For example, he sells two saʿ of dates for one saʿ and one dirham, and the extra saʿ on the side consisting solely of dates is worth one dirham. He said: There is nothing wrong with this, because we regard the extra saʿ as being in exchange for the dirham, while the other saʿ, which is accompanied by the dirham, is in exchange for the other saʿ. There is no contrivance involved in this whatsoever, and need may call for it. A person may have two saʿ of Sukkari dates, while another has dates of a different variety but does not possess two saʿ; rather, he has only one saʿ and some dirhams. So he says: “I will give you this saʿ and one dirham,” where the saʿ is equal in value to the other saʿ, neither more nor less.

The view adopted by Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, is more correct. If we are certain that there is no ribā involved and that the values are equal, then there is nothing wrong with it. The Wise Lawgiver does not prohibit something when it is clear that it involves no ribā whatsoever, especially when need may call for it.

Another example: if someone buys a sack of wheat for half a sack of wheat, with a car accompanying the latter, this is not permissible, because the wheat cannot be considered in exchange for the car. Thus, it is invalid even according to Shaykh al-Islam’s view. Rather, the unaccompanied item must be worth more than the saʿ that is accompanied by something else, such that its excess offsets what accompanies the other item, without exceeding it.

If he says: “I wish to sell one saʿ and one dirham for one saʿ and one dirham,” then this is not permissible according to the school’s position. According to the Shaykh’s view, however, it is permissible if the values are equal. Or he may say: “One saʿ and one dirham, but this dirham is in exchange for”