What is the evidence of those who prohibit two sales in one sale, specifically 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, but rather, as is clear from the question, 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 benefits in this case in terms of material gain and reward in the Hereafter. It is established in authentic hadiths that lending two dirhams is equivalent to giving one dirham in charity, meaning the loan is half of the charity.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : So if he gives two dirhams in charity, it is as if he gave two dirhams in charity, or if he lent 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 matter that is preferred in the Shari'ah, but on the condition that it is at the cash price and that he does not exploit the need 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. And so, unfortunately, when it became a general custom that installment sales are accompanied by an increase in the price, it is valid for a question to come in this general form: What is the evidence of those who prohibit or declare forbidden the installment sale? It does not mean the installment sale itself.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Rather, it is for 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 statement (peace and blessings be upon him)—excuse me—his prohibition (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 Ibn Abi Shaybah 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 or interest. It was narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah. The third hadith is perhaps from the hadith of 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 interpreters of hadith, 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". On this basis, other texts may be found, 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 from the narrator of the first hadith, Sammak ibn Harb, what is meant by two sales in one sale, as many scholars of the Salaf have explained it, such as Sufyan al-Thawri, after this clarification, we can say that those who interpret the prohibition mentioned in these hadiths of two sales in one sale as presenting the two sales at the same time, saying as came in the explanation: "I sell you this recorder for one hundred dinars or one hundred riyals in cash, or one hundred and ten on installment," this is it, they say this is what is prohibited. But if he says to the buyer beforehand: "This is one hundred and ten on installment," they say it is permissible. Their evidence, or rather their doubt, in that is that they looked at the issue with a purely superficial view, because the hadith says: "That you say, I sell you this for such and such in cash, and for such and such on credit." So if this other meaning is separated, it is permissible. I say this is a very superficial view. And the evidence of these people in this understanding, which we consider a formal, superficial understanding, is that they said that the prohibition of two sales in one sale, when two prices are presented, involves gharar (excessive uncertainty) and ignorance, as it is not known on which of the two prices they agreed. And this is a very weak evidence, because reality indicates that they separate 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). Do you know here in the issue of sales and contracts that it is obligatory to have an offer and acceptance, and some of them are satisfied with bay' al-mu'atah, meaning whatever you want to buy, no, it is necessary that an offer and acceptance take place explicitly between the seller and the buyer. But the others, including the Hanafis, are satisfied with what is called bay' al-mu'atah. And 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. And the other is that, although scholars say in other contexts "The tongue of reality is more eloquent than the tongue of speech", and in what we are now dealing with, the greatest evidence for what we say is when a man comes to a car dealer, for example, and specifies a car and says, "How much is this?" He says to him, "In cash, for example, twenty thousand riyals; on installment, twenty-five thousand." Reality will be one of two things after bargaining, of course, and the price settling on a specific amount. Let us assume it settled on what was requested, because some merchants have a very fixed price. He said, "In cash, it won't be twenty... twenty-five on installment, it won't be less." So let us assume the price ended at this. Then what will happen is the following: either he pays the twenty thousand and in exchange takes the car and drives off, and there was no offer or acceptance, or he says, "By Allah, I don't have money, so I want to pay you over time." They will agree on what?

The questioner : Twenty-five thousand.

The Shaykh : On twenty-five thousand, and he specifies such and such each month, or every two months, according to what they agree upon, and he writes what they call this? Promissory notes? Right? And the buyer signs them, and everything is done, and he took the car. There was no offer or acceptance. Who says that in the first scenario and the second scenario, gharar (excessive uncertainty) occurred? There is no gharar, there is no ignorance. They separated with complete clarity. And on this occasion, I say that whoever says that offer and acceptance are obligatory blocks a wide path of Allah's mercy and invalidates many contracts today. Today, the simplest scenarios that occur: you go to the fruit or vegetable seller, "How much is the kilo? How much is the bunch of parsley?" He tells you, for example, a qirsh, you take it and go. Those people do not validate except what you say, "I accepted, I agreed," and so on. You get on the bus, you take out the qirsh and throw it in the box, and you do not agree with the driver on the price or anything else. In foreign countries, Europe and others, for example, all goods are priced and weighed, and at the greengrocer's, you put the price and take the goods. Newspapers have known prices; there is a box, you take the newspaper and throw in what? The price, and you go. Where is the offer and acceptance here? They would nullify the interests of people. And therefore, the most correct view in this issue is that mere bay' al-mu'atah (hand-to-hand sale) is sufficient, because as we said earlier, "The tongue of reality is more eloquent than the tongue of speech". So those who said that the prohibition mentioned in the hadith means combining the two matters, and the 'illah (operative cause) is such and such, we say this 'illah is, first, incorrect in that reality testifies that there is no ignorance in the matter and no gharar. And that this 'illah is a quoted, ijtihad-based 'illah. And every opinion and every ijtihad that contradicts the text is rejected, as it was said, meaning among the scholars and known in their sayings, for example: "When the athar (narration) comes, the reasoning is nullified" "When the river of Allah comes, the river of Ma'qil is nullified" "There is no ijtihad in the place of the text". And here, the text with the 'illah is riba (usury or interest), as came in the second hadith: So the 'illah is not the ignorance of the price, whether it is the cash price or the installment price, because the hadith says the 'illah is the increase, taking the increase in exchange for the debt and patience with your Muslim brother.