Malik said, According to the way things are done among us there is no harm in selling gold for gold, and silver for silver by counterpoising weight, even if 11 dinars are taken for 10 dinars hand to hand, when the weight of gold is equal, coin for coin, even if the number is different. Dirhams in such a situation are treated the same way as dinars.

Malik said, If, when counterpoising gold for gold or silver for silver, there is a difference of weight, one party should not give the other the value of the difference in silver or something else. Such a transaction is ugly and a means to usury because if one of the parties were permitted to take the difference for a separate price, it could be as if he had bought it separately, so he would be permitted. Then it would be possible for him to ask for many times the value of the difference in order to permit the completion of the transaction between the two parties.

Malik said, If he had really been sold the difference without anything else with it, he would not have taken it for a tenth of the price for which he took it in order to put a 'legal front' on the transaction. This leads to allowing what is forbidden . The matter is forbidden.

Malik said that it was not good when counterpoising to give good old gold coins and put along with them unminted gold in exchange for worn kufic gold, which was unpopular and to then treat the exchange as like for like.

Malik said, The commentary on why that is disapproved is that the owner of the good gold uses the excellence of his old gold coins as an excuse to throw in the unminted gold with it. Had it not been for the superiority of his (good) gold over the gold of the other party, the other party would not have counterpoised the unminted gold for his kufic gold, and the deal would have been refused.

It is like a man wanting to buy three sa of ajwa dried dates for two sa and a mudd of kabis dates, and on being told that it was not good, then offering two sa of kabis and a sa of poor dates desiring to make the sale possible. That is not good because the owner of the ajwa should not give him a sa of ajwa for a sa of poor dates. He would only give him that because of the excellence of kabis dates.

Or it is like a man asking some one to sell him three sa of white wheat for two and a half sa of Syrian wheat, and being told that it was not good except like for like, and so offering two sa of wheat and one sa of barley intending to make the sale possible between them. That is not good because no one would have given a sa of barley for a sa of white wheat had that sa been by itself. It was only given because of the excellence of Syrian wheat over the white wheat. This is not good. It is the same as the case of the unminted gold.

Malik said, Where gold, silver and food, things which should only be sold like for like, are concerned, something disliked and of poor quality should not be put with something good and desirable in order to make the sale possible and to make a bad situation halal. When something of desirable quality is put with something of poor quality and it is only included so that its excellence in quality is noticed, something is being sold which if it had been sold on its own, would not have been accepted and to which the buyer would not have paid any attention. It is only accepted by the buyer because of the superiority of what comes with it over his own goods. Transactions involving gold, silver, or food, must not have anything of this description enter into them. If the owner of the poor quality goods wants to sell them, he sells them on their own, and does not put anything with them. There is no harm if it is like that.

Malik said, The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us about a man who buys a female slave and she becomes pregnant, or who buys a slave and then frees him, or if there is any other such matter which has already happened so that he cannot return his purchase, and a clear proof is established that there was a fault in that purchase when it was in the hands of the seller or the fault is admitted by the seller or someone else, is that the slave or slave-girl is assessed for its value with the fault it is found to have had on the day of purchase and the buyer is refunded,from what he paid,the difference between the price of a slave who is sound and a slave with such a defect.

Malik said, The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us regarding a man who buys a slave and then finds out that the slave has a defect for which he can be returned and meanwhile another defect has happened to the slave whilst in his possession, is that if the defect which occurred to the slave in his possession has harmed him, like loss of a limb, loss of an eye, or something similar, then he has a choice. If he wants, he can have the price of the slave reduced commensurate with the defect (he bought him with ) according to the prices on the day he bought him, or if he likes, he can pay compensation for the defect which the slave has suffered in his possession and return him. The choice is up to him. If the slave dies in his possession, the slave is valued with the defect which he had on the day of his purchase. It is seen what his price would really have been. If the price of the slave on the day of purchase without fault was 100 dinars, and his price on the day of purchase with fault would have been 80 dinars, the price is reduced by the difference. These prices are assessed according to the market value on the day the slave was purchased .

Malik said, The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us is that if a man returns a slave girl in whom he has found a defect and he has already had intercourse with her, he must pay what he has reduced of her price if she was a virgin. If she was not a virgin, there is nothing against his having had intercourse with her because he had charge of her.

Malik said, The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us regarding a person, whether he is an inheritor or not, who sells a slave, slave-girl, or animal without a liability agreement is that he is not responsible for any defect in what he sold unless he knew about the fault and concealed it. If he knew that there was a fault and concealed it, his declaration that he was free of responsibility does not absolve him, and what he sold is returned to him.

