he buys something. He can examine the thing by touching its sides. IF he accepts it, then his right of rejection lapses. Similarly things which need tasting and smelling the deal will become final if he approves by lasting or smelling. A blind buyer can also depute some one on his behalf, in that case the right of acceptance is transferred to him and his decision will have to be accepted.

PROBLEM:- If the deal takes place by exchange of one with another (of different nature, for examples book and cloth) then both will have the right of deal as both of them are seller and buyer at the same time.

PROBLEM:- The defect should be such that in the market the price will be less (than originally demanded).

PROBLEM:- To hide the defect in the thing is har'am and a major sin. It should be mode known before its deal to any customer.

PROBLEM:- On the basis of Khay'ar-e-Aib (we shall refer it as K.A. for short) the buyer becomes the owner of the thing, but right of possession does not becomes his legal right (as the issue of defect remains unresolved) and the right of inheritance is attached to it. This means that if the buyer dies without knowing the defect, but the same (defect) is detected by his inheritors, then on the basis of K.A. (khya'r-e-Aib) the inheritors have the right to cancel the deal.

PROBLEM:- The prospective buyer comes to know about the defect in advance. As such he can cancel the deal without recourse to litigation. However if he has taken possession of the thing, then the deal can not be called off without the consent of the seller or under the orders of (Qazis) court.

PROBLEM:- For the exercise of right, under K.A. the following conditions should be fulfilled.

PROBLEM:- The house which is generally regarded as haunted or carry ill-omen can be returned, because this becomes a known defect and the people normally do not like to purchase such a house. It is a matter of disbelief and not an inherent natural defect, but it becomes a "defect" from transaction point of view.

PROBLEM:- The basket of fruits if found stuffed with dry grass etc at the bottom, generally not seen, can be returned. The deal has a (moral) defect.

PROBLEM:- The Holy Quran or any book with misprints, or dim impressions can be returned.

PROBLEM:- IF after knowing the defect the buyer makes any kind of the thing as a matter of right of possession, then the right of cancellation on account of defect will not be permissible.

PROBLEM:- If a amn buys a goat or cow and it milk is used when the defect in the animal comes to knowledge, he can not return the animal. However he can claim damage. Similarly if the buyer milks the naimal knowing the defect in the animal. He can not return the animal because milking the animal knowing the defect amounts to willingness to retain it.

PROBLEM:- The man purchases piece of cloth for his minor child and it is cut to size, when defect in the cloth comes to notice. He can neither return the cloth nor demand payment of loss. However if the cloth is meant for the adult child, then he can demand payment of loss/damage.

PROBLEM:- If some new defect comes up in the article of sale when it is in the possession of the buyer, then whether the defect was on account of usage by the buyer of some natural calamity he can not return the article, however he can get the damage. And if the defect was produced by the seller, even then he can not return the thing, but he can receive payment for both the defects.

PROBLEM:- If the thing is such that on account of defect it is to be return (to the seller) but there is cost involved in its return, in this case the cost etc will have to be paid by the buyer.

PROBLEM:- If the object of sale is subjected to additional treatment, for example, if unstitched cloth is sewn, an uncultivated land is planted, or the object itself is lost destroyed, in all these cases, only the claim for damage is permissible, but not return, even both the seller and the buyer agree on its return. The Qazi too can not enforce its return by a decree.

PROBLEM:- An egg if it is found dirty filthy on breaking, it will not be returned, but it will be replaced or get the money back, because a rotten egg is of no use. This also applies to fruits, vegetables etc. Which are thrown away when they are of no use.

PROBLEM:- The buyer brings back the naimal as it is wounded (and he can not keep it), the seller says the wound is another one, the earlier wound has been cured and healed. In this case the statement of the buyer shall be accepted.

PROBLEM:- While offering for sale any thing the seller declares himself not responsible for any defect, the sale will be in order and if the buyer accepts the thing he can not return it or claim any damage for its defect if it is noticed afterwards.

