Islamic Fiqh > Financial transactions > The loan (qard) and hawala > What must be returned to the lender
Contents
Updated on 26 September 2026 at 7:12 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
The scholars differed over what may validly be lent and what may not, but they agreed that one who grants a salaf in what it is permitted to lend must have its like returned by the borrower, whether its value rose or fell since the loan, and the lender must accept it as such.
Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: all those from whom I preserve knowledge, whom I preserve, agreed that one who grants a salaf in what it is permitted to lend, the return of its like is valid, and the lender has the right to take it (al-Ijma', 507; al-Ishraf, 6/142; see Hashiyat al-Sawi, 7/188). Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: they agreed on the obligation to return the like of the thing borrowed (al-Iqna' fi masa'il al-ijma', 3/1668, no 3263), for the measured and the weighed, in wrongful seizure and destruction, are returned by the like: so it is here (al-Mughni, 4/210).
The Hanbalis said: if he cannot find the like, because it is rare and unavailable, the borrower owes the value of the like on the day it becomes unavailable, for it is then established in his liability (Kashshaf al-Qina', 3/368; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 3/326).
They then differed over what is neither measured nor weighed: is the like returned or the value? The Shafi'is in the school and the Hanbalis in a view held that in the valued, the like in form is returned, for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) borrowed a young camel and returned a four-year-old one, saying: 'The best of you are those who are best in settling'; and because the value would require knowledge of it.
The Hanbalis said: this differs from destruction, in which there is no liberality, hence the obligation of the value, which is more restrictive; the loan, for its part, is easier: this is why the inferior quality (nasi'a) is permitted in what involves riba; its qualities are taken into account approximately, for the like truly exists only in the measured and the weighed; if the like is impossible, he owes its value on the day of that impossibility, for it is then established in his liability (al-Mughni, 4/210).
The Shafi'is said: the qualities should be considered, such as the craft of the slave and the speed of the mount, and what combines all those qualities is returned so that nothing is lacking to him. If that is impossible, the form is considered along with the value; thus, if no slave exists worth the value of the lent slave with its qualities, should the value of the lent slave be paid in dirhams because the like cannot be returned, or should a like in form be returned with money added up to the value? This is examined, and the more apparent is the first view, by virtue of the stated cause.
The Hanbalis in the school and the Shafi'is in a view held the obligation of its value on the day of the loan, for it has no like: he guarantees it at its value as if he destroyed a valued item; the value is due on the day of the loan according to the Hanbalis and, in the most correct version among the Shafi'is, because it is then established in his liability; this, among the Shafi'is, upon the view that the loan is owned by seizure, or for the most part from the moment of seizure to consumption if one says ownership by consumption. In case of dispute between the quality and the value, the borrower's word under oath is retained, for he is the debtor (Rawdat al-Talibin, 3/257; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/33; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 4/262; al-Najm al-Wahaj, 4/283; al-Dibaj, 2/169; al-Bayan, 5/466; al-Mughni, 4/210; al-Furu', 4/152; Kashshaf al-Qina', 3/368; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 3/326).
The people of knowledge agreed that if the lender stipulates, at the time of the loan, an increase or a gift from the borrower, then lends on that basis, taking that increase is riba.
Imam Ibn al-Mundhir (may Allah have mercy on him) said: they agreed that one who grants a salaf stipulating from the beneficiary an increase or a gift, then lends on that basis, commits riba by taking that increase (al-Ijma', 508; al-Ishraf, 6/142). Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi said: they agreed that stipulating the return of better or more than what was borrowed is unlawful and not permitted (al-Iqna' fi masa'il al-ijma', 3/1668, no 3264).
They established it by the hadith attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
'Every loan that draws a benefit is one of the forms of riba.'Weak hadith, reported by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (10715) and al-Baghawi (2/10)
Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: as for the salaf, which is the loan, the unanimous Sunna has reached us: the best of people are those best in settling, and the increase, if stipulated in it, is riba (al-Istidhkar, 6/406). And because the loan contract is benefaction and drawing near to Allah: if the lender stipulates the increase for himself, he departs from its purpose, which prevents its validity, for it would be a loan for the increase, not for benefaction; and the stipulated increase resembles riba, for it is a surplus with no counter-value; guarding against the reality of riba and what resembles it is obligatory (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 7/395; al-Mughni, 4/211).
