What is the evidence of those who prohibit two sales in one sale, which is installment sales, and what is the evidence of those who permit it? Please issue a ruling for us, may Allah reward you.

The questioner : A questioner asks: What is the evidence of those who prohibit two sales in one sale, which is installment sales, and what is the evidence of those who permit it? Please issue a ruling for us, may Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : As for the evidence of those who take an increase in exchange for installment sales, it is not the installment sale itself that is the issue, but rather the question becomes taking an increase in exchange for the installment sale. As for the installment sale, if it is at the cash price, this is recommended and better than a cash sale, because the merchant seller benefits from this situation in terms of material gain and reward in the Hereafter. This is because it is established in authentic hadiths that lending two dirhams is equivalent to giving one dirham in charity, meaning that a loan is half of charity. So if he lends two dirhams, it is as if he gave one dirham in charity, even though the two dirhams will return to him. Therefore, the installment sale is a preferred matter in the Shari'ah, but on the condition that it is at the cash price and that he does not exploit the situation of the needy person who cannot pay the price of the need, whether the price is small or large. In this, there is cooperation among Muslims, cooperation between the rich and the poor or the middle class, in terms of material benefit. So, when it unfortunately became a general custom that installment sales are accompanied by an increase in the price, the question arises: What is the evidence of those who prohibit or forbid installment sales? It does not mean the installment sale itself, but rather the increase that is usually associated with it. So I say that the evidence we have come across is divided into two categories:
A category of clear texts regarding the issue, and another category from which the prohibition of taking an increase is derived.
As for the first category, three hadiths come to mind now.
The first hadith is his prohibition, may peace and blessings be upon him, of two sales in one sale, as narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad from the hadith of Sammak ibn Harb from Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited two sales in one sale. It was said to Sammak: What are two sales in one sale? He said: That you say, "I sell you this item for such and such in cash, and for such and such on credit."
The second hadith is the hadith of Abu Hurayrah in the Musannaf of Abu Shuybah and the Sunan of Abu Dawud, through his route, from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . This hadith has a corroborating narration stopping at Ibn Mas'ud, who said: Two transactions in one transaction is usury, narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah.
The third hadith is from Amr ibn Shu'ayb from his father from his grandfather, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
The Imam of hadith exegesis, Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari, explained this hadith in his book Ghareeb al-Hadith wa al-Athar, saying: It is that you say, "I sold you this for such and such in cash, and for such and such on credit." He said: And this is two sales in one sale. This is the text of Ibn al-Athir in Ghareeb al-Hadith regarding this. Perhaps other texts exist, but with the meaning of the prohibition of two sales in one sale. The hadith of Ibn Umar also has this meaning: he prohibited two sales in one sale in the Musnad of Ahmad and elsewhere. The point is
After it is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) the prohibition of two sales in one sale, and it becomes clear to the narrator of the first hadith, Sammak ibn Harb, what is intended by two sales in one sale, as it was also explained by many of the scholars of the Salaf, such as Sufyan al-Thawri, for example.
After this clarification, we can say that those who interpret the mentioned prohibition in the hadith of two sales in one sale in a way that presents both sales at the same time, it may be said, as came in the explanation: "I sell you this recording for one hundred dinars or one hundred riyals in cash, or for one hundred and ten on installment." They say this is what is prohibited. But if the buyer says beforehand, "This is on installment for one hundred and ten," they say it is permissible. Their evidence, or rather their doubt, in this is that they looked at the issue with a purely superficial view, because the hadith says: "That you say, I sell you for such and such in cash, and for such and such on credit." So if one of them is separated from the other, it is permissible. I say this is a very limited superficial view.
The evidence of these people in this understanding, which we consider a formal, superficial, formal understanding, is that they said that the prohibition of two sales in one sale, when both prices are presented, contains gharar (excessive uncertainty) and ignorance, as it is not known on which of the two prices they agreed. This is a very weak evidence, because reality indicates that they agree on a specified price, either the cash price or the installment price, and this is very clear, especially according to the school of thought that sees the permissibility of bay' al-mu'atah (hand-to-hand sale). This is known in the issue of sales and contracts that it is obligatory to have offer and acceptance, and some of them are satisfied with bay' al-mu'atah, meaning that whatever you want to buy, an offer and acceptance must explicitly take place between the seller and the buyer. But the others, including the Hanafis, are satisfied with what is called bay' al-mu'atah. The truth is that this school of thought is correct for two reasons: The first is that there is no condition of offer and acceptance in the Book or the Sunnah.
