Ruling on Buying and Selling Grain with an Increase in the Same Commodity
✍ Written by: Saudi Fatwa Committee (Fatāwā al-Lajnah ad-Dā'imah)
In our region, grain is the primary produce, and due to a shortage of currency, grain also serves as a medium of exchange. At the time of sowing, we purchase one sāʿ of grain from traders in exchange for one riyal. At harvest, after cleaning the grain, we return two sāʿ for every riyal — because the price of grain drops after harvest.
Is this transaction permissible?
There is difference of opinion among scholars on this matter. However, the majority consider it impermissible, and their reasoning is:
✔ This transaction involves selling grain for the same grain with an increase and a delay (credit),
✔ Thus, it involves Riba (usury) from both aspects:
→ Riba al-Faḍl (increase in the same commodity)
→ Riba al-Nasī’ah (delay in settlement)
A group of scholars allows this transaction only if the seller and buyer had agreed to exchange cash for grain, and the excess quantity of grain was not preconditioned at the time of the contract.
In the described case, there seems to be a clear agreement to return more grain than was initially taken, due to the shortage of currency — and this is not permissible.
✔ The farmer should sell grain to a different trader, not to the one from whom he bought it during the sowing season.
✔ He should repay in cash, thus avoiding riba and ensuring Shari‘ah compliance.
This path represents:
Safety
Caution
Distance from usury
If the sale was originally made in cash, and without any prior agreement or condition, and the farmer voluntarily pays in grain — this may be considered valid, according to one group of scholars, particularly in the following situations:
➤ The farmer is poor,
➤ The trader fears losing his payment if he insists on cash,
➤ The farmer might give his crop to someone else or consume it, leading to the trader’s loss — which often occurs with impoverished farmers.
If there was a mutual agreement at the time of the initial sale that payment will be made in grain with an excess after the harvest:
✘ Then the first transaction is invalid
✘ The deal becomes equivalent to a loan repaid with increase,
✘ The trader may only take the same quantity of grain as initially provided,
✘ Taking more grain is not allowed, as it constitutes riba.
(Reference: Ibn Bāz – Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā wa al-Maqālāt, 19/252)
✍ Written by: Saudi Fatwa Committee (Fatāwā al-Lajnah ad-Dā'imah)
✦ Question:
In our region, grain is the primary produce, and due to a shortage of currency, grain also serves as a medium of exchange. At the time of sowing, we purchase one sāʿ of grain from traders in exchange for one riyal. At harvest, after cleaning the grain, we return two sāʿ for every riyal — because the price of grain drops after harvest.
Is this transaction permissible?
✦ Ruling and Explanation
There is difference of opinion among scholars on this matter. However, the majority consider it impermissible, and their reasoning is:
✔ This transaction involves selling grain for the same grain with an increase and a delay (credit),
✔ Thus, it involves Riba (usury) from both aspects:
→ Riba al-Faḍl (increase in the same commodity)
→ Riba al-Nasī’ah (delay in settlement)
✦ Minority Opinion
A group of scholars allows this transaction only if the seller and buyer had agreed to exchange cash for grain, and the excess quantity of grain was not preconditioned at the time of the contract.
✦ Application to the Current Case
In the described case, there seems to be a clear agreement to return more grain than was initially taken, due to the shortage of currency — and this is not permissible.
✦ Recommended Shari‘ah-Compliant Method
✔ The farmer should sell grain to a different trader, not to the one from whom he bought it during the sowing season.
✔ He should repay in cash, thus avoiding riba and ensuring Shari‘ah compliance.
This path represents:
Safety Caution Distance from usury✦ Exception Based on Need and Good Faith
If the sale was originally made in cash, and without any prior agreement or condition, and the farmer voluntarily pays in grain — this may be considered valid, according to one group of scholars, particularly in the following situations:
➤ The farmer is poor,
➤ The trader fears losing his payment if he insists on cash,
➤ The farmer might give his crop to someone else or consume it, leading to the trader’s loss — which often occurs with impoverished farmers.
✦ What is Prohibited
If there was a mutual agreement at the time of the initial sale that payment will be made in grain with an excess after the harvest:
✘ Then the first transaction is invalid
✘ The deal becomes equivalent to a loan repaid with increase,
✘ The trader may only take the same quantity of grain as initially provided,
✘ Taking more grain is not allowed, as it constitutes riba.
(Reference: Ibn Bāz – Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā wa al-Maqālāt, 19/252)
