Is it obligatory to pay the loss in value while paying the debt?

- I borrowed 10 thousand liras from someone, and some hodjas say it is not permissible not to give the inflation difference when I pay it back. I think they say so according to the ijtihad of Abu Yusuf: 
1) If I pay back 10 thousand liras and then the other party does not demand the difference in any way, maybe because he thinks it will be interest or maybe because he does not want it, etc., if I pay 10,000 liras and do not give the difference, will I be regarded to have violated his right? After all, the other party does not demand it. If the other party demands it, will I be regarded to have violated his right?
2) Is it permissible to accept the ijtihad of Abu Yusuf in some debts and the ijtihads of other fiqh scholars in other debts? In other words, is it permissible to pay inflation difference to one friend and not to pay inflation difference to another? Is it necessary to act in accordance with the same ijtihad in all debts?
3) Is it permissible to negotiate about this inflation difference? In other words, if 10 thousand liras becomes 15 thousand liras with the inflation difference and If I say, for example, let it be 12, and if we then agree on 12,500, is it permissible?
4) Is it permissible to bargain on early payment discounts? I think it is not permissible, but I do not understand this: Suppose that someone owes me 1000 liras. The debtor says, "Let it be 800 liras," and if the creditor accepts this, it is permissible, but is it not permissible if he offers a second amount or an amount in between? Is it obligatory that that the price of the first bidder either be accepted or the first bidder increase or decrease the price? In other words, if one party offers an amount at an early payment discount and the other party offers another amount, is it not permissible because it will be regarded as bargaining? In other words, if the debtor says 800 and the creditor says 900, is it not permissible if they agree on 900 or if they agree on a compromised price of 850? Is it obligatory that the first bidder always increase or decrease?

Dear Brother / Sister,

Question 1:
If I pay back 10 thousand liras and then the other party does not demand the difference in any way, maybe because he thinks it will be interest or maybe because he does not want it, etc., if I pay 10,000 liras and do not give the difference, will I be regarded to have violated his right? After all, the other party does not demand it. If the other party demands it, will I be regarded to have violated his right?

Answer 1:

Unless it is known that the other party has forgiven, it is an obligation to pay the inflation difference; the one who does not pay will be in debt.

The ijtihads of madhabs regarding the payment of the inflation difference are as follows:

Initially, Hanafis, especially Abu Hanifa (d. 150/767) and Abu Yusuf (d. 150/767), adopted the view that if the value of the money depreciates due to any intervening transaction, such as deferred sale and debt, no more than the amount due is payable, i.e. the same amount must be paid.

Accordingly, whatever was agreed upon in terms of the amount and type of money is to be paid.

However, Abu Yusuf later reversed his initial opinion and argued that in the case of a forward sale, the value on the day of the contract and in the case of a loan contract, the value on the day of the receipt of the money should be calculated and indexed to the dirham. In other words, according to this view, the value of the money at the time of the contract in the case of a deferred payment and the value of the money at the time of the loan transaction have to be calculated in dirhams, and the loss of value has to be added to the original amount that was borrowed and be paid to the creditor.

It is stated in the sources state that this is the mufta-bih (preferred) view.

Ghala, Kasad, Inqita

There must not be any stipulation or condition such as "in case of depreciation" at the beginning of the contract; however, if inflation occurs after the contract is concluded, it should be applied. Again, after the debt is paid, the difference of inflation that occurred earlier must not be demanded.

There are two different opinions among Malikis, the common (mashhur) one and the irregular (shaz) one. According to the mashhur view, if the money subject to the loan loses its value after the contract is made, the same amount must be repaid.

According to the shaz view of Rahuni (d.1230), if the depreciation that occurs after the contract is made is excessive, the value of the loaned money must be repaid.

Shafi'is hold the view that if the value of the money decreases after the loan or sale contract is made, the same amount must be paid.

Similarly, according to Hanbalis, including Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241/855), if something like money loses its value after it becomes the subject of a debt, the payment is made as the same amount because the similarity or closeness of the amount is greater than that of the value.

In addition, it is clearly stated that the fact that the loss of value is a lot or a little does not change the decree of payment in kind.

However, in Hanbali madhhab, there is also a shaz view that if a loan is given in kind and then loses its value, it must be paid in value. It is stated that this payment must be made by calculating the loss of value until the time of the payment of the debt.

On the other hand, it is also mentioned that the view that requires payment of the same amount in case of depreciation is true and that the majority of Hanbalis holds this view.

As it can be understood from all this information, the dominant view of the madhhabs in case of inflation difference in term relationships such as debt, sale, etc. is to pay the same amount, that is, not to charge the inflation difference.

However, in some of the opinions within madhhabs, the payment of the value was also taken into account and the inflation difference was considered.

Although that is the ijtihads of madhhabs, it is inevitable to apply the ijtihad of "getting the difference", which is the basis of the fatwa in Hanafi madhhab today. Otherwise, the creditor will suffer a loss, which is not legitimate according to the following general rule:

“Injury may not be met by injury.” (Majalla, article 19)

“Injury is removed.” (Majalla, article 20)

Question 2:

Is it permissible to accept the ijtihad of Abu Yusuf in some debts and the ijtihads of other fiqh scholars in other debts? In other words, is it permissible to pay inflation difference to one friend and not to pay inflation difference to another? Is it necessary to act in accordance with the same ijtihad in all debts?