The other thing is what the scholars say on many occasions: The language of the situation is more eloquent than the language of speech. And in what we are currently dealing with, the best proof of what we say is when a man comes to a car dealer, for example, and says, "How much is this?" and he says to him, for example, "Twenty thousand riyals in cash, and twenty-five thousand on installment." Reality will be one of two things after consultation, of course, and the price settling on a specific amount. Let us assume it settled on what the dealer asked for, meaning some dealers have a very fixed price: he said twenty thousand in cash, that's it, do not reduce twenty thousand by a single fils, twenty-five thousand on installment, no less is possible. So let us assume the prices ended at this. What will happen is either he gives him the twenty thousand in cash and in exchange takes the car and drives off, with no offer or acceptance taking place. Or he says, "By Allah, I have no money, so if possible, I will pay you over time," and they agree on twenty-five thousand and agree that every month or two months he will pay such and such, according to what they agree upon, and they write a bill of exchange and the buyer signs it, and everything is done, and he takes the car, with no offer or acceptance taking place. Who says that gharar occurred in the second scenario? There is no gharar, there is no ignorance; they separated with complete clarity.
On this occasion, I say that whoever says that offer and acceptance are obligatory restricts widely the mercy of Allah and invalidates many contracts today. The simplest scenarios that occur today: You come to a vegetable seller and ask him how much the kilo is, how much a bunch of bananas is, and he says, for example, "A qirsh," so you take it and walk away. Those people do not consider it valid unless you say "I accept" or "I am satisfied" and so on. You board the bus, you take out the qirsh and throw it in the box, and you do not agree with the driver on a price or anything. In foreign countries, Europe and others, for example, all goods are priced; you put down the price and take the goods. Newspapers have known prices; there is a box, you take a newspaper, throw in its price, and walk away. Where is the offer and acceptance? This halts the interests of people. Therefore, the most correct school of thought in this issue is that mere bay' al-mu'atah is sufficient, because as we said earlier, the language of the situation is more eloquent than the language of speech.
So, those who said that the prohibition mentioned in the hadith means combining two matters, and that the cause is such and such, we say that this cause is first of all incorrect, because reality testifies that there is no ambiguity in the matter and no excessive uncertainty. Moreover, this cause is a speculative, ijtihad-based derivation. Every opinion and every ijtihad that contradicts the text is rejected, as it is said. Also, "When the report (athar) comes, the reasoning (nazar) is void", "When the river of Allah comes, the river of Ma'qil is void", and "There is no ijtihad in the place of the text". Here, the text regarding the cause is riba, as it came in the second hadith . Therefore, the cause is not ambiguity, nor ambiguity of the price, wondering whether it is the cash price or the installment price. Because the hadith says the cause is taking the increase, and the increase is in exchange for the debt and patience with your Muslim brother. Furthermore, as we said, reality, as we said, refutes this cause, because there is absolutely no ambiguity. That is, any sale conducted today on an installment basis does not involve any ambiguity whatsoever. And when it becomes clear that the cause is riba, another thing becomes clear to us from the second hadith. I want to point out that this hadith benefits us in a way we do not benefit from the first hadith, and the first hadith benefits us in a way we do not benefit from the other. By combining the texts, the truth becomes manifest and clear.
The first hadith explained to us the two sales in one sale, saying: "I sell you this for such and such in cash, and for such and such with an increase for deferment."
The second hadith clarified to us that the cause is riba, not ambiguity of the price, as those who permit taking an increase in exchange for installments say. Then, this second hadith benefits us in a way that, without it, we would have understood from the first hadith and others that this contract is invalid, because the default ruling for prohibitions is invalidity. But the second hadith did not benefit us with invalidity; on the contrary, it benefited us with permissibility, but it invalidated the increase because it said: "So for him ." Therefore, the sale is valid, effective, and established. But if he takes the increase, he takes riba. And if he takes the lesser amount, that is his right, and the sale is effective.
