the avenue leading to it. If, without prior agreement, the transaction is instead the reverse of a buy-back sale, there are two reports from Ahmad concerning it: one person sells the commodity to the other for immediate payment and then buys it back from him for a larger sum payable later. With prior agreement, however, it is usury procured through a stratagem.

If the purchaser’s objective is to obtain cash, and he buys a commodity on deferred payment in order to sell it and take its price, this is known as tawarruq. There are two reports from Ahmad as to whether it is disliked. The view that it is disliked was also held by Umar ibn Abd al-Azīz and Mālik, as I recall. This differs from the case of a purchaser whose objective is trade, personal use, or possession; by consensus, such a person may purchase the commodity on deferred payment.

In sum, the people of Medina and the hadith jurists firmly prohibit the various forms of usury, taking due account of the objectives and principles of the Sharia. Their position on this accords with what has been transmitted from the Companions and is supported by the import of the Quran and Sunnah.

As for gharar (contractual uncertainty), Abū Hanīfa and al-Shāfiī adopted the strictest positions concerning it.

Al-Shāfiī included under this term certain forms that other jurists did not, such as grains and fruits enclosed in husks that do not serve as protective coverings—for example, broad beans, and walnuts and almonds in their green hulls—as well as grain still in its ears. His later position was that such sales were impermissible, even though, during his final illness, he himself purchased green broad beans. This was accordingly counted as another position of his, and a group of his followers adopted it, including Abū Saīd al-Istakhrī. It is also related of al-Shāfiī that, when he was told that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, “forbade the sale of grain until it becomes firm,” this was taken to indicate that it may be sold once it has become firm, even while still in its ears. He said, “If this is authentic, I will exclude this case from the general ruling,” or words to that effect. It is likewise reported that he retracted his position prohibiting it.