Mixed dirham–dinar trades, clipped dirhams, metal predominance, adulteration and loss of circulation Read the bilingual lesson for Bab al-Sarf: Mixed Currency Exchanges, Debased Coins and Obsolescence and test your understanding with a focused quiz.
Lesson
1. Mixed-metal exchanges in sarf
The preceding level established weight equality for an exchange of the same monetary metal and the required possession within the contractual session. We now examine a single exchange in which gold and silver appear on both sides.
A mixed bundle is not automatically usurious. The Hanafi analysis first determines which consideration is matched against which, then tests the relevant equality and possession conditions.
2. The first mixed dirham–dinar exchange
وَمَنْ بَاعَ دِرْهَمَيْنِ وَدِينَارًا بِدِينَارَيْنِ وَدِرْهَمٍ جَازَ الْبَيْعُ
Translation: A sale of 2 dirhams and 1 dinar for 2 dinars and 1 dirham is valid.
One side contains two silver dirhams and one gold dinar; the other contains two gold dinars and one silver dirham. Each metal appears in differing quantities, but the Quduri validates the composite sale. The legal allocation that explains this result follows.
3. Allocating each metal against the other
وَجُعِلَ كُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنَ الْجِنْسَيْنِ بِالْجِنْسِ الْآخَرِ
Translation: Each of the two genera is allocated against the other genus.
The 2 silver dirhams on the first side are matched with the 2 gold dinars on the second, while the 1 gold dinar is matched with the 1 silver dirham. Unequal amounts of the same metal are not matched directly.
This describes the legal construction of the one contract, not the creation of two new deals. The session-possession requirement remains.
4. Mapping both sides without confusion
Place the exchanged components into two correspondences:
First: 2 dirhams (silver) ← against 2 dinars (gold)
Second: 1 dinar (gold) ← against 1 dirham (silver)
Each correspondence is cross-metal, so equal number or weight is not its governing condition; mutual possession in sarf is still required. Simply noting that each party has three coins misses the legal reasoning.
5. Why the cross-allocation matters
Matching two dirhams against only one dirham would create the problem of inequality in a same-silver exchange. Quduri's construction reads the composite contract through legally permissible cross-genus correspondences.
Jurist disagreement: Fath al-Qadir also transmits the opposing view of Zufar and al-Shafi‘i for this composite construction. It should not be presented as an undisputed ruling across schools.
6. Eleven dirhams for ten dirhams and a dinar
وَمَنْ بَاعَ أَحَدَ عَشَرَ دِرْهَمًا بِعَشَرَةِ دَرَاهِمَ وَدِينَارٍ جَازَ الْبَيْعُ
Translation: Exchanging 11 dirhams for 10 dirhams and 1 dinar is valid.
Here one side consists solely of silver; the other combines silver with gold. Ten dirhams are allocated against the ten dirhams, and the remaining one dirham against the gold dinar.
7. Equality within the same-metal portion
The composite correspondence is:
10 dirhams ← 10 dirhams: equality in a same-metal component
1 dirham ← 1 dinar: unequal quantities allowed across gold and silver
Calling the whole 11-to-10 correspondence usury without allocating the dinar misses this ruling. Conversely, inventing a nominal mixed bundle cannot legalise a genuinely unmatched same-metal excess.
8. Possession is not relaxed by mixing metals
Both composite examples solve the allocation and equality question. They do not waive the requirement to take possession within the sarf session.
If 11 dirhams are exchanged for ten dirhams plus one dinar, but the dinar is left for future delivery, the contract faces a distinct prohibited-delay problem. The pertinent possession conditions must still be fulfilled for each monetary component.
9. Sound and ghallah dirhams
وَيَجُوزُ بَيْعُ دِرْهَمَيْنِ صَحِيحَيْنِ وَدِرْهَمِ غَلَّةٍ بِدِرْهَمٍ صَحِيحٍ وَدِرْهَمَيْنِ غَلَّةٍ
Translation: It is permissible to exchange two sound dirhams and one ghallah dirham for one sound dirham and two ghallah dirhams.
Ghallah is explained in Fath al-Qadir as clipped or broken dirhams rejected by the treasury but accepted by merchants. It should not simply be equated with coins whose predominant substance is base-metal adulteration.
