Islamic Fiqh > Financial transactions > Riba: its types and effects > Riba in token money (fulus)
Contents
Updated on 26 September 2026 at 7:12 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
This second part of the chapter on riba and exchange (sarf) gathers the rulings of the jurists on token money (fulus), selling the good for the inferior, the effect of craftsmanship on gold and silver, the legal measure of ribawi assets, riba in the land of war, the practice known as "waive and hasten", the famous question of the "mudd of 'ajwa", and the effect of riba on the validity of contracts. The positions of the four schools are reported with their Quranic and prophetic proofs, their exact figures and their classical references.
Fulus is everything people take as a value for things from metals other than gold and silver, such as iron and copper and the like. The jurists agreed on the lawfulness of selling with fulus, for they are valued, known assets. They then differed, as was mentioned regarding the cause ('illa) of riba in gold and silver: is it their both being weighed, or their being a price for things, or their being the genus of prices in most cases?
Most of the jurists did not make fulus follow the status of gold and silver: they permitted surplus (tafâdul) and deferred payment (nasâ'). Exchanging circulating fulus (nâfiqa) for dirhams and dinars with deferment, or fulus for fulus with a surplus, is therefore permitted. This is the view of the majority of scholars: the Hanafis, except Muhammad, the Shafi'is according to the madhhab, and the Hanbalis according to one of the two views. There is thus no riba in fulus dealt in by number, even if they are nâfiqa, that is, circulating and in high demand (Lisan al-'Arab 10/357); this is because they exit the measure and the weight, with no text or consensus to that effect, as al-Buhuti said (Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 3/246; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/293). The cause of the prohibition of riba in gold and silver is indeed their monetary predominance, also expressed as their being "substantial prices" (jawhariyyat al-athman), which is absent in fulus even when circulating, as the Shafi'is said; they moreover rank fulus among commodities ('urud), even when nâfiqa.
Al-Maqrizi said: "Allah, glory be to Him, never made fulus a currency, in ancient or recent times, until they circulated in the days of an-Nasir Faraj b. Barquq (808 AH), of an ugly reign; their circulation ruined the province and removed the sustenance of the people of Egypt, for silver (silver coin) is the legal currency, while fulus most resemble nothing; no report, authentic or weak, is known of any nation that took a currency other than gold and silver; as for inferior pieces and small goods, people needed to buy them for less than a dirham and its fractions, and fulus were the instrument of those exchanges, but they were in no way a currency and never held the place of the two."
Al-Ghazali said: as for fulus, if they circulate as currencies circulate, the correct view is that they are like commodities (Al-Wasit 3/150, Dar as-Salam edition). Az-Zarkashi said: if fulus circulated like currencies, would they receive their status in the chapter of riba? Two views, the sounder of which is: no, in consideration of predominance (Al-Manthur fi al-Qawa'id 3/244). Imam an-Nawawi wrote: the cause of riba in gold and silver, according to us, is that they are the genus of prices predominantly; our companions said: our word "predominantly" is a safeguard regarding fulus if they circulate like currencies, as well as regarding vessels and tibr (gold in ingots) and the like; this wording is the correct one among the companions, and it is what al-Mawardi and others transmitted from the text of ash-Shafi'i. Al-Mawardi added: some of our companions say the cause is being the values of dispersed assets (mutalaffat), others combined the two views, and all of this is close; the author of the Tanbih asserted that gold and silver are the values of things, which the qadi Abu at-Tayyib and others of our companions denied, saying that vessels, tibr and jewelry are subject to riba although they are not used for valuation; and we have a weak, strange view: the prohibition of riba in the two is due to them themselves, without a cause, as al-Mutawalli narrated.
Branch: if fulus circulate like currencies, riba does not become prohibited in them: this is the correct, textually stated position, on which the author and the majority decided; but there is an isolated (shadhdh) view reported from the Khorasanis that riba becomes prohibited in them. As for the other weighed things, like iron, copper, lead, cotton, flax, wool and yarn, there is no riba in them according to us: one may therefore sell some for some with surplus and on deferment; there is no disagreement on this, except a view reported by al-Mutawalli and ar-Rafi'i from Abu Bakr al-Awdani, of the early companions, that it is not permitted to sell an asset for its genus with surplus, whether food, currency or other; and it is an isolated, weak view (Al-Majmu' 9/380; Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/451).
