entered into an arrangement with him to receive both the gift and repayment in exchange for the loan. This is usury itself, for a loan entitles the lender to no more than its equivalent.

If he said to him at the time of the loan, “I will give you its equivalent and this gift,” that would be impermissible by consensus. Thus, if he gives him a gift before repayment because of the loan, on the understanding that he will also repay its equivalent, this amounts to an agreement to receive more than the principal. By contrast, a gift given according to an established custom between them predating the loan would not fall into this category.

This is made clear by the fact that, in accepting the gift, he intends to grant him further time in consideration of it. The arrangement thus becomes an exchange of a hundred plus the gift for a hundred payable at a future date. This is usury itself, unlike exchanging a hundred for another hundred identical in kind and quality, even if a repayment term is stipulated. The latter is a purely gratuitous act, not an exchange transaction: no reasonable person sells something for its exact equivalent in every respect, with payment deferred. He would only do so where their qualities differed, as when exchanging whole coins for broken ones, or one currency for another, with deferred payment. That is impermissible by the consensus of the Muslims.

The same applies to partnerships. If the owner accepts, without compensation, a gift or benefit that the worker provides solely because of their profit-sharing investment partnership or sharecropping arrangement, while also stipulating a share of the profit, then, on this view, such acceptance constitutes an agreement to receive something in addition to his proportionate share. This is like stipulating entitlement to the crop of a particular plot. There may be no profit at all, leaving the worker oppressed and wronged.

For this reason, the worker seeks compensation for his gift and counts its value as something the owner owes him. If the owner does not compensate him for it, he betrays his trust concerning the invested funds—their principal