The Hanbalis said: resembling that is the lender's stipulation of any work that draws benefit to him, such as the borrower housing him free of charge in his house, lending him his mount, doing such work for him or benefiting from his pledge; for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade sale combined with salaf, for he stipulated a contract within a contract, as if he sold his house on condition that the other sell him his.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade sale combined with salaf.Hasan hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (3503), al-Tirmidhi (1234), al-Nasa'i (4611) and Ibn Majah (2188)
Likewise if he stipulates that he rent him his house for less than its rent, or that he rent the lender's house for more than its rent, or that he do work for him: it is forbidden more strongly. If he does what it is forbidden to stipulate, by housing him in his house and the like, without condition, it is permitted (al-Mughni, 4/211; al-Insaf, 5/131-132; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 3/328; Kashshaf al-Qina', 3/370; al-Rawd al-Murbi', 2/7; Manar al-Sabil, 2/86).
This is when the increase is stipulated in the loan; but if it is not stipulated, and the borrower settles better than what he received, in quantity, quality or less, there is no harm in it according to the majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis; for riba is the name of an increase stipulated in the contract and not found; this falls under fine settlement, which is a recommended act, by virtue of the hadith of Abu Rafi' (may Allah be pleased with him): the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had borrowed a young camel from a man; camels of the zakat came to him, and he ordered Abu Rafi' to repay the man. Abu Rafi' returned and said: I found in them only a four-year-old young camel. He said: 'Give it to him: the best of people are those best in settling.'
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had borrowed a young camel from a man; camels of the zakat came to him, and he ordered Abu Rafi' to repay the man. Abu Rafi' returned and said: I found in them only a four-year-old young camel. He said: 'Give it to him: the best of people are those best in settling.'Reported from Abu Rafi' (see Kashshaf al-Qina', 3/364; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 3/322; al-Rawd al-Murbi', 2/5)
And because he did not make that increase a compensation in the loan, nor a means to it or to recovering his debt: it is lawful as if there were no loan. Ibn Musa (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he adds after repayment, then the borrower returns seeking a second loan and he grants it, he takes only the like of what he gave: if he takes an increase or gives better than what he had given, it is forbidden by one opinion.
They differed over the man known for settling well, giving more or better: may he be lent to without condition? The Shafi'is in the most correct version and the Hanbalis in the school said: he may be lent to without condition, for the increase is recommended in settlement and does not prevent the validity of the loan; the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was known for settling well: would anyone dare say that lending to him is disliked? He is the best of people and the most worthy of having his need met and his distress relieved; only the stipulated increase is forbidden. In a view, among both the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: he may not be lent to except on condition that he return the like of what he takes, for what is known by custom equals the known condition, and he is seeking his fine habit (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 7/395; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 5/166; Rawdat al-Talibin, 3/255; Sharh Sahih Muslim, 11/37; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/35; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 4/264-265; al-Najm al-Wahaj, 4/284-285; al-Dibaj, 2/170-171; al-Bayan, 5/466; al-Mughni, 4/211; al-Furu', 4/152; al-Insaf, 5/131-132; Kashshaf al-Qina', 3/370-371; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 3/328-329; al-Rawd al-Murbi', 2/7; Manar al-Sabil, 2/86).
The Malikis permit the increase in quality but not in number: a loan of an object, food or merchandise may be settled with a higher quality, whether the term has arrived or not, for the right over the term in the loan belongs to the debtor, like a fine dinar for a base one, a garment, food or a fine animal for a common one: it is fine settlement, and the best of people are those best in settling; on condition that the two parties do not visit each other for that purpose, otherwise it would be a salaf drawing benefit, which is invalid. Settling with less in quality and quantity together is permitted, like half a dinar or half a dirham, half an irdabb or half a garment for a whole one; with less in quality alone, or quantity alone, if the term has arrived, otherwise not, by virtue of 'let it be and hasten' (da' wa-ta'jil). It is never permitted to settle with more in number or weight, whether the term has arrived or not: that would be a salaf with an increase, a surplus from both sides, like ten yazidiyya dirhams for nine muhammadiyya or the reverse.
The price of the sold thing, gold and silver, follows the same rules in its repayment: permitted in a higher quality absolutely, in a lower quality and quantity if the term has arrived. But the repayment of the sale price of gold admits more in number or weight, like paying ten for nine, unlike the loan, for the cause of prohibition in the loan, namely the benefit-drawing salaf, is absent there; gold does not fall under 'reduce the debt and I will add to you' (hutt al-daman wa-aziduka), the term in it belonging to the debtor; as for merchandise and food, repayment before the term is by equivalence in quantity and quality, not more because of 'reduce the debt and I will add to you', nor less because of 'let it be and hasten'; once the term has arrived, it is permitted for merchandise; for food, paying less in the like with release from the remainder is permitted, otherwise prevented by superiority in food; and if repayment is made of another kind, it is permitted if the price is not food, and sale with what was taken is permitted face to face with the capital delivered (Hashiyat al-Sawi on al-Sharh al-Saghir, 6/288).