10. Coin quality does not replace weight equality
A sound dirham is intact, whereas a ghallah piece may be clipped or less desirable. In a same-silver exchange the governing test is equality by the recognised weight, not visual finish or market preference.
Accordingly, the example is valid with the required equal weight and possession. Counting three coins on each side without weighing them is not sufficient.
11. Not every imperfect coin has the same rule
The ghallah discussion concerns the condition and commercial acceptance of particular silver pieces. Quduri next turns to the predominant material of coins: precious metal or adulterating metal.
These are different legal questions. One concerns a coin's integrity and weight; the other determines whether a coin still carries the classification of silver or gold, or is treated as a composite material.
12. Coins predominantly made of silver
وَإِذَا كَانَ الْغَالِبُ عَلَى الدَّرَاهِمِ الْفِضَّةُ فَهِيَ فِضَّةٌ
Translation: If silver predominates in the dirhams, they are treated as silver.
A small admixture of base metal does not remove a predominantly silver coin from silver's legal category. Its exchange with similar coins or pure silver remains subject to the rules of same-metal equality.
13. Dinars with predominantly gold content
وَإِنْ كَانَ الْغَالِبُ عَلَى الدَّنَانِيرِ الذَّهَبُ فَهِيَ ذَهَبٌ
Translation: If gold predominates in the dinars, they are treated as gold.
Their classification rests on predominant substance, not merely the coin's name. When exchanged with pure gold, the predominantly gold dinar carries gold's same-genus rules; market preference or finish cannot excuse unequal gold weight.
14. Pure versus slightly alloyed precious metal
Quduri applies the same prohibition of unequal exchange to predominantly precious-metal coins as to high-quality coins. Fath al-Qadir makes weight equality explicit for such exchanges.
For example, giving coins classified as ten grams of silver against eleven grams of pure silver is not justified merely by minor alloying: the legal genus remains silver.
15. When adulteration becomes predominant
وَإِنْ كَانَ الْغَالِبُ عَلَيْهِمَا الْغِشُّ فَلَيْسَا فِي حُكْمِ الدَّرَاهِمِ وَالدَّنَانِيرِ
Translation: If adulteration predominates in them, they are no longer governed as dirhams and dinars.
Predominant adulteration means the base metal outweighs the gold or silver component. Such coins are no longer treated in every respect as pure precious-metal money; their composite constituents require separate legal analysis.
16. Unequal exchange of predominantly adulterated coins
فَإِذَا بِيعَتْ بِجِنْسِهَا مُتَفَاضِلًا جَازَ
Translation: Exchanging such coins for their kind with a difference in quantity is permissible.
This concerns coins predominantly composed of base metal, not silver-predominant dirhams. Fath al-Qadir notes that where silver still exists on both sides as a component, relevant sarf possession rules and allocation constraints continue to matter.
17. How mixed components affect the analysis
Consider a hypothetical coin of 30% silver and 70% base metal exchanged for another coin also containing silver. Treating each coin as pure silver would be wrong, but ignoring the real silver components would also be wrong.
The analysis must account for the silver components' counterpart and the consideration for the non-silver material. This is a historical mixed-metal case, not a complete contemporary ruling on paper or digital currencies.
18. Distinguishing currency in circulation from obsolete money
After identifying a coin's material, a third issue arises: does the market still transact with it?
Current or circulating money is accepted as a price. Obsolete or non-circulating money is no longer customarily accepted in that role. The predominance of adulteration and the later loss of monetary circulation are two separate facts.
19. Coins become obsolete after the sale
وَإِذَا اشْتَرَى بِهَا سِلْعَةً ثُمَّ كَسَدَتْ وَتَرَكَ النَّاسُ الْمُعَامَلَةَ بِهَا بَطَلَ الْبَيْعُ عِنْدَ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ
Translation: If goods were bought with these coins, then the coins fell out of circulation and people stopped dealing in them, the sale fails according to Abu Hanifah.
The case especially concerns a price still outstanding when the stipulated means of payment loses currency status. It does not simply declare every already-completed sale retrospectively void.
