fodder, deduct its value from his loan.” A man said to Ibn ‘Abbās, “I lent a fishmonger twenty dirhams, and he gave me a fish which I valued at thirteen dirhams.” He replied, “Take only seven dirhams from him.”

The hadith concerning the young camel is authentic. If the lender is repaid with something better than what he lent, without any prior arrangement, that is permissible. If he is repaid a greater amount than he lent, the scholars hold two opinions concerning this. This is because the additional amount is given after the loan has been repaid. This differs from giving him a gift before repayment: unless he deducts its value from the loan, the loan remains owed, to be recovered along with the gift, which was given only because of the loan.

The Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said:

“What is the matter with a man whom we appoint to carry out some duty Allah has entrusted to us, who then says, ‘This is for you, and this was given to me as a gift’? Why did he not sit in his father’s or mother’s house and see whether he would be given gifts or not?”

He thus made clear that when a gift is given for a particular reason, its ruling follows that reason. Hence, the position transmitted from the Companions and the majority of the imams is that a gift given before repayment is credited to its giver against the loan, unlike repayment with something of better quality.

As for the particular arrangement in question, the two parties agree beforehand that one will buy the property from the other for a certain price, then lease it back to him for a specified period, and return the property to him when he brings back the purchase price. Here, the intended result is that the party who has transferred the property pays rent for as long as the money remains owed by him. There is no difference between receiving the use of the property and receiving payment for its use: both are forbidden.