How Is Interest Illegal

The definition of interest has already been mentioned as well as that it is prohibited. If we explore the Qur’an we will come across at least four places where Allah has mentioned interest.

The first one is in Surah Al-baqarah verse no.275

"Those who devour usury will not stand except as stands one whom the Satan by his touch has driven to madness. That is because they say, "trade is like usury", but Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden usury",

In the next verse verse 276 in the same place he says,

"Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, and will give increase for deeds of charity, for he does not love any ungrateful sinner."

Two verses later in verse 278 he says,

"Oh you who believe! Fear Allah and give up what remains of your demand for usury if you are indeed believers."

In verse 279 he says,

"If you do not, take notice of war from Allah and his Messenger sallallahu alaihe wasallm but if you repent you shall have your capital sum. Deal not unjustly and you shall not be dealt with unjustly."

In the second place in Surah Aal-Imran, verse no.130 Allah says,

"Oh you who believe! Devour not usury doubled and multiplied; but fear Allah that you may prosper."

In the third place in Surah Al-Nisaa’ Allah states in verse 161,

"That they took usury though they were forbidden and they devoured peoples wealth wrongfully; we have prepared for those amongst them who reject faith a grievous chastisement."

In the fourth place, Surah Al-Room, verse no.39 Allah mentions

"That which you give in usury for increase through the property of people will have no increase with Allah: but that which you give for charity seeking the countenance of Allah, it is these who will get a recompense multiplied."

Interest From A Jurisprudical View

We should deeply thank the Sahaabah radiyallahu anhum in their efforts to spread the religion as they learnt it from the Prophet sallallahu alaihe wasallm. Then when the religion started to spread vastly Allah brought about four imams who described the religion in general terms in order to make the common public understand. They spent their lives trying to put the whole religion in a collective form through the Qur’an and the Ahaadith and the concise decisions of the Sahaabah radiyallahu anum. In the case of interest, all four imams established a general rule mainly concentrating on this statement made by the Prophet sallallahu alaihe wasallm.

Hazrat Al-Khudri radiyallahu anhu reported that the Prophet sallallahu alaihe wasallm said: Gold in exchange for gold, silver in exchange for silver, wheat in exchange for wheat, barley in exchange for barley, dates in exchange for dates, salt in exchange for salt is in the same category and (should be exchanged) hand to hand, so who ever adds or demands increase he has practised usury. The giver and taker are the same.

Out of the four imams, Imam Abu Hanifah has ruled that if the measurement system (volumetric or in compounds) is the same and the two items are in the same category, then they should be sold in the same amount and direct not in credit otherwise interest will be found.

Imam Shaf’ee says that if the items are valuable and could be considered food then there is the chance of interest. Imam Malik says that if the items are valuable and are edible then interest is a subject.

SAYYIDNA ‘UMAR’S “WISH” FOR THE DEFINITION OF RIBA

[This section may be omitted by readers who do not want to go into too many details.]

We earlier quoted a tradition about ‘Umar, in which he reportedly says that the Prophet did not explain the meaning of riba. We now examine this tradition more closely.

The tradition has several narrations, of which the following are typical:

1)

‘Ali bin Muhammad and Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah related to us saying: Waki‘ related to us: Sufyan related to us: ‘Amr bin Murrah related to us from Murrah bin Sharahil saying that

‘Umar bin al-Khattab said: Three (matters), if the Messenger of God had explained them, it would be dearer to me than this world and all that is in it: al-kalalah, al-riba, and al-khilafah (Ibn Majah 2717)

2)

Nasr bin ‘Ali al-Jahdami related to us: Khalid bin al-Harith related to us: Sa‘id bin Abi ‘Arubah Mihran related to us from Qatadah from Sa‘id bin al-Musayyab from ‘Umar bin al-Khattab who said:

Indeed, the last of what was revealed is ayah al-riba; the Messenger of God was taken in death before he explained it. So shun (what is clearly) riba as well as (what is in) doubt (fa da‘u al-riba wa al-ribah). (Ibn Majah 2267; Ahmad 238, 331 from Yahya and Isma‘il from Ibn Abi ‘Arubah with the same isnad)

3)

Sulayman bin Harb informed us: Hammad bin Salamah related to us from Da`ud from al-Sha‘bi that

