Question:

Someone brought zamzam water from umrah when he arrived at the airport all the zamzam packs were mixed up so the worker at the airport told people to take any pack (since the labels have disappeared) was it  allowed in such a case to take anyones  ZamZam? [Question Published as Received.]

The Fatwa

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

The Answer

The Fiqh of the Answer

Zamzam containers that are all identical in terms of  their packaging and have no unique marks or writings by their owners are fungible items (Mithliyyāt) in Fiqh. The Majallah describes Mithliyyāt as items that are found in the market without any meaningful and considerable difference. All the Zamzam containers that are typically purchased at the airports in Saudi Arabia are packed in identical packaging and are identical for all intents and purposes.

Ibn Māzah al-Bukhāri (d.616 AH), in his al-Muḥīt al-Burhānī, examines the intricate dynamics of rights concerning fungible goods (Mithliyyāt) and non-fungible (Qimīyyāt) items during transactions and exchanges. Where identical items belonging to different people are mixed up (Khalṭ), then this is a form of Istihlāk Ma’nawī (legal destruction of one’s exact property); one’s specific asset (‘Ayn) ceases to exist or be distinguished, and necessitates the transfer of ownership rights from the specific asset (‘Ayn) to a similar item (Mithl), and not to its value.

A couple of Furūʿ are cited in al-Muḥīt describing scenarios of belongings or food getting mixed among travellers that are absent. Al-Muḥīt mentions that the Fuqahā’ have different perspectives on what should be done. Some suggest an individual should try to determine which items are theirs (Taḥarrī), and then use them accordingly, just as they might divide up a shared meal. However, they differentiate the response if the item is bread. Some argue that the person should still try to determine which loaf is theirs, while others argue they should wait until everyone returns before dividing the bread. Perhaps the difference in bread is due to its perishable nature.

Ibn Māzah (d.616 AH) explains that all of these scenarios refer to situations where the person has a choice in the matter. However, in situations of necessity (implying urgent need), it’s generally acceptable to go ahead and do Taḥarrī (determine which items are theirs) regardless of the item in question. Imām al-Sarakshī (d.483 AH) in his al-Mabsūṭ has also mentioned similar conclusive examples in the chapter of Ghaṣab.

The Binā’ (basis) of this Mas’alah in on the principles of Istihlāk and its consequences. According to Imam Abū Ḥanīfah (d.150 AH), when there is Khalṭ of identical items, it is a complete form (min kulli wajḥ) of Istihlāk. When that is the case, no partnership in the assets is formed, rather the one who mixed up the assets becomes liable to deliver a Mithl (identical) asset to the original owner. Hence, the right of the original Zamzam owner goes from owning an ‘Ayn(specific Zamzam container) to now owning a Dayn (a claim to any Zamzam container identical to what one had). Essentially, he has a claim against the one who mixed up the assets, in this case, the cargo handlers. Whereas according to Imam Abū Yusūf and Imam Muḥammad, this is partial Istihlāk, meaning that one’s asset is no longer existing in form (ṣūratan), but is existing in substance (Maʿnan). They say this because one’s actual Zamzam container is still there, however, it cannot be identified as it is mixed up.

Given the different understanding above, Imam Abū Ḥanīfah states that only Taḍmīn (making a party liable) is possible in the scenario where complete Istiḥlāk is found. On the other hand, Imam Abū Yusūf and Imam Muḥammad state that the Zamzam owner has a choice of either proceeding with either Shirkat or Taḍmīn. The difference is based on an idea that when Taḍmīn is the option, you effectively have lost all rights to the underlying assets, and now simply have a claim against the person who was negligent and breached terms. They effectively become owners of whatever they failed to take care of. As such, the Zamzam owner now has a Haqq and claim against the cargo handlers. Imam Abū Yusūf and Imam Muḥammad recognise the existence of one’s asset, albeit at a lower level as the exact item cannot be identified. Thus, they say that it is possible to form a Shirkat with others. This would mean that there is no claim against the cargo handlers, rather the Zamzam owner now owns an undivided share (Hiṣṣah Mushāʿah)in the pool of Zamzam water containers in joint ownership (Shirkat al-Milk). The view of Imam Abū Ḥanīfah is the Rājiḥ view in the Madhhab.

