classing such a transaction under the heading of “two sales in one sale.” In their view it is unlawful because the two prices differ. If, however, the price for both alternatives is identical, the transaction is valid and no longer falls under the prohibition of “two sales in one sale.” This ruling applies once the sale has become binding. If the sale is not yet obligatory and the purchaser is still free to choose whichever item he wishes from various kinds of merchandise, the matter is, in their estimation, mere bargaining and carries no stigma of disapproval, for no contract of sale has yet been concluded. Foodstuffs and non-food goods are the same in this respect.

Among the practices they censure is the ʿurbān (earnest-money) sale: a man agrees to purchase a commodity and hands the seller a portion of the price—large or small—as earnest money on the condition that, if he accepts the purchase, he will take the item, but if he rejects it the earnest money stays with the seller. This is impermissible, and the earnest money must be returned to its owner, for retaining it amounts to consuming people’s wealth unjustly. The permissible form of an ʿurbān sale is that, should the buyer approve the item, he keeps it and pays the remainder of the price; if he is dissatisfied, he returns the item and recovers his earnest money. Moreover, the earnest money must be a small amount, such that it is not obviously intended for profit, otherwise it would resemble a loan in Mālik’s view. The same rule applies to leases just as it does to sales.

They have likewise forbidden profiting from goods for which one has not yet assumed liability, and selling what one does not yet possess.