But he was not pleased with it. Accordingly, it is not permissible for the Salam object (muslam fihi) to be a price (thaman). This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa, because [prices] are only established in the liability (dhimma) as prices, so they cannot be the priced object (muthman). According to the report which states the permissibility of deferment (nasi'a) in commodities (urud), it is permissible for the Salam capital to be a commodity, just like the price, and it is permissible to pay it as Salam for currencies. Al-Sharif Abu Ja'far said: It is permissible to pay Salam in dirhams and dinars. This is the school of Malik and al-Shafi'i, because they are established in the liability as dowries (sadaq), so they are established as Salam, just like commodities. Because there is no usury (riba) between them in terms of disparity or deferment, it is valid to pay one as Salam for the other, like a commodity for a commodity. The opinion held by Abu Hanifa is invalid; for if he were to sell dirhams for dinars, it would be valid, and inevitably one of them must be the priced object. Consequently, if one pays a commodity as Salam for a commodity described by its qualities, and upon the arrival of the term he brings the very same commodity, he is obliged to accept it, according to one of the two perspectives, because he brought the Salam object according to its description, so he is obliged to accept it, just as if it were a different one. The second perspective is that he is not obliged, because it leads to the price being the priced object. Those who supported the first perspective said: This is not correct, because the price is in the liability, and this is a compensation for it. Likewise, if he pays a young slave girl as Salam for an adult one, and the time arrives while she is in the condition of the Salam object, and he brings her, there are also two possibilities: first, it is not valid, for the reason we mentioned, and because it leads to him having enjoyed her and returned her free of any compensation (aqr). The second is that it is permissible, because he brought the Salam object according to its description. The first [possibility] is invalidated by the case where one finds a defect in it and returns it. The companions of al-Shafi'i differed regarding these two issues based on these two perspectives. If he did that as a stratagem (hila) to benefit from the object, or to have intercourse with the slave girl and then return her without any compensation, it is not permissible by any consensus, because all stratagems are void.