The Business of Installments in the View of Shariah
Condemnation of Forbidden Matters
It is narrated from Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah (RA) that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
(( يأتي على الناس زمان لا يبالي المرء ما أخذ منه أمن الحلال أم من الحرام ؟ ))
A time will come upon the people when a person will try to acquire whatever he finds, without considering whether it is lawful or unlawful. [That is, the distinction between halal and haram will be lost.]
In another hadith it is stated:
(( بادروا بالأعمال فتناً كقطع الليل المظلم ، يصبح الرجل مؤمناً و يمسي كافرًا ، أو يمسي مؤمناً ويصبح كافرًا، يبيع دينه بعرض من الدنيا . ))
Hasten to do good deeds before these trials come, which will be like fragments of a dark night (meaning that) a person will be a believer in the morning and become a disbeliever by the evening, or be a believer in the evening and become a disbeliever by the morning (and the reason for this will be) that he sells his religion for a little worldly gain.
Also, a severe warning has been given for those who consume the forbidden:
(( لا يدخل الجنة لحم نبت من سحت ، النار أولى به . ))
The flesh that has been nourished through the unlawful will not enter Paradise (and the flesh that has grown through the unlawful) for it, the fire of Hell is more appropriate.
Warning:
It is established from Abdul Rahman bin Sabit from our master Jabir (RA), see
Therefore, the chain of narration of this hadith is Hasan.
And in another hadith it is mentioned that (the one who consumes the unlawful travels a long journey and) raises his hands towards the sky and says:
O my Lord! O my Lord! While his food is unlawful, his drink is unlawful, his clothing is unlawful, and he has been nourished by the unlawful, so how can his supplication be accepted?
In this deceptive era, the distinction between halal and haram is gradually disappearing, and people are becoming involved in consuming the unlawful in various ways.
The Prohibition of Usury
The greatest forbidden act among forbidden acts is usury (interest), which has taken a universal form and has been imposed on the Muslim Ummah in the form of banks, whereas Allah Almighty’s clear command regarding usury is:
﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَذَرُوا مَا بَقِيَ مِنَ الرِّبوا إِنْ كُنتُم مُؤْمِنِينَ O فَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلُوا فَأَذَنُوا بِحَرْبٍ مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ﴾
O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains [due to you] of interest, if you should be believers. And if you do not, then be informed of a war [against you] from Allah and His Messenger.
And it is narrated from Sayyiduna Jabir (RA):
لعن رسول الله ﷺ آكل الربا وموكله وكاتبه و شاهدیه وقال : (( هم سواء))
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ cursed the one who consumes usury, the one who gives it, the one who records it, and the two witnesses to it, and said:
They are all equal in sin.
Also, Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Hanzalah Ghaseel Malaika (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
A dirham of usury which a person knowingly consumes carries more sin than thirty-six acts of adultery.
Warning:
Its chain of narration is Hasan.
’’سنده ضعيف في سماع ابن أبي مليكة من عبد الله بن حنظلة لہٰذا الحديث نظر و للحديث عنة أخرى ‘‘
Hafiz Bazzar’s statement:
’’ وقد رواه بـعـضـهـم عـن ابـن أبـي مليكة عن رجل عن عبد الله بن حنظلة “
It is baseless, therefore this statement has no validity.
Interest in Trade
Interest is also charged in trade in the form of loans, one form of which is that goods are sold on easy installments. The same goods, when purchased in cash, have a lower price, but in the case of credit and easy installments, their price increases, while Allah Almighty says:
(وَأَحَلَّ اللَّهُ الْبَيْعَ وَحَرَّمَ الرِّبوا)
And Allah has made trade lawful and interest unlawful.
In the present era, installment-based business is at its peak, and people buy various items such as fans, washing machines, refrigerators, TVs, and vehicles on easy installments. There is a significant difference between the cash and credit prices of these items. If an item is available for ten thousand rupees in cash, its price in installments is twelve thousand rupees. Now, what is the Shariah status of the two thousand rupees being charged along with the loan amount? It is clear that this is interest (riba).
