its permissibility as well. The rationale is the same, for there is no difference between buying the commodity in order to eat, drink, or otherwise use it and buying it simply to benefit from its price. It contains no stratagem whatsoever for legitimising usury, genuine need does arise for it, and whenever a need exists and no Sharʿī impediment accompanies it, the Lawgiver has not forbidden it to His servants.”

A second report from Imām Aḥmad, however, rules it impermissible, and this was the position preferred by Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah.

Ibn al-Qayyim states: “Our shaykh, Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—used to forbid tawarruq. He was asked about it many times while I was present and he never granted a dispensation for it. He said, ‘The very cause for which ribā was prohibited is found in tawarruq itself, with the added burden of the costs of buying and selling and the ensuing loss.’ ”

Those who forbid ʿīnah class it among the blocked means (sadd al-dharāʾiʿ). They treat the ḥadīth as an unrestricted text that must be understood in light of valid forms of sale; it is not a universal text that embraces every conceivable sale, even one conducted with the original seller.

Similarly, the unqualified statements of the Lawgiver point only to what He has authorised and permitted. His words “Sell the jumʿ” are unrestricted, to be confined to sound contracts; they are not so general as to include the very situation in which the seller of the jumʿ in that ḥadīth is the counter-party.

On this basis the claim of those who try to find evidence for legal stratagems in the Sharīʿah is shown to be untenable. When the Lawgiver prohibits one transaction, He opens the way to an entirely different and lawful one that bears no connection to the forbidden act.

Whoever wishes a fuller discussion should consult Ibn al-Qayyim’s Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn, may Allah have mercy on him.

Ḥadīth Four

From Abū al-Minhāl who said: I asked al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib and Zayd ibn Arqam about ṣarf (currency exchange), and each of them said, “He is more knowledgeable than I,” while both of them said, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade selling gold for silver on credit.”

Overall meaning:

Abū al-Minhāl asked al-Barāʾ ibn ʿĀzib and Zayd ibn Arqam about the ruling on ṣarf—exchanging one form of money for another. Out of their pious caution—may Allah be pleased with them—they tried to defer issuing a fatwa, each belittling his own knowledge in favour of the other. Yet they concurred on what they had memorised: the Prophet ﷺ forbade selling gold for silver