According to the Hanafis, the cause of riba is the quantity (al-qadr) joined to the genus, that is, the measure or the weight established by consensus when the genus is identical; this quantity does not exist for fulus, for they are sold by number. Selling fulus some for some with surplus is therefore permitted, as one sells an egg for two eggs, a walnut for two walnuts or a knife for two knives, hand to hand.
The Hanafis detailed: selling one fals for two fals in specie (coin for coin) is permitted according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, provided neither both nor one of them is a debt; for their monetary quality (thamaniyya) is established by people's convention, and when it is void they become determinate assets that do not revert to being weighed, unlike currencies which carry the monetary quality within them; it is otherwise if the two are not in specie, for that would be deferred against deferred (kali' against kali'), which was prohibited, or if one of them is not in specie, for the genus by itself makes deferment unlawful. The forms of selling a fals for its genus among the Hanafis are four:
Muhammad b. al-Hasan, the famous view of the Malikis (as it appears in the Mudawwana), the Hanbalis according to the view chosen by the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya, which is also a view among the Shafi'is and the choice of Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, went to prohibition: no surplus is permitted in it. The Hanafis argued for Muhammad that fulus are prices (athman): they cannot therefore be sold for their genus with surplus, like dirhams and dinars; the "description" (wasf) indicates that by which the value of assets is appraised, and just as the value of assets is appraised in dirhams and dinars, it is also appraised in fulus, which are therefore prices; yet the price does not become determinate by specification; selling a fals for two specified fals is therefore prohibited as it is without specification; and because, if they are prices, one faces one and the other remains a surplus of wealth with no counterpart in the contract of exchange, which is the very explanation of riba, as al-Kasani formulated it.
Al-Kasani said: the sale of counted, similar, non-food things for their genus with surplus is permitted according to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf after hand-to-hand delivery, like selling one fals for two fals in specie; according to Muhammad it is not; his reason is that fulus are prices, which cannot be sold for their genus with surplus like dirhams and dinars, and that, when they face their genus in cash, equality takes place; the price does not become determinate even if specified, like dirhams and dinars (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 5/185; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha' 3/36). For the two (Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf), the cause of riba of surplus is the quantity joined to the genus, measure or weight, which is absent here, so that riba does not take place.
As for the Malikis, it is stated in the Mudawwana al-Kubra, regarding deferment in exchanging fulus: "I bought fulus for a dirham and we separated before either took possession?" Answer: "That does not stand according to Malik's view; it is corrupt." And Malik said about fulus: "There is no good in them; I would dislike their being sold for gold or silver in cash; and if people permitted among themselves hides (as money) to the point of their having minting and specie, I would dislike their being sold for gold and silver in cash." Asked about buying a silver ring, a gold ring or gold tibr for fulus, with separation before mutual delivery, he replied that this is not permitted according to Malik, "for Malik said: one fals for two fals is not permitted, nor fulus for gold and silver, nor for dinars in cash". Ibn Wahb reported from Yunus b. Yazid, from Rabi'a b. Abi 'Abd ar-Rahman, that fulus for fulus with a surplus are valid neither on deferment nor in cash, except to a trifling extent. Ibn Wahb said: al-Layth b. Sa'd reported from Yahya b. Sa'id and Rabi'a that they disliked fulus for fulus with a surplus or in cash, and said: "They have become a minted coin like the coin of dinars and dirhams." Al-Layth reported from Yazid b. Abi Habib and 'Ubayd Allah b. Abi Ja'far that all their elders disliked exchanging fulus for dinars and dirhams except hand to hand. Ibn Wahb said: Yahya b. Ayyub reported that Yahya b. Sa'id said: if you exchange a dirham for fulus, do not separate until you have taken all of them (Al-Mudawwana al-Kubra 8/395-396).
