The majority of scholars are agreed that, whether gold or silver takes the form of coined money, raw bullion, or crafted jewelry, the ruling is the same: it is forbidden to sell one amount for another with disparity, owing to the general purport of the prophetic reports cited above. The sole dissent is Muʿāwiyah, who allowed inequality between bullion and wrought pieces on the grounds that workmanship adds value. A similar exception is the report from Mālik: he was asked about a man who brings his own silver to the mint, pays the minting fee, and then receives dinars and dirhams equal in weight to his silver—or to his dirhams. Mālik replied,

“If this is done out of necessity—such as the imminent departure of a caravan and the like—I hope there is no harm in it.”

Ibn al-Qāsim, one of his disciples, concurred with him, but Ibn Wahb, ʿĪsā ibn Dīnār, and the great majority of jurists rejected the view. Mālik also permitted exchanging a deficient dinar for a full-weight one, or for two dinars, though his followers disagreed about the precise number of coins in which such an exchange, as a gesture of kindness, is allowable.

The Second Issue

The jurists differed concerning an ornamented sword or an ornamented codex: may a sword adorned with silver be sold for silver, or one adorned with gold be sold for gold?

Al-Shāfiʿī said: “That is impermissible, because the equality required when selling silver for silver or gold for gold cannot be ascertained.”

Mālik said: “If the value of the gold or silver ornament is one-third or less of the whole, the sale is permissible (meaning: for silver if the ornament is silver, or for gold if the ornament is gold); otherwise it is not. His reasoning is that when the silver is minimal it is not intended in the sale and is treated as though it were a gift.”

Abū Ḥanīfah and his companions said: “There is no objection to selling an ornamented sword for silver provided the silver paid exceeds the silver embedded in the sword; the same applies to selling it for gold. For them, the silver—or gold—within the sword is matched by an equal amount of the same metal in the price, and any surplus is payment for the sword itself.”

Al-Shāfiʿī’s proof is the generality of the traditions and the explicit text narrated by Faḍālah ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Anṣārī, who said:

“While the Messenger of God—peace and blessings be upon him—was at Khaybar, a necklace composed of gold and beads, taken as spoils, was brought for sale. The Messenger of God—peace and blessings be upon him—ordered that the gold in the necklace be removed by itself, and then said, ‘Gold for gold, weight for weight.’”

This ḥadīth is recorded by Muslim.

Muʿāwiyah, as we have mentioned, allowed such sales unconditionally, but Abū Saʿīd objected to him, saying, “I will not reside in a land where you live,” because of the ḥadīth he had related on the matter.

The Third Issue

The scholars are unanimous that immediate exchange (ṣarf) must be concluded on the spot. They disagree, however, about the time that defines this immediacy. Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī maintained that the exchange is valid so long as the two parties do not separate, whether delivery occurs sooner or later. Mālik held that if delivery is delayed during the same session, the exchange is invalid, even if the parties have not yet parted, for he considered any pledge of future delivery within the session itself to be objectionable.