Mālik regarded dealing in them as reprehensible, though he did not declare it unlawful. A group of his own pupils, along with a number of other scholars, allowed it, arguing that safātij involve no transport or expense. A second report from Mālik likewise states that there is no harm in them, yet his better-known position remains dislike, because of the way people have begun to use safātij. He never varied, however, in deeming it objectionable to borrow food on condition that repayment take place in another town; the same ruling holds for anything that must be hauled and entails expense.
There is no objection if the borrower is the one who stipulates a benefit for himself—such as having the debt repaid elsewhere and the like. Mālik said: but if the lender stipulates the benefit for himself, that is impermissible and devoid of any good.
According to Mālik it is permissible to sell, before taking possession, anything you have lent—whether food or something else—back to the very person who borrowed it, for whatever you wish in gold, silver, merchandise, or livestock, whether or not the term has fallen due, provided you receive the counter-value on the spot with no deferment. Should any delay occur, the sale is invalid; it becomes a case of deferred for deferred (al-kāliʾ bi’l-kāliʾ).
Once the loan matures, you may take in settlement any foodstuff different from the one lent, in whatever quantity you like. But if you take something of the same kind and description as what you lent, you may receive only an equivalent amount, matching it in description, measure, and weight.
If the due date has not arrived, it is not permissible to take any edible or drinkable item—just as it is unlawful to take, before maturity, silver in place of the gold you borrowed, or gold in place of borrowed silver. When the term does fall due, that becomes permissible so long as there is no delay or grace period. In this respect, foodstuffs are, in Mālik’s view, exactly like currency exchange (ṣarf); take note of that.
If someone instructs another man to pay, on his behalf, a sum of dinars, and the agent instead hands over dirhams by way of exchange, that exchange counts toward the mandate only in the amount he actually paid for him.