Answer 2:

It is not permissible to apply different things in this matter.

Question 3: 
Is it permissible to negotiate about this inflation difference? In other words, if 10 thousand liras became 15 thousand liras with the inflation difference and If I say, for example, let it be 12, and if we then agree on 12,500, is it permissible??

Answer 3:

Bargaining is not permissible in this matter. The creditor can waive voluntarily (hiba).

Question 4:

Is it permissible to bargain on early payment discounts? I think it is not permissible, but I do not understand this: Suppose that someone owes me 1000 liras. The debtor says, "Let it be 800 liras," and if the creditor accepts this, it is permissible, but is it not permissible if he offers a second amount or if they an amount in between? Is it obligatory that that the price of the first bidder either be accepted or the first bidder increase or decrease the price? In other words, if one party offers an amount at an early payment discount and the other party offers another amount, is it not permissible because it will be regarded as bargaining? In other words, if the debtor says 800 and the creditor says 900, is it not permissible if they agree on 900 or if they agree on a common price of 850? Is it obligatory that the first bidder always increase or decrease?

Answer 4:

The creditor may waive all or part of the receivable. The debtor cannot oblige the creditor to waive his right.

References:

- Zaynuddin b. Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Misri Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahrur-Raiq sharhu Kanzid-Daqaiq (Beirut: Sharikatu Alaiddin, 1283), 6/219.
- Sheykh Nizam et al., al-Fatawal-Hindiyya (Bulak: Daru Sadir, 1310), 3/106.
- Abu Bakr Shamsul-aimma Muhammad b. Abi Sahl Ahmad as-Sarakhsi, al-Mabsut (Beirut: Darul-Ma’rifa, 1989), 14/29-30.
- Shihabuddin (Shamsuddin) Muhammad b. Abdillah b. Ahmad al-Umari al-Ghazzi at-Timurtashi, Risalatu bazlil-majhud fi tahriri as’ilati taghayyurin-nuqud (Quds: Jamiatul-Quds, 2001), 59.
- Sirajuddin Umar b. Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Misri Ibn Nujaym, an-Nahrul-faʾiq sharhu Kanzid-Daqaiq (Beirut: Darul-Kutubil-Ilmiyya, 2002), 3/540.
- Muhammad Amin b. Umar b. Abdilaziz al-Husayni ad-Dimashqi Ibn Abidin, Raddul-muhtar alad-Durril-muhtar (Beirut: Daru Alamil-Kutub, 2003), 7/55.
- Abul-Fazl Jalaluddin Abdurrahman b. Abi Bakr b. Muhammad al-Hudayri as-Suyuti, al-Hawi lil-fatawi (Beirut: Darul-Kutubil-Ilmiyya, 2000), 1/95-96.
- Mansur b. Yunus b. Salahiddin al-Buhuti, ar-Rawdul-murbiʿ sharhu Zadil-mustaqniʿ (printed at: Muassasatur-Risala Darul-muayyad, nd.), 362.
- Ahmad b. Abdullah b. Ahmad al-Bali, ar-Rawdun-nadi sharhu Kafil-mubtadi (Dimashq-Beirut: Darun-Nawadir, 2007), 1/444.
- Abu Muhammad Muwaffaquddin Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni (Riyad: Daru Alamil-Kutub, 1997), 6/442.
- Muwaffaquddin Ibn Qudama et al., ash-Sharhul-kabir (al-Muqniʿ wal-Insaf) (Imbaba: Daru Hijr, 1995), 12/336.
- Mustafa as-Suyuti ar-Ruhaybani, Matalibu ulin-nuha fi sharhi Ghayatil-muntaha (Dimashq: al-Maktabul-Islami, 1961), 3/243.
- Alaaddin al-Mardawi, al-Insaf fi ma’rifatir-rajih minal-khilaf (Cairo: Matbaatus-Sunnatil-Muhammadiyya, 1956), 5/126-127.
- Muhammad Amin b. Umar b. Abdilaziz al-Husayni ad-Dimashqi Ibn Abidin, Majmuʿatu rasaʾili Ibn Abidin (Dersaadet: y.y., 1325), 2/60.
- Abu Said Abdussalam b. Said b. Habib at-Tanuhi Sahnun, al-Mudawwanatul-kubra lil-Imam Malik b. Anas (Beirut: Darul-Kutubil-Ilmiyya, 1994), 3/50-51, 4/152-153.
- Shamsuddin Abu Abdillah Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Arafa ad-Dasuki, Hashiyatud-Dasuki ala’sh-Sharhil-kabir (Egypt: Ihyaul-Kutubil-Arabiyya, nd.), 3/45.
- Abu Abdillah Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Muhammad Ilish, Minahul-jalil ala Mukhtasaril-allama Halil (Beirut: DarulFikr, 1984), 4/531-532.
see Muhammet VARELCİ’s essay; Türkiye İlahiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi 1/2 (2017), 106-120; Ayşe Nur Destebaşı, “Enflasyon ve Faiz İlişkisi Üzerine İslamiyet Açısından Bir Değerlendirme”, Enderun Dergisi 2/1 (2018), 32-37.

Questions on Islam