A Jewish man arrived during the time of the Prophet ﷺ with thirty camel-loads of barley and dates, and he set the price at one mudd for one mudd of the Prophet's ﷺ measure. At that time, the people had no other food, and they had already been struck by hunger before this, finding no food to eat.The people came to the Prophet ﷺ complaining to him about the high price, so he ascended the pulpit, praised Allah and glorified Him, then said, "Let me not meet Allah after having given anyone the property of another without that person's willing consent. Selling is only by mutual agreement. But there are matters in your dealings that I will mention to you. Do not harbor grudges against one another. Do not inflate prices through false bidding. Do not envy one another. A man should not bid against his brother's bid. A town dweller should not sell on behalf of a desert dweller. Selling is by mutual agreement. And be, servants of Allah, brothers."
أن يهوديا قدم زمن النبي ﷺ بثلاثين حمل شعير وتمر، فسعر مدا بمد النبي ﷺ، وليس في الناس يومئذ طعام غيره، وكان قد أصاب الناس قبل ذلك جوع، لا يجدون فيه طعاما، فأتى النبي ﷺ الناس يشكون إليه غلاء السعر، فصعد المنبر، فحمد الله، وأثنى عليه ثم قال: لا ألقين الله من قبل أن أعطي أحدا من مال أحد من غير طيب نفس، إنما البيع عن تراض، ولكن في بيوعكم خصالا أذكرها لكم: لا تضاغنوا، ولا تناجشوا، ولا تحاسدوا، ولا يسوم الرجل على سوم أخيه، ولا يبيعن حاضر لباد، والبيع عن تراض، وكونوا عباد الله إخوانا.
Ibn Hibban (4967), Abu Yaala (1354), Bayhaqi (17/6), and Ibn Majah (2185) all narrated it through Abdul-Aziz bin Muhammad Darawardi, from Dawud bin Salih Tammar, from his father, from Abu Saeed Khudri, and so he related it. The wording given here is that of Ibn Hibban. Abu Yaala and Bayhaqi abridged it, and Ibn Majah was content with his saying, "A sale is only valid by mutual consent." Its chain is hasan on account of Darawardi and his teacher Dawud bin Salih. There are also reports on this subject from Ibn Abbas, Ali, Abu Juhayfa, and Abu Basila, but none of them is sound. (See Majma al-Zawaid 4/99-100.) What is sahih among them is what I have mentioned.The legal point of the hadith is this. The basic rule in buying and selling is mutual consent, as Allah Most High says, "O you who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, except through trade based on mutual consent among you" [Nisa 4:29]. For this reason the majority of scholars held that price-fixing is not permissible, citing these hadiths as their evidence.It is established that Umar bin Khattab later retracted from interfering in market matters. Malik narrated in the Muwatta, in the chapter on sales (60), from Yunus bin Yusuf, from Saeed bin Musayab, that Umar bin Khattab passed by Hatib bin Abu Balta while he was selling raisins of his in the market, and Umar bin Khattab said to him, "Either raise the price, or leave our market."The fuller detail of this is as Shafii narrated from Darawardi, from Dawud bin Salih Tammar, from Qasim bin Muhammad, from Umar bin Khattab, that he passed by Hatib bin Abu Balta, who had two sacks of raisins before him, and he related something similar to Malik's hadith, "Either raise the price, or take your raisins into your house and sell them however you wish." When Umar returned, he held himself to account, then went to Hatib at his house and said to him, "What I said to you was not a firm order from me, nor a binding ruling, it was only something by which I intended good for the people of the town. So sell wherever you wish and however you wish." (Istidhkar 20/75, and Sunan al-Kubra of Bayhaqi 29/6.)However, it is permissible for the ruler, if he sees that sellers have raised their prices excessively and thereby ruined the livelihood of the Muslims, to set the price of food, which is the sustenance of life, because this serves to establish and safeguard the market. For it is the right of the ruler to look after the interests of the Muslims in whatever benefits them and whose benefit reaches them all.Some scholars have held this view, among them Layth bin Saad, Rabia, Yahya bin Saeed, and others. Some of the Malikis and Hanafis have also held it, basing it on the legal maxim, "Harm must be removed." There is no doubt that a seller's overreaching on a basic commodity counts among the greatest harms to the general public.