Liability for fraud on land sale
| Fatwa #2251 | Category: Business & Trade | Country: Zambia | Date: 23rd January 2026 |
| Fatwa #2251 | Date: 23rd January 2026 |
| Category: Business & Trade | |
| Country: Zambia | |
Question
Assalamu ʿalaykum wa raḥmatullahi wa barakatuh,
I seek an Islamic ruling regarding a land transaction that has caused me significant loss,hardship and sleepless nights.
Approximately 19 years ago, I purchased a freehold residential plot from a Muslim brother for about USD 6,000. Which was the going price for land in that particular area.
At the time of purchase, I was to become the third owner of the land. The seller assured me that all ownership transfer paperwork was being handled by him and would be completed and forwarded to me, which I relied upon in good faith.
Paperwork was delivered to me with the seller being 2nd owner and passed on to me as the 3rd owner.
Several years later, the original (first) owner of the plot approached me and claimed that he had never sold the land to the person from whom I purchased it, nor to any subsequent party. He asserted that he remains the rightful owner and demanded that I vacate the land.
When I raised this issue with the Muslim brother who sold me the plot, he stated that he could only refund the original amount he received from me (USD 6,000). I found this deeply unjust, as by the time this dispute arose, the market value of the land had increased to approximately USD 250,000, and it is impossible for me to purchase a similar freehold plot in the same area with the refunded amount.
It is also known that this seller has been involved in multiple similar incidents with other individuals and has continued to trade in property and make profits over the years.
My questions are:
Islamically, what is the ruling on this transaction, given that the seller did not have valid ownership of the land as claimed by 1st owner.
The seller did not in any way try and mediate or resolve between myself and 1st owner .
I incurred extra legal costs due to 1st owner taking me to court .
What is my right as the buyer who acted in good faith and has now suffered substantial financial loss due to land appreciation and legal costs ?
Is the seller Islamically liable only to refund the original amount, or is he responsible for compensating the current value of the land or an equivalent plot in the same area, since his actions deprived me of the opportunity to own freehold land where as he has managed to thrive his business over similar dealings
What is the Islamic standing and accountability of the Muslim brother who sold this land, particularly in light of repeated similar cases?
JazakAllahu khayran for your time and guidance.
Answer
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.
There are multiple aspects that need to be addressed in your query.
First and foremost, it is not permissible for one to sell something he does not own. The person who sold you the land without ownership is sinful for doing so, and the sale is null and void.[1] However, the actual loss suffered by yourself in terms of the sale itself is $6,000. Therefore, the fake seller shall have to reimburse you $6,000.[2]
The appreciation in value of said property and your inability to make use of your stuck funds and purchase land elsewhere is ‘lost opportunity profit’. There is no liability for lost opportunity. Losses are reimbursed if they are factually incurred, not potentially incurred. Whilst we sympathise with your predicament, from an Islamic perspective, $6,000 is owed to you for the illegal sale of land.
As for legal fees, given that they are a consequence of the illegal sale perpetrated by the fake seller, all such costs and fees can be claimed from this fake seller. He will be liable for that amount.
As for the individual himself, if he has a track record of such dealings, he is answerable in the court of Allah from whence there is no escape. The community should also collectively refrain from dealing with such an individual, and his illegalities should be publicised in order to caution the general public.
To conclude, despite the difficulties you underwent due to this, you are only entitled to the initially paid sum of $6,000 and all legal costs as well as related expenses. You are not entitled to anything more than this. For your patience upon such a hardship, it is our belief that Almighty Allah alone knows what each soul undergoes. And perhaps the reward He has kept in store for you will make you wish you did not receive anything in this world in comparison.
And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best
Mufti Bilal Pandor
Concurred by
Mufti Muhammad Patel
Darul Iftaa Mahmudiyyah
Lusaka, Zambia
درر الحكام شرح مجلة الأحكام-ن1 (2/ 316) [1]
( الْمَادَّةُ 365 ) : يُشْتَرَطُ لِنَفَاذِ الْبَيْعِ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْبَائِعُ مَالِكًا لِلْمَبِيعِ ، أَوْ وَكِيلًا لِمَالِكِهِ ، أَوْ وَصِيِّهِ وَأَنْ لَا يَكُونَ فِي الْمَبِيعِ حَقٌّ آخَرُ
درر الحكام شرح مجلة الأحكام-ن1 (2/ 334)
فَإِذَا قَبَضَ الْمُشْتَرِي الْمَبِيعَ بِإِذْنِ الْبَائِعِ فِي الْبَيْعِ الْبَاطِلِ ؛ كَانَ الْمَبِيعُ أَمَانَةً عِنْدَ الْمُشْتَرِي فَلَوْ هَلَكَ بِلَا تَعَدٍّ يَضْمَنُهُ .
يَعْنِي أَنَّ الْبَيْعَ الْبَاطِلَ سَوَاءٌ قَبَضَ الْمَبِيعَ ، أَوْ لَمْ يَقْبِضْ لَا يُفِيدُ الْمِلْكِيَّةَ وَلَا يَتَرَتَّبُ عَلَيْهِ حُكْمٌ مُطْلَقًا سِوَى أَنَّهُ يَكُونُ أَمَانَةً إذَا قَبَضَ .
وَعَلَى ذَلِكَ فَلَوْ اشْتَرَى إنْسَانٌ مَالًا وَوَقَفَهُ ؛ فَلَا يَكُونُ الْوَقْفُ صَحِيحًا .