Al-Qurtubi said: the transmission from Malik about fulus differed: he attached them to dirhams inasmuch as they are a price for things, and refused to attach them another time because they are not a currency in every land: one land possesses them to the exclusion of another (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 3/351). Ibn Abd al-Barr said: Malik said: "Selling one fals for two fals hand to hand is not permitted", making fulus here like gold or silver; and he said: "There is no harm in selling fulus for gold and silver; if they do not complete the exchange before separating, I dislike it and annul the sale, without placing it on the level of the prohibition of dinars and dirhams." The view of 'Ubayd Allah b. al-Hasan on selling one fals for two fals is Malik's, and it is the view of Muhammad b. al-Hasan; Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf said there is no harm in selling a fals for two, and it is the view of ash-Shafi'i (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 3/351).
Ibn Taymiyya said: the more apparent is prohibition, for circulating fulus are predominantly governed by the status of prices and are made the standard of people's wealth; therefore the ruler should mint for them fulus at the value of the full dirham (adl) in their transactions, without injustice toward them (Al-Istidhkar 6/446). Money (naqd) is anything whose consideration is current by custom or convention, receiving general acceptance as an intermediary of exchange; Ibn Taymiyya added that the dirham and the dinar have no natural or legal limit, their reference being custom and convention, for it is not them that are sought in themselves, but their being the standard of that by which people transact: dirhams and dinars are not sought for themselves but are a means of transacting; that is why they are prices, unlike other wealth whose purpose is the benefit in itself (Majmu' al-Fatawa 19/251-252).
Al-Mardawi said: selling a fals for two fals has two stated narrations, both stated in the Talkhis and the Furu': one prohibits the surplus (stated in the narration of the group, presented in al-Hawi al-Kabir and al-Mustaw'ab), the other permits it; according to the latter, if the fulus are nâfiqa, there are two views, one prohibiting (decided by Abu al-Khattab in his small disagreement, presented in al-Hawi al-Kabir and al-Mustaw'ab), the other permitting. Az-Zarkashi said: the qadi in al-Jami' as-Saghir, as well as Ibn 'Aqil, ash-Shirazi, the author of the Mustaw'ab and of the Talkhis, said: it makes no difference whether the fulus are nâfiqa or kâsida (demonetized), sold in specie or not; Abu al-Khattab decided in his small disagreement that the nâfiqa are not sold for their like except identically, because of their being prices, then he reported the disagreement on iron-made goods. He summarized: do circulating fulus follow currencies, so that riba applies to them? If we say the cause in the two currencies is monetary quality absolutely (which appears to be Abu al-Khattab's view in his Jami' as-Saghir), or that it is not followed because the cause is what is a price predominantly, restricted to gold and silver (Abu al-Khattab's view in his large disagreement, according to two views); on the second, riba applies only if their origin is considered; or the cause in the two currencies is weight, as with the kâsida. End of az-Zarkashi's words (Al-Insaf 5/15-16; al-Furu' 4/112). Al-Mardawi also said: if circulating fulus are exchanged for gold or silver, deferment is not permitted in them according to the correct view of the madhhab and most of the companions, stated and presented in al-Muharrar, the Furu', ar-Ri'ayatayn, the two Hawis and al-Fa'iq (Al-Insaf 5/41).
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said: if fulus circulate like currencies, their rulings are established for them, in consideration of custom, although they are not called currency literally or figuratively (Al-Fatawa al-Fiqhiyya al-Kubra 2/182). Some late Hanafis of Transoxiana made zakat obligatory on the alloyed dirhams called ghatarif and 'idal, saying they were their most precious currencies, in the manner of silver among them; and they prohibited selling these currencies for their genus with surplus, because they held them to be the most precious assets of their lands. Imam az-Zayla'i said: our shaykhs (of Bukhara and Samarkand) did not issue a fatwa permitting surplus in the ghatarif and the 'idal, although fraud in them was greater than in silver; for they were the most precious assets of their lands at that time; had surplus been permitted in them, the door of manifest riba would have opened, for people then grow accustomed to it in precious assets and extend it to pure currencies; it was therefore prohibited to cut off the means of corruption. The Bazzaziyya says: the correct is not to issue a fatwa of lawfulness for the ghatarif, for they are the most precious assets; such is the view of the author of the Hidaya and of al-Fadli (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 5/266).