‘Umar said: “O people! I do not know if (sometimes) we may order you to do things that are not permissible for you or may prohibit for you things that are permissible for you. Indeed the last of what was revealed in the Qur`an is the ayah al-riba and indeed the Messenger did not explain it before he died (for lack of time). So move away from what creates doubt in you to what does not. (Darimi 129; a similar tradition is quoted by Ibn Kathir from Ibn Majah)

4)

Ahmad bin Abi Raja` related to us: Yahya related to us from Abu Hayyan al-Taymi from al-Sha‘bi from Ibn 'Umar who said:

'Umar delivered a sermon on the pulpit of the Messenger of God saying, "The prohibition of alcoholic drinks has indeed come down; these drinks are (prepared) from five things, i.e., grapes, dates, wheat, barley and honey. Alcoholic drinks are those that clog the mind." 'Umar also said, "I wish the Messenger of God had not left us before he had given us definite instruction (‘ahd) concerning three matters: (share in inheritance of) the grandfather, al-kalalah, and some issues related to riba (abwab min abwab al-riba)". (Bukhari 7/493=5160, Muslim 5360-61, Abu Da`ud 3184)

These narrations suffer from several weaknesses:



1) In Darimi 129, Ibn Majah 2267 and other similar narrations, the statement that the verse of al-riba was the last to be revealed is doubtful, since it contradicts other identifications of the last verse as well as other historical traditions (see Section D). Moreover, even if the Prophet died soon after the revelation prohibiting riba, it was not hard for the Almighty to ensure that the meaning of his commandment is not left unclear.

2) The need to know exactly what was being prohibited would have arisen in the time of the Prophet himself. The condemnation of riba starts fairly early in the Qur`an, probably even in Makkah. Many wealthy Companions would have wanted to avoid it, even if it was not categorically prohibited at the time. Certainly, this would be the case after the prohibition of riba and on the occasion of the last hajj performed by the Prophet. It is reported that in the famous farewell address delivered on this occasion, he commanded all Muslims to give up the riba that was due to them. This command would have raised the question of what was to be given up. If this was not clear, some Companions would have asked for a clarification. Yet we do not find any Companion doing so in any hadith.

3) If during the time of the Holy Prophet the meaning of riba did not become clear to a man like ‘Umar, whom he called al-Faruq and who administered a very large part of the world as the khalifah, then other Companions would also have experienced difficulty in understanding the concept and would have expressed that difficulty in some way. But no other Companion is known to have done so.

4) There are many different narrations of the words attributed to ‘Umar and none of them has more than one narrator in any of the first three or four generations, although the narrators are generally reliable. Ibn Majah 2717 (# 1 in the above list of narrations) is found only in Ibn Majah with a single isnad. The narrations (#4) in Bukhari, Muslim, and Abu Da`ud all have the same single narrator in each of the first three generations after ‘Umar: Abu Hayyan al-Taymi from al-Sha‘bi from Ibn 'Umar. The same is true of the other narrations -- Ibn Majah 2267, Darimi 129 etc.

5) In the narrations (# 4) in Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Da`ud the statement about riba looks very much like an addition to a hadith about alcoholic drinks, which is found with more varied asanid and is therefore probably earlier. That the statement about riba is an addition is supported further by the fact that in Nasa`i 5484, 5485 we have narrations from the same Abu Hayyan al-Taymi with the same isnad, in which we have only the statement about alcoholic drinks and not the one about riba.

6) Darimi 129 has a broken isnad, with a narrator missing between al-Sha‘bi (d. 104) and ‘Umar (d. 23). The narrations #4 from Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Da`ud have Ibn ‘Umar (radiy allah ‘an huma) between al-Sha‘bi and ‘Umar. It is possible that originally Ibn ‘Umar was present only in the isnad for the statement about alcoholic drinks. The statement about riba was reported separately from al-Sha‘bi from ‘Umar (without the link with Ibn ‘Umar), as in Darimi 129. When this second statement was added to the first, it also acquired Ibn ‘Umar as a narrator, and in this way its broken isnad became complete.



In the light of the above, it appears that the tradition about ‘Umar’s “wish” is not reliable enough to form the basis of attributing lack of clarity to the Qur`anic prohibition of riba. As noted earlier, the concept of riba was clear enough when its prohibition was revealed. Therefore neither the Qur`an nor the Prophet gave any explicit definition. Later, in the time of the Successors or the generation after them the meaning became less clear for some and it is this lack of clarity on their part that someone among them decided to express as a saying of ‘Umar.

