His statement: “Or if he says, ‘Sell it for such-and-such a price on deferred payment,’ and he sells it for immediate payment; or, ‘Buy it for such-and-such a price with immediate payment,’ and he buys it on deferred payment—if there is no harm in either case, it is valid; otherwise, it is not.” These are two issues:

The first is: “Sell it for such-and-such a price on deferred payment, and he sells it for immediate payment.” He says: “So-and-so, take this watch and sell it for forty dirhams, but on credit for one year.” The agent goes and sells it for forty dirhams in cash, then returns with the forty. The principal says to him: “I told you to sell it for forty on credit for one year.” He replies: “This is better for you. I have brought you the forty, and instead of waiting a year for payment, payment has now been made.” The author says: This is valid, on condition that it entails no harm.

It is understood from his words that if there is harm, the sale is invalid. An example of such harm is where the principal intends to travel and will not return to the town until a year has passed. He knows that if he takes the dirhams now, they will be lost to him, so he has a purpose in deferring payment—namely, to prevent his money from being lost. We therefore say: in this case, the sale is invalid, because the principal had a purpose in deferring payment, and you have frustrated that purpose.

Another example is where this principal lives in a land with unjust rulers who prey upon the people: whenever they find someone possessing wealth, they impose taxes on him or seize his money. He says: “If I take the payment immediately and keep it with me, then the spies of those unjust rulers may come and say, ‘This man has money,’ and then exercise their power over him.” This is a valid purpose. He says: “I told you to sell it on deferred payment because the unjust rulers have spread their spies throughout the town, and whoever they see