name" (26). Among the ruses regarding things other than usury is that they seek to sell [the prohibited thing] (27) by having one lease the bare land of a garden for the equivalent of its rent, then having him sharecrop (musaqat) the fruit of its trees for a portion—one part out of a thousand for the owner, and nine hundred and ninety-nine for the worker—and the owner takes nothing from him, nor does he intend that; rather, he intends to sell the fruit before its state of ripeness becomes apparent through what he termed 'rent,' and the worker also intends nothing else. Perhaps he does not even benefit from the land for which he termed the rent. And whenever the fruit does not come out, or a calamity strikes it, the lessee comes to claim for the calamity, believing that he had only given his money in exchange for the fruit and nothing else, and the owner of the land knows that.

Section: If one buys something with broken currency, it is not permissible to give him valid currency that is less than that. Ahmad said: This is pure usury; this is because he is taking a compensation for silver that is less than it, thus yielding an imbalance between them. If he buys it with valid currency, it is not permissible to give him broken currency that is more than it, likewise. If they mutually rescind the sale and then contract using valid currency, or broken currency, it is permissible. If one buys a garment for half a dinar, a half-dinar coin becomes due upon him. If he then returns and buys something else for another half, another half-dinar coin becomes due upon him. If he pays him a full valid dinar, the second contract becomes void, because it involved stipulating an increase in the price of the first contract. If that was before the first contract became binding, it is also void, because something that invalidates it was found before its conclusion. If it was after they parted ways and the contract became binding (28), it does not affect it, and he is not liable for more than the price for which he contracted the sale. The school of al-Shafi'i in this regard is as we have mentioned.

Section: If a man has a dinar as a deposit with another person, and he performs a currency exchange (sarf) with him for it, and the presence of that deposit is known, or conjectured, the currency exchange is valid. If he thinks it is not present, the currency exchange is not valid, because its status is that of something non-existent. If he doubts its presence, Ibn Aqil said: It is valid. This is the opinion of some Shafi'is. Al-Qadi said: It is not valid, because its persistence is not known. This is the explicit statement of al-Shafi'i. The reasoning for the first [opinion] is that the default state is its persistence, so it is valid to build upon it in cases of doubt, for doubt does not remove certainty; for this reason, the sale of an absent animal whose life is in doubt is valid; if it then becomes clear that it was dead at the time of the contract, we conclude that the contract was invalid.