He bars such a purchase in every situation where selling the object of a salam before taking possession is itself barred, exactly as we have already detailed regarding his school. Other scholars allow it; that is the position of the Shāfiʿīs and Sufyān al-Thawrī.

Their argument is that once the revocation (iqāla) takes place the buyer regains ownership of his original capital, and once he owns it he may buy with it whatever he wishes; to harbor ill suspicions about Muslims is impermissible.

He said: As for the ḥadīth of Abū Saʿīd, the prohibition it contains relates only to the period before the revocation.

Issue
The jurists differed about the following case: the purchaser in a salam contract regrets the deal and says to the seller, “Cancel it for me, and I will allow you time with the price I have already paid you.” Mālik and a group of scholars hold that this is not permissible, while others say that it is.

Mālik’s rationale is the fear that, once the food has fallen due to the buyer, he may postpone taking it from the seller on condition that the contract be annulled; this would amount to selling food on credit before taking possession. Another group prohibits it on the ground that it is simply replacing one debt with another.

Those who deem it permissible see it as an act of benevolence and kindness, which God the Exalted has enjoined. The Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said: “Whoever rescinds a Muslim’s bargain, Allah will rescind his slip on the Day of Resurrection; and whoever grants respite to a debtor in hardship, Allah will shade him in His shade on the Day when there is no shade except His.”

Issue
The scholars unanimously agree that if a man is owed dirhams or dinars payable at a fixed term, and the debtor tenders them at or after that term, the creditor is obliged to accept them.

They have differed, however, regarding commodities delivered under a deferred salam or any similar contract. Mālik and the majority hold that if the seller brings them before the due date, the buyer is not bound to accept them. Al-Shāfiʿī says that if the item is something that neither spoils nor is desired for its freshness—such as copper or iron—the buyer must accept it; but if it is something whose freshness is sought, like fruit, he need not do so.

If the goods are brought after the term has passed, the Mālikīs themselves disagree. One report from Mālik states that acceptance is obligatory—for example, a man contracts a salam for winter blankets and they are delivered in summer. Ibn Wahb and a group, however, say that he is not obliged to accept.

The majority argue that acceptance before the due date is not obligatory because the goods remain under the seller’s liability until the appointed time that the buyer intended, and because the buyer would incur expenses in the meantime. Dirhams and dinars are different, for they entail no such costs. Those who do not obligate acceptance even after maturity argue that the very purpose of such goods was tied exclusively to the time of maturity. The scholar who requires acceptance both before and after maturity likens the case to dirhams and dinars.

Issue
The scholars also disagreed about a person who makes a salam with another, or buys food from him by measure, and the seller—or the party to whom the salam was made—informs the buyer of the food’s measure: may the buyer take possession of it without measuring it himself, and