20. Why Abu Hanifah regards the sale as failed
The agreement stipulated a circulating form of payment. Before performance, it entirely ceased to circulate, altering the monetary property underlying the agreed price. In the position stated by Abu Hanifah, the original sale does not persist.
If goods were never delivered, the parties do not proceed on that failed sale. If goods have been taken or consumed, further restitution or liability questions arise; 'nothing is owed' would be an incorrect simplification.
21. Abu Yusuf: value on the contract date
وَقَالَ أَبُ يُوسُفَ: عَلَيْهِ قِيمَتُهَا يَوْمَ الْبَيْعِ
Translation: Abu Yusuf said that the value of those coins on the day of sale is due.
This view maintains the transaction but replaces delivery of the obsolete stipulated currency with its value on the contract date. The price was recognised when the agreement was made; the valuation date is therefore the date of that agreement.
22. Muhammad: value when circulation last existed
وَقَالَ مُحَمَّدٌ: عَلَيْهِ قِيمَتُهَا آخِرَ مَا تَعَامَلَ النَّاسُ بِهَا
Translation: Muhammad considers the value due to be that of the last time people transacted with those coins.
His benchmark is the last day of circulation. Both disciples preserve the basic sale with value-substitution, but they differ over the date on which the vanished currency is valued.
23. A numerical comparison of the three views
Suppose merchandise was purchased for ten historical coins but those coins ceased circulating before payment. Their aggregate equivalent value was:
On sale date: 1,000 units
On last date of circulation: 800 units
Abu Hanifah: failure of the original sale, with separate restitution consequences.
Abu Yusuf: substitution of value 1,000.
Muhammad: substitution of value 800.
This is a hypothetical valuation example, not a direct ruling on modern currency depreciation.
24. Obsolescence is not ordinary depreciation
A fall in purchasing power from 100 to 80 is not identical to total withdrawal of a currency from circulation. Quduri's case concerns the fact that people stopped transacting in the coins.
These three classical positions should therefore not automatically be applied to every instance of inflation or exchange-rate change. Contemporary currency questions require their own doctrinal and factual analysis.
25. Integrated review of this sarf passage
The continuous passage yields four sequential questions:
1. Which genus is allocated against which in a mixed transaction?
2. Is the relevant weight equal when sound and ghallah dirhams are exchanged?
3. Does precious metal or base metal predominate in the coin?
4. Has the stipulated currency become wholly obsolete, and what follows under each Hanafi position?
Genus, quantity, possession and circulation must remain distinct in careful legal analysis.
Practice questions
Question 1
In exchanging two dirhams and one dinar for two dinars and one dirham, how are the considerations allocated?
- Same metal against same metal even if unequal
- Each metal is matched against the other metal
- Only the number of coins is compared
- The dinars must be excluded and the sale cancelled
Question 2
Which requirement remains despite permissible cross-allocation?
- Every coin must be equally polished
- Equal number of coins
- Each metal must have the same coin count
- Required mutual possession in the sarf session
Question 3
Whose contrasting views on such mixed exchange are reported in Fath al-Qadir?
- Zufar and al-Shafi‘i
- Only Abu Yusuf
- Only Muhammad
- A unanimous position
Question 4
In 11 dirhams for ten dirhams plus one dinar, what matches the ten dirhams?
- The dinar
- The ten dirhams opposite
- Only one dirham
- The entire opposite bundle without allocation
Question 5
What corresponds to the eleventh dirham in that valid example?
- The ten dirhams
- Nothing at all
- The one gold dinar
- A deferred future payment
Question 6
What is the problem with exchanging eleven dirhams for only ten, without another counter-item?
- Unequal quantity in a same-silver exchange
- Failure to name the session
- A blanket prohibition on purchasing with cash
- Coins were minted in different years
Question 7
If the dinar in a composite sarf transaction is to be delivered next week, what separate defect arises?
- Coin appearance
- Clipping of dirhams
- Delay in required sarf possession
- Difference in seller name
Question 8
What kind of dirhams does Fath al-Qadir associate with ghallah?
- Only modern banknotes
- Clipped or broken silver coins accepted by traders
- An invariably pure gold dinar
- A coin with no material constituent
Question 9
What quantitative condition governs exchanging two sound plus one ghallah dirham for one sound plus two ghallah?