Understand this issue in such a way that a person takes a loan of ten thousand rupees from a company or shop on the condition that he will repay this loan amount in easy installments of twelve thousand rupees instead of ten thousand. Obviously, this is interest (usury). Similarly, another person, instead of taking a loan of ten thousand rupees, buys something worth ten thousand rupees on the condition that he will pay twelve thousand rupees in easy installments as a loan. Obviously, the person was originally liable to pay only ten thousand rupees, but due to taking the loan, an additional two thousand rupees were added to his original amount. Therefore, this is also interest (usury). The Prophet ﷺ said:
(( الربا في النسيئة و في رواية قال : لا ربا فيما كان يدا بيد . ))
Trade is based on mutual consent, and in one narration, it is stated that there is no interest in something sold for cash.
Sayyiduna Fadalah bin Ubaid رضي الله عنه said:
“کل قرض جرمنفعة فهو وجه من وجوه الربا”
Every loan that yields profit is one of the causes (types) of interest (usury).
It is narrated from Abu Burda, the son of Sayyiduna Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari رضي الله عنه, that when I went to Madinah, I met Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Salam رضي الله عنه. He said:
“Do you not come to me so that I may offer you dates and let you enter the house?” Then he said:
“You are in a land where usury is widespread. If someone owes you a debt and then gives you chaff or worthless wild grass as a gift, do not accept it because that is usury.”
Charging More Price in Exchange for Credit is Not Permissible
The following are the evidences that paying a higher price in installments in exchange for credit is not permissible:
➊ It is narrated from Sayyiduna Abu Huraira رضي الله عنه:
“نھی رسول الله ﷺ عن بيعتين في بيعة”
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade setting two prices for the same item.
➋ This hadith from Sayyiduna Abu Huraira رضي الله عنه is also narrated mursal with these words:
((من باع بيعتين في بيعة فله أو كسهما أو الربا))
Whoever sets two prices for one item, whether he takes the lower price or not, it will be considered usury.
➌ Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas’ud رضي الله عنه says:
“لا تحل صفقتان في صفقة و أن رسول الله ﷺ لعن آكل الربا وموکله و شاهدیه و کاتبه”
It is not permissible to have two transactions in one contract, and indeed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ cursed the one who consumes usury, the one who gives it, its witnesses, and its scribe.
The words “لا تحل” are found in
and
, while in Musnad Ahmad it is “لا تصلح“.
➍ Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas’ud رضي الله عنه says:
“لا تصلح الصفقتان في الصفقة، أن يقول : هو بالنسيئة بكذا وكذا، وبالنقد بکذا و کذا”
It is not permissible to have two transactions in one contract (and having two transactions in one contract means) that a person says: if you buy with cash, then at this price, and if you buy on credit, then at that price.
From the explanation of Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Masood رضي الله عنه, it becomes clear that setting different prices for cash and credit is not correct; rather, the higher price charged in the case of credit is interest (riba).
Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Masood رضي الله عنه also said: “صفقتان في صفقة ربا”
Conducting two transactions in one contract is usury (riba).
Narrators of hadith, muhaddithin, and fuqaha have given this same explanation of these ahadith.
Imam Bayhaqi says:
➊ قال عبدالوهاب يعني يقول : هو لك بنقد بعشرة و بنسيئة بعشرين .
Abdul Wahab (bin Ata) says:
Meaning the shopkeeper says:
This item is ten rupees for you if paid in cash, and twenty rupees if on credit.
➋ Allama Ibn Qutaybah Dinawari in Gharib al-Hadith (18/1) says:
“ومن البيوع المنهي عنها شرطان في بيع ، وهو أن يشتري الرجل السلعة إلى شهرين بدينارين و إلى ثلاثة أشهر بثلاثة دنانير وهو بمعنى بيعتين في بيعة”
One of the prohibited sales is to impose two conditions in one transaction, which is that a person sells goods for two dinars payable in two months, and for three dinars payable in three months. This is the meaning of “two sales in one sale.”
➌ And in Musnad Ahmad, the same statement is reported from Samak bin Harb.
Samak bin Harb is a well-known trustworthy and reliable Tabi’i who met eighty (80) Companions of the Prophet and is a narrator of this hadith. His interpretation and explanation at this point take precedence over others because the narrator of a hadith understands the meaning of his narration better than others.
➍ Imam Muhammad bin Nasr al-Marwazi has recorded in the book Al-Sunnah
and Imam Abdul Razzaq in Al-Musannaf (137/8, Hadith 14629) has transmitted verbatim from Qadi Shurayh with an authentic chain of narration his statement according to the mentioned hadith.
