Abū Hanīfah, because this constitutes profit on something for which one has not borne the risk, and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,

“forbade making a profit on something for which one has not borne the risk.”

Al-Tirmidhī said: “This is an authentic hadith.”

The first position is sounder, because if the purchaser left unused the premises he had rented and taken possession of, the loss of their benefits would be at his own risk. If the house collapsed, however, the loss would be borne by the lessor. These issues are discussed at length in their proper place.

The point here is that the underlying principle adopted by Ahmad and Mālik permits disposal of the property and allows greater latitude in selling before the risk passes to the buyer. This differs from the position of Abū Hanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī, and the other report from Ahmad: according to their principle, a sale is permissible only once the risk has passed to the buyer and the goods have become his responsibility.

They said that this prevents two liabilities from overlapping: before possession, the goods remain at the first seller’s risk. If they are sold before the buyer assumes that risk, they also become his responsibility, so that two liabilities attach to the same goods.

According to Mālik’s position and the well-known position reported from Ahmad, this is a weak rationale, for there is nothing objectionable in it. If the goods perish before possession can be taken, the seller must repay the price he received from the second buyer. The obligation arising from one party’s liability is thus distinct from that arising from the other’s.

Once this is understood, according to those who hold the former position, selling the goods owed under a salam contract is prohibited, because the advance-paying buyer has not yet assumed their risk. He assumes their risk only upon taking possession, and therefore may not sell something for which he has not borne the risk. And according to