- More intact coins should mean higher weight
- Only the coin count must match
- Each ghallah coin must have double value
- Recognised total weight equality
Question 10
If each side has three silver coins but total weights are 30 g and 29 g, what follows?
- Equal count makes it valid
- Unequal silver weight makes it invalid
- Buyer intention suffices
- Minting year decides
Question 11
Which difference does not license additional weight in same-silver exchange?
- Difference in ownership proof
- Completion of possession
- Quality and physical condition
- Changing metal from silver to gold
Question 12
What is the principal distinction between ghallah and a predominantly debased coin?
- One concerns condition; the other predominant material
- They are necessarily identical
- The first applies only to gold
- The second must be paper money
Question 13
How is a predominantly silver dirham classified?
- Always merchandise
- As silver
- As copper only
- As gold
Question 14
Why cannot predominantly gold dinars be exchanged for pure gold with unequal weight?
- Because a dinar is never valuable
- Because they contain no metal
- Because their legal genus remains gold
- Because dinar exchange is always forbidden
Question 15
Which principal restriction applies to predominantly silver coins exchanged for pure silver?
- Unequal same-metal weight
- Any variation in engraving
- Minting in different towns
- Difference of stamp colour
Question 16
If base metal predominates, how does Quduri classify the coin?
- Necessarily pure silver
- Pure gold
- In every respect identical to pure money
- Not under the full ruling of pure dirhams and dinars
Question 17
To which case must one not apply the allowance of unequal exchange for predominantly debased coins?
- Historically mostly-base-metal composite coins
- Predominantly silver dirhams
- Coins mostly made of a base metal
- Composite coins with distinct constituents
Question 18
Why might session possession still matter for predominantly debased coins?
- Because the coin count is below one
- Because their label is dinar
- Because real silver components may exist on both sides
- Because the market has closed
Question 19
What is the appropriate analysis of a historical coin with 30% silver and 70% base metal?
- Treat it as entirely pure silver
- Ignore the silver completely
- Apply paper-money rules automatically
- Account for its constituents and legal allocation
Question 20
What is meant by circulating or nafiq currency?
- Money accepted in ordinary transactions
- Merely a damaged coin
- Only a historical collectible
- A coin prohibited from sale
Question 21
What event gives rise to Quduri’s obsolescence dispute?
- The coin merely loses weight
- The buyer changes name
- The coin ceases to circulate as money
- The entire price is paid immediately
Question 22
What is the stated Abu Hanifah position if the stipulated coins become obsolete before payment?
- Pay the obsolete coins regardless
- The original sale fails
- One extra dirham becomes due
- The buyer receives goods for free
Question 23
If the goods were received and consumed, how should the Abu Hanifah position be understood?
- No rights or duties remain at all
- Only rename the contract
- Further restitution and liability rules must be examined
- The seller is always at fault
Question 24
At what date does Abu Yusuf value the obsolete stipulated coins?
- Last day of circulation
- Day goods are consumed
- Today regardless of the sale
- Day the sale was made
Question 25
Which date controls the coin value under Muhammad’s opinion?
- The last day people transacted in them
- Always 30 days after purchase
- Minting date
- Any unrelated historic day
Question 26
What do the two disciples share and where do they differ?
- Both always invalidate the sale
- Both substitute value but differ on valuation date
- Both use only coin counts
- Both waive possession
Question 27
If hypothetical values are 1,000 at sale and 800 at last circulation, what is due under Muhammad’s valuation date?
- 1,000
- 1,800
- 800
- Necessarily zero
Question 28
In the same illustration, which valuation follows Abu Yusuf?
Question 29
Why are ordinary depreciation and total currency obsolescence not simply the same ruling?
- Both necessarily involve pure gold coins
- Any price change ends all trade
- They differ only in wording
- Obsolescence ends circulation, not merely purchasing power
Question 30
What is the sound order for analysing the sarf cases covered so far?
- Look only at coin names
- Check genus/components, then weight/possession, then circulation
- Use buyer preference alone
- Apply every historical coin rule directly to banknotes
Open the interactive quiz