Usmani’s analysis of ‘Umar’s “wish”

Usmani also concludes that there was no lack of clarity about riba. But he does not want to admit that the tradition about ‘Umar may not be authentic. Therefore, he suggests that in this tradition ‘Umar is not talking about riba mentioned in the Qur`an but of riba al-fadl mentioned in the Hadith. Thus commenting on the narration from Bukhari and Muslim quoted above, he says:

“A deeper study … reveals that he was doubtful only about the riba al-fadl …, and not about the original riba which was prohibited by the Holy Qur'an” (Para 62).

But this interpretation is speculative, since the actual words of ‘Umar do not provide any indication of a reference to riba al-fadl. This is why Ibn Hajar who makes the same suggestion in his famous commentary on Bukhari qualifies it with the word rubbama “perhaps”. Furthermore, there are some traditions reported from ‘Umar relating to riba al-fadl in Muwatta, Bukhari, Muslim, etc, which Usmani considers authentic, and none of them shows any hint that he was unclear about the concept.

Usmani finds further support for his interpretation of ‘Umar’s “wish” in the following tradition, where ‘Umar says:

“You think that we do not know about any issue from the issues of riba -- and no doubt I would love to know all these issues more than I would like to own a country like Egypt with all its habitations -- but there are many issues (about riba) which cannot be unknown to any one e.g. purchasing gold for silver on deferred payment basis."

Usmani provides no reference, but it is certain that it is one of those isolated traditions that were either unknown or unacceptable to almost all the Hadith experts in the first three centuries. In any case, the tradition hardly proves the point it is supposed to prove, namely, that ‘Umar was unclear only about riba al-fadl. For, there is in the tradition no indication of whether the issues of riba, about which ‘Umar was allegedly unclear, relate to riba al-fadl or to the riba of the Qur`an. One issue mentioned is purchasing gold for silver on deferred payment, which belongs to the topic of riba al-fadl. But in this matter, far from being confused, Sayyidna ‘Umar is not only himself clear but also expects others to be clear!!!

Usmani’s interpretation is also called into question by the narration in Ibn Majah 2267, in which it is said that the Prophet left riba unexplained because the verse about riba was revealed in the last days of the Prophet’s life and so he did not have time to clarify things. Clearly, according to this narration, what the Prophet left unexplained was the riba prohibited in the Qur`an and not riba al-fadl. Usmani is aware of this difficulty, which he solves by arguing that this narration is not authentic. We, of course, do not disagree with this conclusion, since earlier we argued that not just the narration in Ibn Majah but all narrations attributing to Sayyidna ‘Umar a lack of clarity in the concept of riba may be unreliable. But it is interesting that Usmani rejects the narration in Ibn Majah on the basis of arguments, which, if consistently applied, should make a large number of those ahadith doubtful that he and many other scholars often use to derive Islamic laws.

Usmani gives three arguments to show the weakness of the narration in Ibn Majah.

i)

“One of the narrators in the report of Ibn Majah is Sa‘id Ibn Abi ‘Arubah who has been held by the experts of Hadith as a person who used to confuse one narration with the other.”

This argument, if applied consistently, will disqualify many ahadith. For the fact is that about Sa‘id ibn Abi ‘Arubah Mihran we have mostly positive comments. Thus Abu ‘Awanah says: “we did not have ahfaz min hu” (anyone preserving ahadith better than him). Yahya describes him as thiqah (trustworthy) while Abu Zur‘ah calls him: thiqah ma`mun (trustworthy and trusted). Only a few scholars say that he used to confuse things in his old age. But such statements are found even about narrators accepted by our great muhaddithun including Bukhari and Muslim. For example, both Bukhari and Muslim have ahadith from Hisham bin ‘Urwah and yet about him ‘Uqayli says: qad kharifa fi akhir ‘umr hi (he mentally degenerated in the last part of his life).

Also, Sa‘id bin Abi ‘Arubah is not the only narrator to attribute the statement in question to ‘Umar. Al-Sha‘bi does the same according to Darimi 129, independently of Sa‘id bin Abi ‘Arubah.

ii)

Usmani’s second argument is that the statement in question is not found in the better-attested narrations of Bukhari and Muslim:

“We have already quoted the exact words reported by Bukhari and Muslim with very authentic chain of narrators. None of them has attributed to Sayyidna ‘Umar (radiy allah ‘an hu) that the verse of riba was the last verse of the Holy Qur'an. It seems that a narrator like Sa‘id ibn Abi ‘Arubah has confused the exact words of Sayyidna ‘Umar (radiy allah ‘an hu) with the words of Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (radiy allah ‘an hu), already discussed or with his own view that the verse of riba was the last verse of the Holy Qur'an.”

