the early generations, and we have set out the answers to these arguments.

Among the means leading to this is:

The Question of ‘Īnah

This is where someone sells another person an item on deferred payment, then buys it back from him for less. When this is prearranged, both sales are invalid, because it is a stratagem.

Ahmad and Abū Dāwūd narrated through two good chains of transmission that Ibn ‘Umar said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“When you trade through ‘īnah, follow the tails of cattle, and abandon jihad in the path of Allah, Allah will inflict humiliation upon you which He will not remove until you return to your religion.”

Even if the two parties have not colluded, both Mālik and Ahmad deem the second sale invalid, to block the means to what is forbidden.

As for the reverse of ‘īnah without prior collusion, there are two reports from Ahmad concerning it. This is where someone sells an item for immediate payment, then buys it back for a higher, deferred price. With prior collusion, however, it is ribā effected through a stratagem.

If the buyer’s aim is to obtain money, and he purchases an item on deferred payment in order to sell it and receive its price, this is called tawarruq. There are two reports from Ahmad concerning whether it is disapproved. Disapproval is the position of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz and, I believe, Mālik. This differs from the case of a buyer whose purpose is trade, use, or keeping the item in his possession: there is agreement that he may purchase it on deferred payment.

In sum, the scholars of Medina and the jurists of hadith firmly prohibit the various forms of ribā, giving due regard to the purpose and principles of the Sharia. Their position on this is the one