This matter of returning purchases during the return period—while having fulfilled the conditions choice of cancelling—is widespread and has become a common issue in many Western countries.

Before answering, it is beneficial to lay out some foundational premises, both from a shar῾ī (legal) and ethical perspective:

1. Distinction Between Overstepping One’s Right and Abusing One’s Right:

There is a difference between:

Overstepping one’s right, like someone building on the edge of their property but encroaching into public space, building too close to the street. (Therefore, laws in many countries require leaving a reasonable distance from the edge of the property to be embedded in the street and an entryway for the house).

Abusing one’s right, like someone building a tall wall purely to block their neighbor’s sunlight and airflow.

Sometimes, both overstepping and abuse occur together—for instance, when someone makes a waṣiyyah (bequest) beyond one-third of their wealth intending to harm the heirs. This person: Overstepped the legal limit (more than one-third), and abused the right to bequeath by intending harm.

2. Distinction Between the Rulings in Terms of Qaḍā᾽ (Courts) and Diyānah (Religion):

An action might be valid by law but still sinful by religion. Courts judge based on outward appearances and actions of the accountable people, while religious rulings consider intention as well. For example, the Qur᾽ān gives an example of the issue of ᾽aḍl al-nisā᾽ (preventing women from remarriage)

That is, a man would divorce a woman, then revoke the divorce just before her ῾iddah (waiting period) ends—only to re-divorce her to extend her ῾iddah and harm her by hurdling her marriage from another man.

This action is legally permissible by law and courts, but religiously condemned and called ẓulm (oppression): “Whoever does that has wronged himself.” [Al-Baqarah: 231].

3. Abuse of Rights Has Conditions for Accountability:

One is held accountable for abusing their own rights when:

• They intend to harm others, e.g., demolishing a wall that shields a neighbor for no benefit except to expose them.
• Their benefit is disproportionate to the harm inflicted, e.g., connecting two houses with a roof that blocks the public’s access. The harm presumed from blocking road traffic for heavy weights is greater than the benefit presumed from connecting the two houses with a roof or a bridge.
• Their aimed benefit is Islamically impermissible, e.g., hosting thieves and criminals or helping someone marry a woman only to make her ḥalāl again for her ex-husband (taḥlīl marriage). Although marriage from a divorced woman is permissible by default and right for those who are legally able to get married, it becomes impermissible in this case of turning an irrevocable divorced woman to her husband. This is how one abuses their own rights.

If these conditions are absent, the act is a rightful one and the person is not to be blamed.

4. Dealing Should Not Involve Deception or Betrayal:

The default principle in transactions is absence of deception and betrayal. Similarly, honesty is a default principle in sales. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him said: “The bayyi῾ān (the buyer and the seller) have the option (to cancel) as long as they have not separated. If they are honest and transparent, their sale will be blessed; if they lie and conceal, the blessing of their sale will be erased.” [Agreed upon]

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) called the buyer and the seller the bayyi῾ān. Even though one is a buyer and the other a seller, both are exchanging rights, and honesty is required from both.

This includes the buyer’s genuine intention to purchase, not merely to benefit from the item temporarily.

Notably, Ḥanafī scholars who allow fāsid (invalid) contracts in non-Muslim lands still require that such contracts be free of betrayal and deception; if deceit is involved, the contract becomes invalid.

5. Individual vs. Collective Action:

What may be tolerated from an individual may not be if done a large group. For example, turning on decorative lights during a holiday may be fine at the individual level. But if an entire city does it and causes power outages or strain for hospitals and streets, the act becomes harmful and thus forbidden at a communal level.

6. Social ῾Urf (Customary) Matters in Transactions:

Custom helps define what is considered dishonest. For example, while legally allowed, consummating a marriage in a bride’s father’s home may violate social norms and is frowned upon.

Social norms allow people to return items for various reasons, even without a defect. But returning an item after using it intentionally while hiding this intent is considered deceptive according to social custom. The social norms are continuously presumed in such cases.

This aligns with the ḥadīth that narrated from Al-Nawwās that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Sin is what wavers in your soul and you would hate for people to find out about it.”

These are essential premises for a muftī to issue the correct fatwā.

Conclusion:

It is not religiously permissible (in terms of diyānah) for a Muslim to purchase an item from an individual or store with the intention to use it temporarily and return it within the return period. This includes: Deception to gain a benefit, preventing the seller from offering the item to a real buyer, wasting resources when this becomes widespread, misusing a customary right that is based on honest consumer behavior, and damaging the reputation of Muslims if this behavior is recognized as common among them.

However, if the return is due to a legitimate reason (e.g., defect, unneeded due to receiving a similar item, or financial need), then returning it within the agreed-upon return policy is permitted.

Fatwā issued by Dr. Khālid Naṣr