This argument has weight but again Usmani and many other scholars do not apply it consistently. They often use details found only in some of the narrations of a hadith, without discussing the possibility that those details may be later additions. For example, in case of the first hadith discussed above, Usmani uses a narration in which amount of milk used from a mortgage goat in excess of the amount spent on fodder is described as riba. But, as we saw, in another better-attested narration in Bukhari there is no mention of riba at all. Consistency requires that the referencce to riba should be treated, at the very least, questionable.

iii)

Usmani’s third argument is that the very assumption underlying the hadith of Ibn Majah (and Darimi and Ahmad) – namely that the verse of riba was the last verse to be revealed is questionable. He cites two reasons for this: a) originally, the tradition spoke not of the verses 2:275-280, prohibiting riba, but of 2:281, which is not about riba. The verses about riba were revealed much earlier. b) There are other identifications of the last verse to be revealed, contradicting the identification in the hadith of Ibn Majah..

We will look at reason a) in Section D below. As for b), it is a weighty argument, since it is based on the obvious principle that a tradition contradicted by other traditions of equal or greater soundness is subject to doubt. But, unfortunately scholars tend to use this logic selectively. If they duly face all the contradictions found in ahadith, even those considered “sahih”, then they would use ahadith with much greater caution in deriving laws of fiqh.

HADITH AND THE DEFINITION OF RIBA

[This section may be omitted by readers who do not want to go into too many details.]

As we noted above, we can in isolated or late sources find some ahadith containing some kind of definition of riba, but their authenticity is very doubtful. We illustrate this by a detailed discussion of two ahadith that Usmani uses to show that riba is interest of every type.

I)

It is reported by Hammad bin Salamah in his Jame from Sayyidna Abu Hurayrah (radiy allah ‘an hu) that the Holy Prophet (sall allah ‘alayhi wa sallam) has said:

"If the creditor received a goat as mortgage from the debtor, the creditor may use its milk to the extent he has spent in providing fodder to the goat. However, if the milk is more than the price of the fodder, the excess is riba." Usmani, para 99)

According to Usmani, this proves that riba is interest, for here any excess over and above the original loan, whether small or large is described as riba. But both the hadith and Usmani’s interpretation of it are problematic.

First, it is not at all certain that the hadith is meant to define riba, despite the use of the phrase fa huwa riba (this is riba). We can see this by comparing the hadith under consideration with the following hadith:

“To cheat an easy-going customer (mustarsil) is riba.” (Quoted from Ibn Taymiyah, al-Hisbah)

No one would, or ever has, used this hadith as a definition of riba. The gain earned by cheating an easy-going customer is called riba simply because it is an ill-acquired gain. Similarly, when the hadith in question says that the milk in excess of the amount spent on the mortgaged goat is riba, it may not be defining riba but simply saying that such an excess is an ill-acquired gain.

Second, even the very mention of riba may not be original to the hadith cited by Usmani. From the same Companion – Abu Hurayrah – we have another narration of the hadith, in which there is no mention of riba at all:

Abu Nu‘aym related to us: Zakariya related to us from ‘Amir from Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet that he used to say: "One can ride the mortgaged animal by spending on it, and one can drink the milk of a milch animal as long as it is mortgaged."

This narration is better attested than the one cited by Usmani. It is found in Bukhari (3/688=2328)[4] who gives another narration of it (3/689 = 2329) with a different isnad. It is also found in Tirmidhi (1175), Ibn Majah (2431), and Ahmad (6828, 9729).

Notice that unlike the narration cited by Usmani, this narration has no reference to riba nor does it speak of any excess of benefit from the animal. Moreover, this narration does not specifically connect drinking of milk of an animal or riding on it with loan. It simply gives a particular application of the general rule that whenever a person controls an animal without owning it, he can benefit from it by spending on it. This is supported by the following opinion of the first-century faqih Ibrahim al-Nakh‘i (47-96 H) that Bukhari relates just before the above-mentioned hadith:

Mughirah said from Ibrahim: One can ride the lost animal according to the amount spent on its fodder and one can milk the (lost) animal according to the amount spent on its fodder and the case of mortgaged animal is similar.

That is, if one finds a lost animal and keeps it until its owner is found, then one can benefit from it according to the amount spent on its food and the case of a mortgaged animal is the same. Thus not benefiting from an animal more than one spends on it is not connected with the loan for which the animal was mortgaged but with the fact that the animal does not belong to the lender.