PROBLEM:- if the seller warns the buyer to accept and buy a thing at his own risk for any fault, existing in it or noticed later on, the buyer on purchasing the thing, can not claim any damage or return it except with the consent of the seller and on terms specified by him.

PROBLEM:- The buyer wants to return a thing, but the seller suggests to accept some amount and retain the thing. The buyer accepts. This compromiseable is permissible. On the other hand if the seller refuses to take back the thing and demands some money for the deal or the buyer himself offers money to the seller for accepting back his own article. Any compromise thus reached will be invalid and the amount so offered and bribe and interest which is haram.

PROBLEM:- In order to know the difference between the prices of a thing when it free from damage or defect and when the damage has occurred, the expert opinion will be required to settle the issue. The difference between the prices can be claimed by the buyer from the seller.

PROBLEM:- A man purchases a a piece of land and makes it as a masjid. If some defect in the land is detected, it can not be returned. However damage so occurred can be claimed. Similar is the command in respect of the land made `Waqf'. Here too the damage if any noticed in the land can be claimed, but the land will not be returned.

PROBLEM:- A thing has been purchased with excessive fraud (Ghaban-e-Fa'hish) involved in it. It may have been done in either, the thing can be returned. If however the fraud is of a minor nature (known as Ghaban-e-Yaseer), the thing can not be returned. There are three kinds of fraud, (1) some time the seller deceives the buyer (2) sometime the buyer deceives the seller, while (3) the broker or agent deceives both or any one of the buyer or the seller.

PROBLEM:- When a thing is purchased with Ghaban-e-fa'hish, but the fact of fraud is noticed after sometime of its use by the buyer, he can return the thing after discount of the usage and get back the balance of the price paid by him.

PROBLEM:- In a situation where a rightful participant in the deal is absent or the thing itself is haram or impermissible for deal, under the laws of shariat. The example where the right participant is not present is that either a minor child or a lunatic settles a deal which is not acceptable from the Shariat's point of view. As for the (permissible) thing being absent, it is in respect of dead body (corpse, a carrion), wine or a Hurr tree person (not a slave) whose sale is not permissible, or the situation where the person or the place itself is not conducive to a permissible sale.

PROBLEM:- The article means for sale or its cost, if any of these does not ahve religious sanction, it dealing is impermissible, for example the dead corpse (carrion) blood or the Free (man or woman, not a slave) their deal is haram in any heavenly religion. If any of these is worthy of deal in some religion while prohibited in any religion, if they are taken as article of transaction then the deal will be invalid or if is taken as a cost or price then the deal will be totally wrong (Fa'sid) for example, the wine which is haram in Islam, while in christianly it was taken as a commodity. It therefore in any deal the wine is regarded as a commodity to be used in exchange of another commodity then the deal / transaction will be impermissible or Haram.

PROBLEM:- Asset (in Urdu m'al) is a thing to which human inclination is attracted, which is exchanged in business transaction and others are prevented to grab or extent it, which is accumulated for use in time of future needs. There fore a lump of clay which is stationary at a place, it will not be an asset and it transaction will be invalid, however when it is transferred to another, it will taken as an assets or commodity and a business of it will be valid.

PROBLEM:- By dead body corpse, carrion (in Urdu, Mur'dar) is meant that animal which is not slaughtered, whether the animal naturally, or some one strangulated it or some other animal killed it. However Fish and Locust are not included in `murdar' because no slaughtering is possible with them.

PROBLEM:- There is no deal in any thing which does not exist, For example in a two storied building under possession of two different persons on each floor. If purchaser the upper portion collapses while other structures remain. Now, if the owner of the upper floor wants to dispose of his portion, he can not do so, the upper portion is now non-existent. If his intention is sell the occupancy or building right, this is also not permissible because the deal/transaction of a thing/article which physically exists. However the upper house exists (in any shape or condition) a deal of it will be valid.