➎ Imam Muhammad bin Sirin narrates from Ayyub (al-Sakhtiyani): أنه كان يكره أن يقول : أبيعك بعشرة دنانير نقدا أو بخمسة عشر إلى أجل “He considered it disliked for a person to say: I will sell you ten dinars in cash and fifteen dinars on credit.
➏ Imam Tawus says:
’’إذا قال : هو بكذا و كذا إلى كذا و كذا، وبكذا وكذا إلى كذا و كذا فوقع البيع على هذا فهو / بأقل الثمنين إلى أبعد الأجلين “
When a person says:
If a certain thing is sold for such and such amount, for such and such period, and for such and such amount for such and such period, then the sale will be valid, and the lesser of the two prices will be considered, and the longer of the two periods will be taken.
➐ Imam Nasai has written under the chapter “بيعتين في بيعة“:
’’ وهو أن يقول : أبيعك هذه السلعة بمائة درهم نقدا أو بمائتي درهم نسيئة “
I sell you this commodity for cash at one hundred dirhams and on credit at two hundred dirhams.
➑ Hafiz Ibn Hibban said in his Sahih (347/11, number 4973):
’’ذكر الزجر عن بيع الشي بمئة دينار نسيئة و بتسعين دينارا نقدا. “
A statement about the prohibition and warning regarding selling something on credit for a hundred dinars and for cash at ninety dinars.
➒ Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
’’أن يقول : بعتك بألفين نسيئةً، بألف نقدًا فأيهما شئت أخذت به وهذا بيع فاسد …. وعلة النهي على الأول عدم استقرار الثمن و لزوم الربا عند من يمنع بيع الشي بأكثر من سعر يومه لأجل النسيئة . “
A person says:
I sell you this item on credit for two thousand and for cash one thousand; take it as you like. This sale is invalid, and the reason for its prohibition is that the price of the item is not fixed, and then it involves usury, in the case of a person who takes a price higher than the market value on the day due to credit.
➓ Imam Tirmidhi says:
“حديث أبي هريرة حديث حسن صحيح والعمل على هذا عند أهل العلم وقد فسر بعض أهل العلم قالوا : بيعتين في بيعة أن يقول : أبيعك هذا الثوب بنقد بعشرة و بنسيئة بعشرين.”
The hadith of Abu Hurairah (RA) is Hasan Sahih, and the scholars act upon this hadith. In the explanation of this hadith, some scholars have said that the meaning of two sales in one item is that a person says:
I sell you this cloth for ten cash and twenty on credit.
⓫ Imam Baghawi says:
“وقوله : ولا شرطان في بيع ، فهو أن يقول : بعتك هذا العبد بألف نقدا أو بألفين نسيئة ، فمعناه معنى البيعتين في بيعة .”
The Prophet ﷺ said:
Two conditions are not permissible in one sale, meaning he says:
I sell you this slave for one thousand in cash and two thousand on credit; the meaning of this is “البيعتين في بيعة“. [That is, this is the meaning of this hadith.]
From the explanations of the aforementioned scholars of hadith, it becomes clear that selling based on the difference between cash and credit is not correct, and the extra price charged due to credit falls under the category of usury (riba). According to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ’s statement:
(( فله أو كسهما أو الربا))
it is clear usury. There is no doubt about its prohibition.
Removal of Doubts
First Doubt:
Those scholars who permit the common installment sales have explained this hadith by saying that the reason for prohibition and the cause is the uncertainty of the price, and it is as follows: when the seller says:
This item is one hundred rupees in cash and one hundred fifty rupees on credit, and the buyer says that I agree, but it is not decided whether to pay one hundred rupees or one hundred fifty rupees, so when it is decided, the price is no longer uncertain, and the buyer has clearly indicated whether he will take cash or credit.
Removal:
This statement is false for several reasons:
➊ Ignorance in the sale at this place is not harmful because both the buyer and the seller are competent, and if both separate without being certain of one of the two prices, and the seller later meets the buyer and tells him that he agrees to credit, and the buyer gives him cash, in this case, there is no ignorance found that is harmful to the validity of the sale. It is also clear and evident that not every ignorance is harmful to the validity of the sale. That is why the sale of a heap of grain is permissible, similarly, the sale inside the shells of walnuts, almonds, and watermelons, etc., is valid, although there is ignorance in all these, but this ignorance is non-harmful. And the ignorance mentioned in the reason for prohibition in credit sales is also non-harmful, and even if its harmfulness is accepted, still it will not be a reason for prohibition because in reality, this ignorance is absolutely not the cause of prohibition.