Third, interest is never defined as simply excess. Thus, for example, if something is voluntarily added by the borrower to the original amount of the loan, it is not called interest. Or, if the lender takes something of the borrower without his permission, thinking that it is justified in view of the favor he has done to him by advancing the loan, then again this is not interest, if the loan was advanced on the understanding that only the principal will be returned. Even in a system in which interest is perfectly permissible, an excess acquired in this way would be illegal. For excess to be interest it has to be received according to a condition of the loan. Now the hadith cited by Usmani does not provide the slightest indication that it is referring to consuming an excess of milk in accordance with a condition of the loan.

Fourth, there is something wrong with the reference provided by Usmani – Jami‘ of Hammad bin Salamah. Although it is known that Hammad bin Salamah (87-167 H) compiled some collections of ahadith and indeed he is said by al-Dhahabi in Tadhkirat al-Huffaz to be one of the first to do so, there is no Jami‘ by him that we can read today. In any case this hadith is absent from almost all of the dozens of very extensive collections of ahadith, despite the fact that these collections quote many ahadith from Hammad bin Salamah.

II) Another hadith mentioned by Usmani to support his views is:

It is reported by Sayyidna ‘Ali (radiy allah ‘an hu) that the Holy Prophet (sall allah ‘alay hi wa sallam) has said,

"Every loan that derives a benefit (to the creditor) is riba."

This hadith is reported by Harith ibn Abi Usamah in his Musnad. (Usmani, para 99)

Once again Usmani brings an isolated hadith from an isolated source. The source in this case, Musnad of al-Harith ibn Abi Usamah (d. 282 H), is not considered reliable by scholars. It contains many forged and rejected ahadith. Al-Dhahabi in Talkhis al-Mustadrak says: “He [al-Harith] is not a pillar of reliability” while al-Azdi and Ibn Hazm graded him weak, according to al-Dhahabi's Tabaqat al-Huffaz.

Usmani himself admits some weakness in the hadith but then argues for its reliability as follows:

“It is true that certain critics of the hadith have not accepted this tradition as authentic, because one of its narrators, Sawwar bin Musab, is held to be unreliable. But at the same time there are other scholars who have accepted the hadith, because despite the weakness of Sawwar, it is corroborated by other sources. This is the view of Allamah Azizi, Imam Ghazzali and Imam-al-Haramayn. However, this controversy relates to the above narration which attributes this statement to the Holy Prophet (sall allah ‘alay hi wa sallam), but there is no dispute among the scholars of hadith in that the same principle has been enunciated by a number of Sahabah like Sayyidna Fadalah bin ‘Ubayd (radiy allah ‘an hu), whose following statement is reported by al-Bayhaqi:

"Every loan which derives a benefit is a kind of riba."

According to Imam Bayhaqi, the same principle is also enunciated by ‘Abd Allah bin Mas‘ud, Ubayy bin Kab, ‘Abd Allah bin Salam and ‘Abd Allah bin ‘Abbas (radiy allah ‘an hum).

Nobody has disputed the authenticity of these narrations. Even if it is held that the tradition of Sayyidna ‘Ali (radiy allah ‘an hu), attributing the above statement to the Holy Prophet (sall allah ‘alay hi wa sallam) is not authentic, the same principle has been established undoubtedly by several companions of the Holy Prophet (sall allah ‘alay hi wa sallam). Since the Sahabah were very careful and cautious in mentioning a principle of Shari‘ah, and did not normally base any such principle on their personal opinion, it may be presumed that the principle enunciated by them unanimously was, in fact, based on a saying of the Holy Prophet (sall allah ‘alay hi wa sallam) himself. Even if this presumption is ignored, these reports are sufficient at least to prove that the concept of riba, as understood by the Sahabah, includes any increased amount over the principal, however little it may be. Obviously, the Sahabah were direct addressees of the Holy Qur'an. They were much more aware of the context and the background of the verses of the Holy Qur'an, and therefore, their understanding of a Qur`anic term like riba is the most authentic basis for its interpretation. (Usmani, para 101-103)

This line of thinking seems reasonable at first sight but a careful look reveals several weaknesses:



