Does the statement that rescission is annulment not necessitate immediate possession in the case of the two currencies (gold and silver), and does the statement that rescission is a sale necessitate immediate possession?
The jurists differed regarding rescission (iqalah): is it a cancellation or a new sale? This difference has an impact on the condition of immediate exchange (taqabud).
Whoever considers it a new sale stipulates immediate exchange in currency exchange (sarf), and this is the view of the Malikis (except in food and pre-emption) and Abu Yusuf.
Whoever considers it a cancellation, there are two views:
1. Immediate exchange is not stipulated, and this is the of the Shafi'is and Hanbalis. 2. Immediate exchange is stipulated in the rescission of currency exchange, and this is the madhhab of Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf (despite their saying that it is a cancellation), due to the right of the Shari'ah.
Summary from Ftawy's records · added here
Reviewed by El Fatwa's sharia committee.
Read the full answer on Ftawyhttps://ftawy.com/en/questions/16469
Where this answer came from
- Source platform
- Ftawy
- Original fatwa ID
- 16469
- Added here
- . This is when the answer was added to El Fatwa, not the fatwa's date.
- Text
- Summary from Ftawy's records, reviewed by El Fatwa's sharia committee.
- Read the full ruling
- Read the full answer on Ftawy