Islamic Fiqh > Financial transactions > Riba: its types and effects > Riba in the land of war
Contents
Updated on 26 September 2026 at 7:12 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
The scholars differed on the ruling of riba between a Muslim and a man of war (harbi), or between two Muslims in the land of war: does riba apply there as in the land of Islam? Two views are reported. The first is that of Imam Abu Hanifa and Muhammad b. al-Hasan, and it is the madhhab of the Hanafis: riba exists only in the land of Islam; there is therefore no riba between a Muslim and a harbi in the land of war, nor between two Muslims one of whom is in the land of war without having emigrated to us, according to Abu Hanifa, on condition that the surplus be for the Muslim and not for the harbi; but if the harbi enters our land under safe-conduct (aman) and sells a dirham for two, that is not permitted, by consensus.
According to them, all void contracts are in the meaning of riba and are therefore permitted: if a Muslim entering them under safe-conduct sells a dirham for two, that is permitted; likewise if he sells them carrion or a pig, or gambles with them and takes their wealth: all of that is lawful. Riba therefore does not apply, according to Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, in the following questions:
Proof: Abu Bakr wagered with Quraysh before the Hijra when Allah revealed:
"Alif, Lam, Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious."
Surah Ar-Rum (The Romans), 1-3
Quraysh said: "Do you think the Romans will be defeated?" He replied: "Yes." They said: "Will you wager with us on that?" He informed the Prophet, who said: "Go to them, increase the wager and the term." He did so; the Romans defeated the Persians, and Abu Bakr took his winnings, which the Prophet ratified, and it is gambling itself (the story is reported by at-Tirmidhi and others from Niyar b. Mukram al-Aslami, with a context different from that of this account, as Ibn Hajar noted in his takhrij; az-Zamakhshari cited it in al-Kashshaf). Mecca was then a land of war, which indicates that the Muslim may take the harbi's wealth in the land of war so long as there is no treachery.
Al-Kasani said: among the conditions for the application of riba, the two counter-values must be inviolable: if one of them is not, riba does not take place according to us, whereas it is not a condition according to Abu Yusuf and riba takes place. On this principle, the Muslim who enters the land of war as a merchant and sells a harbi a dirham for two, or any other sale void in Islam's ruling, acts lawfully according to Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, but not according to Abu Yusuf; on this disagreement stand the Muslim captive in the land of war, or the harbi who converted there without emigrating and who transacts with one of the people of war. Abu Yusuf's reason is that the prohibition of riba, established for Muslims, is established for the disbelievers, who are addressed by the prohibitions according to the correct view: the condition of riba in the sale corrupts it, as when the Muslim transacts with the protected harbi in the land of Islam. For the two (Abu Hanifa and Muhammad), the harbi's wealth is not inviolable but lawful in itself: the protected Muslim was only prevented from acquiring it without consent because of treachery; when he exchanges it by choice and consent, that prevention disappears, the taking being then acquisition of lawful, unowned wealth, a legal act creating ownership like the taking of firewood and grass; the contract here is not acquisition but the fulfilment of the condition of acquisition, consent; the Muslim's ownership is established by taking and seizure, not by contract: riba therefore does not take place, for riba is a name for a surplus gained by contract; unlike the Muslim who sells to a harbi who entered the land of Islam under safe-conduct, who acquired inviolability by his entry, and inviolable wealth is not a place of seizure: acquisition therein is fixed by contract, and the condition of riba in the contract corrupts. The same applies to the dhimmi who enters the land of war and sells a harbi a dirham for two or any other sale void in Islam: he is upon the disagreement mentioned, for what is permitted of the sales of Muslims is permitted of the sales of the people of the covenant, and what is valid or void among the former is valid or void among the latter, except wine and the pig. Another condition: the two counter-values must be legally appraisable, guaranteed in right for the servant: if one of them is not, riba does not apply to it; on this principle, transacting with the non-emigrated convert is permitted according to Abu Hanifa but not according to the two, for inviolability is established but not appraisal (he guarantees neither his person by qisas nor by the diya, and his wealth is not guaranteed in case of destruction); and if two Muslims enter the land of war and sell each other a dirham for two, that is not permitted, the wealth of each being inviolable and appraisable, acquisition passing by contract, which is corrupted by the void condition. If the harbi who transacted with the Muslim enters the land of Islam, or the inhabitants of the land convert, what was paid riba, or a void sale paid, is past and lawful, and what was not paid is annulled, according to the word of Allah:
"O you who believe, fear Allah and give up what remains of riba, if you are believers."
