Intheprevioustransaction,notwithstandingthefactthattheudderpreventsthe inspectionofthemilkonecanalwaysbuyabucketofmilkinthemarketwhereitcanbe inspected.Manygoods,however,likefruits,vegetables,eggs,andnutshaveprotective coatingsthatonecannotbreakwithouttheinteriorquicklyspoiling.OnlyShīrāzī,Ibn Qudāma,andIbn Ḥazmsubstantivelydiscussthistypeofgoods.Theiranalysesofthese goodscanbedividedintermsofwhetherjuristsfocusondiscussingthephysical
propertiesofagood,andanalysesthatconstructthebuyerandhissubjectivegoals. Althoughtermslikeobjectivityandsubjectivityarenotfixedreferencepointsineither discussionsofghararorthetheoreticaldiscoursesofuṣūlal-fiqhandkalām,thesetwo termsofferaconvenientmatrixtounderstandthelegalanalysesofthesetransactions.
a. Objectivity
Anegghasaparticularsetofphysicaltraitsthatjuristsmustacknowledge. However,thewaysthatjuristsdescribethesetraitsopendifferentavenuesfor
epistemologicalandlegalconsiderations.Ontheonehand,Ibn Ḥazmtakesamaximally permissiveviewofthistypeofsalebyconceivingofgoodsasundifferentiatedwholes. Ontheotherhand,IbnQudāmaandShīrāzī haveamorenuancedanalysisofthetraitsof thegoodsandhowthesetraitsrelatetothebuyer’sintendedusesofthesegoods.
AlthoughIbn Ḥazmdiscussestheproblemofthesaleofgoodswhoseinteriors cannotbeexaminedbyreferringtomanysuchgoods–likenuts,coconuts,honeyin beeswax,meatofunskinnedsheep,oliveoilinolives,ananimalalongwiththesaleof themilkinitsudders,andeggs–hislegalanalysisishomogeneous. Accordingtohim, thesaleofthesegoodsispermissiblesinceGodcreatedthemandeverythingelsetoo withdepth,lengthandwidth.Inotherwords,everythinghasaninteriorthatmaybe partiallyunexaminable.HethencitespartofQ2:275,“Godmadetradepermissible,”and claimsthatthesunnaandijmā‘permitthesaleofgrapesanddateswiththeirpits,eggs, andtheoilinolivesandsesameseeds.Hethenasks,
Whatisthedifferencebetweenthesegoodsthatjuristsagree aboutthelegalityoftheirsalesandthosegoods,likemuskin theglandandhoneyinbeeswax,thatjuristsdisagreeaboutthe legalityoftheirsales?Thereisnowaytodistinguishthemon thebasisoftheQur’ān,sunna,adefectivetradition(riwāya saqīma),opinionoftheCompanions,opinionoftheSuccessors,
qiyās,aconceptualreason,orra’y.Godpermittedallofthese transactionsanddidnotrestrictanythingsinceHesaid,“SoHe hasdistinguishedforyouwhatHehasprohibitedforyou.”267So
ifthesetransactionswereimpermissibleHewouldhave distinguishedthemforus,butsinceHedidnot,theirlegalityis textuallystipulated(manṣūṣ).268
Hisargumenthastwoparts.First,alljuristspermitthesaleofgrapes,olives,and datesnotwithstandingthefactthatthesegoodshaveinteriorsthatcannotbeexamined.
However,ifsomeoneclaimsthatthisformofuncertaintycreatesgharar,heresponds
that,“Thetruthisthatthereisnogharar,becauseeachgoodisanundifferentiatedbody
(jismwāḥid),whichGodcreatedasitisandallthatiswithinitisaportionofallofit.”269 Althoughfruithasaninteriorandexterior,heconceivesofitasawholeforthesakeof hisanalysisofghararandvalue.ThesecondpartofhisargumenthingesontheQur’ānic
verse,whichheinterpretstomeanthatGodmustdefineallofHisprohibitionsandthat thingsarepresumedtobelicitunlessGodstatesotherwise.270
Hisargumentclearlyanalogizesthegoodsheisanalyzingtothosethathavea consensusonthelegalityoftheirsale.Thelegalanalogyhingesupontheresemblance betweenthethree-dimensionalstructuresofbothsetsofgoods.Undoubtedly,Ibn Ḥazm woulddenythatheengagedinanalogicalreasoninghere.Ratherhemightclaimthatthe unrestrictedmeaningoftheverseembracesallsuchgoodsandtherebythismeaning
268Ibn Ḥazm,Muḥallā,vol,8,p.392,¶1422.