First, many ahadith of the Holy Prophet are narrated from the Companions in the books of Hadith. Then why in this particular case of riba, so many of the Companions chose to express a view without attributing it to the Holy Prophet, if they knew it to be taught by him? This question actually leads us to the nearly certain conclusion that we are not dealing here with a hadith of the Prophet. For, if a statement is attributed to five Companions (‘Ali, Ibn Mas‘ud, Ubayy, ‘Abd Allah bin Salam, and Ibn ‘Abbas) and only one of them is said to attribute it to the Prophet, then even the most elementary common sense shows that its attribution to him is the result of some mistake. This self-evident principle is also recognized by the Hadith scholars. Thus explaining the meaning of the term ‘llah qadihah (hidden defect), Azami[5] says:



“For example, a trustworthy scholar transmitted a hadith as being the statement of the Prophet, while majority of the scholars narrated the same hadith as the statement of the Companions. Here it becomes clear that this particular scholar committed a mistake in ascribing the statement to the Prophet. But if we do not go into detailed study of the subject and only look to the single chain of the hadith it would appear to be the correct one due to the grading of the narrators and fulfillment of other conditions.” (p. 62)



From this, we can conclude that the ascription to the Holy Prophet of the above hadith on the authority of ‘Ali is in all probability false.



Second, it is not even certain that all or any of the five named Companions actually expressed the view. For if a view can be falsely attributed to the Holy Prophet it can also be falsely attributed to a Companion, even to several Companions. There are recognized examples of this, one of which is given by Imam Nawawi, in the Introduction of his famous collection of forty ahadith:

“It has been transmitted to us on the authority of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, 'Abd Allah bin Mas'ud, Mu'adh bin Jabal, Abu al-Darda`, Ibn ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbas, Anas bin Malik, Abu Hurayrah and Abu Sa'id al-Khudri through many chains of authorities and in various versions, that the Messenger of God said: "Whosoever memorizes and preserves for my people forty ahadith relating to their religion, God will resurrect him on the Day of Judgment in the company of jurists and religious scholars ". … Scholars of Hadith are agreed that it is a weak hadith despite its many lines of transmission.

It is not likely that all the nine Companions named by Imam Nawawi are mistakenly attributing the hadith to the Prophet. It is more likely that some later careless or lying narrators are falsely using those Companions to attribute an idea to the Prophet. Similarly, it is possible that the view under consideration has also been falsely attributed to the Companions. This can be illustrated by the case of ‘Abd Allah bin Salam, about whom we have the following tradition in Bukhari:

Sulayman bin Harb related to us: Shu‘bah related to us from Sa‘id bin Abi Burdah from his father Abu Burdah: I came to Madinah and met ‘Abd Allah bin Salam. He said: "Will you come to me so that I may serve you with sawiq (a drink/dish made with powdered barley) and dates, and let you enter a (very special) house?" Then he added: "You are in a country [Iraq] where the practice of riba is prevalent; so if somebody owes you something and he sends you as a present a load of chopped straw or a load of barley or a load of provender then do not take it, as it is riba." Al-Nadr, Abu Da`ud, and Wahb do not mention the house (in their narrations) from Shu’bah. (Bukhari 5/159=3530; only in Bukhari among the nine books in the Hadith Encyclopedia)

But in Bukhari we find another narration of this tradition, in which there is no reference by ‘Abd Allah bin Salam to riba in Iraq or to his advice to Abu Burdah not to accept any gift from one who owes him something:

Abu Kurayb related to me: Abu Usamah related to us: Burayd related to us from Abu Burdah: I came to Madinah when ‘Abd Allah bin Salam met me and said to me: "Accompany me to my house so that I may give to you a drink in a bowl from which God’s Messenger drank, and that you may pray in the masjid in which the Prophet prayed." I accompanied him, and he gave to me sawiq to drink and dates to eat, and I prayed in his masjid. (Bukhari 9/441=6796; only in Bukhari among the nine books in the Hadith Encyclopedia)

Notice that this narration has a completely different isnad than the other narration, so that the two narrations may be independent of one another. Although it is not necessary, but the fact that all references to riba are absent from this narration raises a distinct possibility that these references are not the words of ‘Abd Allah bin Salam but a later addition made by some narrator.

The above discussion concerns the transmission of the hadith in question. We now examine its content -- "every loan that derives a benefit is riba."

Just like the first hadith, this hadith also may not be defining riba. That is, the phrase “is riba” may not be taken literally to derive a definition of riba. This is supported by the fact that in the saying of Fadalah bin ‘Ubayd quoted by Usmani from al-Bayhaqi (d. 458) we have the phrase “is a kind of riba” and not “is riba”.