An editorial note clarifies that this disagreement occurred when fulus circulated alongside the two currencies, whereas today only banknotes circulate; if fulus circulated as they do in our day, they would be attached to them: they would without doubt take the status of gold and silver, riba would apply to them, and otherwise zakat would be denied them. Ibn Muflih reported in al-Mubdi' (4/130) from the Kitab al-Intisar (of the Hanbalis): "They must be told that when fulus circulate to the point of being the only thing dealt in, riba is in them because they are a predominant price"; and Imam Malik said, as it appears in the Mudawwana al-Kubra (8/396): "If people permitted among themselves hides to the point of their having minting and specie, I would dislike their being sold for gold and silver in cash": the term of reference is therefore the people and their customs; this is what the fiqh academies follow today, with no disagreement, and Allah knows best.
The jurists agreed that the good and the inferior of a ribawi asset are equal: selling one for the other with surplus is not permitted, and the sale is valid only like for like. This is because of what Sa'id b. al-Musayyib reported from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and Abu Hurayrah: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had appointed a man as governor of Khaybar; he brought him janib dates; the Messenger of Allah said: "Are all the dates of Khaybar like this?" He replied: "No, by Allah, O Messenger of Allah, we take a sa' of these for two sa's, and two sa's for three." The Messenger of Allah then said:
Do not do so: sell the volume for dirhams, then buy janib dates with the dirhams, and do the like for weight.Narrated by al-Bukhari (2202) and Muslim (1593)
Quality indeed has no value in ribawi assets when they face their genus: their good and their inferior are equal, and no circumvention of similarity is valid, for its value has legally fallen, and what has legally fallen and original absence are equal. Ibn Hubayra said: they agreed that it is not permitted to sell the good for the inferior of one genus subject to riba, except like for like, equal for equal (Al-Ifsah 1/359). Ibn Qudama said: the good and the inferior, the tibr and the minted, the sound and the broken, are equal in the lawfulness of sale with similarity and its prohibition with surplus; this is the view of most people of knowledge, among them Abu Hanifa and ash-Shafi'i; it was narrated from Malik the lawfulness of selling the minted at its value of its genus, and his companions denied it and rejected it from him (Al-Mughni 4/29; al-Kafi 2/55; see also Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 6/43; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 4/89; al-Insaf 5/14; al-Furu' 4/114-115; Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/449-500; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/293).
The majority of the jurists, Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis according to the madhhab, established that craftsmanship is not taken into consideration in gold and silver: neither the tibr, nor the minted coin, nor the sound, nor the broken, nor the wrought: no surplus is lawful in any of it, to the point that selling silver vessels for silver or gold vessels for gold, one heavier than the other, is not permitted. Imam Malik reported in the Muwatta' from Yahya b. Sa'id: the Messenger of Allah ordered the two Sa'ds to sell vessels of the spoils of gold or silver; they sold every three for four in specie, or every four for three in specie; the Messenger of Allah said to them:
You have practiced riba; return them.Narrated by Imam Malik in the Muwatta' (1297), in mursal form
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported from the Prophet:
Do not sell gold for gold except like for like, and do not make some of it exceed some; do not sell silver for silver except like for like, and do not make some of it exceed some; and do not sell part of these goods on deferment for cash.Narrated by al-Bukhari (2068) and Muslim (1584)
The shaff (with kasra on the shin) means to secure an advantage, and it is also used for the deficit, on the part of the taker as of the giver (an-Nihaya 2/486; Lisan al-'Arab 9/181; Sharh Sahih Muslim by an-Nawawi 11/10); the najiz designates the present and the gha'ib the deferred (Sharh Sahih Muslim 11/10). 'Ubada b. as-Samit reported that the Messenger of Allah said:
Gold for gold: its tibr and its coin; silver for silver: its tibr and its coin... whoever gives more or takes more has practiced riba.Authentic hadith, narrated by Abu Dawud (3349) and an-Nasa'i (4563)
Tibr linguistically designates all gold, or the scraps of gold and silver before smelting; technically, gold and silver before minting (Tahdhib al-Lugha 13/196; Lisan al-'Arab 4/88). Al-Khattabi said: the tibr consists of the pieces of gold and silver before they are struck as dirhams or dinars, and the 'ayn is what is minted; the Messenger of Allah prohibited selling a specified mithqal of gold for a mithqal with a little unminted tibr, just as he prohibited the difference between minted and unminted silver: that is the meaning of his words "its tibr and its coin are equal" (Ma'alim as-Sunan 5/20).