وَبِمَا أَنَّ تَصَرُّفَ الْمُشْتَرِي فِي الْمَبِيعِ ، أَوْ قَبْضَهُ وَتَمَلُّكَهُ فِي الْبَيْعِ الْبَاطِلِ غَيْرُ صَحِيحَيْنِ كَانَ ذَلِكَ الْمَبِيعُ أَمَانَةً عِنْدَ الْمُشْتَرِي أَيْ كَانَ دَاخِلًا فِي قِسْمٍ مِنْ أَقْسَامِ الْأَمَانَةِ بِمُقْتَضَى الْمَادَّةِ ( 762 ) فَلَوْ هَلَكَ فِي يَدِهِ بِلَا تَعَدٍّ لَا يَكُونُ ضَامِنًا ؛ لِأَنَّ الْبَيْعَ لَمَّا كَانَ بَاطِلًا بَقِيَ مُجَرَّدُ الْقَبْضِ بِإِذْنِ الْمَالِكِ وَهُوَ لَا يُوجِبُ الضَّمَانَ بِدُونِ تَعَدٍّ .
” الزَّيْلَعِيّ ” ( اُنْظُرْ الْمَادَّةَ ( 768 ) مَعَ الْفِقْرَةِ الثَّانِيَةِ مِنْ الْمَادَّةِ ( 771 ) ) .
أَمَّا إذَا كَانَ قَبْضُ الْمُشْتَرِي الْمَبِيعَ بِدُونِ إذْنٍ مِنْ الْبَائِعِ فَيُعَدُّ الْمُشْتَرِي غَاصِبًا وَالْمَبِيعُ فِي يَدِهِ مَالًا مَغْصُوبًا .
( اُنْظُرْ الْمَادَّةَ ( 881 ) الدُّرَرُ ، وَالْغُرَرُ ، وَالدُّرُّ الْمُخْتَارُ فِي الْبَيْعِ الْفَاسِدِ ) .
أَمَّا إذَا أَتْلَفَ الْمُشْتَرِي ذَلِكَ الْمَبِيعَ وَقَدْ قَبَضَهُ بِلَا إذْنِ الْبَائِعِ فَقَدْ وَجَبَ عَلَيْهِ الضَّمَانُ .
بدائع الصنائع في ترتيب الشرائع (6/ 193)
(أما) الأراضي المملوكة العامرة: فليس لأحد أن يتصرف فيها من غير إذن صاحبها؛ لأن عصمة الملك تمنع من ذلك، وكذلك الأرض الخراب الذي انقطع ماؤها ومضى على ذلك سنون لأن الملك فيها قائم وإن طال الزمان حتى يجوز بيعها وهبتها وإجارتها وتصير ميراثا إذا مات صاحبها إلا أنها إذا كانت خرابا فلا خراج عليها إذ ليس على الخراب خراج إلا إذا عطلها صاحبها مع التمكن من الاستنماء فعليه الخراج وهذا إذا عرف صاحبها فإن لم يعرف فحكمها حكم اللقطة يعرف في كتابه إن شاء الله تعالى.
درر الحكام شرح غرر الأحكام (2/ 169) [2]
[حُكْمُ الْبَيْعِ الْبَاطِل]
(وَحُكْمُهُ) أَيْ حُكْمُ الْبَيْعِ الْبَاطِلِ (أَنَّ الْمَبِيعَ بِهِ لَا يُمْلَكُ) أَيْ لَا يَكُونُ مِلْكًا لِلْمُشْتَرِي؛ لِأَنَّ الْبَاطِلَ لَا يَتَرَتَّبُ عَلَيْهِ الْحُكْمُ بِخِلَافِ الْفَاسِدِ كَمَا مَرَّ (فَإِنْ هَلَكَ) الْمَبِيعُ (عِنْدَ الْمُشْتَرِي لَمْ يَضْمَنْ) ؛ لِأَنَّ الْمَقْبُوضَ أَمَانَةٌ عِنْدَهُ؛ لِأَنَّ الْعَقْدَ إذَا بَطَلَ بَقِيَ مُجَرَّدُ الْقَبْضِ بِإِذْنِ الْمَالِكِ وَهُوَ لَا يُوجِبُ الضَّمَانَ إلَّا بِالتَّعَدِّي، وَقِيلَ يَكُونُ مَضْمُونًا؛ لِأَنَّهُ يَصِيرُ كَالْمَقْبُوضِ عَلَى سَوْمِ الشِّرَاءِ وَهُوَ أَنْ يُسَمِّيَ الثَّمَنَ فَيَقُولُ اذْهَبْ بِهَذَا، فَإِنْ رَضِيتَ بِهِ اشْتَرَيْته بِمَا ذُكِرَ أَمَّا إذَا لَمْ يُسَمِّهِ فَذَهَبَ بِهِ فَهَلَكَ عِنْدَهُ لَا يَضْمَنُ نَصَّ عَلَيْهِ الْفَقِيهُ أَبُو اللَّيْثِ قِيلَ وَعَلَيْهِ الْفَتْوَى، كَذَا فِي الْعِنَايَةِ.
المحيط البرهاني في الفقه النعماني (9/ 517)
وعلى تقدير العدم وقت البيع لا ينفعه التسليم؛ لأن العقدحينئذٍ يقع باطلاً، والتسليم بحكم البيع الباطل لا ينفع،
الأجوبة الخفيفة فى مذهب الإمام أبى حنيفة النعمانس_ج (ص: 228)
س – ما هو البيع الباطل، وما هو الفاسد، وما قاعدة ذلك ؟
ج – كل ما أوحد خللا فى ركن البيع فهو مبطل، وكل ما أورث خللا فى غير الركن فهو مفسد
س – ما حكم البيع الباطل ؟
ج – حكم البيع الباطل عدم ملك المشترى للمبيع إذا قبضه فلا ضمان لأنه أمانة وقيل عليه الضمان بالقبض وعليه الفتوى.