unchanged and thus have no effective role in the transaction.

(The eleventh) is to buy back a larger quantity of food for a lower price after the buyer has taken the food away. This involves an increase on a loan, because the food cannot be identified as the very same food after it has been taken away. It is therefore as though he lent him ten ardabs, from which he benefited, and then received twelve ardabs back from him. Had the buyer not taken the food away, the transaction would have been permissible, because the seller’s very same food would have returned to him, so no loan would have been involved. Their arrangement would then amount to the buyer giving the seller two ardabs of food, also paying him ten dirhams at the end of one month, and receiving eight dirhams from him at the end of two months. Such a case gives no grounds for suspicion.

(The twelfth) is to buy back a larger quantity for the same price after the buyer has taken the food away. This involves an increase on a loan, because the food cannot be identified as the very same food once it has been taken away. It is therefore as though he lent him ten ardabs, from which he benefited, and then received twelve ardabs back from him. Had the buyer not taken the food away, the transaction would have been permissible, because the seller’s very same food would have returned to him, so no loan would have been involved. Their arrangement would then amount to the buyer lending the seller ten dirhams for one month and giving him two ardabs, thereby doing him a favour in two respects.

(The thirteenth) is to buy back the same quantity for a lower price after the buyer has taken the food away. This too involves an increase on a loan, because the food cannot be identified as the very same food after it has been taken away. It is therefore as though the seller lent the buyer ten ardabs, from which he benefited, and received the same quantity back from him, on condition that, when payment falls due, the buyer pay him two dinars in return for what he lent him, together with eight dirhams to remain with him as a loan until the second due date. Had the buyer not taken the food away, the transaction would have been permissible, because the seller’s very same food would have returned to him and thus would have had no effective role in the transaction. The buyer would pay the seller ten dirhams on the due date and receive eight dirhams from him on the second due date. Such a case gives no grounds for suspicion.

As for the disputed case—buying back the same quantity of food for the same price after the buyer has taken the food away—it involves the arrangement, “Lend to me and I will lend to you.” Ibn al-Qāsim took a lenient view of this, whereas Ibn al-Mājishūn disapproved of it. Had the buyer not taken the food away, the transaction would have been permissible, because