PROBLEM:- Water lying in the well or canal can not be sold out. However when it is filled in pot or pitcher, it becomes the property of the holder. It can be sold as a commodity.

PROBLEM:- By collecting the rain water, a person becomes its owner. he can have a deal with it. The water collected in the yucca reservoir can sold, if fresh water in not forthcoming in to.

PROBLEM:- In a stock of things meant for sale some part is present and some part is not seen, like the flower beds, in such a case the sale is not valid. IF however the whole stock of flowers/beds are sold, then the deal is valid.

PROBLEM:- The principal point in a deal is that the thing meant for sale should belong to the specified category, any variation in quality or category of things will render the deal as impermissible. This is particularly applicable to the deal of bet animals or precious stones and gems. In such case the buyer is authorized to accept or reject the deal.

PROBLEM:- An article of `WAQF' when mixed with another article of NON-WAQF' brand for a business deal, the deal of the NON WAQF article is right and of the WAQF will be in valid. If MASJID in combination with any other article of any nature, the deal of both the categories will be wrong.

PROBLEM:- Two men sharing a house as owner-partner if one of them sells the entire house to the other, then the deal of his share is valid and the price of that share will be given to him but not of the entire house.

PROBLEM:- Two men are sharing a house or a piece of land. If one of them sells a part of the land, its deal will be invalid. However if he sells his own share of land, then the deal will be lawful.

PROBLEM:- IF the entire village having Masjid and graveyard is sold out, then the deal with the exception of the masjid and the graveyard will be lawful, whether or not the mention of these two places has mentioned in the deal. Even otherwise these religious structures/places are exempt from sale as a rule. (The management of these places can however be changed after the deal is over - Translator).

PROBLEM:- The business deal of human hair is not permissible and to make use of these hairs in others ways is not allowed, for example to make plaif of human hair which the women put on their head is "haram".

PROBLEM:- The Holy Hair (Moo-e-Mubarak) of the Holy Prophet (May Allah's grace and peace upon him), in possession of any person can be gifted to another person in exchange of another gift (not by way of sale) is permissible. To receive blessings from the Moo-e-Mubarak to drink and apply the washed water of the Moo-e-Mubarak on the eye-lids is recommended in the Ahadees of the Holy Prophet (Allah's grace and peace be upon him).

PROBLEM:- The invalid deal (known in Shariat as Bai-e-Baitl) does not imply the possession of the article of sale by the buyer if he gets it by way of purchase (which is declared unlawful-batil). So long as he remains in possession, it will be as a trust (amanat).

PROBLEM:- To include conditions in the agreement of deal as a matter of necessity is not harmful (for example, imposing conditions on the seller to arrange possession to the buyer of the article of purchase or the condition asking the buyer to arrange personal guarantee of the payment of the price of the article of purchase or of placing some like prices article as a pledge (pawn) to ensure payment, provided the person who is appointed guarantor (Zamin) is present in the same sitting time. In these circumstances, these extra precaution are permissible. However if he guarantor (Zamin)refuse to act as such then the deal will become faulty (Fasid). If the buyer refuse to agree by these assurances the seller has the right to cancel the deal. Similarly the buyer can ask the seller to make so and so as the guarantor who will facilitate possession of the article or if any right accrues from the article, the guarantor will get it accepted and paid by the seller. This is also permissible. The guarantee as declared by the owners/manufactures of the articles of sale which procedure is becoming popular in the modern business deal is also valid. However all such conditions of guarantee which are not valid from the shariat point of view (however attractive) will make the deal as totally invalid and unlawful.

PROBLEM:- The conditions of the following natures imposed while transacting a deal are unlawful, namely,

PROBLEM:- There is no mention of the price in the business deal, but it is said that the price current in the market will also be its price. This is not permissible or, if it is said that there is no price (as a deal) this is also not valid, because there can be no deal without the price.