Zayd b. Aslam reported from 'Ata' b. Yasar that Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan sold a goblet of gold or silver for more than its weight; Abu ad-Darda' said to him: "I heard the Messenger of Allah prohibit this, except like for like." Mu'awiya replied: "I see no harm in it." Abu ad-Darda' said: "Who excuses me from Mu'awiya? I relate to him from the Messenger of Allah and he relates to me his own opinion; I will not dwell with you on a land you occupy." He then came to 'Umar b. al-Khattab and told him; 'Umar wrote to Mu'awiya to sell that only like for like, weight for weight (authentic hadith: narrated by Malik in the Muwatta' (1302), ash-Shafi'i in his Musnad (1/242), an-Nasa'i (4572), Ibn Majah (18) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (10800)). The two being equal in weight, their difference in value, like the good and the inferior, has no effect.
Mujahid said: I was with 'Abdallah b. 'Umar when a goldsmith came to him and said: "O Abu 'Abd ar-Rahman, I cast gold and then sell part of it for more than its weight, taking the worth of my handiwork." 'Abdallah prohibited him; the goldsmith pressed the matter and 'Abdallah kept forbidding him, up to the door of the mosque or a mount he meant to ride; then 'Abdallah b. 'Umar said: "The dinar for the dinar and the dirham for the dirham, with no surplus between them: this is the covenant of our Prophet to us and our covenant to you" (narrated by Malik in the Muwatta' (1300) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (10269)).
Ibn Abd al-Barr said: the scholars agreed that gold, tibr or coin, is equal, with no surplus permitted; likewise silver for silver, tibr or coin, wrought or minted; the early and later scholars proceed on this, except a little of what is narrated from Mu'awiya; yet the Sunna transmitted by concordance on all sides contradicts what Mu'awiya held (Al-Istidhkar 6/347-348). He also said: the hadith of exchange is well preserved by 'Ubada, and it is the foundation on which the scholars relied in the chapter of riba; they did not differ that Mu'awiya's act was not permitted, nor that the sale of gold for gold and of silver for silver is not permitted, except like for like, tibr, coin or wrought, whatever the manner (At-Tamhid 4/83). Ibn Rushd said: the majority agreed that the minted, the tibr and the wrought are equal in prohibiting the sale of some for some with surplus, because of the generality of the hadiths (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 3/212). Ibn Qudama said: if someone says to a craftsman: "Make me a ring of a dirham's weight, I give you its like plus a dirham as wage", that is not selling a dirham for two; our companions said: the goldsmith takes the two dirhams, one against the ring, the other as wage (Al-Mughni 4/29; al-Kafi 2/55).
Al-Khatib ash-Shirbini said: the value of craftsmanship has no effect, to the point that if one bought with dinars wrought gold worth many times the dinars, it is similarity that is taken into account, with no regard to value. He then described the trick for acquiring a ribawi asset for its genus with surplus, like selling gold for gold: each sells to the other for dirhams or a commodity, then buys gold with that after mutual delivery; this is permitted even if they do not separate nor grant each other an option of withdrawal, for the second sale implies ratification of the first, unlike with a third party; or each lends to the other and discharges him, or the holder of the surplus gifts it to his companion: this is permitted if nothing is stipulated in the sale, the loan or the gift of what its owner does, even if the intention is disliked (Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/451; al-Iqna' 2/279; Hawashi ash-Shirwani 4/279). It was reported from many of Malik's companions, some attributing it to Malik himself, that the merchant pressed to depart, needing minted dirhams or dinars, goes to the mint with his silver or gold and says to the minter: "Take my silver or my gold and the worth of your handiwork, and give me minted dinars from my gold or minted dirhams from my silver, for I am pressed to depart and fear missing the one with whom I shall leave": that is permitted out of necessity, and some people acted on it.