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his Companions forbade the lender to accept a gift from the borrower before repayment, for the purpose of the gift is to defer repayment, even without stipulation: blocking the way to riba. All this is during the term of the loan and before repayment; after repayment, it counts as the unconditional increase, permitted in the correct version of the school, for he did not make that increase a compensation in the loan nor a means to it or to recovering his debt, as if there were no loan. Likewise, every creditor follows the rule of the lender in what preceded (al-Mughni, 4/211-212; I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, 3/171; al-Insaf, 5/131-132; Kashshaf al-Qina', 3/371; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 3/329; al-Rawd al-Murbi', 2/7-8; Manar al-Sabil, 2/86-87).
The saftaja is a loan by which the lender obtains security from the danger of the road. Its form: lending his money to another on condition that he give him its equivalent in his town or in a safe place, or that he protect him on the road; he gives it as a loan, not as a deposit, to obtain the removal of the danger of the road. The word is an arabization of safta or sufta, a well-tied thing; this loan was so named for the solidity of its arrangement (al-Ikhtiyar, 2/40; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 4/175; al-'Inaya, 10/199).
The Malikis said: the saftaja is the letter the borrower sends to his agent in another town, so that he pays the bearer the like of what he borrowed, to avoid the danger of the road and the cost of transport (Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 4/73; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 5/231). The benefit expected here is that the lender protects his money from the danger of the road: fearing that, if he traveled with his funds, brigands and highwaymen would seize them, he resorts to this device so that, through this loan, he wards off the danger expected on the road (Tahrir alfaz al-Tanbih, p. 193; al-Matali' ala abwab al-Muqni', 260).
The majority of jurists consider the saftaja a loan and not a transfer of debt (hawala), although it resembles it: the borrower refers the lender to a third person, as if he had transferred the lender's claim from his liability to that of the addressee; whereas the hawala is nothing other than the transfer of a debt from one liability to another. But the majority classified it under the loan, for the discussion bears on the loan that draws a benefit; the hawala, for its part, concerns a debt already established in liability. Some Hanafi jurists, like al-Haskafi and al-Marghinani, treated it at the end of the chapter of hawala while mentioning it also in the chapter of the loan. Ibn al-Humam and al-Babarti said: al-Quduri mentioned this question here because it is a transaction in debts, like kafala (guarantee) and hawala (Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 7/251; al-'Inaya, 10/199).
Al-Kirmani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it has the meaning of the hawala, for he transferred the expected danger to the borrower. Al-Haskafi said: the saftaja is a lending for the removal of the danger of the road, as if he had transferred the expected danger to the borrower: it therefore has the meaning of the hawala. Ibn Abidin said: in the Nazm al-Kanz of Ibn al-Fasih: 'I disapprove of the saftajas of the road: they are referrals to verification.' Its commentator al-Maqdisi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: because he refers the payment to his friend or to the one he writes to (al-Durr al-Mukhtar with the Hashiya of Ibn Abidin, 5/350).
The jurists differed over the ruling of the saftaja, which is either stipulated or not. Without condition, the majority permit it. Stipulated, the majority of jurists, namely the Hanafis, the Malikis in the famous position, the Shafi'is and Ahmad in one of the two narrations, disapprove of it: it is a loan that draws a benefit and resembles riba, the benefit being a surplus with no counter-value. The Hanafis said: if he lends to him in Kufa on condition that he repay him in Basra, it is not permitted, for it is a loan with benefit: the borrower spares him the danger of the road and the cost of transport. On this model are the saftajas used by merchants, who lend among themselves, the borrower writing a saftaja to the lender toward a place: if that is a condition of the loan, it is disliked, for it is a loan with benefit that relieves him of transport and the danger of the road; if it is not a condition of the loan, there is no harm. The form of the condition: a man lends to another on condition that he write for him toward such a town: it is not permitted; if he lends without condition and then writes, it is permitted. Then they said: it is only lawful without condition if there is no manifest custom; if it is known that this is done that way, no (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 7/395; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama' of al-Tahawi, 4/194; al-Ikhtiyar, 2/40; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 4/175; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 6/276; al-Hidaya Sharh al-Bidaya, 3/100; al-Muhit al-Burhani, 7/286; Durrar al-Hukkam Sharh Ghurar al-Ahkam, 7/434; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 5/350).