➋ If this prohibition was due to ignorance of the price, then the Prophetic saying ﷺ:
(( فله أو كسهما أو الربا ))
What is the meaning and context of “for this seller, it is either a price with less quantity or interest”?
And it is certain that the real reason for the prohibition of this sale is the excess amount of money that the shopkeeper or seller receives due to credit. According to this hadith, only two situations arise:
The shopkeeper or seller will either sell his item at a price with less quantity, which is the cash price, or he will charge an interest increase due to credit, which he stipulated in the case of credit.
Second Doubt:
Some scholars have said that “بیعتین في بيعة” means that a person lends something on credit for a period, then buys it back from the buyer himself at a lower cash price, which is called “Bai’ al-‘Inah,” and in a hadith narrated from Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar (RA), its prohibition was mentioned where the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
((إذا تبـايـعـتـم بالعينة و أخذتـم أذناب البقر و رضيتم بالزرع وتركتم الجهاد سلط الله عليكم ذلاً لا ينزعه حتى ترجعوا إلى دينكم))
When you start practicing Bai’ al-Inah and chase after the tails of cows and bulls, and prefer agriculture, and abandon Jihad, then Allah will impose humiliation upon you, and He will not remove it until you return to your religion.
Warning:
In the chain of this narration, Ishaq bin Asid is weak according to the preferred opinion, and its supporting narrations are also weak, so this narration is weak.
Clarification:
There is no doubt that Bai’ al-Inah is also invalid because it is a means of interest (riba), and many reports from the Companions indicate its prohibition, and the hadith “نهى عن بيعتين في بيعة” includes it in its generality.
However, the Prophet’s ﷺ statement
((من باع بيعتين في بيعة فله أو كسهما أو الربا))
that whoever makes two sales in one transaction, the price is the lesser of the two or it is interest, does not apply to Bai’ al-Inah, nor is this sale an example of that hadith.
Because when a seller sells something and then buys it back himself at a lower price, in this case ((فله أو كسهما أو الربا)) has no meaning.
Arguments of those who consider it permissible and their analysis
Those who consider the common installment sale permissible have relied on various arguments for it:
First argument:
They say that the original ruling in goods and transactions is permissibility, and there must be evidence for something to be considered forbidden. Installment sale is one of the transactions, therefore it is permissible and there is no evidence for its prohibition.
Analysis:
It is true that the original ruling in goods and transactions is permissibility unless there is evidence for its prohibition. Now the question is whether there is any evidence for the prohibition of this transaction?
So remember that the evidence for its prohibition is the authentic hadith narrated from Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) in these words
((من باع بيعتين فله أوكسهما أو الربا))
Which has already been mentioned above, and similarly, some sayings of the Companions have also been stated, so it is not correct to say that there is no evidence against its prohibition!
Secondly, the principle of blocking the means (Sadd al-Dhara’i) is also an argument against this original permissibility. That is, to prevent means and resources that lead to unlawful acts. This is a Shariah rule; giving such fatwas to the general public that encourage them towards usurious dealings and pave the way for usurious transactions is not permissible in any way.
Second Argument:
Installment sales are permissible under the command of Allah Almighty:
(وَاحَلَّ اللهُ البيع)
Allah Almighty has made trade lawful.
And Allah Almighty says:
﴿يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَكُمْ بَيْنَكُمْ بِالْبَاطِلِ إِلَّا أَنْ تَكُونَ تِجَارَةً عَنْ تَرَاضٍ مِنْكُمْ﴾
O you who believe! Do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly, except by mutual consent in trade.
Installment sales (buying and selling in installments) are also trade by mutual consent.
Analysis:
The sales and trades that are religiously impermissible are not included in the general ruling of these verses; otherwise, it would be necessary that alcohol, pork, and exchanging wheat equally, and one side cash and the other side credit, and cash for cash with one side extra, etc., would be considered permissible sales (transactions)! Because these are also sales after all, yet even these people do not accept the permissibility of these sales because they are religiously forbidden. Similarly, receiving an excess amount in installments in exchange for credit is also not permissible, as is clear from the Hadith of Abu Huraira (RA).