Malik spoke about a situation where a slave-girl was bartered for two other slave-girls and then one of the slave-girls was found to have a defect for which she could be returned. He said, The slave-girl worth two other slave-girls is valued for her price. Then the other two slave-girls are valued, ignoring the defect which the one of them has. Then the price of the slave-girl sold for two slave-girls is divided between them according to their prices so that the proportion of each of them in her price is arrived at - to the higher priced one according to her higher price, and to the other according to her value. Then one looks at the one with the defect, and the buyer is refunded according to the amount her share is affected by the defect, be it little or great. The price of the two slave-girls is based on their market value on the day that they were bought.

Malik spoke about a man who bought a slave and hired him out on a long-term or short-term basis and then found out that the slave had a defect which necessitated his return. He said that if the man returned the slave because of the defect, he kept the hire and revenue. This is the way in which things are done in our city. That is because, had the man bought a slave who then built a house for him, and the value of the house was many times the price of the slave, and he then found that the slave had a defect for which he could be returned, and he was returned, he would not have to make payment for the work the slave had done for him. Similarly, he would keep any revenue from hiring him out, because he had charge of him. This is the way of doing things among us.

Malik said, The way of doing things among us when someone buys several slaves in one lot and then finds that one of them has been stolen, or has a defect, is that he looks at the one he finds has been stolen or the one in which he finds a defect. If he is the pick of those slaves, or the most expensive, or it was for his sake that he bought them, or he is the one in whom people see the most excellence, then the whole sale is returned. If the one who is found to be stolen or to have a defect is not the pick of the slaves, and he did not buy them for his sake, and there is no special virtue which people see in him, the one who is found to have a defect or to have been stolen is returned as he is, and the buyer is refunded his portion of the total price.

Malik said, The generally agreed on way of doing things among us in which there is no dispute, about buying food - wheat, barley, durra-sorghum, pearl millet, or any pulse or anything resembling pulses on which zakat is obliged, or condiments of any sort - oil, ghee, honey, vinegar, cheese, sesame oil, milk and so on, is that the buyer should not re-sell any of that until he has taken possession and complete delivery of it.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab the like of that.

Malik said, ''Said ibn al-Musayyab, Sulayman ibn Yasar, Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm, and Ibn Shihab forbade that a man sell wheat for gold and then buy dates with that gold before he had received the gold from the transaction in which he sold the wheat. There is no harm for someone to buy dates on delayed terms, on the strength of the gold for which he sold the wheat, from someone other than the person to whom he sold the wheat before taking possession of the gold, and to refer the one from whom he bought the dates to his debtor who bought the wheat, for the gold he is owed for the dates.

Malik said, I asked more than one of the people of knowledge about that and they did not see any harm in it.

Malik said, The way of doing things among us concerning someone who makes an advance for foodstuffs at a known rate until a stated date, and the date arrives and he finds that there is not enough of what he was sold with the seller to fulfill his order, and so he revokes the sale, is that he must only take back the silver, gold, or price which he paid exactly. He does not buy anything else from the man for the same price until he has got back what he paid. That is because if he took something else besides the price which he paid him or exchanged it for goods other than the goods which he bought from him, it would be selling food before getting delivery of it.

Malik said, The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade selling food before getting delivery of it.

Malik said that it was not good if the buyer regretted his purchase and asked the seller to revoke the sale for him and he would not press him immediately for what he had paid. The people of knowledge forbade that. That was because when the food was made ready for the buyer by the seller, the buyer deferred his due from the seller in order that he might revoke the sale for him. That was the sale of food with delayed terms before taking delivery of the food.

Malik said, The explanation of that is that when the date of delivery comes and the buyer dislikes the food, the seller takes by it money to be paid later and so it is not revocation. Revocation is that in which neither the buyer nor the seller is increased. When increase occurs by deferment of payment for a time period, or by anything which increases one of them over the other or anything which gives one of them profit, it is not revocation. When either of them do that, revocation becomes a sale. There is an indulgence for revocation, partnership, and transfer, as long as i ncrease, decrease, or deferment does not come into them. If increase, decrease, or deferment comes into it, it becomes a sale. Whatever makes a sale halal makes it halal and whatever makes a sale haram makes it haram.

Malik said, If someone pays in advance for Syrian wheat, there is no harm if he takes a load after the term falls due.

Malik said, It is the same with whoever advances for any kind of thing. There is no harm in him taking better than whatever he has made an advance for or worse than it after the agreed delivery date. The explanation of that is that if, for instance, a man advances for a certain weight of wheat. There is no harm if he decides to take some barley or Syrian wheat. If he has made an advance for good dates, there is no harm if he decides to take poor quality dates. If he paid in advance for red raisins, there is no harm if he takes black ones, when it happens after the agreed delivery date, and when the measure of what he takes is like the measure of what he paid for in advance.