The Malikis said: the saftaja is not permitted, nor any object whose transport is heavy; for the lender benefited from protecting his wealth from the harms of the road if destruction and highway robbery are not predominant; if destruction and highway robbery are predominant and fear prevails on all the routes of the place the lender is heading to, relative to him, then it is permitted by necessity, the preservation of wealth taking precedence over the harm of a benefit-drawing salaf; it is even recommended for one safe in person and wealth, and may become obligatory. If the danger predominates on some routes, or on all but relative to others, it is not permitted (Tahrir al-Mukhtasar, 4/73; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 5/231; al-Sharh al-Kabir, 4/365; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/612; Mawahib al-Jalil, 6/407; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 2/89; Minah al-Jalil, 5/406).
As for the Shafi'is, al-Mawardi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: taking saftajas for money is of two kinds: upon an established debt, or upon a new loan. For the established debt: if the creditor asks his debtor to write him a saftaja to another town, it is not imposed on him unless he wills; if they agree on writing a saftaja, it is permitted. As for the loan, it is of two kinds: one in which the writing of the saftaja is stipulated, on the lender's side, who says: 'Here, I lend to you so that you write me a saftaja to such a town', or on the borrower's side, who says: 'Here, I borrow from you so that I write you a saftaja to such a town': this is an invalid loan from which the saftaja may not validly be taken, for it is a loan with benefit. The other: an unrestricted loan, then they agree on writing a saftaja: this is permitted, as with the debt.
The saftaja over a debt is then either in the wording of hawala, or in the wording of order and message. In the wording of hawala: when the saftaja reaches the addressee, payment is imposed on him under four conditions: that he acknowledge the writer's debt, that he acknowledge the debt owed to the addressee, that he acknowledge that it is the transferor's letter, and that he acknowledge that he wrote it intending the hawala; if he acknowledges these four, payment of the debt stated in the saftaja is imposed on him, whether it was stipulated in express wording or not. If he acknowledges the writer's debt but denies his own debt, or acknowledges both debts but denies the letter, the hawala is not imposed on him; if he acknowledges both debts and the letter but denies the intention of hawala, the school, imposed by analogy, holds that the hawala is not imposed on him.
Some of ours said: as soon as he acknowledges the letter and the debt, the hawala is imposed on him, even if he denies the intention relying on custom and on the impossibility of reaching the intention. If he does not acknowledge the letter but agrees to pay the money so that the hawala becomes valid, it is permitted; our companions differed over reclaiming the money before the validity of the hawala: some say no, considering the condition, and that he reclaims it after learning of the hawala's invalidity; the other view, that of Abu Abdallah al-Zubayri: he may reclaim his money whenever he wishes as long as the validity of the hawala is not established, for the money is not imposed on him except after it.
As for the saftaja in the wording of order and message, it imposes nothing on the addressee unless he guarantees it verbally, whether he acknowledges the letter and the debt or not: this is the view of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan. Abu Yusuf said: if he reads it and leaves it with satisfaction, it is imposed on him. Another Iraqi said: if he records it in his account, it is imposed on him. For us (Shafi'is), none of this imposes the saftaja; likewise if he writes on its back: 'Valid, I have accepted it', nothing binds the writer except verbal guarantee; his acknowledgment of the handwriting does not bind him; some of ours said that acknowledgment of the handwriting binds him, like the one who claims that, in the hawala, acknowledgment of the handwriting binds: this is incorrect in both places (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 6/467-468; al-Bayan, 5/462; al-Najm al-Wahaj, 4/285).
The Hanbalis in the school said: if he stipulates that he give it to him in another town and its transport involves a cost, it is not permitted, for it is an increase; without transport cost, it is permitted. Ahmad stated in explicit text that stipulating the writing of a saftaja is not permitted, meaning stipulating repayment in another town (al-Mughni, 4/211; al-Mubdi', 4/209). Ahmad held, in a narration chosen by Ibn Qudama, the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim and some Malikis, the validity of the saftaja, for it is a benefit for both parties.
