the validity of the sale.”

I say: Al-Khaṭṭābī himself mentioned that al-Awzāʿī held to the apparent meaning of the hadith. Thus, in this respect there is no difference between al-Awzāʿī and al-Khaṭṭābī, except that al-Khaṭṭābī ventured to depart from and contradict this apparent meaning merely on account of the supposed uncertainty which they advanced on the basis of their own reasoning, contrary to the hadith.

What is truly remarkable is that al-Shawkānī followed them in this, saying: “The legal cause for prohibiting two sales in one sale is that the price is not definitively fixed when a single item is sold for two prices...” This concurrence is remarkable because it accords with those who require a verbal offer and acceptance in sales, whereas al-Shawkānī disagrees with them on that point and maintains the validity of a sale concluded by mutual exchange. In this form—namely, mutual exchange—the price is definitively fixed, as I explained earlier.

Moreover, it appears that al-Shawkānī, like al-Khaṭṭābī, was unaware of those who held to the apparent meaning of the hadith, such as al-Awzāʿī. Otherwise, he would not have passed over the implication of al-Khaṭṭābī’s words that al-Awzāʿī stood alone in this view. Yet we have narrated to you, through an authentic chain, his predecessor in this view—the eminent Successor Ṭāwūs—as well as the agreement of Imam al-Thawrī with him. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥibbān also followed them, stating in his Ṣaḥīḥ (7/226): “A clarification that, when a purchaser buys two sales in one sale in the manner we have described, and wishes to avoid ribā, he is entitled to the lower of the two prices.” He then cited the hadith under discussion. This fully accords with the earlier statements of those imams; al-Awzāʿī, therefore, was not alone in acting upon this hadith.

I say this to clarify the facts, lest some person given to whims, or someone without knowledge, claim that this view of al-Awzāʿī is anomalous. Otherwise, praise be to Allah, we are not among those who recognize the truth merely by the number of men who uphold it; rather, it is by the truth that we recognize men.

In summary, the second view is the weakest of the views, because it has no evidence except personal opinion,