539. He gives ten causes that can save oneself from the evil of hasad. (cont.)

Furthermore, it is avoidance in the bed and not avoidance in the house or in front of the family, children and so forth. The purpose of that act is to solve the problem. The purpose is not to make the problem well-known or to belittle the woman or uncover the secrets that are going on. However, it is a reaction to her act of nushooz and recalcitrance by avoiding her and turning away from her in hopes that this will lead to reciprocity and togetherness. 1 "Do not undercut one another in business transactions." This particular command of the Prophet (peace be upon him) has been stated in a number of hadith. For example, another hadith found in Sahih a/­ Bukhari and Sahih Muslim states, "The Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade the city dweller from selling on behalf of a bedouin. And there is to be no najash. One also should not undercut others in business transactions. A man should not make a proposal against the proposal of his brother. 2 A woman should not ask that her sister be divorced in order to take her place." 1 Saalib al-Sadlaan, Marital Discord (Boulder, CO: Al-Basbeer Company for Publications and Translations, 1996), p. 41. For more details about this type of "boycotting," also see pp. 40-43 of the same work and Salmaan, al-Hajr, pp. 203-214. 2 This portion of the hadith is greatly misunderstood by many people. They believe that if a brother proposes to a sister, she cannot be proposed to by any other brother nor has she the right to think about any other man until she gives her response to the first man. This is not correct. She may be proposed to by more than one man, as happened during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and she may choose whichever of them she prefers. What is not allowed is for a brother to propose to a sister after she was proposed to by somebody else and bad accepted that other person's proposal. In general, once the sister bas accepted the proposal, no other man should try to come in between the two. For a discussion of this point and all of its various details, Commentary on the Forty Hadith of al-Nawawi In these hadith, the Prophet (peace be upon him) specifically referred to doing such acts against "one's brother." This has led some scholars, such as Ahmad and al-Auzaai, to understand that this is a special right of the Muslim brotherhood. In other words, there is no harm in making a proposal against a non-Muslim's proposal or in undercutting a non-Muslim's business deal. However, many jurists, such as al-Nawawi1, are of the opinion that the meaning is actual general and that such acts should also not be done against a non­ believer. 2 To this author it seems that such behavior should neither be done toward a Muslim or a non-Muslim. However, its evil is much greater when it is done toward a person who one claims to be his brother as opposed to when it is done toward one for whom there is no such ties of brotherhood. Economic well-being is very dear to people. In ali-Imraan verse 14, Allah makes it clear that wealth is very beloved to man. Therefore, it can also be one of the greatest causes of problems and disputes among humans. Even just a few dollars here or there can cause people to fight and argue with each other. In the interest of true brotherhood, steps must be taken to ensure that people do not harm other's material interest. One of the important ways is what is described in this particular hadith. Specifically, this hadith is referring to and prohibiting the following types of actions between brothers: A buys a piece of merchandise from B for $100. Then C comes to A and says, "I can sell you the same one for $80," or he says, "I can sell you a better quality one for the same price." Because of this offer from C, A goes back to B and returns the merchandise and instead buys it from C. This kind of behavior would most likely be hated and harmful to B. It may cause hatred between B and both A and C. Therefore, it is not allowed. Another example includes the following: A sells a piece of merchandise to B for $100. Then C comes to A and says, "I will buy it from you for $120." Therefore, A nullifies his agreement with B and sells it to C instead. This would have the same negative effects on the parties involved as just described. Another important question is related to the timing of the above type of interference by C. In other words, is it just referring to the time period in which one has the option to return his merchandise? This is the opinion of some scholars, such as one narration from Ahmad. The argument of those scholars is that once that time has passed, the buyer can no longer cancel the agreement.