harmed. But if its value in Mecca, the town where the loan was made, is three hundred, while in Medina, the town where repayment is demanded, it is two hundred, then he is not obliged to pay its value in Mecca, because that would harm him, as it would be more. He may say, “I can now buy for you one hundred saʿs in Medina for two hundred riyals,” and so he must repay with the equivalent commodity, even if transporting it entails expense, because he now stands to gain: one third of the price will be saved for him, while the transport expense from Mecca to Medina may perhaps be only ten riyals.

To sum up: if the lender demands repayment from the borrower somewhere other than the town where the loan was made, and transporting the item entails expense, then the borrower is not obliged to provide the equivalent commodity; rather, he must pay its value—unless its value in the town where the loan was made is greater than its value in the town where repayment is demanded. In that case, he must provide the equivalent commodity, because there is no harm to him. Everyone knows that buying one hundred saʿs in Medina for two hundred is better than buying them in Mecca for three hundred. Thus, he is obliged to provide the equivalent commodity.

For this reason, the author’s statement—may Allah have mercy on him—is regarded as a slip of the pen when he said, “provided that its value in the town where the loan was made is not lower.” The author of al-Rawḍ therefore commented: “The correct wording is: greater” (1), because if the value in the town where the loan was made is greater, then there is no harm to him in this case if he buys the equivalent commodity and returns it. What the commentator said is correct.