The hadith may be setting a high standard of piety, rather than giving a definition to be used in Islamic law for the prohibited riba. This is how the statement of ‘Abd Allah bin Salam was understood by Bukhari. Ibn Hajar says that here the view expressed by ‘Abd Allah bin Salam is not a legal opinion but a manifestation of his wara‘ (piety). That is why Bukhari has brought the tradition under the heading of manaqib (virtues) of ‘Abd Allah bin Salam and not under, for instance, the chapter about husn al-qada`.

If we accept the hadith as a definition of riba, then we would have to say that every benefit derived from a loan is riba, which conflicts with the concept of husn al-qada` (see Chapter VI) found in some better-attested ahadith and accepted by a vast majority of scholars. Usmani addresses this point and says:

[The hadith qualifies the word qard (loan)] with the verb jarra which lexically means "to pull." The verbal translation of the sentence would be: "Every loan which pulls along with it a benefit is riba." [This indicates that] riba is restricted to a transaction where the loan pulls a benefit along with it in the sense that the contract of loan itself stipulates a benefit for the creditor. The statement has, therefore, excluded any voluntary amount given by the debtor at the time of repayment without pre-determined condition. (Para 105)

This reads too much into the words used in the hadith. But even with the translation “pulls along a benefit” there is no necessity to assume that the benefit is coming from a contract. Notice that it is the loan and not the lender that pulls a benefit. And the loan can pull a benefit in ways than a contract, e.g., by impressing on the borrower that the loan should be appreciated and this appreciation should be shown by some gift.

In view of the above discussion we may conclude that the hadith in question is not an authentic hadith and it, in any case, may not be giving us a definition of riba, but setting a very high standard of piety.

THE MEANING OF RIBA WELL-UNDERSTOOD IN THE TIME OF THE PROPHET

The first thing one notes about the common, traditional, definition of riba is that it is not based on any explicit text in the Qur`an or on any authentic hadith. By going through the nine Qur`anic verses (2:275-280, 3:130, 4:161, 30:39) about riba, one sees that they prohibit riba in very strong language, but do not define it. The situation is similar in the case of the Hadith, if we duly bring into consideration the question of authenticity of the ahadith considered.



There is massive evidence, some of which may be found in this book, that many even of the ahadith found in the generally trusted books are not authentic. But even if for the sake of simplicity we accept ahadith in these books without further discussion, we would in vain search for a hadith defining riba, much less in the traditional sense that equates riba with interest of every type. The ahadith on riba in the generally trusted books are mostly concerned with introducing the concept of riba al-fadl, which, apart from being a problematic concept (see Chapters VII-IX), is considered a less serious (makruh?) type of riba different from the one prohibited in the Qur`an. To find a hadith defining the riba prohibited in the Qur`an, some writers such as Usmani[2], are obliged to go to late or isolated sources. But, as we illustrate in Section B below, the authenticity of such ahadith is called into question not only by their absence from a vast majority of Hadith collections -- especially the earlier ones -- but also by other more specific considerations.

That the ahadith reliably coming from the Holy Prophet did not explicitly define or clarify the concept of riba is also supported by a saying attributed to Sayyidna ‘Umar (radiy allah ‘an hu):



“Indeed the last of what was revealed in the Qur`an is the ayah of al-riba and indeed the Messenger did not explain it before he died.”



This may not be an authentic saying of ‘Umar (see Section C for a detailed discussion), but it, nevertheless, shows an early perception among Muslims that the Holy Prophet had not explained the meaning of riba before his departure from this world.

The question now arises how do we explain the fact that the Qur`an and the authentic ahadith do not explicitly define riba. In regard to this question, we need to note that lack of definition does not mean lack of clarity. The meaning of riba understood among the Arabs in the time of the Prophet plus the clear statements of the Qur`an made the meaning perfectly clear to the Companions, making it unnecessary to define the term. Indeed, we cannot expect otherwise: God and his Messenger would not condemn and prohibit in a very forceful way an action without making it sufficiently clear what they are prohibiting[3]. Thus we agree with the following conclusion by Usmani, even though some of his arguments leading to it are not quite sound (see Section C below):

“The Holy Qur'an did not give any definition for the term for the simple reason that it was well known to its immediate audience. It is like the prohibition of pork, liquor, gambling, adultery etc, which were imposed without giving any hard and fast definition because all these terms were well known and there was no ambiguity in their meaning. Similar was the case of riba. It was not a term foreign to Arabs.” (Usmani, para 36)

