What is the ruling on borrowing real estate, selling it, and utilizing its price, then either repurchasing the same real estate or returning its value in cash at the price on the day of repayment upon the expiry of the agreed-upon term? And what is the legitimate alternative solution if this is impermissible?

Scholars have differed on the permissibility of lending a valuable asset (such as real estate) in three opinions:

1. It is not permissible to lend it (the Hanafi school of thought), because it has no equivalent, and thus does not become a debt owed. 2. It is permissible to lend a valuable asset for which salam (forward buying) is valid, which is that which can be precisely described (the Maliki and Shafi'i schools of thought). Accordingly, lending real estate is not valid for them except in specific cases permitted by the Shafi'is, such as a partner lending half of a commonly owned property to his co-partner. 3. It is permissible to lend a valuable asset (the Hanbali school of thought and Ibn Hazm), and the borrower returns its value on the day of the loan (i.e., its market price), which is what becomes a debt owed.

Based on the opinion that lending real estate is permissible, no scholar has said that its value on the day of repayment is what is considered; rather, it is its value on the day of the loan.

To address the issue of changes in real estate value over time, real estate can be purchased deferred or in installments using a stable currency like the dollar or gold, and the price is fixed in the debt accordingly. It is permissible at the time of payment to pay in another currency at the exchange rate of the day of payment, if the seller agrees; otherwise, the original agreed-upon currency must be returned.