However, if he says, “I enter into a salam contract with you, paying you these forty thousand for a car to be delivered after one year,” this is valid, because it is something described as an obligation. He has not designated a particular car, nor is it a described, identified item in a particular location.

His statement, “to be delivered at a later date,” means that deferment is likewise necessary. If it is not deferred, it is not valid as salam.

An example is for someone to say, “I enter into a salam contract with you, paying you the one hundred riyals presently in my hand for one hundred sa's of wheat.” The ruling on this contract is that it is not valid as salam, because salam must be deferred. The evidence is the Prophet’s statement, peace and blessings be upon him: “Whoever pays in advance for something, let him do so for a specified measure and a specified weight, to a specified term.” (1) Does his statement, “to a specified term,” make both matters conditions—that there must be a term and that it must be specified—or does the condition relate only to its being specified?

If we adopt the first view, it must be deferred; but if we adopt the second, deferment is not a condition. However, if a deferment is stipulated, its term must be known.

Hence, the scholars differed—may Allah have mercy on them. Some held that it must have a term, while others held that there is no harm if it has no term.

What appears correct to me is that it is valid without a term. We may call it whatever we wish: salam or sale. This is because it involves neither uncertainty, nor usury, nor injustice. The prohibited transactions—that is, exchange transactions—revolve around these three: usury, injustice, and uncertainty. This transaction involves no uncertainty, no injustice, and no usury.