It is also established in Ahmad’s school that if someone sells for gold, he may accept silver in its place, and if he sells for silver, he may accept gold in its place during the session, as in the hadith of Ibn Umar. This is accepting one commodity sold by weight in place of another.

If this is permissible with the price, it is permissible with the goods sold; there is no difference between them, except according to those who say:

“These are goods sold but not yet received, so they may not be resold.”

The unsoundness of this reasoning in the case of salam has already become clear. Ibn Abbās himself, who prohibited selling before taking possession, permitted this. Moreover, selling the debt arising from a salam contract back to its seller entails none of the concerns involved in selling it to someone else—whether successive liabilities or anything else.

As for those who prohibit selling a salam debt on the strength of the Prophet’s words (may Allah bless him and grant him peace):

“Whoever pays in advance for something must not divert it to something else,”

there are two answers. First, the hadith is weak. Second, what it means is that one must not turn the original advance payment into a salam contract for something else. It would thus prohibit selling the debt in exchange for a specified item to be delivered at a future date, which is a form of selling debt for debt. This is why he said:

“He must not divert it to something else.”

That is, he must not convert the goods owed under one salam contract into goods owed under another. Someone who accepts something else in their place and takes possession of the substitute has not thereby made them an advance payment under another salam contract.

A detailed discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this answer. Nevertheless, this concession is established from Ibn Abbās, and it is the position of