one of the two scholarly opinions.

Another view holds that it is prohibited because it is a loan that yields a benefit, and any loan that yields a benefit constitutes usury. The correct view, however, is that it is permissible: the borrower sees the benefit of avoiding the hazards of the journey when transferring his dirhams to that town. The borrower also benefits by making repayment in that town and avoiding the hazards of the journey. Thus, both parties benefit from this loan. The Lawgiver does not prohibit what benefits people and promotes their welfare; He prohibits only what harms them.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

Is it permissible to lend debased dirhams and receive repayment by count?

He replied:

It is permissible to lend debased dirhams if their degree of debasement is uniform, as with the dirhams people commonly use in their transactions. Likewise, if the degree of debasement varies slightly, the correct view is that lending them is permissible—for example, dirhams whose stated fineness is seventy and others whose fineness is sixty-nine.

The correct view is also that it is permissible to lend wheat and other grains, even when mixed with soil and barley, for the “rules governing loans” are more lenient than the “rules governing sales.” Hence, according to the correct view, it is permissible to lend bread by count and to lend leaven