Surah Al-Baqara (The Cow), 278
Allah ordered them to give up what remains of riba and prohibited taking it, as if He said: leave taking possession of it, which entails the prohibition of taking. And it is reported from the Prophet: "Every riba of the Jahiliyya is abolished under my two feet"; abolition means reduction and removal, for what was not paid; for with Islam, initiating the contract became prohibited, as did taking by the effect of the contract, which is its ratification and confirmation: the contract is in one respect attached to what remains among the prohibitions, as a precaution; once taking is prohibited, the continuation of the contract has no benefit (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 5/152-153; al-Mabsut 14/75 and 22/31; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq 4/97; al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 6/147; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 5/186).
The second view: riba is prohibited, with no difference between the land of Islam and the land of war: every contract that was prohibited riba between Muslims in the land of Islam is prohibited riba between a Muslim and a harbi in the land of war, whether the Muslim enters it under safe-conduct or without; this is the view of most people of knowledge: Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis, and Abu Yusuf among the Hanafis. They proved it by the generality of the texts prohibiting riba:
"Allah has permitted trade and forbidden riba."
Surah Al-Baqara (The Cow), 275
"O you who believe, fear Allah and give up what remains of riba, if you are believers. If you do not, then expect a war from Allah and His Messenger. If you repent, you have your capitals: you wrong no one and are not wronged."
Surah Al-Baqara (The Cow), 278-279
"O you who believe, do not consume riba, doubled and multiplied. Fear Allah so that you may succeed."
Surah Al 'Imran (The family of 'Imran), 130
Avoid the seven destructive sins. It was asked: and which are they, O Messenger of Allah? He said: associating partners with Allah..., consuming riba...Narrated by al-Bukhari (2767) and Muslim (89)
The Messenger of Allah cursed the consumer of riba, the one who pays it, the one who writes it and its two witnesses, and said: they are equal.Narrated by Muslim (1598)
Gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates, salt for salt: like for like, hand to hand; whoever gives more or asks for more has practiced riba, the taker and the giver being equal therein.Narrated by al-Bukhari (2177) and Muslim (1584)
The generality of the reports entails the prohibition of surplus: "whoever gives more or asks for more has practiced riba" is general, like the rest of the hadiths; everything prohibited in the land of Islam is prohibited in the land of association, like the other obscenities and disobediences; every contract prohibited between the Muslim and the dhimmi is prohibited between the Muslim and the harbi, as in the land of Islam; it is a void contract whose object cannot be made lawful, like marriage. As for arguing by the hadith of Makhul, it is mursal, and the mursal reports are weak, with no argumentative value; perhaps it meant prohibition; one may not abandon what the Quran prohibited, which the Sunna confirmed, and on which consensus was formed, by an unknown report that came neither in a sahih nor in a musnad nor in a trusted book, and which moreover is mursal and conjectural. Furthermore, everything permitted of them without contract cannot be made lawful by the void contract: consider the private parts, permitted of them by fay' without contract, not by a void contract; the same applies to wealth: although permitted to be taken from them without contract, it cannot be taken by the void contract (Al-Umm 7/359; al-Hawi al-Kabir 5/75; al-Majmu' 9/376; Rawdat at-Talibin 3/58; al-Furuq of al-Qarafi 3/363; al-Mughni 4/47-48; al-Insaf 5/52).
The meaning of "waive and hasten" (da' wa ta'ajjal): a man has a deferred claim on another, and the debtor says to the creditor: "Waive part of your claim and hasten the rest", or the creditor says to the debtor: "Hasten me part and I waive the rest for you" (Fatawa as-Subki 1/340). The jurists differed on this form: the majority, Hanafis (except Zufar), Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis according to the madhhab, prohibit it: it is of the prohibited riba. Ibn Hubayra said: they agreed that the holder of a deferred claim may not waive part of it before its term in order to have the rest hastened, and that this is prohibited (Al-Ifsah 1/408; see Jawahir al-'Uqud 1/116). The proofs:
The reason is that hastening part while dropping the rest amounts to selling the term against the amount dropped, which is riba itself, as if one sold the term against what increases it at maturity by saying: "Increase my debt and I increase you the term"; what difference is there between saying "waive of the term and I waive of the debt" and saying "increase the term and I increase the debt"? Zayd b. Aslam said: riba in the Jahiliyya was that a man have a right on another to a term; at maturity he said: "Do you pay, or do you increase?" If he paid, he took; otherwise he increased his right and pushed back his term (narrated by Malik in the Muwatta' in the version of Muhammad b. al-Hasan (768) and al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan al-Kubra (11468)).