RIBA IN THE QUR`AN

By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat

(March 2005)

Muslims agree that the Holy Qur`an is a miraculous expression of a message for humanity formulated directly by God himself in his own words and preserved by his promise and command. Moreover, the Qur`an itself tells us again and again that it consists of bayyinat, teachings made as clear as possible in a human language. It also tells us that it explains everything. This makes the Qur`an the primary source of Islamic teaching. The Hadith/Sunnah is a secondary source. That is why the Hadith/Sunnah does not represent the words/actions of God in a direct way, although the authentic ahadith are also inspired by him. That is also why God, his Messenger, or the Companions did not take any decisive steps to codify Hadith/Sunnah and therefore it has not been preserved in a pure form like the Qur`an.

The secondary role of the Hadith/Sunnah means that we should first understand the Qur`an on its own terms, bringing from outside only linguistic and historical facts that are established with tawatur. Once this is done we should use ahadith, most of which are not mutawatir, to elaborate the Qur`an but not to derive any fundamentally new teaching or laws. That is, everything in Islam must start with a foundation in the Qur`an on which the Hadith/Sunnah can build further without adding anything to, or otherwise changing anything in the foundation[1].

Even when using the Hadith/Sunnah as a secondary source, we need to pay due attention to the question of the authenticity of ahadith used. As noted in the Introduction, in providing a legally binding elaboration of any Qur`anic teaching, the Holy Prophet (sall allah ‘alayh wa sallam) would necessarily have communicated with the Companions in such a way as to reach a large number of them and they in turn would have then passed the Prophet’s message to a large number of Successors. Such communications would reach a large number of Hadith experts in earlier centuries in an acceptable way and thus would find their way into the books compiled by them. Also, these communications would be narrated by more than a few Companions in the first generation and from each Companion by more than a few Successors.

Hence in order to elaborate a teaching in the Qur`an in a legally binding way we should only use ahadith that fulfill at least the following two conditions:

1) They are found in most of the Hadith collections of earlier centuries, say the first three centuries. Isolated ahadith from isolated or late sources should not be used.

2) They should have come to us with varied, unbroken, asanid, reaching at least two Companions and from each Companion at least two Successors.

Guided by the above principles, we now discuss in the next four chapters the Qur`anic prohibition of riba.

ISLAM’S VIEW Of TRADE

Interest is not a subject without trade and commerce. Islam recognises trade and commerce not only as a lawful profession but also as a moral duty. Islam has laid down a complete set of rules for trade. The reason for these rules is to specify what halal earning is. There are many traditions (Ahaadith) concerning halal provision that can also be found in the books containing the traditions of the prophet (peace be upon him). Actually, Islam has encouraged men to earn their own provision and to provide it to their families. The condition is that the earning has to be according to the conditions set by the Shari’ah. Any sort of transaction that does not correspond to the rules of trade will not be allowed. These rules can be found under the heading of trade in the books of jurisprudence. Interest is amongst those conditions which all dealings must be free from.

How Is Interest Illegal

The definition of interest has already been mentioned as well as that it is prohibited. If we explore the Qur’an we will come across at least four places where Allah has mentioned interest.

The first one is in Surah Al-baqarah verse no.275

"Those who devour usury will not stand except as stands one whom the Satan by his touch has driven to madness. That is because they say, "trade is like usury", but Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden usury",

In the next verse verse 276 in the same place he says,

"Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, and will give increase for deeds of charity, for he does not love any ungrateful sinner."

Two verses later in verse 278 he says,

"Oh you who believe! Fear Allah and give up what remains of your demand for usury if you are indeed believers."

In verse 279 he says,

"If you do not, take notice of war from Allah and his Messenger sallallahu alaihe wasallm but if you repent you shall have your capital sum. Deal not unjustly and you shall not be dealt with unjustly."

In the second place in Surah Aal-Imran, verse no.130 Allah says,

"Oh you who believe! Devour not usury doubled and multiplied; but fear Allah that you may prosper."

In the third place in Surah Al-Nisaa’ Allah states in verse 161,

"That they took usury though they were forbidden and they devoured peoples wealth wrongfully; we have prepared for those amongst them who reject faith a grievous chastisement."

In the fourth place, Surah Al-Room, verse no.39 Allah mentions

"That which you give in usury for increase through the property of people will have no increase with Allah: but that which you give for charity seeking the countenance of Allah, it is these who will get a recompense multiplied."