regarding the intention of a loan. If he says, "I have transferred ownership to you," without mentioning the exchange, and nothing is found that indicates it, then it is a gift. If they disagree, the statement is that of the recipient (the one to whom it was given); because the apparent state (al-zahir) is with him, for the transfer of ownership without exchange is a gift.

Section: No option (khiyar) is established in it; because the lender entered into it with the clear understanding that the benefit is for another, so it resembles a gift, and the borrower may return it whenever he wishes, thus he is in no need of the establishment of an option for him. Ownership in the loan is established upon taking possession (qabd). It is a binding contract on the part of the lender, and a permissible/non-binding one on the part of the borrower. So if the lender wishes to retract the specific item of his property, he does not have the power to do so. Al-Shafi'i said: He may do so; because everything for which one possesses the right to demand its equivalent, one possesses the right to take it back if it is present, like usurped property (maghsub) and items lent for use (ariyah). Our position is that he has removed his ownership for an exchange without an option, so he does not have the right to retract it, like a sold item. It differs from usurped property and items lent for use, for his ownership did not cease over those, and because he does not possess the right to demand their equivalent while they are present, whereas in our case, it is the opposite. As for the borrower, he has the right to return what he borrowed to the lender, if it is in its original quality, has not diminished, and no defect has occurred in it; because it is according to the attribute of his right, so the lender is obligated to accept it, like the goods in a forward sale (salam), and as if he had given him other than it. It is possible that the borrower is not obligated to accept what is not of the fungible (mithli) type; because the loan of such things necessitates the return of the value according to one of the two views, so if he returns the specific item itself, he has not returned what was obligatory upon him, so it is not obligatory to accept it, like a sold item.

Section: The lender has the right to demand its equivalent immediately; because it is a cause that necessitates the return of the equivalent in fungible items, so it necessitates it immediately, like the destruction of property (itlaf). If he lent it to him in parts (tafariq), then demanded them all at once, he has the right to do so; because all of it is due immediately, so it resembles the case where he sold him items in multiple separate sales that were due immediately, then demanded the payment for them all at once. If he deferred the loan, it does not become deferred, and remains due immediately. Every debt whose term has arrived does not become deferred by his postponement of it. This is the opinion of al-Harith al-'Ukli, al-Awza'i, Ibn al-Mundhir, and al-Shafi'i. Malik and al-Layth said: The entirety becomes deferred by the postponement, because of the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):