are those who are best in repaying debts.” (1)

Likewise, if, after repayment, he gives him a gift—whether small or large—this is permissible, because in that case the loan was not a transaction of exchange; rather, it remained an act of accommodation, but the borrower wished to reciprocate the lender for what he had given him. The Prophet said, “Whoever does you a kindness, reciprocate it.” (2)

It is understood from the author’s words, “or gives him something better,” that if he gives him more without any stipulation, then according to the school of thought this is not permissible. The difference is that “better” pertains to quality, whereas “more” pertains to quantity; thus, it is not permissible.

The correct view is that it is permissible, provided that it was not stipulated. Thus, if he borrows ten from him and, upon repayment, gives him eleven, there is nothing wrong with this. For if an increase in quality is permissible, then an increase in number is likewise permissible, since there is no difference. Indeed, quality may sometimes be more beneficial to the lender than quantity: something of exceptionally high quality may be of greater benefit than a numerical increase.

But someone may say: If we permit this, it would necessarily follow that we permit bank interest, because you give the bank one hundred thousand and, after a year, it gives you one hundred and ten.

The answer is that the bank’s increase is deemed stipulated by customary convention, and a customary stipulation is like an explicit verbal stipulation, because this is known from