So, the second hadith benefits us in two important ways: the first is that the sale is valid, contrary to what the principle of prohibition in the first hadith implies, and the second is that the cause of the prohibition is not ambiguity, but rather riba.
The third hadith aligns with the first hadith in the prohibition, but it benefits us in that an imam among the imams of language interpreted the prohibition in it and the impermissibility in it as being two sales in one sale. Thus, this hadith serves as a corroborating narration for the two previous hadiths.
This is what pertains to the first type of evidence, which is the evidence that explicitly states this issue.
We have in it inductive evidence, which is an induction of the objectives of the Shari'ah in its commands and prohibitions. If I go to a merchant with this recorded device and I know its cash price is one hundred dinars, and I say to him, "Lend me one hundred dinars for the sake of Allah," he says, "No, I am a man who works with this money and I am not willing, but I will give you one hundred dinars or one hundred riyals on the condition that you pay me one hundred and five at the time of repayment." This, and praise be to Allah, is still a point of consensus among Muslims that it is open riba. But when you come to this merchant who has this recorded device, its cash price is one hundred dinars, and he says to you, "If you want to buy it on installments for one hundred and five," what is the difference between the two scenarios? They answer us with the general text: . Well, Allah has made sale lawful, but is it absolute sale or the prescribed, permissible sale? Undoubtedly, no one can interpret this verse in its absolute and comprehensive sense, that "Allah has made sale lawful" means every sale. Every sale must be restricted to every sale that is prescribed, every sale that the Lawgiver has not prohibited. For example, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited sale with excessive uncertainty. For example, if the owner of sheep sells the wool to a wool merchant, this is called sale with excessive uncertainty. If we prohibit it, he says, "My brother, Allah has made sale lawful and prohibited riba, so we sold and bought." We say to him, "This is a sale that the Lawgiver prohibited through the tongue of his Prophet, so it does not fall under the generality of the saying of the Exalted: ." If they say that the difference between the first scenario and the other scenario is why, my brother, first of all, it is a sale, we say to them, first of all, it is a prohibited sale, for it has been prohibited to have two sales in one sale. Second, here there is exploitation of the buyer's need, just as the debtor's need is exploited in the first case. In the first case, I said, "No, it is forbidden, I do not eat riba," for example, if he is a righteous man who does not eat riba. But now, what are you eating? You are eating trade, trade for one hundred, whereas in exchange for charity to your Muslim brother, it is one hundred and five. This is like that, except that here there is an intermediary, the item being sold. These are formal matters that the Wise Lawgiver never considers in transactions, because we have learned from texts, and many very important texts, and among the most important is the principle and rule established by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in his saying: . So we know, for example, that the marriage of tahil is invalid despite the presence of apparent conditions such as the consent of the spouses, the consent of the wife's guardian, and the presence of witnesses. But despite the presence of these formalities, without which a marriage contract cannot be valid, here the Wise Lawgiver considered them void, of no value, and considered this marriage invalid. Therefore, these formalities should not be deceptive as long as the goal is making lawful what Allah has prohibited. Here, it is clear in the first scenario that we said, "No, I will not take these five because they are in exchange for the debt." And these five are in exchange for what? In exchange for the sale? No, because the price of the sale is one hundred. And perhaps it is weaker, five there or ten, that does not matter to us there, so that is lawful. But the increase over the cash sale is certainly not in exchange for the sale, and merchants know this better than us, that this increase is not in exchange for the sale, but rather in exchange for patience in repayment to your Muslim brother. Therefore, the fact that this means exists, this means never changes the ruling of this increase which the Messenger (peace be upon him) named as riba. As for those who say it is permissible, they have no argument except what we mentioned, that it is a sale, and that the prohibition mentioned in the previous hadiths is either interpreted as we mentioned, that the prohibition is for the cause of ambiguity, but we have invalidated this speculative, ijtihad-based cause with the cause explicitly stated in the Prophetic hadith first, and that reality indicates that there is no ambiguity in the price second, in what is practiced today in installment sales. This is what I have on this issue.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And you as well.