He replied:
This transaction is not permissible. Rather, if the debtor is in hardship, the creditor may grant him time. A transaction in which both the debt and the repayment period are increased is usurious, even if the two parties bring in the shopkeeper as an intermediary. The creditor must demand only his principal, not the additional amount he has not yet received.
He was asked—may Allah sanctify his soul:
Is ‘īnah permissible in Islam or not? May someone follow the opinion of those jurists who consider it permissible, or must he safeguard his religion and follow the scriptural texts concerning it? If someone repents of engaging in the aforementioned ‘īnah transaction, is the profit he earned through it lawful for him, or must he relinquish that profit and return it to its owners if he can, or give it in charity?
If he returns to it, following a juristic opinion after learning that it is invalid, is that permissible for him or not? Likewise, what do you say about the “three-party transaction” and “tawarruq”?
He replied:
Praise be to Allah. If the person seeking the money intends to obtain dirhams in exchange for a greater amount payable at a later date, and the provider intends to supply them on that basis, then this is usury, whose prohibition is beyond doubt, whatever stratagem the two may employ to achieve it; for deeds are judged only by intentions