The Hanafis explained the prohibition outside the case of the redemption debt (kitaba) thus: the deferred creditor does not deserve the hastened part, which can therefore not constitute a recovery and becomes a compensation, whereas selling five hundred for a thousand is not permitted; the hastened part was not owed by contract for its recovery to count as recovery of part of the right, and hastening is necessarily better than deferral; there are then five hundred against five hundred of like debt, and the hastening against the rest, which is a circumvention of the term, invalid: the Shari'a prohibited riba an-nasi'a, which has only the resemblance of an exchange of wealth against the term; if the resemblance of riba entails prohibition, its reality is all the more so (al-Mabsut 21/21; Tuhfat al-Fuqaha' 3/252; al-'Inaya 12/97; Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 8/253; Ighathat al-Lahfan 2/12). The Shafi'is explained it by the dropping of part of the quantity so that dissolution may take place into the rest: the quality alone is not faced with a compensation, and the quality of dissolution cannot be attached to the deferred; when what was dropped of the quantity for its term is not obtained, the dropping is not valid (Asna al-Matalib 2/216).
Here are the texts of some jurists. Imam Muhammad b. al-Hasan, after narrating the hadith of Zayd b. Thabit, said: we take by this: whoever has a deferred claim on a person and asks that it be waived so as to have the rest hastened, that is not fitting, for he hastens little with much debt, as if he sold little for cash against much on credit; it is the view of 'Umar b. al-Khattab, of Zayd b. Thabit, of 'Abdallah b. 'Umar and of Abu Hanifa (al-Muwatta' 3/167). Imam Malik said: the disapproved matter, with no disagreement among us, is that a man have a deferred debt on another, the claimant waiving and the claimed hastening: that is to us like the one who delays his debt beyond its due against his claimant, and the claimant increases his right; "it is riba itself, beyond any doubt" (al-Muwatta' 2/373). Ibn Abd al-Barr said: Malik showed that waiving part of a right not yet due in order to have it hastened places the man like the one who takes his right after its term against an increase from his claimant for that delay; the meaning common to both is that against the dropped or increased term there is a compensation that increases in the term and drops from the hastener the debt before its due: the two, though opposite to one another, share the described meaning (Al-Istidhkar 6/488; al-Kafi 1/324).
Abu Bakr al-Jassas said: two indications prove its invalidity: Ibn 'Umar named it riba, and we have shown that legal names are fixed by revelation; and the riba of the Jahiliyya was a deferred loan with a conditioned increase: the increase was a counterpart of the term, which Allah annulled and prohibited, saying: "If you repent, you have your capitals" (Surah Al-Baqara, 279) and "give up what remains of riba" (Surah Al-Baqara, 278); He prohibited taking a counterpart for the term: if a thousand dirhams are owed deferred and one waives on condition of being hastened, one has only placed the rebate beside the term, and that is the meaning of the riba Allah textually prohibited; there is no disagreement that if a thousand dirhams fall due and one says: "Defer me and I add a hundred dirhams", that is not permitted, the hundred being a counterpart of the term; likewise the rebate is in the meaning of the increase: this is the foundation of the impossibility of taking counterparts against terms (Ahkam al-Qur'an 2/186-187). The prohibition of the riba of deferment is therefore only the resemblance of an exchange of wealth against the term: if the resemblance of riba entails prohibition, its reality is all the more so.
