his car to someone for one hundred thousand, payable in one year. Then Zayd’s father buys this car from the person who bought it from his son for eighty thousand in cash. There is nothing wrong with this, because the transaction is now with a third party—unless the father has a share in the car, in which case it is not permissible, because it would return to the original selling party.

His statement, “or his son buys it, it is permissible,” means that if his son buys it—for example, Zayd sells this car to someone for one hundred thousand, payable in one year, and then his son buys it from the person to whom his father sold it for eighty thousand in cash—there is nothing wrong with this, because the transaction has become one with a third party. This is why he said, “it is permissible,” on condition that the son does not have a share in it.

It states in al-Rawḍ (1): “Whoever needs cash and purchases something worth one hundred for more, in order to make use of its sale price, there is nothing wrong with this. It is called the issue of tawarruq.”

He says, “Whoever needs cash”: an example is a person who wishes to marry but has no money, so he purchases something worth one hundred for more—that is, he purchases a car worth one hundred for a higher deferred price, in order to make use of its sale price by selling it for cash to someone other than the person who sold it to him, for less than the deferred price for which he bought it. There is nothing wrong with this, and it is called the issue of tawarruq. The scholars have two views regarding this matter, and they are two reports from Imam Ahmad.

Some scholars hold that it is permissible, because a person may purchase such a commodity for a purpose connected with the commodity itself, such as a man who buys a car