the hadith states that when the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, arrived in Medina, people were entering into salam contracts for fruits to be delivered one or two years later. He said: “Whoever enters into a salam contract for anything, let him do so for a known measure, a known weight, and a known term.” (1) It is as though he was saying: This term that you stipulate must be known. Thus, the hadith does not explicitly stipulate that there must be a term. Based on this view, they said that a salam contract may be concluded with immediate delivery. This is the view of some scholars.

As for stipulating that the term must have an effect on the price, there is nothing in the hadith to indicate this. The hadith says, “to a known term,” but it does not condition this upon the term affecting the price. For this reason, many jurists did not stipulate it. It has become clear that the condition that it affect the price is based on a rationale; and a rationale must be examined: if it is sound, it is accepted, and if it is unsound, it is not accepted. Whoever considers the apparent meaning of the hadith says: There is no evidence for this. But whoever considers the reason for which salam was legislated says: This condition is necessary, because if the term is merely from morning until evening, and prices do not differ over such a short period, then there is no benefit in salam. In reality, it is like a contract with no term.

In any case, in such issues, when the evidence is not clear on either side, should we observe the safer course or take the concession? It may be said that observing the safer course is better, especially when this safer course is what the ruling would be if the case were brought before a court. For if you deem this transaction valid while the well-known ruling among people is contrary to what you have deemed valid, this will lead to harms in the future. These