u/purple-kiwi-book

Hello,

I would like advice on how to study Fiqh on my own. I know that the best way is in a proper Madrasa with a teacher, but I don't have access to that at this point in my life.

I have been going through Al Hidaya, starting with the section on Bay (sales). I have some legal background, so I have some basic familiarity. But I still struggle with many questions (see https://www.reddit.com/r/hanafi/s/IOQ1jz8HAS for an example). Does anyone have any suggestions for resources? Are there any good online courses, or class recordings? Are there any good study guides and/or commentaries?

I know that there is a whole world of Fiqh, but I don't really have much access to it. If anyone can point me to some resources, it would be a tremendous help.

I am relatively new to studying Fiqh, and I’m hoping someone can help me understand the methodology behind a specific ruling.

I’ve been studying the chapters on Buyu in Al-Hidayah, and I don't understand Imam Abu Hanifa's ruling on indivisible goods when they are priced by the unit. This is from the chapter on "Conditions for Moveable Property".

To make sure my foundational understanding is correct, here is how I understand two simple scenarios mentioned in the beginning of the chapter:

1. The lump-sum item: If a seller points to a specific rug and says, "I'll sell you this 10-foot rug for $10," but I take it home and it's actually 11 feet, I get to keep the extra foot for free. I assume this is because the sale was for the specific physical item, the length was just a description, and the seller bears the responsibility for getting that description wrong.
2. The volume/weight case: If I buy 10 kafiz of wheat from a larger pile, and there happens to be 11 kafiz in the pile, I only take 10. The 11th belongs to the seller. We don't say "the onus is on the seller" here because I literally only bought 10 units - I never actually purchased the 11th.

Here is where I get stuck:

The text discusses a third scenario: buying a specific, indivisible item (e.g., a rug), but pricing it by the unit. For example, a seller says, "I'll sell you this specific rug for $1 per foot." The buyer assumes it's 10 feet, but it turns out to be 10.5 feet.

According to Imam Abu Hanifa, this is treated like the first scenario. The buyer takes the entire 10.5 feet for $10, and the extra half-foot is treated as a beneficial attribute (wasf).

Since the contract explicitly quantified the price by the foot, why don't we apply the logic of the wheat scenario? Specifically:

• If the unit of sale was strictly defined as "one foot", and the buyer only bought 10, shouldn't we say the buyer simply never purchased that extra 0.5 feet?
• If that extra 0.5 feet technically belongs to the seller (since the buyer didn't contract for it), but it can't be cut off without ruining the rug, why doesn't this result in undivided co-ownership (musha), where the seller retains a fractional share of the rug?

I understand why Abu Hanifa thinks the buyer shouldn't have to pay $10.50 (the units were set per foot and no smaller), but I still don't understand how this can result in the buyer keeping the excess.

Here is the relevant text from Al-Hidayah for reference:

>
وَلَوِ اشْتَرَى ثَوْباً وَاحِداً عَلَى أَنَّهُ عَشَرَةُ أَذْرُعٍ كُلُّ ذِرَاعٍ بِدِرْهَمٍ فَإِذَا هُوَ عَشَرَةٌ وَنِصْفٌ أَوْ تِسْعَةٌ
وَنِصْفٌ، قَالَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ: فِي الْوَجْهِ الأَوَّلِ يَأْخُذُهُ بِعَشَرَةٍ مِنْ غَيْرِ خِيَارٍ، وَفِي الْوَجْهِ الثَّانِي يَأْخُذُهُ
بِتِسْعَةٍ إِنْ شَاءَ وَقَالَ أَبُو يُوسُفَ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ: فِي الْوَجْهِ الأَوَّلِ يَأْخُذُهُ بِأَحَدَ عَشَرَ إِنْ شَاءَ، وَفِي الثَّانِي يَأْخُذُ
بِعَشَرَةٍ إِنْ شَاءَ. وَقَالَ مُحَمَّدٌ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ: يَأْخُذُ فِي الأَوَّلِ بِعَشَرَةٍ وَنِصْفٍ إِنْ شَاءَ، وَفِي الثَّانِي بِتِسْعَةٍ وَنِصْفٍ
وَيُخَيَّرُ﴾؛ لأَنَّ مِنْ ضَرُورَةِ مُقَابَلَةِ الذِّرَاعِ بِالدِّرْهَمِ مُقَابَلَةَ نِصْفِهِ بِنِصْفِهِ فَيَجْرِي عَلَيْهِ حُكْمُهَا.
وَلأَبِي يُوسُفَ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ أَنَّهُ لَمَّا أَفْرَدَ كُلَّ ذِرَاعٍ بِبَدَلٍ نَزَّلَ كُلَّ ذِرَاعٍ مَنْزِلَةَ ثَوْبٍ عَلَى حِدَةٍ وَقَدْ انْتَقَضَ.
وَلأَبِي حَنِيفَةَ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ أَنَّ الذِّرَاعَ وَصْفٌ فِي الأَصْلِ، وَإِنَّمَا أَخَذَ حُكْمَ الْمِقْدَارِ بِالشَّرْطِ وَهُوَ مُقَيَّدٌ
بِالذِّرَاعِ، فَعِنْدَ عَدَمِهِ عَادَ الْحُكْمُ إِلَى الأَصْلِ.