Third Argument:
Rational analogy demands the permissibility of installment sale, because the merchant has full authority to set any price for his goods. Sometimes he sells an item to one buyer at a lower price and sells the same item to another buyer at a higher price. When this is permissible for him, then it is also permissible that he charges a higher price from the buyer who pays late (installments) and charges a lower price from the one who pays in cash.
Analysis:
Those who consider this analogy rational and permissible do so only according to the intellect of those whose intellect is not bound by Shariah but rather dominates it. However, for those whose intellect is bound by Shariah, it is not permissible because they do not rely on intellect against a clear text. Here, there is a text which has already been discussed on previous pages. Yes, it is permissible for a merchant to sell on credit at the price at which he currently wants to sell for cash. Sometimes it happens that due to a person’s poverty or friendship, he sells to him at a lower price, or sometimes he considers him a daily customer and sells at a lower price, while charging other customers a higher price; there is no harm in this because the increase in price is not due to the credit. A sale in which the price increase is solely due to credit is prohibited and unlawful. The reality of such a sale is that the shopkeeper or seller has engaged in a loan transaction with the customer and has taken an increase in this loan because he will have to be patient with it. Thus, when the merchant tells the buyer: “This is the merchandise; if you pay its price now, I will sell it to you for one thousand, but if you pay me after one year, I will take one and a half thousand from you,” then the reality of this sale is that the buyer has actually purchased this merchandise from the merchant now for one thousand and taken possession of it. Since he does not currently have one thousand, this thousand is now a debt upon him which he must pay after a year, and the merchant has implicitly told him that he is giving him a one-year grace period on the condition that he pays five hundred more. The result is that this person, who was initially a merchant dealing in sales with the buyer, has now become one who engages in an interest-based transaction by receiving fifteen hundred instead of one thousand from the merchant. This is exactly usury (riba). It is clear that their analogy is false.
The correct rational analogy is that charging more than the cash price in the form of credit is the excess and increase that occurs in usurious transactions. This is the amount that exceeds the principal capital.
Fourth Argument:
A credit sale with a price higher than cash is a Salam sale because it is a reflection of a Salam sale on credit. In Salam, the price is paid first and the goods are received later, whereas in a credit sale, the goods are given first and the payment is received later. Therefore, this is also permissible.
Analysis:
This statement is both flawed and an invalid analogy. There are several reasons for its invalidity, one of which is that there is clear evidence for the permissibility of Bay’ Salam or Bay’ Sulf, whereas there is clear evidence for the prohibition of this credit sale. How can something be like that which the Shariah has permitted, when the Shariah has prohibited it? How can something be analogized to what has a clear legal text permitting it, when there is a clear legal text prohibiting the other?
Regarding the prohibition of this common credit sale, there is the Hadith of Abu Hurairah رضي الله عنه ((من باع بيعتين في بيعة فله أو كسهما أو الربا)), and a large group of scholars, jurists, and hadith experts have explained its meaning as a sale (buying and selling) with a difference between cash and credit price, which has already been discussed on previous pages. Regarding the permissibility of Bay’ Salam, there is the Hadith of Abdullah ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه that when the Prophet ﷺ came to Madinah Munawwarah, the people of Madinah used to practice Bay’ Salam for one or two years. Seeing this, the Prophet ﷺ said to them:
((من أسلف في شيءٍ ففي كيل معلوم و وزن معلوم إلى أجل معلوم))
Whoever enters into a Salam sale can do so only for a specified period, with specified measure and specified weight.
(بخاری: ۲۲۴۰)
Therefore, something that is forbidden by text and evidence cannot be analogized to something that is permissible by text and evidence, because analogy is invalid in the presence of explicit text. One reason is that Salam sale is an exception and specific case to the general rule of sale, and when something itself is specific to a general rule, it is not permissible to analogize it. The general rule in sale is that the sale of a non-existent (unavailable) item is not valid, and Salam sale is an exception to this rule. See:
الوجيز في أصول الفقه
“When the subject (against which analogy is sought) is an exception to a general rule, nothing can be analogized to it.”
It is also incorrect to equate Bay’ Muslam with Bay’ Ajal (deferred sale) because there is a difference between the two. In Bay’ Ajal, the higher price charged is solely due to the credit, which is exactly interest (riba). Whereas in Bay’ Muslam, nothing more than the actual price of the fruits is received due to the period and credit, therefore the difference between the two is clear and the opponents’ analogy is a false analogy and invalid.
