and act on his word?

Mālik said: That is permissible in a salam transaction and in a sale stipulated for immediate payment; otherwise one must fear that it enters the realm of usury, as though the buyer trusts the seller’s statement about the measure only because the seller has allowed him deferment in the price.

Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Shāfiʿī, Sufyān al-Thawrī, al-Awzāʿī, and al-Layth hold that it is not permissible unless the seller measures the goods a second time for the buyer after having first measured them for himself in the buyer’s presence.

Their reasoning is that, since the buyer may not resell the goods until he has measured them, he likewise may not take possession of them until the seller has measured them for him; just as measuring is a condition for sale, so too is it a condition for delivery. They also cite the ḥadīth: “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, forbade the sale of food until two measures have been taken: the seller’s measure and the buyer’s measure.”

The jurists further differed when the food perishes in the buyer’s hand before it is measured and the two dispute the quantity. Al-Shāfiʿī—and Abū Thawr with him—says that the buyer’s word is accepted. Mālik says the seller’s word prevails, because the buyer had already accepted the seller’s statement when he took delivery; this rests on Mālik’s principle that the sale is validated by the buyer’s mere trust.

Chapter Three: Disagreement Between the Two Parties in Salam

The buyer and seller in a salam contract may dispute over: (1) the amount of the price or of the commodity, (2) the kind of either one, (3) the term, or (4) the place of delivery.

1. Dispute over quantity: the seller’s word is accepted if he produces something that resembles what was agreed upon; if not, the buyer’s word is accepted provided he too produces something that resembles it. If both produce goods that do not resemble the agreed specification, the analogy is that they should each swear an oath and the contract be annulled.

2. Dispute over kind: the ruling is mutual oaths and rescission—for example, one claims he prepaid for dates while the other claims it was for wheat.

3. Dispute over the term:
   • If the issue is whether the term has fallen due, the seller’s word prevails.
   • If it is about the length of the term, the seller’s word also prevails unless his claim is implausible; for instance, the buyer asserts the usual season for delivery while the seller asserts another, in which case the buyer’s word prevails.

4. Dispute over place of delivery: the well-known view is that whoever claims the place where the salam was concluded is believed; if neither makes that claim, the seller’s word is accepted. Sahnūn differs here, saying that the seller’s word prevails, and that if the buyer claims delivery at the place of contract both parties must swear oaths and the contract is dissolved.

5. Dispute over the price: its ruling is the same as that for disagreement between two contracting parties before delivery in an ordinary sale, as previously detailed.