PROBLEM:- The sale is cash of he fish which is still in the pond or the river is not valid as these are in the possession (milkiyat) of the seller. Or the same (fish) in this condition (not yet caught) if sold in exchange of articles other than cash, this is also not valid, because (in both these cases) the possession is not acceptable.

PROBLEM:- The sale of fish caught from the river and put in a ditch from where it can be caught without any help or thing, is valid, because its possession it recognizable. If however foreign object is necessary to remove the fish from the ditch, then its deal will be valid only when its possession is given to the prospective buyer. If the fish comes of its own in the ditch which was prepared for this purpose, then the fish will become the man's property, others can not take/claim it. If the ditch was not dug for this purpose, then the fish falling in it will not that man's property. However, if he closes the outlet of a ditch in which fish have floated from the nearby pond, he becomes the owner of the fishes that are blocked in the pond. The deal is this fishes will be permissible. Similarly if some fleeing quadruped like deer, slag fall in the ditch dug for any purpose the animal becomes the possession of ditch digger others can not claim it. However the ditch was not dug by any one, then the animal falling in it becomes the property of anyone who can by hand on it, suppose a string net is spread in the open for drying it and some bird gets caught while flying near. Then if the net was spread for the purpose of catching the birds, the birds caught in it belong the net owner. Otherwise laying hand on them can carry them home. If the birds caught in the net escape in the open, then any one catching them will own them. Similar is the command in respect of hunts to made by hunting dogs and hawks.

PROBLEM:- If a stray bird lays egg/young one after self hatching they will be owned by the man who has make this place for this very purpose. Otherwise any one how finds them would be deemed the owner.

PROBLEM:- If some animal of hunt by chance comes into the house and the man inside shuts the does, then it becomes his. No other person can take it.

PROBLEM:- To give ponds lakes etc on contract for catching fish (hunting) is not permissible.

PROBLEM:- Fish caught in the net and sold out as a routine. The fisher catcher can not claim any pearl recovered from inside any fish nor can he claim as a separate article of sale. Such a claim and the sale there of are both unlawful.

PROBLEM:- The agricultural farm in which the crop is not ruipe the deal there of is of three kinds namely, (1) the buyer will cut the crop forthwith, (2) he will have it grazed by his animal (3) he takes it on the condition that till its ripeness he will leave the field as it is . In the first two cases, the deal (purchase) by the buyer is permissible, while in the third case, since it is profitable for the buyer, the deal will be irregular.

PROBLEM:- To sell the fruits ( on the trees) before they are even visible now means an irregular and faulty deal. However if the fruits have appeared (on branches) although they are not yet of use, the deal will be permissible, but the buyer must pluck them forthwith. If the condition has been settles that so low as the fruits become ripe, they will remain on the trees, then this deal is faulty (Fasid). OR if the purchase has been made without any condition or if the seller has agreed to allow the fruits on the tree till they are ripe then the deal will be in order.

PROBLEM:- If cow, goat or hen have been let out to another man on the condition that he will feed and nourish them and their young one's and chickens will be divided half and half between them, such a deal is not in order. The young ones and chickens belong to the owner of the animals and the other man will get the cost of feeding and care taking the animals at the rates that are extant at the moment.

PROBLEM:- The sale of the skin of a carrion (murdar) in unlawful when it is not tanned. And if it is tanned, its use and sale is permissible.

PROBLEM:- The sale of unclean (napak) edible oil is permissible and it can also be used for other purposes except cooking and eating. But it is necessary that the buyer should be informed of the oil being impure and unclean, so that he may use it for cooking. Even otherwise impurity is a blemish or fault of which one should be informed. Unclean and unholy oil can not be used in oil lamps in Masjid, but it can be used at home.

PROBLEM:- The fat of a carrion is prohibited for sale and derive any benefit (money) in any way from it.

