—conditions, just as the people of the pre-Islamic era also laid down their own conditions (1) according to their conventions. The same holds for all other contract names—ijara (lease), rahn (pledge), hiba (gift), qard (loan), and nikah (marriage): whenever what is meant is the contract itself or something akin to it, the terms retain their original meanings. A transferred usage is required only when the Lawgiver introduces meanings the Arabs [ق 46] did not previously know, such as salah (ritual prayer), zakah (almsgiving), and tayammum (dry ablution); only then is a transfer necessary, whereas the meanings of these contracts have always remained familiar.

Ibn al-Murahhil said, “My colleagues have maintained that it is a transferred term.”

Shaykh Taqi al-Din replied, “Had the word ‘sale’ in the verse been intended to denote ‘a valid, lawful sale,’ the verse would have read: ‘Allah has permitted the valid, lawful sale,’ or, ‘Allah has permitted the sale that He deems lawful.’ Besides being a redundancy (2), such wording would nullify any inference from the verse, for we cannot know that a given transaction is included in the verse until we first know that it is a valid, lawful sale; and once we know that, we have no further need to cite the verse as evidence.”

Ibn al-Murahhil said, “Whenever it is established that this particular instance is called a sale in the language, I say it is a sale in the Law, for the default is that no transfer has occurred; and if it is a sale in the Law, it is encompassed by the verse.”

Shaykh Taqi al-Din responded, “Your argument is sound only if it has not been proven that the term has been transferred. But once it has been shown (3) to be a transferred term, no individual case may be subsumed under it until it is proven that the transferred designation (4) …”