Furthermore, Abū Rāfiʿ reported in Sahīh Muslim:

“The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, borrowed a young camel from a man. When some camels collected as zakat were brought to him, he instructed Abū Rāfiʿ to repay the man with a young camel. Abū Rāfiʿ returned to him and said, ‘I found only a fine, mature camel among them.’ The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘Give it to him, for the best people are those who are best in repaying their debts.’”

This establishes the permissibility of borrowing animals and other things besides commodities measured by volume or weight. This is the position of the jurists of the Hijaz and the hadith scholars, contrary to those Kufan jurists who prohibit it on the grounds that a loan requires the return of an equivalent, whereas animals are not fungible. Their position also rests on the view that things other than commodities measured by volume or weight cannot become a liability owed in exchange for property. The hadith also establishes that an animal of approximately equivalent description may be owed as a liability, as is the well-known position in the schools of the former jurists. This is contrary to the Kufan position and one opinion within Ahmad’s school, according to which what is owed is the animal’s value.

This shows that an approximate description suffices to identify the subject matter of a contract. Otherwise, finding an animal exactly like the original would be exceedingly difficult—especially according to those who hold that animals are not fungible and that compensation for their wrongful appropriation or destruction is assessed by value.

Furthermore, the jurists have differed over making debts payable at the grain harvest or the date harvest. Two positions are reported from Ahmad. One permits this, in agreement with Mālik’s view, and Jābir’s hadith in the Sahīh supports it.