269Ibn Ḥazm,Muḥallā,vol,8,p.392,¶1422. Ammā al-ḥaqqfa-innahulaysaghararan
li-annahujismwāhidkhalaqhuAllāh‘azzawa-jallaka-mā huwawa-kullmā dākhiluhuba‘ḍ li’l- jumlatihi.
270Inworksofuṣūlal-fiqhandkalām,authorsgenerallypresentcomplexdiscussions aboutwhetherGodmustprovideevidenceforeachlawandthedefaultstatusofactsbeforeand afterRevelation.Forthemostin-depthstudyoftheseconversationsamongformativeandpost-
formativejurists,seeA.KevinReinhart,BeforeRevelation:TheBoundariesofMuslimMoral Thought(Albany,N.Y.:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995).
supportshisargument.Nevertheless,ascrafted,hisargumentexplicitlydrawsattentionto theresemblancebetweenthegoodstojustifytheirsimilarlegalstatuses.
Ibn ḤazmthenlambaststheShāfi‘ī positionthatthesaleofacoconutwithboth itsouterandinnershellshasexcessivegharar,butifoneremovestheoutershellthe
transactionislicit.AlthoughIbn Ḥazmclaimsinhispolemicthatthisisthemajority opinionamongtheShāfi‘īs,Shīrāzī statesthatitisaminorityopinion.Regardlessofthis fact,Ibn Ḥazmarguesthat,“Withrespecttosomethingthatisconcealed,thereisno distinctionintheknowledgeofthequality(al-ma‘rifabi-ṣifa)ofwhatisunderneaththe peelwhetherithasone,two,ormorepeels.”271 Inotherwords,whetheragoodhasone skinormoreisirrelevantsincethecenterstillcannotbeexamined.Hethenpointsoutthe factthattheShāfi‘īsalsocontradictthemselvessincetheyallowthesaleofanegg,which hasashellandmembrane.272
Ultimately,Ibn Ḥazmarguesthattheseobjectsareundifferentiatedwholesfor purposesoflegalanalysis.Thisargumentsuppressesthephysicalinterioritieswhose representationsareimpossible.Whentheseobjectsareconceivedofasundifferentiated wholes,inspectionsorverbaldescriptionsoftheexteriorbecomeasufficientbasisfor knowledgeandrepresentationsoftheentiretyofthesegoodsforIbn Ḥazm.
271Ibn Ḥazm,Muḥallā,vol,8,pp.392-393,¶1422. 272Ibn Ḥazm,Muḥallā,vol,8,p.393,¶1422.
b. Objectivity and Subjectivity
AccordingtoShīrāzī,theShāfi‘īsdisagreeaboutthesalesofthesetypesofgoods. UnlikeIbn Ḥazm,whoarguesthatfruitsandvegetablesareundifferentiatedwholesfor theanalysisofgharar,theShāfi‘īsdifferentiatethesegoods.Forexample,intheUmm,
Shāfi‘ī prohibitsthesalesoffavabeansinthepodsincethepodmayeitherbeempty,or ifthereareseedsthereisuncertaintywithrespecttotheirquantityandquality.Thesame goesforgraininthehusk.273 Theinabilitytoexaminetheinteriorofsuchgoodsdraws intoquestiontheirveryexistenceandthustheabilitytorepresentthem.Forthisposition, valueandknowledgearemorethanskindeep.
Inordertopermitthesetransactions,Shāfi‘ī juristsconceiveofthephysical structureofthesegoodsdifferentlyandrelyonnotionsofthesubjectivevaluesofthe buyer.Intermsofthephysicalstructure,juristsarguethatthecoatpreservestheinterior ofthegoodsuchasinthecaseofdeermuskinthegland(nāfija)ofthedeerortheinner shellofacoconut.274 Inthiscase,juristsessentiallytreatthegoodasanundifferentiated wholeasIbn Ḥazmdoes.Forgoodswhoseexteriorsarenotsobeneficial,juristsrely uponthebuyer’susesofthegoodstodeterminethetraitstoberepresented. Forexample, Shīrāzī forbidsthesaleofaspadix,whichhasacoveraroundit,sincetheinterior,the intendedpartofthetransactionfromhisperspective,cannotbeinspectedandheclaims thatthecoverhasnouse.HealsocitesAbū Hurayrawhopermitsthesalesinceonemay intendtousethecoverasfoddersuchthatthereisareferenttorepresent.Ingeneral,Ibn
273Shīrāzī,Muhadhdhab,vol.3,p.38-39. 274Shīrāzī,Muhadhdhab,vol.3,p.38-39.
Qudāma’sdiscussionfollowsasimilarpatternofmodulatingtheobjectivityand subjectivityofdiscourse.275