Fatwa No : 80969
Recovering the liability for rice purchased through theft by the son, from the father

Recovering the liability for rice purchased through theft by the son, from the father

What do the esteemed Muftis and respected scholars say regarding this issue that:
A man gave some rice to a shopkeeper. The shopkeeper went to the warehouse to inspect the rice and found that the rice was being offered at a low price. Tempted by the cheap price, the shopkeeper bought the rice. Both individuals live in the same area and are familiar with each other. The shopkeeper also knew that the man is not a rice trader. The shopkeeper later sold the purchased rice at a higher price.Afterward, it was discovered that the rice was stolen, and the man was arrested. Upon his arrest, the shopkeeper came to know about the theft. In an attempt to get the man released, the shopkeeper paid 50,000 rupees. Despite that, the police still arrested the shopkeeper and also seized the rice he had purchased.Now, the shopkeeper is demanding reimbursement of the money from the father of the man who sold him the rice. However, the father says: "Did you ask us before purchasing the rice?" The father is also a poor laborer.
From the perspective of Islamic law (Shari’ah), is the shopkeeper's demand from the father valid or not? If it is valid, then by what means can the payment be made?

الجوابُ حامِدا ًو مُصلیِّا ً

Since the father neither gave any guarantee at the time of purchase nor afterward, the shopkeeper’s demand from him is not valid. The shopkeeper must refrain from making such a baseless claim. However, he may demand compensation from the person directly involved, who, in turn, is responsible for recovering the money from the one who stole the rice and paying it to the buyer

مأخَذُ الفَتوی

ففي الدر المختار: لو استهلكه المشتري منه أو الموهوب له فللمالك تضمينه اھ(4/ 111)۔
وفي حاشية ابن عابدين: (قوله فللمالك تضمينه) أي تضمين المشتري أو الموهوب له ثم يرجع المشتري على السارق بالثمن لا بالقيمة (إلی قوله) لو أودعه فهلك، بخلاف الاستهلاك فإن المستهلك متعد فلا رجوع له على السارق أصلا بلا فرق بين كونه مشتريا أو مودعا أو مستأجرا، نعم للمشتري الرجوع بالثمن على السارق؛ لأنه لما استهلكه وضمن قيمته ملكه من وقت الاستهلاك فيرجع على السارق بما دفعه إليه من الثمن لا بالقيمة لظهور أن ما دفعه إليه لا يملك قبضه اھ (4/ 111)۔
وفي الفتاوى الهندية: ويشير في التسليم أن يكون المبيع مفرزا غير مشغول بحق غيره اھ (3/ 16)۔
وفي الفتاوى الهندية: رجل اشترى سمنا ودفع إلى البائع ظرفا وأمره بأن يزن فيه وفي الظرف خرق لا يعلم به المشتري والبائع يعلم به فتلف كان التلف على البائع ولا شيء له على المشتري اھ (3/ 19)۔
وفي حاشية ابن عابدين: ولو مات عنده قبل أن يرده وقضى على البائع بنقصان العيب كان للمشتري أن يرجع على الضامن اھ (5/ 48)-