those who wish to delve deeper into it should refer to it. I said: And if that is the case, the buyer proceeds with what he has purchased; he either pays the price immediately or defers it. The sale in the first scenario is valid, while in the other scenario, he proceeds with a deferred price—which is the point of contention—so where is the alleged ambiguity? Especially if the payment is in installments, the first installment is paid in cash, and the rest in installments as per the agreement. Thus, the reason for ambiguity is nullified both in effect and consideration. 3 - The evidence for the third opinion is the ḥadīth of the chapter and the ḥadīth of Ibn Masʿūd, as they both agree that "two sales in one sale is usury." Therefore, usury is the reason, and thus the prohibition revolves around the presence or absence of the reason. If the higher of the two prices is taken, it is usury, but if the lower is taken, it is permissible, as previously mentioned by the scholars who stated that it is permissible to take the lower of the two prices up to the furthest term. In doing so, it is not considered that he sold two sales in one sale. Do you not see that if he sells the commodity at the day's price and gives the buyer the choice to pay the price in cash or on credit, it is not said that he sold two sales in one sale, as is evident? This is what was stated by (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) in his previous saying: "He has the lesser of the two or usury," thus validating the sale due to the removal of the reason and nullifying the increase because it is usury. This is the opinion of Ṭāwūs, al-Thawrī, and al-Awzāʿī, may Allāh have mercy on them, as previously mentioned. From this, you learn the fallacy of al-Khaṭṭābī's statement in "Maʿālim al-Sunan" (5/97): "I do not know of any jurist who said according to the apparent meaning of this ḥadīth and validated the sale with the lesser of the two prices, except something attributed to al-Awzāʿī, and it is a corrupt opinion because of the uncertainty and ignorance contained in this contract." I said: He means ignorance of the price as previously mentioned, and you have learned from what has preceded that his statement is the corrupt one because he based it on a reason with no foundation in the sharīʿah, while al-Awzāʿī's opinion is based on the text of the Lawgiver as previously mentioned. For this reason, al-Shawkānī critiqued him in "Nayl al-Awṭār" (5/129): "It is not hidden that what al-Awzāʿī said is the apparent meaning of the ḥadīth because the ruling for him with the lesser necessitates..