In practice, the baggage handlers do Takhliyah by delivering all of the cargo to the passengers and remove any obstacles from people to get their Haqq. This Takhliyah is sufficient to absolve themselves from liability and deliver the Haqq of the passengers to the passengers.

Despite all the above technicalities of an academic nature, it must be emphasised that as far as possible, one should seek to preserve individual property rights and to minimise instances where such situations may arise. If the identification of a specific package is plausible, that course must be pursued.

And Almighty Allah Alone Knows Best 

Maulana Ammar Y Badat
Trainee Mufti

Reviewed and approved by
Mufti Faraz Adam
Darul Iftaa Muadh ibn Jabal
www.darulfiqh.com 

DISCLAIMER:

The views and opinions expressed in this answer belong only to the author and do not in any way represent or reflect the views of any institutions to which he may be affiliated.

Arguments and ideas propounded in this answer are based on the juristic interpretations and reasoning of the author. Given that contemporary issues and interpretations of contemporary issues are subjective in nature, another Mufti may reach different conclusions to the one expressed by the author. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure total accuracy and soundness from a Shari’ah perspective, the author is open to any correction or juristic guidance. On the event of any juristic shortcomings, the author will retract any or all of the conclusions expressed within this answer.

The Shari’ah ruling given herein is based specifically on the scenario in question.  The author bears no responsibility towards any party that acts or does not act on this answer and is exempted from any and all forms of loss or damage.  This answer may not be used as evidence in any court of law without prior written consent from the author.  Consideration is only given and is restricted to the specific links provided, the author does not endorse nor approve of any other content the website may contain.

(الْمَادَّةُ ١٤٥) الْمِثْلِيُّ مَا يُوجَدُ مِثْلُهُ فِي السُّوقِ
(الْمَادَّةُ ١٤٥) الْمِثْلِيُّ: مَا يُوجَدُ مِثْلُهُ فِي السُّوقِ بِدُونِ تَفَاوُتٍ يُعْتَدُّ بِهِ كَالْكَيْلِ وَالْمَوْزُونِ وَالْعَدَدِيَّاتِ الْمُتَقَارِبَةِ مِثْلِ الْجَوْزِ وَالْبَيْضِ (رَدُّ الْمُحْتَارِ) رَاجِعْ الْمَادَّةَ (١١١٩)؛ لِأَنَّهُ وَإِنْ وُجِدَ تَفَاوُتٌ فِي الْكِبَرِ وَالصِّغَرِ بَيْنَ أَفْرَادِ الْبَيْضِ وَالْجَوْزِ وَآحَادِهِمَا فَذَلِكَ التَّفَاوُتُ لَا يُوجِبُ اخْتِلَافًا فِي الثَّمَنِ وَيُبَاعُ الْكَبِيرُ مِنْهُمَا بِمِثْلِ مَا يُبَاعُ بِهِ الصَّغِيرُ (رَدُّ الْمُحْتَارِ) .
هَذَا وَلْيَكُنْ مَعْلُومًا بِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ كُلُّ مَكِيلٍ وَلَا كُلُّ مَوْزُونٍ بِمِثْلِيٍّ فَالْقَمْحُ الْمَخْلُوطُ بِشَعِيرٍ وَالْكَأْسُ الْمَصْنُوعُ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ وَذَهَبٍ لَيْسَا بِمِثْلِيَّيْنِ وَإِنْ كَانَ الْأَوَّلُ مَكِيلًا وَالثَّانِي مَوْزُونًا