After reporting this, Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr said: "This is what a scholar utters without reflection or transmission; perhaps he narrated it for a meaning that led him to relate it, and the hearer imagines it is his madhhab and attributes it to him; yet it is riba itself: the Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever gives more or takes more has practiced riba', and Ibn 'Umar said to the goldsmith 'no' in a matter like this, forbade him, and said: 'This is the covenant of our Prophet to us and our covenant to you'; and this man sold silver for more silver and took a surplus in the minted over the unminted, which is the riba on which consensus was formed: minted and wrought silver against its tibr, or minted and wrought gold against its tibr and its coin, is not permitted except weight for weight, according to all the jurists, and the sunan are transmitted in mass from the Prophet on this" (At-Tamhid 2/246).
Imam Ahmad, in a narration chosen by the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim, who defended it, held that if the craftsmanship is lawful, like the silver ring, women's jewelry and what is permitted of the ornament of weapons, surplus in it is permitted, for craftsmanship has a value, as shown by the case of destruction (itlaf): it is as if one added the value of the craftsmanship to the gold. Ibn al-Qayyim said: of the riba of surplus, what need calls for was permitted, like the 'araya; what was prohibited as closing a means (sadd adh-dhari'a) is lighter than what was prohibited as a prohibition of purposes. If the craftsmanship of the wrought object and the ornament is unlawful, like vessels, their sale for their genus and for another genus is prohibited; that is the sale 'Ubada rebuked Mu'awiya for: it consists of facing the unlawful craftsmanship with prices, which is not permitted, like musical instruments. If the craftsmanship is lawful, like the silver ring and women's jewelry, the rational person does not sell that for its weight of its genus: that would be folly and a wasting of craftsmanship; the Lawgiver is too wise to oblige the community with that; the Shari'a neither comes with it nor prohibits the sale and purchase despite people's need; there remains therefore only to say: it is not sold for its genus at all, but for another genus, and that carries a hardship the Shari'a guards against: most people hold gold with which to buy what they need, the seller does not accept selling for wheat, barley or clothes, and imposing made-to-order manufacture on everyone is impossible or difficult; tricks are void in the Shari'a; and the Lawgiver permitted selling fresh dates for dry dates out of craving for the fresh; where is that compared to the need to sell the wrought? There remains only the lawfulness of selling it as commodities are sold: had its sale for dirhams not been permitted, people's interests would have been corrupted. The texts from the Prophet contain nothing explicit of prohibition: at most they are general or absolute, and specifying the general and restricting the absolute by the manifest analogy is not objectionable; they are like the texts of the obligation of zakat on gold and silver: the wording of the texts in both cases is sometimes that of dirhams and dinars ("dirhams for dirhams, dinars for dinars"; and in zakat: "in ar-riqa, a quarter of the tenth", ar-riqa being minted silver), sometimes that of gold and silver; carrying the absolute on the restricted amounts to prohibiting riba in the two currencies and obliging zakat on them, without thereby negating the ruling for all that exceeds them: there is detail, zakat being due and riba applying in some forms, not all, and the proofs find their full measure therein without contradicting any argument.
Ibn al-Qayyim adds several clarifications. Lawful jewelry has become, by lawful craftsmanship, of the genus of clothes and commodities, not of the genus of prices; that is why zakat is not due on it and riba does not apply between it and the prices, as between the prices and the other commodities; by manufacture it has exited the purpose of prices and been prepared for trade: selling it for its genus carries no harm, and riba (deferred or of surplus) enters it only as it enters the other commodities sold for a deferred price; were that closed to people, the door of religion would be closed to them and they would be harmed all the more. The people at the time of their Prophet wore jewelry, the women put it on and gave it as alms at festivals; it is known by necessity that it was given for needs and that it was sold, and it is certain that it was not sold at its weight, for that would be folly: a hoop, a ring or a pendant does not equal a dinar; they had no fulus, and they feared Allah more, were more discerning in His religion and more knowledgeable of the purposes of His Messenger, than to commit tricks or to teach them to people. No Companion is known to have prohibited selling the ornament except for another genus or its weight: what is transmitted from them concerns only exchange (sarf).