Ibn Qudama said: if one settles on the deferred with part in cash, that is not permitted: Zayd b. Thabit and Ibn 'Umar disliked it, and he said that 'Umar prohibited selling the in-specie against the debt, as did Sa'id b. al-Musayyib, al-Qasim, Salim, al-Hasan, ash-Sha'bi, Malik, ash-Shafi'i, ath-Thawri, Ibn 'Uyayna, Hushaym, Abu Hanifa and Ishaq. It was reported from Ibn 'Abbas, an-Nakha'i and Ibn Sirin that there is no harm in it. Al-Hasan and Ibn Sirin saw no harm in taking goods from his right before its due, for they sold the goods against what is in the liability, validly, as if one bought them for a like price; perhaps Ibn Sirin argues that hastening is permitted and the dropping alone is permitted, so their combination is permitted, as if it were done without constraint upon him. Our argument: he offers the amount dropped as a counterpart for hastening what is upon him, and the sale of dissolution and deferment is not permitted, as giving ten in cash for twenty deferred, for he sells ten for twenty; it is different outside constraint and outside contract, each volunteering his right without compensation, and the permissibility of that does not entail its permissibility in the contract or with constraint, like selling a dirham for two; and it is different from buying the goods for a like price, for he took no compensation for the dissolution (Al-Mughni 4/316). Zufar among the Hanafis, and Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim among the Hanbalis (a narration from Ahmad), permitted this form.
Ibn al-Qayyim said: if one has a deferred claim on a man, and the creditor wants to travel, fears for his wealth or needs it without being able to claim it before its due, and wants to waive part against the hastening of the rest: the early and the later generations differed; Ibn 'Abbas permitted it, Ibn 'Umar prohibited it; Ahmad has two narrations, the more famous being the prohibition (the choice of the majority of his companions), the other the permission, reported by Ibn Abi Musa, and it is the choice of our shaykh (Ibn Taymiyya). The proponents of permission said: it is established from Ibn 'Abbas that he saw no harm in saying: "I am hastened and you waive for me"; it is he who reported that when the Messenger of Allah ordered the expulsion of Banu'n-Nadir from Medina, some of them came: "O Messenger of Allah, you ordered their expulsion, and they have on the people debts not yet due?" The Prophet said:
Waive and hasten.Narrated by at-Tahawi in Sharh al-Mushkil (11/56), ad-Daraqutni (3/46), al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (10920) and al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak (2325)
Abu 'Abdallah al-Hakim said: its chain is authentic. Ibn al-Qayyim answers: it is upon the condition of the sunan; al-Bayhaqi weakened it although its transmitters are trustworthy: it was weakened only by Muslim b. Khalid az-Zanji, a trustworthy jurist from whom ash-Shafi'i narrated and whom he cited; al-Bayhaqi said: chapter of the one who is hastened less than his right before its due, both waiving willingly, as if it happened without condition: this one hastens, that one waives, with no harm. The proponents of permission said: it is the opposite of riba: the latter increases term and debt, pure harm to the debtor; our question clears the debtor's liability and procures the creditor the benefit of hastening: both benefit without harm, unlike the agreed riba whose harm reaches the debtor and whose benefit is specific to the creditor; it is the opposite of riba in form and meaning. Facing the term with the increase is an avenue toward a greater harm: that the single dirham become myriads upon myriads and the liability be occupied without profit; in waiving and hastening, the one's liability is cleared of the debt and the other benefits from the hastening. The Lawgiver aims at clearing liabilities of debts and called the debtor a prisoner: clearing his liability is his liberation, unlike occupying it with increase and patience; this follows for whoever permits it in the redemption debt, the view of Ahmad and Abu Hanifa: the mukatab with his master is like a stranger in transactions, with no sale of a dirham for two nor riba; if he is permitted to hasten part of his redemption with the waiving of the rest, for the benefit of hastening emancipation and clearing his liability, that would not be prohibited for other debts.
If one details by saying: prohibited in the loan debt (if its deferment is held obligatory), permitted in the sale price, the wage, the khul' compensation and the dowry, he has a valid view: in the loan, the rendering of the like is obligatory; by being hastened and dropping the rest, he exits the cause of the contract: he lent a hundred and is paid ninety with no profit for the lender, the borrower alone benefiting, like the taker of increase in the exclusive benefit; in sale and hire, both parties own the annulment of the contract and the turning of a compensation into cash lesser than before, which is the reality of waiving and hastening, resorted to by trick; yet contracts are judged by their purposes, not their forms: if waiving and hastening are corrupt, the trick does not remove the corruption; if they are not, there is no need for a trick. Four schools are summarized in the question: absolute prohibition, with condition or without, in the redemption debt and the others, like Malik; permission in the redemption debt only, the famous view of the madhhab of Ahmad and Abu Hanifa; permission in both cases, according to Ibn 'Abbas and Ahmad in the other narration; permission without condition and prohibition with the paired condition, according to the companions of ash-Shafi'i; and Allah knows best (Ighathat al-Lahfan 2/12-14).
