is the apparent meaning of the words of al-Khiraqi. It is possible that he intended the third narration, because it is the sale of a commodity for a commodity, and thus nisa' (delay) is prohibited between them, just as it is for the two types of riba-bearing properties. The Qadi said: According to this, if one were to sell a commodity for a commodity, and with one of them there are dirhams, where the commodities are exchanged on the spot and the dirhams are on credit (10), it is permissible. However, if the dirhams were on the spot and the commodities were on credit, it would not be permissible because it leads to nisa' in the commodities. This narration is very weak, for it is the establishment of a ruling that contradicts the original principle without a text, consensus, or valid analogy. Indeed, in the place where there is consensus (11) or a textual ruling, there are attributes that have an effect on the prohibition of excess (fadl), so it is not permissible to remove them from the degree of consideration. Something whose nature is like this does not allow for the establishment of a ruling, even if it did not contradict a principle; so how could it be established while contradicting the principle regarding the lawfulness of sale! The most correct of the narrations is the first one, due to its conformity with the principle. Regarding the hadiths that contradict it, Abu Abd Allah [Imam Ahmad] said: There is not a single hadith among them that can be relied upon, and it pleases me to avoid it. The hadith of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Umar concerning this was mentioned to him, and he said: They are both mursal (disconnected). As for the hadith of Samurah, it is narrated by al-Hasan from Samurah (12). Al-Athram said that Abu Abd Allah said: Al-Hasan's hearing from Samurah is not sound. As for the hadith of Jabir, Abu Abd Allah said: This Hajjaj added in it: "on credit (nisa')," while Layth ibn Sa'd heard it from Abu al-Zubayr and does not mention in it "on credit." This Hajjaj is Hajjaj ibn Artah; Ya'qub ibn Shaybah said: His hadith is weak, though he is truthful. If one of the two items being sold is among those in which there is no riba, and the other contains riba, such as a measured item for a counted item, then there are (14) two narrations regarding them. The first is that nisa' is prohibited in them. The second is that it is not prohibited, just as if one sold a counted item for a counted item of a different type.