wool toward a linen garment and linen toward a wool garment, without regard to which of the two is handed over immediately and which is deferred; the same ruling extends to every similar case. Mark well this sentence, for it is the very principle on which Mālik built his doctrine in the Muwaṭṭaʾ, and upon which his disciples—may Allah have mercy on them—based their opinions.

Those who subsume the transaction of a lactating ewe for milk under this heading allow the milk to be delivered forthwith while the ewe is deferred. Yet another report from Mālik—or related on his authority—treats the matter as falling under muzābana; on that view, selling a lactating ewe for milk is impermissible whichever party advances the commodity while the other delays payment, and this is the better-known position in the school. In my estimation, however, sound analogy indicates that it should be lawful, and Allah knows best.

A group of Medinan scholars—including Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab and Ibn Shihāb—maintained that no ribā exists in any kind of animal, nor in any merchandise that is neither eaten nor drunk, no matter how it is sold: on credit or hand-to-hand, whether the two items are alike or not. They therefore deemed it permissible to sell one garment for two garments on deferred terms even when the single garment matched the two in quality and type. Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab said: “There is no harm in exchanging one Coptic robe for two Coptic robes on credit.” Mālik transmitted from Abū al-Zinād, from Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab, that he said: “Ribā applies only to silver, gold, or to what is sold by measure or weight among edible or potable items.”

Accordingly, they permitted one camel for two camels on credit and everything analogous to that, relying on the report that ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib—may Allah be pleased with him—sold a camel of his called ʿUṣayfir for twenty camels to be delivered later, and that Ibn ʿUmar sold two riding camels for four camels, the buyer guaranteeing their delivery as a debt he would later discharge.