Seadet-i Ebediyye - Endless Bliss Fifth Fascicle

have it at that moment;) he should not make the agreement at that
moment; he should accept the item that is present [either as a loan
or] as an ’âriyat and, when he gets possession of the item he is to
give, he should make the bargain and agreement and deliver the
item before leaving.
Supposing a sale being made contains fâiz and one of the items
to be exchanged is an ’ayn and the other one is a deyn; the sale will
be permissible on the condition that the one that is an ’ayn should
be the mebî’ and the one that is a deyn should be the themen and
the themen [that is a deyn as the agreement is being made] should
be taken possession of before departure. For, a deyn will have (the
attribute of) ta’ayyun only by being taken possession of.
If a deyn is the mebî, the bey’ (sale) will not be sahîh even if it
is present during the event of agreement between the parties.
Property tainted with fâiz (on account of the aforesaid two
situations) and mentioned with words and phrases used as
conjunctive prepositions such as ‘... for ...’, and ‘... in return for ...’
will serve as the themen (price) in the sale. When such property is
mentioned without prepositions with that function, it will be the
mebî’. Agreements made with statements such as, “I have sold this
one bushel of wheat (in return) FOR a bushel of this year’s wheat,”
or “I have sold this one bushel of wheat (in return) FOR a bushel
of this year’s barley,” are permissible. For, in both examples the
property is the mebî’ and the deyn is the themen. However, the
deyn will have to be taken possession of before the place of
agreement is left. For, permissibility of a bey’ tainted with fâiz
requires both the mebî’s and the themen’s being an ’ayn each.
Ta’ayyun of a deyn, [which is the themen in our examples,] is
possible by its being taken possession of. It would be permissible
for them (the seller and the buyer) to leave (the place of agreement
before an ’ayn had been taken possession of. If the person (in the
position of the buyer) said, “I have bought a bushel of good wheat
from you (in return) FOR this one bushel of wheat,” or “I have
bought a bushel of this year’s barley from you (in return) FOR this
bushel of wheat,” it would not be permissible even if the deyn, (i.e.
the bushel of good wheat in the first example and the bushel of this
year’s barley in the second,) had been brought to the scene of
agreement. For, property that were a deyn would have served as
the mebî’ and thereby something that were not an ’ayn would have
been sold, which in turn, is not permissible.”
With respect to (being tainted with) fâiz, there is no difference
between ‘new’ and ‘old’ or between ‘this year’s’ or ‘last year’s’. For
– 457 –