Settling a debt before its due date with a reduction in the value
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Fatwa number ( 17441 ):
Q: A man works in the car trade, where he sells cars on an installment basis. He sells a car for a total amount, for example (50,000) fifty thousand riyals, to be paid in monthly installments of ( 1500 ) one thousand five hundred riyals each. Sometimes a buyer comes to him and says: I will give you the full remaining balance; how much will you deduct from it in exchange for paying the amount early and settling it before its due date? We know, O Shaykh, that this practice is widespread among most who work in this trade. We hope you will issue a ruling on this inquiry, and what is the ruling if the buyer says:
I will give you the full amount owed to me, and the seller responds: I will deduct three thousand riyals from the agreed value, without the seller having stipulated or requested a deduction or reduction in the value in exchange for early settlement before its due time. We hope you will issue a ruling on the above. May Allah preserve you and guide your steps to good. Peace be upon you and Allah’s mercy and blessings.
A: What is mentioned in the question is what is known among jurists as the issue of: (wa’d wa ta’jil) [giving and hastening], and there is scholarly disagreement among the scholars regarding its permissibility. The correct opinion among their views is that wa’d and ta’jil are permissible. This is a narration from Imam Ahmad , and the choice of the two Shaykhs: Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim , and it is attributed to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both). Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) stated, directing the opinion toward permissibility: (Because this is the opposite of riba, for riba involves an increase in one of the two exchanges in exchange for the delay, whereas this involves the clearing of his liability from part of the exchange in exchange for the removal of the delay. So part of the exchange was removed in exchange for the removal of part of the delay, and each of them benefited from it, and there was no riba, neither in reality, nor in language, nor in custom. For riba is an increase, and that is absent here. Those who forbade it analogized it to riba, and the clear difference between saying: (Either you increase it or you pay it) and saying: (Hasten it for me and I will give you a hundred) is not hidden. Where is one in relation to the other? So there is no text forbidding it, nor consensus,
nor valid analogy.) End of quote.
Q: A man works in the car trade, where he sells cars on an installment basis. He sells a car for a total amount, for example (50,000) fifty thousand riyals, to be paid in monthly installments of ( 1500 ) one thousand five hundred riyals each. Sometimes a buyer comes to him and says: I will give you the full remaining balance; how much will you deduct from it in exchange for paying the amount early and settling it before its due date? We know, O Shaykh, that this practice is widespread among most who work in this trade. We hope you will issue a ruling on this inquiry, and what is the ruling if the buyer says:
I will give you the full amount owed to me, and the seller responds: I will deduct three thousand riyals from the agreed value, without the seller having stipulated or requested a deduction or reduction in the value in exchange for early settlement before its due time. We hope you will issue a ruling on the above. May Allah preserve you and guide your steps to good. Peace be upon you and Allah’s mercy and blessings.
A: What is mentioned in the question is what is known among jurists as the issue of: (wa’d wa ta’jil) [giving and hastening], and there is scholarly disagreement among the scholars regarding its permissibility. The correct opinion among their views is that wa’d and ta’jil are permissible. This is a narration from Imam Ahmad , and the choice of the two Shaykhs: Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim , and it is attributed to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both). Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) stated, directing the opinion toward permissibility: (Because this is the opposite of riba, for riba involves an increase in one of the two exchanges in exchange for the delay, whereas this involves the clearing of his liability from part of the exchange in exchange for the removal of the delay. So part of the exchange was removed in exchange for the removal of part of the delay, and each of them benefited from it, and there was no riba, neither in reality, nor in language, nor in custom. For riba is an increase, and that is absent here. Those who forbade it analogized it to riba, and the clear difference between saying: (Either you increase it or you pay it) and saying: (Hasten it for me and I will give you a hundred) is not hidden. Where is one in relation to the other? So there is no text forbidding it, nor consensus,
nor valid analogy.) End of quote.
Source
www.alifta.gov.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.