whereas taking compensation for it here, if he takes something other than money in exchange, is not permissible. This is because they used two different expressions, so each must be understood in a sense distinct from the other, lest there be repetition. Thus, “nor may he take compensation for it” refers to taking, in exchange for it, something other than money, which is not permissible. That is, if, when the term falls due, the salam purchaser says to the salam seller, “You owe me one hundred sāʿs of wheat, and I want you to give me barley or rice instead,” this is not valid, because he has converted it and exchanged it for something else, based on the hadith: “Whoever enters into a salam contract for something must not exchange it for something else.” (1) But, as stated previously, this hadith is not authentic. Accordingly, there is no harm in taking compensation for it, provided that the three previously mentioned conditions are met.
His statement: “Nor is a pledge or guarantor valid for it,” means that if the salam purchaser says to the salam seller, “I want you to pledge something to me as security,” and he replies, “I pledge to you my palm trees,” or, “I pledge to you my car,” or the like, then this is not valid. For if fulfilment becomes impossible, the salam purchaser will have recourse to this pledge, and thus the salam goods would have been exchanged for something else.
Likewise, taking a guarantor for it is not valid, because if fulfilment by the guaranteed party becomes impossible, he will collect from the guarantor. In that case, the subject of the salam contract would have been exchanged for something else. This reasoning, too, is weak, because if collection from the guaranteed party becomes impossible and I collect it from the guarantor, I have not exchanged it for something else. It is true that the liability has passed from one person’s liability to another, but the subject of the salam contract itself has not been exchanged for anything else.
The correct view, therefore, is that it is permissible to take a pledge, a guarantor, or a surety for it; all of these are permissible, because they involve neither prohibition, usury, injustice, uncertainty, nor ignorance. They are security contracts, and the basic ruling concerning contracts is permissibility.