Based on this, it is permissible to sell them with excess and equally, because the pit that (12) is in the date is of no consideration; thus, it becomes like selling pits for pitted [dates].

Section: Dibs (syrup), vinegar, natiq (a type of sweet), and qutara (drippings) are made from dates. It is not permissible to sell dates for any of these, because some of them contain [ingredients] that are not of their genus, and some of them are fluid while dates are solid. It is not permissible to sell natiq for some of itself, nor for other products made from dates, because they contain something intended [as food] that is not of their [original] genus, so it is placed in the position of a mudd of 'ajwah. It is permissible to sell qutara, dibs, and vinegar—each type for some of itself—equally. Ahmad said in the narration of Muhanna, regarding vinegar made from daqal (inferior dates): It is permissible to sell some of it for some of itself equally. This is because the water in each of them is not intended [as an object of trade in itself], rather it is of its constituent elements, so it does not prevent the permissibility of the sale, like [the sale of] bread for bread, or dates for dates where each of them contains its pits. A type cannot be sold for another type, because each of them contains that which is not of its genus in varying amounts, which leads to disparity (tafadul).

Section: Grapes are like dates in what we have mentioned, except that grape vinegar is not sold for raisin vinegar because each of [the two] is unique in containing that which is not of its [other's] genus. It is permissible to sell raisin vinegar for some of itself, just as it is permissible to sell date vinegar for some of itself.

710- Issue: He said: "Wheat and barley are two [different] genera."

This is the madhhab (school position), and it is the view held by al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, Abu Thawr, and the Ahl al-Ra'y (the jurists of opinion). There is a narration from Ahmad that they are one genus. This was also narrated from Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Aswad ibn 'Abd Yaghuth (1), Ibn Mu'ayqib al-Dawsi (2), al-Hakam, Hammad, Malik, and al-Layth, due to what was narrated from Ma'mar ibn 'Abd Allah, that he sent his servant with a sa' of wheat and said: "Sell it, then buy barley with it." The servant went and took a sa' and an extra [fraction] of a sa'. When he came to Ma'mar, he informed him of that. Ma'mar said to him: "Why did you do that? Go and return it, and do not take anything but like for like, for the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, forbade the sale of food for food unless it is like for like, and our food on that day was barley." It was said: "But it is not the same as it." He replied: "I fear it may be analogous (3)." Related by Muslim (4). And because one of them is adulterated with the other, they are like two types of the same genus. Our position is the statement of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: "Sell wheat for barley as you wish, hand to hand" (5). In another wording: "There is no harm in selling wheat for barley, even if the barley is the greater of the two, hand to hand, but as for on credit, then no" (6). And in another wording: "If these types differ, then sell as you wish" (6). This is explicit and authentic, and it is not permissible to abandon it without an equivalent counter-argument. Also, they do not share a specific name, so they are not one genus, just like dates and wheat. Furthermore, they are named in the Six Species, so they are two genera, like the rest of them. The hadith of Ma'mar must necessarily imply [the concept of] genus, by analogy with the rest of the genera of food; it is also possible that he meant the food commonly known to them, which was barley, for he said in the report: "And our food on that day was barley." Then, even if it were...