وههنا مسألة أخرى لا ذكر لها في «المبسوط» : إذا اختلط إناؤه بأواني أصحابه في السفر، وهم غيب، قال بعضهم: يتحرى، ويأخذ آنيته ويتوضأ به بمنزلة طعام مشترك بين جماعة غاب أصحابه واحتاج الحاضر إلى نصيبه، رفع قدر نصيبه، وكذلك رغيفه إذا اختلط بأرغفة صاحبه قال بعضهم: يتحرى، وقال بعضهم: لا يتحرى في الأرغفة ولكن يتربص حتى يجيء أصحابه، وهذا كله في حالة الاختيار، أما في حالة الاضطرار جاز التحري في الأحوال كلها. إذا كان للرجال مساليخ؛ بعضها ذبيحة، وبعضها ميتة إن أمكن التمييز بالعلامة يميز في الوجوه كلها، ويباح التناول، وإن تعذر التمييز بالعلامة، فإن كانت الحالة حالة الاضطرار ويعني به أنه لا يجد كسرتيّن واضطر إلى الأكل يتناول بالتحري على كل حال، وإن كانت الحالة حالة الاختيار، فإن كانت الغلبة للحرام أو كانا سواء لم يجز التناول بالتحري، وإن كانت الغلبة للحلال يتناول بالتحري. (المحيط البرهاني) 

وإمَّا مصنوعٌ لا يختلفُ كالدَّراهمِ والدَّنانيرِ والفلوس، فكلُّ ذلك مثلى.
وإذا عرفتَ هذا عرفتَ حكمَ المذروعات، فكلُّ ما يقال: يباعُ من هذا الثَّوبِ ذراعٌ بكذا، فهذا إنَّما يقالُ فيما لا يكونُ فيه تفاوت، وهو ما يجوزُ فيه السَّلَم، فإنَّهُ يعرفُ ببيانِ طولِهِ وعرضِهِ ورقعتِه (١)، وقد فصَّلَ الفقهاءُ المثليَّات وذوات القيم، ولا احتياجَ إلى ذلك، فما يوجدُ له المثلُ في الأسواق بلا تفاوتٍ يعتدُّ به فهو مثليّ، وما ليس كذلك فمن ذوات القيم، وما ذكرَ من الكيليِّ وأخواتِهِ فمبنيٌّ على هذا. (شرح الوقاية) 

وَإِذَا غَصَبَ دِرْهَمًا فَأَلْقَاهُ فِي دَرَاهِمَ لَهُ فَعَلَيْهِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ خَلَطَ الْمَغْصُوبَ بِمَالِهِ خَلْطًا يَتَعَذَّرُ عَلَى صَاحِبِهِ الْوُصُولُ إلَى عَيْنِهِ، فَيَكُونُ مُسْتَهْلِكًا ضَامِنًا لِمِثْلِهِ، وَالْمَخْلُوطُ يَصِيرُ مَمْلُوكًا لَهُ عِنْدَ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ، وَعِنْدَهُمَا لِصَاحِبِهِ الْخِيَارُ بَيْنَ التَّضْمِينِ، وَالشَّرِكَةِ، وَكَذَلِكَ الْخِلَافُ فِي كُلِّ مَا يُخْلَطُ، وَقَدْ بَيَّنَّاهُ فِي الْغَصْبِ. وَإِنْ غَصَبَ فِضَّةً، وَسَبَكَهَا فِي فِضَّةٍ لَهُ حَتَّى اخْتَلَطَا فَعَلَيْهِ مِثْلُ مَا غَصَبَ. وَكَذَلِكَ لَوْ غَصَبَ دَرَاهِمَ لِرَجُلٍ، وَدَرَاهِمَ لِآخَرَ فَخَلَطَهُمَا خَلْطًا لَا يُمْكِنُ تَمْيِيزُهُ، أَوْ سَبَكَ ذَلِكَ كُلَّهُ، فَهُوَ ضَامِنٌ لِمَالِ كُلِّ وَاحِدِ مِنْهُمَا، وَالْمَخْلُوطُ لَهُ بِالضَّمَانِ، وَعِنْدَهُمَا لِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا الْخِيَارُ بَيْنَ التَّضْمِينِ، وَالشَّرِكَةِ. (المبسوط للسرخسي)

