to derive benefit from the money itself. Whenever one currency is sold for another with deferred payment, money becomes an object of trade, which contradicts its intended monetary function. Requiring immediate settlement and mutual receipt fulfils its purpose as a means of obtaining what people need, for that purpose is achieved only by taking possession of money, not by its being established as a debt owed. Moreover, both sides of the exchange are money, so the Lawgiver prohibited exchanging money for money with deferred payment. If copper coins come to function as money, the same rationale applies to them: money must not be exchanged for money with deferred payment.

Similarly, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “forbade exchanging one deferred obligation for another,” meaning an exchange in which both countervalues are deferred. He did not prohibit exchanging an existing debt owed by one party, which is thereby extinguished, for an existing debt owed by the other, which is likewise extinguished. This latter transaction clears both parties’ liabilities. Hence it is permissible according to the more evident of the two scholarly views, as held by Mālik, Abū Hanīfah, and others.

This differs from exchanging an obligation that becomes binding upon one party and burdens his liability for another obligation that becomes binding upon the other. An example is a buyer who contracts to purchase a commodity for future delivery under an advance-payment sale but does not hand over the purchase price. This establishes an obligation upon the seller to deliver the commodity and an obligation upon the buyer to pay the purchase price, while neither has obtained any benefit. Thus, each party is burdened with a liability through contracts that are merely means to taking possession, which is the purpose of the contract.

Just as commodities are what money is intended to obtain, money must not be exchanged for money with deferred payment, just as one deferred obligation must not be exchanged for another. Such transactions involve harm and injustice contrary to the purpose of money and the purpose of contracts. This differs from property’s being weighed or measured by volume, for this is an attribute of the means