and granting a delay (inzhar); for none of those [prohibitions] pertain to them.

Section: If he rescinds the contract (iqala), he must return the price if it remains, or an equivalent if it is a fungible item (mithli), or its value if it is not a fungible item. If he wishes to give him a substitute for it, al-Sharif Abu Ja'far said: He may not exchange that price in another contract until he has taken possession of it. Abu Hanifa said the same, due to the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever pays a Salam for something, let him not exchange it for something else." And because this is guaranteed by the Salam contract, it is not permitted to dispose of it before taking possession of it, just as if it were in the hands of the buyer. Al-Qadi Abu Ya'la said: It is permitted to take a substitute for it. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i, because it is a substitute firmly established in the liability (dhimma), so it is permitted to take a substitute for it, just as if it were a loan (qard). And because it is wealth that returned to him through the dissolution (faskh) of the contract, it is permitted to take a substitute for it, like the price of sold goods when [the sale] is dissolved. The Salam object is guaranteed by the contract, and this [the price] is guaranteed after its dissolution, and the report intended the Salam object itself, so it does not cover this case. If we follow this view, its ruling is the ruling of what applies if it were a loan or the price in sales of tangible objects; it is not permitted to make it a Salam for something else, because that would be a sale of debt for debt, and there is permitted in it what is permitted in a loan and the prices of sales when they are dissolved.

780 - Issue: He said: (And if he pays a Salam in two types for a single price, it is not permitted until he specifies the price of each type.)

The case of this is when one pays a single dinar for a qafiz of wheat and a qafiz of barley, without specifying the price of the wheat from the dinar, nor the price of the barley. This is not valid. Malik permitted it, and there are two opinions for al-Shafi'i, corresponding to the two schools of thought. They argued that any contract permitted for two types in two separate contracts is permitted for them in a single contract, like sales of tangible objects, and as if he had specified the price of one of them. Our evidence is that what corresponds to each of the two types is unknown, so it is not valid, just as if he contracted for one of them individually for an unknown price.