إذَا اخْتَلَطَ إنَاؤُهُ بِأَوَانِي أَصْحَابِهِ فِي السَّفَرِ وَهُمْ غُيَّبٌ قَالَ بَعْضُهُمْ يَتَحَرَّى وَيَأْخُذُ آنِيَةً وَيَتَوَضَّأُ بِهَا بِمَنْزِلَةِ طَعَامٍ مُشْتَرَكٍ بَيْنَ جَمَاعَةٍ غَابَ أَصْحَابُهُ وَاحْتَاجَ الْحَاضِرُ إلَى نَصِيبِهِ فَيَرْفَعُ قَدْرَ نَصِيبِهِ وَكَذَا رَغِيفُهُ إذَا اخْتَلَطَ بِأَرْغِفَةِ صَاحِبِهِ قَالَ بَعْضُهُمْ يَتَحَرَّى وَقَالَ بَعْضُهُمْ لَا يَتَحَرَّى فِي الْأَوَانِي وَالْأَرْغِفَةِ وَلَكِنْ يَتَرَبَّصُ حَتَّى يَجِيءَ أَصْحَابُهُ وَهَذَا كُلُّهُ فِي حَالَةِ الِاخْتِيَارِ وَأَمَّا فِي حَالَةِ الِاضْطِرَارِ فَجَازَ التَّحَرِّي فِي الْأَحْوَالِ كُلِّهَا كَذَا فِي الذَّخِيرَةِ.

إذَا كَانَ لِلرَّجُلِ مَسَالِيخُ بَعْضُهَا ذَبِيحَةٌ وَبَعْضُهَا مَيِّتَةٌ فَإِنْ أَمْكَنَ التَّمْيِيزُ بِالْعَلَامَةِ يُمَيِّزُ فِي الْوُجُوهِ كُلِّهَا وَيُبَاحُ التَّنَاوُلُ وَإِنْ تَعَذَّرَ التَّمْيِيزُ بِالْعَلَامَةِ فَإِنْ كَانَتْ الْحَالَةُ حَالَةَ الِاضْطِرَارِ يَعْنِي بِهِ أَنْ لَا يَجِدَ ذَكِيَّةً بِيَقِينٍ وَاضْطُرَّ إلَى الْأَكْلِ يَتَنَاوَلُ بِالتَّحَرِّي عَلَى كُلِّ حَالٍ وَإِنْ كَانَتْ الْحَالَةُ حَالَةَ الِاخْتِيَارِ فَإِنْ كَانَتْ الْغَلَبَةُ لِلْحَرَامِ أَوْ كَانَا سَوَاءً لَمْ يَجُزْ التَّنَاوُلُ بِالتَّحَرِّي وَإِنْ كَانَتْ الْغَلَبَةُ لِلْحَلَالِ يَجُوزُ التَّنَاوُلُ بِالتَّحَرِّي كَذَا فِي الْمُحِيطِ (الفتاوى الهندية)

لَهُمَا أَنَّهُ لَا يُمْكِنُهُ الْوُصُولُ إلَى عَيْنِ حَقِّهِ صُورَةً وَأَمْكَنَهُ مَعْنًى بِالْقِسْمَةِ فَكَانَ اسْتِهْلَاكًا مِنْ وَجْهٍ دُونَ وَجْهٍ فَيَمِيلُ إلَى أَيِّهِمَا شَاءَ. وَلَهُ أَنَّهُ اسْتِهْلَاكٌ مِنْ كُلِّ وَجْهٍ لِأَنَّهُ فِعْلٌ يَتَعَذَّرُ مَعَهُ الْوُصُولُ إلَى عَيْنِ حَقِّهِ، وَلَا مُعْتَبَرَ بِالْقِسْمَةِ لِأَنَّهَا مِنْ مُوجِبَاتِ الشَّرِكَةِ فَلَا تَصْلُحُ مُوجِبَةً لَهَا.