before it and what is after it, and a lesson for those who fear Allah} (46). It is said: It means the nation of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). That is, so that the nation of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) may take a lesson from that, and avoid the likes of what the transgressors did. This is because a ruse is a deception, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Deception is not lawful for a Muslim" (47). Furthermore, preemption (shuf'a) was established to ward off harm; if it were to be nullified through deception, harm would occur, so it cannot be nullified, just as if the buyer were to void it (48) through sale or endowment (waqf). It differs from cases where no deception is intended, because there is no deceit in them, nor is there an intent to invalidate a right, and deeds are [judged] by intentions. If they disagree as to whether any of this occurred as a ruse or not, the statement is that of the buyer, along with his oath, because he is most knowledgeable of his intention and his circumstance. Once this is established, the risk (gharar) in the first two scenarios rests upon the buyer, due to his purchasing what is worth ten for one hundred, and what is worth one hundred dirhams for one hundred dinars, and he bore witness against himself that he owes a thousand, so perhaps he will be held to that, and it will become binding upon him (49) in the outward ruling. In the third [case], the risk (50) is upon the seller, because he bought a slave worth one hundred for one thousand. In the fourth, it is upon the buyer, because he bought a share whose value is one hundred for one thousand. Likewise in the fifth, because he bought a portion of the share for the price of the whole. In the sixth, it is upon the one who initiated the gift among them, because the other may not gift him anything. If one of them contravenes what (51) they had colluded upon, and demands from his companion what they had made apparent (52), it becomes binding upon him in the outward ruling, because he entered into the sales contract with his companion for that amount by his own choice. As for what is between him and Allah the Almighty, it is not lawful for the one who deceived his companion to take something contrary to what they had colluded upon, because his companion only consented to the contract for the sake of the collusion; thus, with its absence, the consent to it is not realized.