The ruling on selling one hundred sa' of wheat on credit for two hundred sa' of barley
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : You are arguing, you are arguing. We don't need it, I mean, for example, for instance.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : No, no.
The Shaykh : I bought from you one hundred sa' of wheat, do you understand or not? It is established in your liability to me? Okay, I came to take possession of it from you, and you said, "I have something, I have barley. Buy the barley from me in exchange for the wheat." Is it permissible to exchange barley for wheat, or is it not permissible?
The questioner : Then he took the money.
The Shaykh : No one. He did not leave it. Now I do not want to take the money in exchange; I want to take the debt that is in my liability in exchange.
The questioner : I am calculating the price now.
The Shaykh : I have one hundred sa' in my liability up to now. Do you understand? Whether it is a wage, the price of a sale, or compensation for an injury, the important thing is that it is in your liability for one hundred sa'. Do you understand? Or perhaps he lent them to you, for example? So I came to you and asked you to sell me barley in exchange for the wheat. So I took two hundred sa' of barley. This is permissible, but with the condition of taking possession before parting. Why do we condition taking possession before parting? Because it is not permissible to sell wheat for barley except hand-to-hand. Okay, there is another condition that it not be more than what is upon you in the example. I mean, for example, one hundred sa' of wheat equals one hundred riyals, and two hundred sa' of barley equals one hundred and twenty riyals. This is not permissible. Why?
Because I profited from something that did not enter into my guarantee. But if two hundred sa' of barley equals one hundred riyals and I took it at the current market price, there is no harm. And as I mentioned to you a moment ago, if I took it and it equals ninety riyals, there is no harm.
The Shaykh : Why?
The questioner : No, no.
The Shaykh : I bought from you one hundred sa' of wheat, do you understand or not? It is established in your liability to me? Okay, I came to take possession of it from you, and you said, "I have something, I have barley. Buy the barley from me in exchange for the wheat." Is it permissible to exchange barley for wheat, or is it not permissible?
The questioner : Then he took the money.
The Shaykh : No one. He did not leave it. Now I do not want to take the money in exchange; I want to take the debt that is in my liability in exchange.
The questioner : I am calculating the price now.
The Shaykh : I have one hundred sa' in my liability up to now. Do you understand? Whether it is a wage, the price of a sale, or compensation for an injury, the important thing is that it is in your liability for one hundred sa'. Do you understand? Or perhaps he lent them to you, for example? So I came to you and asked you to sell me barley in exchange for the wheat. So I took two hundred sa' of barley. This is permissible, but with the condition of taking possession before parting. Why do we condition taking possession before parting? Because it is not permissible to sell wheat for barley except hand-to-hand. Okay, there is another condition that it not be more than what is upon you in the example. I mean, for example, one hundred sa' of wheat equals one hundred riyals, and two hundred sa' of barley equals one hundred and twenty riyals. This is not permissible. Why?
Because I profited from something that did not enter into my guarantee. But if two hundred sa' of barley equals one hundred riyals and I took it at the current market price, there is no harm. And as I mentioned to you a moment ago, if I took it and it equals ninety riyals, there is no harm.
Source
قناة «فضيلة الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين»، [3981] حكم بيع مائة صاع من البر في الذمة بمائتين صاع من الشعير - تعليقات على الكافي لابن عثيمين — youtube.com
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.