Imam at-Tahawi, after mentioning the two views, reports that one asked: will you make the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas an argument for the permitter against the disliker? He answers: it is no argument with us for whoever generalizes it against the disliker; for it may be that it was from the Messenger of Allah before Allah prohibited riba, then riba was prohibited and its avenues with it; it is a question of fiqh of great scope to be pondered: the dropping of part of the deferred debt to hasten the rest, disliked by some, generalized by others; the origin is that if the exchange between creditor and debtor were done by waiving and hastening, each of the two being conditioned in his pair, it would be clear that it is not done, for it is like the riba the Quran came to prohibit with the threat of Allah: the people of the Jahiliyya used to pay their creditors what they paid so that they would postpone the due debt to a term mentioned in that postponement, thus buying a term against wealth; Allah prohibited that with the Quranic threat; the like is the dropping of part of the deferred debt to hasten the rest: it is not done, for it is the purchase of hastening by what is hastened, through dropping the rest of the debt. It is the view of Abu Hanifa, Malik, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, with no disagreement reported among them; and Zufar b. al-Hudhayl differed, saying, concerning a man owed a thousand dirhams for a year as the price of goods or a guarantee, settling for five hundred in cash: that is permitted. Ash-Shafi'i had permitted it once, as al-Muzani reported from him: if the mukatab is hastened by his master part of the redemption on condition of being cleared of the rest, that is not permitted; what he took is returned and he is not emancipated, for he was cleared of what was not cleared; al-Muzani said: he said here that "waive and hasten" is not done, and permitted it in the debt. Abu Ja'far (at-Tahawi) said: as for waiving and hastening not conditioned one in the other, but a waiving by which the hastening of the rest of the debt is hoped, that is other than the first case: it cannot be annulled by ruling in the rational order, but it is disliked without being annulled by ruling, like the loan drawing a benefit without being annulled for that; such is the aspect of this chapter: the settlement founded on the condition of hastening in the waiving, and the waiving by which the hastening of the rest of the debt is hoped without condition (Sharh Mushkil al-Athar 11/63-65; see Tuhfat al-Fuqaha' 3/252; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya 1/167; Bidayat al-Mujtahid 2/108; Fatawa as-Subki 1/340).
As for the due debt, if the creditor waives part against a part paid to him, that is permitted by the agreement of the scholars, according to the hadith of Ka'b b. Malik: Ibn Abi Hadrad claimed from him a debt contracted at the time of the Messenger of Allah, in the mosque; their voices rose until the Messenger of Allah, in his house, heard them; he came out to them, uncovering the curtain of his chamber, and called Ka'b b. Malik: "O Ka'b"; "Here I am, O Messenger of Allah"; he gestured with his hand to waive half; Ka'b said: "I have done so, O Messenger of Allah"; the Messenger of Allah said:
Rise and collect.Narrated by al-Bukhari (2563) and Muslim (1558)
The mudd is a known measure, the smallest of measures: a quarter of a sa'. The 'ajwa is the finest kind of dates of Medina the Illuminated. The question of the "mudd of 'ajwa" is a technical term of the jurists, defined as a ribawi sale for its genus in similarity, with one of the two genera a thing of another genus, or with both: selling a sa' of dates and a garment for two sa's of dates, or a good dinar and a middling dinar for two good dinars, or a mudd of 'ajwa and a dirham for two mudds of 'ajwa, or a mudd of wheat and a mudd of barley for two mudds of wheat (Al-Ifsah 1/373).