Fifth Argument:
Those who permit installment sales have also used the verse from Medina as evidence. Allah Almighty says:
﴿ يَايُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا تَدَايَنتُم بِدَينِ إِلَى اَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى فَاكْتُبُوهُ ﴾
O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down.
They say that from this verse it is understood that a debt transaction can be made for a specified and exact term, and installment sales are also a debt transaction for a specified term, therefore it is permissible.
Analysis:
This noble verse has neither a close nor a distant relation to the customary credit sale. It only commands writing down the debt and appointing witnesses for it.
It does not contain anything about charging more price in return for credit; therefore, deriving this issue from this verse is merely an exaggeration and has no validity.
Sixth Argument:
Their sixth argument is that the Prophet ﷺ himself engaged in credit sale.
Umm al-Mu’minin Sayyida Aisha Siddiqah (RA) says:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ bought grain on credit from a Jew and had his armor pledged with him.
Analysis:
It is true that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ bought grain on credit from a Jew and had his armor pledged with him, as is found in Sahih Bukhari in the Book of Pledges, but the question is: does this hadith or any similar hadith indicate that the Prophet ﷺ gave the Jew more than the spot price in return for the credit?
Whoever claims this should present evidence; otherwise, he is attributing to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ something that he did not do.
Seventh Argument:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ bought a camel on credit in exchange for two camels. He ﷺ instructed Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As رضي الله عنه to take camels in exchange for the camels given as charity. He took one camel on credit in exchange for two or three she-camels; therefore, an increase is possible in exchange for credit.
Analysis:
This hadith is present in
. The complete hadith is as follows, as narrated by Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As رضي الله عنه:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ commanded me to mount the army on the camels that I had, so I mounted the army on my camels until the camels were finished and some of the warriors of the army remained without any mounts. I informed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ that some people were left without mounts. He ﷺ ordered me to buy camels on credit from the people in exchange for the charity camels so that the army could be prepared, and when the charity camels arrived, we would give them the agreed-upon camels so that you could prepare and dispatch this army.
Abdullah bin Amr رضي الله عنه says:
I started taking one camel in exchange for two or three she-camels given as charity, on the condition that when the charity camels arrived, we would return your religion. Until then, I prepared and dispatched the army. When the charity camels arrived, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ returned those she-camels to them.
It should be remembered that this sale is specific to animals because the text and evidence have only been revealed concerning the sale of animals. A general rule or principle cannot be derived from it that contradicts what has been established from the Prophet ﷺ, which is that it is not permissible to sell two items of the same kind by receiving an excess from one side. Those who justify charging any kind of excess on credit based on the hadith of Abdullah bin Umar رضي الله عنهما are mistaken because their analogy is applied where analogy is not permissible. Otherwise, selling two dinars for one dinar on credit would be permissible, similarly selling one maund of wheat for two maunds of wheat on credit would also be permissible, etc., whereas there is consensus on its prohibition. It should also be remembered that in the sale of one camel for two camels, the condition is not that this sale is due to the superiority of the two camels over one camel, rather it also happens that one single camel is better than two camels, as Imam Bukhari narrated from Abdullah bin Abbas رضي الله عنهما that “قد يكون البعير خيراً من البعيرین” sometimes one camel is better than two camels.
In any case, the mentioned hadith regarding injustice with an animal is specific to credit sale and is not a general rule; otherwise, the sale of two items of the same kind with differences in quantity would be permissible, which no one accepts. It should also be noted that the raised narration in Abu Dawood and Musnad Ahmad has a weak chain of transmission, and Sayyiduna Abdullah’s taking one camel instead of two موقوفاً is a personal practice and not مرفوعاً۔ واللہ اعلم
Eighth Argument
Selling on credit at a higher price provides ease for the general public, and many matters of Shariah are based on ease. Poor people who cannot pay the full price of essential goods at once can easily buy them in installments, and since the shopkeeper has to wait longer in installments, he benefits by charging a higher price in return. In this way, both the merchant and the buyer benefit.
Analysis:
The argument given to justify the business of installments is also given by those who engage purely in usurious business. A person who takes a loan from someone on interest also benefits from that money or property by spending or investing it. Then, when he is able, he returns an amount greater than the principal he borrowed, thereby benefiting the lender. In this way, both the lender and the borrower gain profit, so this interest is also considered permissible.