'Ata' (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) used to take dirhams from people in Mecca, then write for them to Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr in Iraq, and they would take them from him. Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) was asked about that and saw no harm in it (reported by Abd al-Razzaq in the Musannaf, 8/140, no 14642). Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: 'There is no harm in giving the money in Medina and taking it in Ifriqiya' (reported by Ibn Abi Shayba in the Musannaf, 4/359, no 21021); Ibn Sirin and al-Nakha'i saw no harm in it either. Al-Qadi (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned that the testamentary guardian may lend the orphan's money in another town to gain the profit of the road danger.
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the correct view is its validity, for it is a benefit for both without harm to either; the Law is not repealed by the prohibition of interests without harm, but by their legitimacy; nothing prohibits it in text or in meaning: it must therefore be left in permission (al-Mughni, 4/211; al-Kafi, 2/125).
Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: it is not permitted for a man to borrow something heavy to transport and costly in a town, on condition that it be given to him in another. As for saftajas in dinars and dirhams, Malik disliked dealing in them without forbidding them, and a number of his companions and scholars permitted them, for they involve no transport or costs; it is also reported from Malik that he saw no harm in it, but the more famous position from him is the disapproval, given the use people made of the saftajas; as for borrowing food on condition that it be given in another town, he never varied in disapproving it, and likewise everything heavy to transport. There is no harm in the beneficiary of the salaf stipulating what benefits him, such as repayment in another place; Malik said: if it is the lender who stipulates what benefits him, it is not permitted and there is no good in it (al-Kafi, 1/359).
The Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the saftaja is that he is lent dirhams which he will recover in another town: for example, the lender intends to carry dirhams to another town, and the borrower owns dirhams in that town and needs dirhams in the lender's town: he borrows dirhams from him, in his town, and writes him a saftaja, that is, a paper, to the town of the borrower's dirhams; this is permitted in the more correct of the scholars' two views. It is said: its use is disapproved, for it is a loan with benefit, and the loan with benefit is riba; the correct view is its validity, for the borrower saw the benefit of road safety in transferring his dirhams to the lender's town of dirhams: both benefit from this borrowing, and the Legislator does not forbid what benefits people, reforms them and is needed by them; He forbids only what harms them, corrupts them and from which Allah has enriched them; and Allah knows best (Majmu' al-Fatawa, 29/455).
He said elsewhere: the correct view is that it is not disliked, for the borrower benefits from it too; there is in it a benefit for both when he lends (Majmu' al-Fatawa, 20/515). Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the narration from Ahmad varied on lending dirhams on condition of repaying them in another town without transport cost: it is reported from him that it is not permitted; al-Hasan, a group, Malik, al-Awza'i and al-Shafi'i disliked it. Its validity is also reported, transmitted by Ibn al-Mundhir, for it is a benefit for both and the borrower is not alone in the benefit; it is attributed to Ali, Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan ibn Ali, Ibn al-Zubayr, Ibn Sirin, Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Aswad, Ayyub, al-Thawri and Ishaq, and al-Qadi chose it. Similar to this: if his creditor goes bankrupt and he lends him dirhams against a monthly repayment of a known amount of their profit, it is permitted, for the borrower is not alone in the benefit.
The jurists agreed that sale with a condition of salaf from either of the two contracting parties is not permitted and constitutes a corrupt sale (al-Ifsah, 1/406; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/121; al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya, 172). It consists in saying: I sell you this merchandise for one hundred, for example, on condition that you grant me such a salaf or lend to me; for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade sale combined with salaf (hasan hadith: Abu Dawud, 3503; al-Tirmidhi, 1234; al-Nasa'i, 4611; Ibn Majah, 2188).
Ibn Qudama (may Allah have mercy on him) said: if he sells on condition of granting a salaf or a loan, or if the buyer stipulates that of him, it is forbidden and the sale is void; this is the madhhab of Malik and al-Shafi'i; I know of no disagreement on it, except that Malik said: if the one who stipulated the salaf drops it, the sale is valid. Our proof: Abdallah ibn Umar reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade profit on what one has not taken liability for, the sale of what one does not possess, two sales in one sale, two conditions in a sale, and sale combined with salaf:
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade gain on what one has not guaranteed, the sale of what one does not possess, two sales in one, two conditions in a sale and sale combined with salaf; and in a version: 'Sale combined with salaf is not lawful.'Reported by Abu Dawud (3503) and al-Tirmidhi (1234), who graded it hasan sahih; also al-Nasa'i (4611) and Ibn Majah (2188)
For he stipulates a contract within a contract, like two sales in one sale. Likewise, if he stipulates the loan, he raises the price for it: the increase becomes compensation for the loan and profit for him, which is forbidden riba: the sale is thus corrupted as if it were explicit. And because it is a corrupt sale that does not become valid again, like selling one dirham for two then leaving one (al-Mughni, 4/162; see Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 6/446; al-'Inaya, 9/162; al-Jawhara al-Nayyira, 3/82, 84; Rawdat al-Talibin, 3/62; al-Bayan, 5/462; Asna al-Matalib, 2/31).
