Its manifest meaning is permissibility if it is not a ruse. This is the more correct view because he is a stranger. However, this is not exclusive to his shop-boy; rather, whenever he does this as a ruse, it is not permissible, and it constitutes forbidden deception (tadlis), according to what we mentioned previously.

Section: If he purchases a garment for ten, then sells it for fifteen, then purchases it for ten, it is recommended that he disclose the situation as it actually occurred. If he reports that he purchased it for ten without providing details, it is permissible. This is the view of al-Shafi'i, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad, because he is truthful in what he reported, and there is neither suspicion nor deception of the purchaser in it, so it resembles the case where he does not make a profit on it. It was narrated from Ibn Sirin that he should subtract the profit from the price and report that his capital cost for it was five. Ahmad found the view of Ibn Sirin admirable, stating: If he sells it for what he purchased it, he should disclose his situation, meaning he should report that he made a profit on it once, then purchased it again. This is construed as a recommendation for the reason we have mentioned. Abu Hanifa said: It is not permissible to sell it by way of murabaha unless he discloses his situation [or reports] that his capital cost for it was five. This is the opinion of the Qadi and his companions, because in murabaha, contracts are combined; therefore, he must report the value that it cost him, just as the wages of the tailor and the fuller are combined. By this second contract, he has secured the profit of the first contract, because he is now secure from it being returned to him, and because profit is one of the types of growth (nama'), it is therefore necessary that he report it in the murabaha, just as with offspring and fruit. Consequently, it follows that if he subtracts the profit from the second price, he should say: "It cost me five." It is not permissible for him to say: "I bought it for five," because that would be a lie, and lying is forbidden. It becomes similar to the case where he adds the wages of the fuller and the tailor to the price and reports that. Our argument is what we have previously mentioned. What they mentioned regarding the inclusion of the fuller's and tailor's wages, and the offspring and fruit, is something they built upon their own principles, which we do not accept. Furthermore, this does not resemble what he mentioned, because the expenses and growth were incurred in this sale that immediately follows the murabaha, while this profit was in another contract prior to this purchase, so it resembles a loss in it. As for the "securing of profit," it is not valid, for...