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : As we said, reality refutes this cause, because there is absolutely no type of ambiguity in it; that is, a sale today on an installment basis never involves any ambiguity whatsoever. And when it becomes clear that the cause is riba, another point becomes clear to us from the second hadith. I want to point out that this hadith benefits us in a way we do not gain from the first hadith, and the first hadith benefits us in a way we do not gain 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, as you heard, "I sell you this for such-and-such cash, and for such-and-such an increase for deferment." The second hadith informs us that the cause is riba, not the ambiguity of the price, as those who permit taking an increase in exchange for installments claim. Then this second hadith provides a benefit that, without it, we would have understood from the first hadith and others that this contract is invalid. Why? Because the principle regarding prohibitions is invalidity. But the second hadith did not establish invalidity; on the contrary, it established permissibility, but it invalidated the increase, because it said, "So he has ." 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. Thus, the second hadith provides two important benefits: first, that the sale is valid, contrary to what the principle of prohibition in the first hadith implies; and second, that the cause of the prohibition is not ambiguity, but rather riba.
The third hadith meets the first hadith in the prohibition, but it informs us that an imam among the imams of language interpreted the prohibition and the impermissibility in it. It is not permissible to sell with the condition that it is two sales in one sale. Thus, this hadith serves as a witness to the two previous hadiths.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : This is what pertains to the first type of evidence, namely the evidence that explicitly states this issue. We also have inductive evidence, which is an induction of the objectives of the Shari'ah in its commands and its prohibitions. If I come to you, a merchant, and I know that the cash price of this recorded item is one hundred dinars, and I say to you, "Lend me one hundred dinars for the sake of Allah," and you say, "No, I am a man who works with my money and invests it; I am not prepared to give you one hundred dinars or one hundred riyals on the condition that you repay me one hundred and five at the time of payment." And, praise be to Allah, Muslims are still in consensus that this is open riba.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : But when you come to this merchant who has this recorded item with a cash price of one hundred, 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, is it absolute sale, or is it the prescribed, permissible sale? There is no doubt that no one can interpret this verse in its absolute and comprehensive sense, meaning every sale. It must be restricted. Every prescribed sale, every sale about which the Lawgiver has spoken, for example, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited the sale of gharar. So if a man who owns livestock sells wool to a wool merchant, this is called a sale of gharar. If we are prohibited and someone says to us, "My brother, ," and we say, "We sold and bought," we tell 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 Allah the Exalted: ." If they say that there is a difference between the first scenario and the second scenario, that this is, first of all, a sale, we tell them, first of all, it is a prohibited sale; the prohibition of 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 haram; I will not take riba," for example, if he is a righteous man who does not consume riba. But now, what are you consuming? You are consuming trade. Trade of one hundred, whereas in exchange for patience with your Muslim brother, it is one hundred and five. This is like that, except that here there is an intermediary, the item sold. These are formal matters that the Wise Lawgiver never considers in transactions, because we have not learned from many, very many 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 the apparent conditions of 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 null and void, of no value, and considered this marriage invalid. Therefore, these formalities should not be a source of deception as long as the goal is making lawful what Allah has forbidden. Here, it is clear in the first scenario that we said, "No, I did not take these five because these are in exchange for a debt." And these five are in exchange for what? In exchange for the sale? No, in exchange for the sale of one hundred; perhaps the profit there is five or ten, which does not concern us here. This is halal. But the increase over the cash sale is not in exchange for the sale; this is certain. Merchants know this better than we do: this increase is not in exchange for the sale, but in exchange for patience in paying your Muslim brother. So if this means exists, this means never changes the ruling of this increase, which the Messenger (peace be upon him) named riba. As for those who say this is permissible, they have no argument. We only mentioned that it is a sale, and that the prohibition mentioned in the previous hadiths is either interpreted, as we mentioned, with the cause of ambiguity, but we refuted this cause, both in terms of deduction and ijtihad, with the cause explicitly stated in the Prophetic hadith. First, that reality indicates that there is no ambiguity in the price in the installment sales that take place today. This is all I have on this issue.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.