PROBLEM:- The tendon, hairs, bones, quill, beaks, hooves and nails of a dead body can be sold as well as made use of. Similarly the ivory and bones of an elephant can be sold and made use of for any purpose e.g. decoration pieces, bracelets etc.

PROBLEM:- Iron and brass finger rings which are forbidden to men and woman are also forbidden for sale. Their sale is makrooh (undesirable). Similarly the opium is also forbidden for use and sale especially at the hands of those who are addicted to it, because it amounts to encouraging them in their notorious habit.

PROBLEM:- The thing of which deal has been settled but the full price has not been received can not be purchased at a lesser price from the buyer, even if the market rate of it has dropped.

PROBLEM:- A man purchases a thing but he has not yet taken it possession. If he proposes to sell this thing along with another thing which is his own, the deal will be valid in respect of the thing of which he is the owner.

PROBLEM:- A man offers his portion of the house for sale to another man, but the seller is not aware of the portion of the house offered for sale, while the buyer knows, the deal in this case is valid. In case buyer does not know what portion is under deal then the deal will not be in order even if the seller knows.

PROBLEM:- After entering in deal of a thing with a man to sell it to another person is haram and extremely false, If the first deal is cancelled, even then the second deal will not be in order. However, if the first buyer has taken possession of the thing, then for the second deal his consent and permission is necessary.

PROBLEM:- The deal in which the quality of the thing and its exact price are not clear, is not valid, especially when there is a possibility of confusion and dispute afterwards. However if the deal is clear and mutually agreed, then there is no harm in finalising it.

PROBLEM:- The command in respect of an invalid deal is that if the buyer takes possession of the thing with the permission of the seller, then he becomes the owner of thing, but so long as he does not possess the thing he will not be regarded as the owner. The permission of the seller may be distinct case the possession and ownership is valid.

PROBLEM:- To carry out the deal under compulsion or unlawful mean amounts to faulty deal and it must be declared invalid. But the cancellation of the deal is not incumbent on the man who has been compelled to undertake the deal. But it is binding on the man who has used compelling tactics.

PROBLEM:- In an irregular and faulty deal if the buyer takes possession of the thing without permission of the seller, then it will neither a valid possession nor ownership nor any usage of the thing.

PROBLEM:- In an irregular deal, the buyer sold the some thing with another man or gifted to some one as a gift or did any thing which prevented the return or come back in possession of the buyer (original one who bought the thing in the first instance) the whole process (which deprived the real buyer to regain possession of the thing in the deal) made the deal as faulty and it can not be cancelled or withdrawn..

PROBLEM:- If the deal was done under compulsion or unwillingness of the buyer and after gaining possession, makes some kind of usage with the thing, then every thing done with the thing will be taken as invalid and the seller still has the right to cancel the deal.

PROBLEM:- The deal can be cancelled even if the thing is given on hire to some one.

PROBLEM:- IF any one of the buyer of the seller dies, his heir has the right to cancel the deal as the successor to the deceased and using the latter's right in his behalf.

PROBLEM:- If the irregular deal is cancelled, then the seller can not take the thing back unless he returns the money, either the some money which he received or its equivalent.

PROBLEM:- If the land id purchased through the irregular or faulty deal and the buyer plants trees on it or builds a house there on, in this situation the deal can not be cancelled and the buyer will have to pay the price of the land.

PROBLEM:- A legator (i.e. the person from whom an inheritance is derived, in Urdu `Muris') had received the property etc. through unlawful (haram) means, and now the some has come in the possession of the rightful heir (waris). If he comes to know that the property belongs to so and so person, then it is moral responsibility to hand over the property to that person. If he does not know who the real owner is, then he should give it away as a charity on behalf of the (unknown) owner.

PROBLEM:- After purchasing a house and settling the deal if some money or any other costly thing such as jewelry or ornaments are discovered then the same should be returned to the seller, as it is demand of moral and hones dealing.