between them, based on the Prophet’s saying: “When these categories differ, then sell as you wish, so long as it is hand to hand.” (1)

Shaykh Ibn Baz—may Allah grant him success—together with the Permanent Committee, issued a fatwa prohibiting this. More recently, however, the shaykh told us: “I used to hold it prohibited, but I have suspended judgment as to whether it is prohibited or not.”

As for me, I am fully at ease with its permissibility and have no doubt about it. Our shaykh, Abd al-Rahman ibn Saʿdi—may Allah have mercy on him—also permitted it. Indeed, he permitted more than this: he held that disparity in amount is permissible even when possession is delayed, provided that they do not stipulate a fixed term. Thus, if I gave you one hundred and, after some time, you gave me one hundred in return, or more, there would be no objection to that, on condition that no term was stipulated. But if one says, “I gave you one hundred in exchange for one hundred and ten, payable in one year,” this is prohibited according to our shaykh Abd al-Rahman.

What appears correct to me, however, is that delaying possession is prohibited, whether a term is stipulated or not; as for disparity in amount, there is no objection to it.

Thus, the preponderant view concerning these currencies is that zakah is obligatorily due on them in all cases, whether they are intended for trade or otherwise. Accordingly, if a person has money set aside for marriage and a full lunar year passes over it, zakah is due on it. Likewise, if he has cash with which to buy a house or repay a debt, and a full lunar year passes over it, zakah is due on it—except according to those who hold that a debt prevents the obligation of zakah to the extent of its amount.