(العیاذ باللہ)
It has been proven that the argument of those who charge extra money in return for credit also applies to usurious business, and usurers use this argument to run their usurious businesses. If these people truly want to make things easier, they can do so without charging extra money in return for credit and can also avoid interest. Selling something in installments provides ease to the buyer, but if they charge a higher price along with it, it will cause hardship and interest will also be collected. So why does one Muslim not give respite to another Muslim and why does he not wait so that there is genuine Shariah ease, which Islam encourages and for which there is reward and merit, as Allah the Exalted says:
(وَانْ كَانَ ذُو عُسْرَةٍ فَنَظِرَةٌ إِلَى مَيْسَرَةٍ)
If the debtor is in hardship, then grant him time till it is easy for him.
The common practice of credit sales is against the spirit of Islam, and people buy goods from such merchants out of compulsion. If they find a merchant who does not charge extra price in exchange for credit, they will buy goods from him and will absolutely not buy from those who charge extra money for credit. This will also increase his wealth, trade will grow, and Allah will be pleased with those who facilitate ease for people by granting them time. The more goods a merchant sells, the more profit he earns, and Allah’s pleasure is added to that.
It should also be remembered that if permissibility and prohibition are judged based on people’s needs and necessities, then people will find reasons in Shariah to make every forbidden thing permissible.
The reality is that whatever Shariah has made lawful is lawful, and whatever it has declared unlawful is unlawful. People’s needs and necessities do not interfere with what is lawful and unlawful, and the commonly practiced installment sales fall under prohibited sales, and the rule of removing hardship and intention of necessity does not apply to it.
Those who do not have the courage to pay the cash price and those who do, both should suffice with what is lawful and avoid what is unlawful.
Allah the Exalted says:
(وَمَنْ يَتَّقِ اللَّهَ يَجْعَل لَّهُ مَخْرَجًا)
Whoever fears Allah – He will make for him a way out.
And He said:
﴿وَيَرْزُقُهُ مِنْ حَيْثُ لَا يَحْتَسِبُ ﴾
And provides for him from where he does not expect.
Also He said:
﴿وَمَنْ يَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ فَهُوَ حَسْبُهُ﴾
And whoever relies upon Allah – then He is sufficient for him.
Ninth Argument:
The person who lends goods on credit is putting his property at risk because he is not completely sure whether the borrower will repay the loan or not, and the longer the grace period, the greater the risk becomes. Therefore, if such a shopkeeper or trader charges extra money in return for credit due to bearing this risk, there is no harm in it.
Analysis:
The reason this argument is invalid is that those who lend money with interest use exactly the same argument, and based on this argument, interest would also be considered permissible.
The truth is that the merchant who increases the price due to credit and says that this item is for seventy rupees cash and one hundred and ten rupees on credit, and gives the buyer, for example, a year’s time, has in reality sold you that item for seventy rupees, and the buyer’s liability is established at seventy rupees. When the buyer later gives him one hundred and ten rupees, it is as if the shopkeeper has given him one hundred and ten rupees in exchange for seventy rupees, which is explicitly interest.
In summary, the argument that the risk involved due to delay and waiting justifies the price increase is completely invalid and provides justification for usurers to charge interest.
Tenth Argument:
The majority of scholars have issued a fatwa permitting it.
Analysis:
Eleventh Argument:
Some people, when they do not find any argument for the permissibility of installment sale, say that ((من باع بيعتين في بيعة فله أو كسهما أو الربا)) the related hadith is weak and anomalous, and reasoning from it is not correct.
Analysis:
Al-Fasl fi Bay’ al-Ajal. This issue is very useful and unique in this field, so in search of it, I met with Fazilat al-Sheikh Abdul Rahman Zia Sahib, may Allah preserve him, at Jamia Ibn Taymiyyah Lahore. He informed me that this treatise is in his possession, and he has even translated most parts of it into Urdu. Kindly, he bestowed this treatise and its translation. Therefore, most of this discussion is derived from this treatise. May Allah, the Exalted, increase his good deeds and forgive his sins. آمین I pray to Allah Almighty that He grants the writer of these lines the ability to benefit properly from such excellent and practicing scholars. آمین۔
