—repurchase it for ready cash, or on a term shorter than the original maturity, at a price lower than the one for which he sold it, or for goods of inferior quality. He may, however, buy it back on a term longer than the first, for the same price or less, or in coins of poorer grade or lighter weight, although the Mālikī jurists themselves show some divergence on this point. He may also purchase it before its term falls due for the same price for which he sold it, or for more, or in better coin, or heavier in weight.

The upshot of this entire chapter is that whatever you are not allowed to buy it for before the due date you are likewise not allowed to buy it for on a deferment that extends beyond that date; and whatever you may buy it for before maturity you may also buy it for on a longer deferment. Grasp this principle, for it captures the view adopted by Mālik and his companions. Abū Ḥanīfa and his followers have joined them in this matter, applying the doctrine of blocking the means (sadd al-dharāʾiʿ) in deferred sales.

A group of jurists in Medina and elsewhere, however, dissented. They did not annul a contract whose outward appearance is lawful on the basis of a suspicion that may be right or wrong, insisting that legal rulings are founded upon objective realities, not upon conjectures. Mālik also disapproved of a creditor who is owed something on a distant term selling goods to that debtor if he suspects that the debtor will be bolstered, by the price of what he buys from him, to repay the debt; Mālik’s associates counted this both as a form of ribā and as the forbidden practice of exchanging one debt for another (dīn bi-dayn).