from Zayd ibn Aslam, from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: This is the best of its chains of narration. It is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he forbade the sale of a living animal for a dead one. Imam Ahmad mentioned it. It is narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that a camel was slaughtered, so a man came with a female kid and said: Give me a portion in exchange for this female kid. Abu Bakr said: This is not correct. Al-Shafi'i said: I know of no one who disagrees with Abu Bakr on this. Abu al-Zinad said: Everyone I have met forbids the sale of meat for an animal. This is because meat is a type in which usury (riba) exists, and it was sold for its origin from which it is derived, so it is not permissible, like selling sesame for sesame oil. In this, it differs from what they used as an analogy. As for selling meat for an animal of a different genus, the apparent opinion of Ahmad and al-Khiraqi is that it is not permissible, for Ahmad was asked about selling a sheep for meat and he said: It is not valid, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade selling a living animal for a dead one. The Qadi chose the opinion of its permissibility, and al-Shafi'i has two opinions on it. Those who forbade it argued based on the general nature of the reports and the fact that all meat is of a single genus. Those who permitted it said: Usury-bearing wealth was sold for something that is neither its origin nor its genus, so it is permissible, just as if one were to sell it for currency. If one sells it for an animal whose meat is not eaten, it is permissible, according to the apparent opinion of our companions, and this is the opinion of the majority of jurists.
Section: It is not permissible to sell any usury-bearing commodity for its origin from which it is derived, such as sesame for sesame oil, olives for olive oil, other oils for their origins, and juice for its origin, such as the juice of grapes, pomegranates, apples, quinces, and sugar cane. None of these may be sold for their origin. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and Ibn al-Mundhir. Abu Thawr said: It is permissible, because the origin is different and the meaning is different. Abu Hanifah said: It is permissible if one knows with certainty that what is in the origin of oil
and juice is less than what is in the pure substance, and if he does not know, it is not permissible. Our evidence is that it is usury-bearing wealth sold for its origin from which it is derived, so it is not permissible, just like selling meat for an animal, a matter we have established by textual evidence.
Section: As for selling any of these extracts for its own genus, it is permissible if they are equal. It is permissible to sell it for something of a different genus with an excess, however one wishes, because they are two different genera, and equality between them is determined by volume, as it is measured and sold by it by custom. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, regardless of whether they are cooked or raw. The companions of al-Shafi'i said: It is not permissible to sell the cooked for its own genus, because fire firms up their parts, so they differ and it leads to an excess. Our evidence is that they are equal in their state in a way that neither is uniquely diminished, so it resembles the raw for the raw. As for selling the raw for the cooked of the same genus, it is not permissible, because one of them will uniquely suffer a decrease in the secondary state, so it is not permissible to sell it for it, like moist dates for dried dates. If one sells the juice of any of these for its dregs (thuf'), if there is a remainder of what was extracted from it, it is not permissible to sell it for it. Thus, it is not permissible to sell sesame oil for its press-cake (kusb), nor olive oil for its dregs that contain a remainder of the oil, except according to the narration in which the issue of the mudd of Ajwa dates is permissible. If there remains nothing of its juice in it, it is permissible to sell it for it with an excess or equally, because they are two different genera.
Section: If one sells something containing usury, part of it for another part of it, along with them—or with one of them—is something of a different genus, such as a mudd and a dirham for a mudd and a dirham, or for two mudds, or for two dirhams; or he sells something adorned with its own genus, this issue is called the issue of the mudd of Ajwa. The school holds that this is not permissible. Ahmad stated this in many places, and the early companions mentioned it. Ibn Abi Musa said regarding a sword with adornments, a belt, and riding gear adorned with the same genus as the material upon them: It is not permissible, by one singular opinion. This is narrated from Salim ibn 'Abd Allah, al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, Shurayh, and Ibn Sirin. This is also the opinion of al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, and Abu Thawr. From Ahmad, there is another narration indicating that it is permissible, provided that the individual item is greater than the one which
(2) In the original: "that". (3) Omitted from: the original. (4) Recorded by al-Bayhaqi, in: Chapter on the Sale of Meat for Animals, from the Book of Sales. Al-Sunan al-Kubra 5/597. (5) 'Anaq (female kid): The female of the offspring of goats and sheep from the time of birth until the completion of a year. (6) In the original: "it is fit".
