Thus, if the intention is to exchange a commodity subject to the rules of ribā for an unequal quantity of the same kind, and something else is included as a legal stratagem—as when someone sells two thousand dirhams for one thousand dirhams wrapped in a cloth, or two qafīz measures of wheat for one qafīz in a basket—then this is undoubtedly prohibited. This is the position of Mālik, al-Shāfi'ī and Ahmad.

If, however, the intention is to conduct a permissible sale, and the exchange of one commodity subject to ribā for another is merely incidental—as when sheep are exchanged for sheep, both having milk and wool; sheep with milk are sold for milk; or a gilded house or silver jewellery is sold for gold, each bearing only a small amount of gold plating, and similar cases—then the correct view is that this is permissible. This is the well-known position in the school of Ahmad and others, just as fruit may be included incidentally in a sale before it begins to ripen. There is also the hadith that Muslim reported as a saying of the Prophet, transmitted by Sālim from his father, and likewise by Nāfi' from Ibn 'Umar as a saying of the Prophet:

“Whoever sells a slave of his who has property, that property belongs to the seller unless the purchaser stipulates otherwise.”

But if both components are sought in their own right, this is the subject of the well-known disagreement. Some scholars prohibit it, either because it is a means leading to ribā, or because, when a transaction includes two different items, the price is apportioned between them according to their respective values. This is the position of Mālik, al-Shāfi'ī and Ahmad, according to one of the two reports from him.