The prohibition of the riba of surplus was only a closing of means, and what is prohibited as closing a means is permitted for the prevailing interest, as the 'araya were permitted from the riba of surplus, the supererogatory prayers with causes after fajr and 'asr, and looking for the suitor, the witness, the physician and the merchant, from the prohibited looking; likewise gold and silk, prohibited to men to close the means of resembling the cursed women who wear them, are permitted in what need calls for; the sale of wrought jewelry of lawful craftsmanship for more than its weight must therefore be permitted, for need calls for it; the prohibition of surplus was a closing of means, and this is pure analogy conforming to the principles of the Shari'a, without which people's interest is not achieved, except by tricks, which are void in the Shari'a. The utmost of this is placing the surplus against the lawful craftsmanship valued by prices; and when the masters of tricks permit selling ten for fifteen in a rag worth a fals, saying the five is against the rag, how do they deny selling jewelry at its weight plus a surplus equal to the craftsmanship? How could the perfect and excellent Shari'a, which dazzled minds with wisdom, justice, mercy and majesty, come to permit this and prohibit that? Is this not the counter-foot of the rational, the fitra and the interest? What is most astonishing is their excess in the riba of surplus, to the point of prohibiting selling a pound of oil for a pound of oil, prohibiting the sale of kishk for sesame, starch for wheat, vinegar for raisins, and the sale of a mudd of wheat and a dirham for a mudd and a dirham; and they came to riba an-nasi'a opening every avenue of circumvention: sometimes by the 'ayna, sometimes by the muhallil, sometimes by the pre-agreed condition concluded in collusion, then they release the contract without condition; Allah, the noble scribes, the contracting parties and those present knew it was a contract of riba, whose purpose and spirit is selling fifteen on credit for ten in cash; the entry and exit of the commodity is only a detour toward another meaning; why did they not do here what they did in the case of a mudd of 'ajwa and a dirham for a mudd and a dirham, saying that it may become a means to the riba of surplus if the mudd on one side equals part of the mudd on the other, producing the surplus? Astonishing: this avenue to the riba of surplus is prohibited, while those avenues leading near to riba an-nasi'a are permitted in full freedom? Where is the corruption of selling jewelry for its genus and placing the craftsmanship against its share of the price, compared to the corruption of the tricks of riba, the foundation of all corruption and the root of every affliction? When the truth is clear, let the ignorant zealot say what he will; success comes from Allah.
If it is objected that qualities are not faced with surplus, otherwise selling good silver for more inferior silver and good dates for more inferior dates would be permitted, and that since the Lawgiver annulled that, He prohibited facing qualities with surplus; we answer that craftsmanship, the effect of the act of the son of Adam, is faced with prices and deserves a wage, unlike the quality created by Allah, with no effect of the servant and not of his making: the Lawgiver, by His wisdom and justice, prohibited facing this quality with surplus, for that would lead to nullifying what He legislated of the prohibition of surplus, the difference in these genera being apparent, and the rational person selling a genus for its genus only for the difference between them; were they equal in every respect he would not do so; permitting facing qualities with surplus would have made the riba of surplus lawful; unlike craftsmanship, against which exchange was permitted to them. If exchange is permitted on this craftsmanship alone, it is also permitted when added to other than its origin and substance, with no difference. And the Lawgiver does not say to the holder of this craftsmanship: "Sell this wrought piece at its weight and lose your craftsmanship", nor "Do not do this craftsmanship and leave it", nor "Use tricks to sell beyond the weight"; He never said "sell it only for another genus", nor prohibited anyone from selling a thing for its genus.
