that he must pay the two dinars to the Christian. Ibn al-Qāsim holds the same view in Īsā’s transmission in the Book of Trade with Enemy Territory, contrary to his statement in al-Mudawwana that he must be ordered to return the single dinar, just as if both parties had embraced Islam.
As for the second case, in which he advances him a dinar in return for dirhams, or dirhams in return for a dinar, if both embrace Islam, the recipient of the advance must return the dinar or dirhams he received. The same applies if either party embraces Islam, according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position in al-Mudawwana. According to Mālik’s position—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—if the person who paid the advance embraces Islam, the dirhams are taken from the Christian who received the advance, and a dinar is purchased with them for the Muslim. Any surplus is returned to the Christian. If the dirhams are insufficient to purchase a dinar, whatever fraction of a dinar they will buy is purchased for him, and the Christian owes nothing further. If, however, the recipient of the advance embraces Islam, he must pay the dirhams he owes to the Christian, according to Īsā’s transmission from Ibn al-Qāsim and the account in Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book. This is analogous to the case concerning which Mālik—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—withheld judgment.
As for the third case, in which he advances him a dinar in return for wine or pigs, if both embrace Islam, or the recipient of the advance embraces Islam, he must return the dinar. The same applies if the person who paid the advance embraces Islam, according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s position in al-Mudawwana. Mālik—may Allah Most High have mercy on him—however, withheld judgment, saying: “I do not know. I fear that I may wrong the protected non-Muslim subject if I order him to return the dinar when what he owes is wine or pigs.” In Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book, Mālik is reported as holding that the wine owed to the Muslim is taken from the Christian and poured away. The same is reported in Īsā’s transmission in the Book of Trade with Enemy Territory.
As for the fourth case, in which he sells him wine for dinars or dirhams, the buyer remains liable for the price in every case, whether both parties embrace Islam or only one of them, according to Ashhab and al-Makhzūmī. The statement recorded from someone other than Ibn al-Qāsim in the third Book of Marriage in al-Mudawwana accords with this. It has also been held that the obligation to pay the price lapses if both parties embrace Islam or if the seller embraces Islam. This is the position of Ibn Abī Hāzim and Ibn Dīnār, and Ibn al-Qāsim’s statement in the third Book of Marriage in al-Mudawwana accords with it.
If, however, the buyer embraces Islam, he must pay the price to the Christian. I know of no explicit statement to the contrary in this particular case. Nevertheless, two further opinions may be derived from the school’s principles: (the first) that his obligation to pay the price lapses; (the second) that he owes the value of the wine on the day he received it and benefited from it.
As for the fifth case, in which one Christian lends another wine or pigs, if both embrace Islam, the loan obligation is extinguished,