The Malikis said: sale combined with salaf is not valid if stipulated; without condition, it is not prevented according to the relied-upon view. The forms of sale and salaf are four: the seller says to the buyer 'I sell you this on condition that you lend me such a salaf' or 'on condition that I lend you'; or the buyer says to the seller 'I buy it from you on condition that I lend you, or that you lend me such a salaf'. Their combination without condition: validity is the stronger view; suspicion of sale and salaf is prevented.
The questions are three. The first: a seemingly lawful sale leading to sale and salaf; it is then prevented for suspicion that both intend the forbidden sale and salaf: selling two merchandises for two dinars on term, then buying one back for one dinar cash, so that the seller has given a merchandise and a dinar cash, then takes the two dinars at the term, one for the merchandise (sale) and the other for the dinar (salaf); when this form recurs, sale is prevented among them for suspicion of design. The second: sale and salaf with a condition from the seller or the buyer: forbidden, for the benefit of the loan is part of the price if the condition comes from the seller, or of the merchandise sold if it comes from the buyer: a benefit-drawing salaf. The third: sale and salaf without condition, explicit or implied: permitted according to the relied-upon view.
The sale is valid if the condition contradicting the purpose or affecting the price is removed, the merchandise standing; even if the beneficiary of the salaf was absent for a period in which it could be enjoyed. If the merchandise perished, the apparent view of the school is that removal after its perishing in the buyer's hand has no effect, the value being already due upon him. In sale with a condition of salaf, if the merchandise perished in the buyer's hand: the greater of the agreed price and of the value on the day of seizure is due, if it is the buyer who received the salaf, for he took it cheap, like the contradictory condition: the greater of the two is due when the merchandise perished in his hand. If the salaf comes from the seller, the reverse: the lesser of the two is due from the buyer (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 5/81; Hashiyat al-Sawi, 6/350-351; Minah al-Jalil, 5/77).
Al-Zarqani (may Allah have mercy on him) said, explaining Malik's words: 'I take his merchandise for so much, on condition that you lend me so much': if they contract on this, it is not permitted, that is, forbidden, because of the suspicion that they intend the salaf with an increase; if the seller is the one who grants the salaf, it is as if he had taken the price against the merchandise and the benefit of the salaf; if he is the buyer, as if he had taken the merchandise with the price paid against the benefit of the salaf. If the one who stipulated the salaf drops it while selling, the sale is permitted, the suspicion having vanished (Sharh al-Zarqani, 3/389).
Al-Nafrawi the Maliki (may Allah have mercy on him) said: stipulating sale and salaf is not permitted, for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade sale with a condition, and the doctors of the school applied the prohibition to the condition contradicting the purpose or affecting the price. Contradicting the purpose: the seller stipulating of the buyer not to sell that merchandise at all, or except to a small number, or not to touch it if it is a slave woman, or to do nothing of what is intended with it; affecting the price: the condition of sale and salaf, which requires an increase of the price if the condition comes from the buyer, or a decrease if it comes from the seller. As for the combination of sale and salaf without condition, it is not prevented according to the relied-upon view, even if suspected, unlike what Khalil practiced in deferred sales.
Note: when you know upon what we brought the author's statement, it appears that his unrestricted statement on the combination of sale and salaf is not accepted according to the relied-upon view; the place of corruption is the condition where they did not remove it; the more correct is the sale where they removed it before the merchandise perished, unlike removal after its perishing, which does not cause validity: the buyer then owes the greater of the price and the value if he is the beneficiary of the salaf, for he took it cheap; and if the seller is the beneficiary of the salaf, the lesser of the two is due from the buyer, unless the buyer was absent from the salaf to the point of benefiting from it: the value is then due from him; or, as taken from Ibn Rushd's words, that it increased: al-Hattab pointed to this, for the valued merchandise; as for the fungible, the like is due absolutely: such is the ruling of the price-affecting condition (al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 2/89).
Ibn Juzayy (may Allah have mercy on him) said: sale with stipulation of salaf from either of the two contracting parties is not permitted by consensus if the stipulator insists on it; if he drops it, the sale is permitted, contrary to them (al-Qawanin al-fiqhiyya, 173).