If it is said: this is granted you for the wrought piece, but what of minted dirhams and dinars sold for the ingots with surplus, the surplus facing the craftsmanship of minting? It is a strong and relevant question, and its answer is: craftsmanship is not valued in minting, for the general purpose sought in it; the ruler mints it for the general interest of the people, even if the minter does it for a wage; the aim is that it be the people's standard, without trade in it; minting has no facing with surplus in custom: were it faced with surplus, transactions would be corrupted, the interest for which it was minted annulled, people would make it a commodity and it would need to be valued by something else; therefore the dirham stands for the dirham in every respect: a man takes a hundred light ones and returns fifty heavy ones at their weight, and neither the taker nor the receiver objects, and neither of the two sees himself losing anything, unlike the wrought piece; and the Prophet and his caliphs did not mint a single dirham: the first to mint in Islam was 'Abd al-Malik b. Marwan, and they transacted with the coinage of the disbelievers.
If it is further objected that one would then have to permit selling derivatives of genera for their originals with surplus, like wheat for bread, oil for olives and sesame for the press-cake (chiraj), we answer that this too is a relevant question, and that prohibition is established only by text, by consensus, or if the form prohibited by analogy is equal in every respect to the one explicitly prohibited; all three are absent in the derivatives with their originals. The categories other than the four do not stand in their place nor are assimilated to them; as for the four, their derivative, if it exits the quality of food, is not of the ribawi; if it is food, it is a genus subsisting by itself, and selling it for its like of its genus with surplus is prohibited, like flour for flour and bread for bread, but not selling it for another genus, even of the same genus: sesame for the press-cake is not prohibited, nor porridge (harisa) for bread; this craftsmanship has a value that is not lost to its holder, and nothing prohibits its sale for its originals in the Book, the Sunna, consensus or analogy: nothing is unlawful except what Allah prohibited, just as there is no worship except what Allah legislated; prohibiting the lawful is like permitting the unlawful (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 2/405-411; Kashshaf al-Qina' 3/293). The Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: selling wrought gold and silver for its genus without requiring similarity is permitted, the surplus being placed against the craftsmanship, and it is not riba (Al-Fatawa al-Kubra 4/473).
Al-Mardawi said: gold and silver are included in all the narrations: surplus is prohibited in them absolutely according to the correct view of the madhhab, and the companions are on it, except that the Shaykh Taqi ad-Din permitted selling the lawful wrought piece at its value in cash, and the people act on it; he permitted it also on credit so long as its being a currency is not intended; he said: what exits similarity by craftsmanship is not ribawi (Al-Insaf 5/14).
The jurists of the four schools, Hanafis (except Abu Yusuf), Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, stated that similarity is taken by the legal standard of measure or weight: everything on which the Messenger of Allah textually prohibited surplus by volume is forever measured, even if people abandon measuring, like wheat, barley, dates and salt, for the text is stronger than custom, and the stronger is not abandoned for the weaker: selling wheat for its genus at equality by weight, or silver for its genus in similarity by volume, is not permitted, even if people do so by custom, because of the imagined surplus in that which is the standard thereof, as if selling by estimation. And everything on which the text prohibited surplus by weight is forever weighed, even if people abandon weighing, like gold and silver, to the point that selling silver and gold for their like by volume is not permitted, according to his words:
Gold for gold, weight for weight; silver for silver, weight for weight; wheat for wheat, volume for volume; barley for barley, volume for volume...Authentic hadith, narrated by an-Nasa'i in al-Kubra (6111), at-Tahawi in Sharh Mushkil al-Athar (6104) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (10541)
The Prophet textually prohibited surplus in these six things; opposing him is disobedience and obeying him is obligatory. What the Prophet did not textually legislate and in which there is no legal standard is carried to the people's customs and usages, for custom indicates the permissibility of the ruling on what it falls upon, an apparent indication, and what has no usage in the Shari'a is carried to custom, like taking possession (qabd) and the enclosure (hirz). The Shafi'is and the Hanbalis said: if lands differ, the predominant is taken into account; failing that, one refers to what is closest to it in the Hijaz; every liquid is measured. The Hanbalis said: transacting with a measure not known before is permitted. Abu Yusuf, in a weak narration, holds custom to be taken into account even against the stated text, for the text was established there because of custom, which is what is considered and which may have changed (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 5/183-185; Mukhtasar al-Waqaya 2/70; al-Insaf 5/11-13; al-Furu' 4/114-115; Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/449-500; Matalib Uli an-Nuha 3/170).