The fourth is where the commodity is delivered immediately and the price is deferred; this is very common in commercial transactions.

We mentioned the second scenario: where both the price and the commodity are deferred. We said that this is invalid, yet it occurs frequently among people today, though they do not know its ruling. For example, someone purchases an item from another on credit, to be delivered after one year, then gives him a cheque post-dated for six months—meaning that he cannot cash it until six months have passed.

Thus, the price is deferred and the commodity is deferred, and this is invalid, since both are deferred. At least one of them—or both—must be received. If both are deferred, the transaction is invalid.

However, if receipt is delayed without being stipulated as deferred—for example, if one says, “I bought from you one hundred sāʿs of wheat for one hundred riyals,” but he does not hand it over, intending to bring it in the afternoon, the following day, or the day after, while the price itself is not deferred—is this valid or not?

According to the madhhab, it is invalid. They say: because this is the sale of one debt for another debt, since neither of the two has been specifically designated: neither the price nor the commodity has been designated.

But the correct view is that it is valid. What is prohibited is for both of them to be deferred. If no deferment is stipulated, receipt is not a condition—except in one case, where receipt is necessary: the exchange of a ribā-based commodity for another of the same kind.

So what is salam? Is it an independent type of sale, or a category of sale? The correct view is that it is a type of sale; it does not cease to be a sale.