The jurists differed in two views. The first, that of the majority (Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis according to the madhhab), prohibits it, on the basis of the report narrated by Muslim from Fadala b. 'Ubayd:
On the day of Khaybar, I bought a necklace for twelve dinars, containing gold and beads; I took it apart and found in it more than twelve dinars; I mentioned it to the Prophet, who said: it is only sold once taken apart.Narrated by Muslim (1591)
The majority adds that joining one of the parties of the contract over two different assets entails the apportioning of the other against them according to value, as in the sale of a house share not claimed by preemption and a sword for a thousand, the share worth a hundred and the sword fifty: the holder of the right of preemption (shafi') takes the share for two thirds; the apportioning leads to surplus or to ignorance of similarity: when one sells a mudd and a dirham for two mudds, if the value of the mudd accompanied by the dirham exceeds the dirham or is less, one requires the surplus or the like, and the similarity is unknown, for it depends on appraisal, an estimation that may err (Al-Istidhkar 6/368; al-Muhadhdhab 1/273; al-Wasit 3/444-448; Rawdat at-Talibin 3/49-50; Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/456-458; al-Mughni 4/44-45; al-Qawa'id of Ibn Rajab 1/283-284).
The second view, that of the Hanafis and of Ahmad in the other narration, permits it. The Hanafis said: there is no harm in a kur of wheat and a kur of barley for three kurs of wheat and a kur of barley, hand to hand, the wheat of this side facing the barley of the other and the barley facing the wheat; likewise selling a mudd of 'ajwa and raisins for two mudds of 'ajwa and raisins, or a dinar and a dirham for two dirhams and two dinars; likewise a good dirham and a false dirham for two good dirhams, or a Naysaburi (from Nishapur) or Herawi dinar for two Naysaburi or Herawi dinars. This rests on the principle that quality has no value in ribawi assets when faced with their genus: the facing is done by the parts, and the contract is permitted by equality in weight, according to: "Gold for gold, like for like; silver for silver, like for like, hand to hand", and: "its good and its inferior are equal" (al-Mabsut 2/189-190; al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 2/307; al-Mughni 4/44-45). The contract here comprises two different genera: it must therefore be permitted as the contracting parties wish, their purpose being achievable by a lawful way, namely exchanging the genus for other than the genus; that is equivalent to the explicit, division according to value not being required by the contract but by exchange and equality; and there is no exchange between the lawful and the void: the lawful is legal in its origin and its description, the void legal in its origin, prohibited in its description; what is legal in every respect takes precedence over what is legal in one respect and not another.
Imam al-Mawardi mentioned the madhhab of the Shafi'is and that of the Hanafis with the proofs of both camps and their replies. Ash-Shafi'i said: there is no good in a mudd of 'ajwa and a dirham for a mudd of 'ajwa, so long as dates are not sold against dates like for like. Al-Mawardi explains: every genus in which riba is established cannot be sold against a thing of its genus if joined to it a counterpart of another genus: one cannot therefore sell a mudd of dates and a dirham for two mudds of dates nor for two dirhams, nor a dinar and a garment for two dinars, nor a dirham and a sword for two dirhams. Abu Hanifa permitted it: he permitted selling a mudd of dates and a dirham for two mudds, counting a mudd against a mudd and a dirham against a mudd, and permitted selling a sword adorned with gold for gold if the price exceeds in gold the ornament, so that the surplus be the price of the sword and gold face gold like for like; he argued that if the contract can be carried to validity, that takes precedence over carrying it to corruption, and that it is reported from 'Umar: "When you find a way out for a Muslim, give it to him": had the two parties stipulated a mudd against a mudd and a dirham against a mudd, the contract would be valid, and it must also be carried thus without the condition; similarity in what riba enters is taken by volume if measurable, by weight if weighable, value having no consideration therein, neither in the measured nor in the weighed: if one sells a kur of wheat worth ten dinars for a kur worth twenty dinars, the contract is valid by the equality of volume despite the difference in value; value being void in similarity, the contract is apportioned over the parts, the sale becoming a mudd against a mudd and a dirham against a mudd. Proof by the hadith of Fadala b. 'Ubayd: on the day of Khaybar there was brought to the Messenger of Allah a necklace containing beads and gold; a man bought it for nine dinars or seven dinars; the Prophet said: "No, so long as you have not distinguished between them"; the man: "I only wanted the stones"; he said: "No, so long as you have not distinguished between them." If it is said that the Prophet returned it because the necklace's gold exceeded the gold of the price, we answer that this is invalid for two reasons: the Prophet answered absolutely without a question, indicating the equality of the two cases; and the buyer's words "I only wanted the stones" prove that the gold was little and entered as an accessory; it is reported that Mu'awiya bought a sword adorned with gold for gold; Abu ad-Darda' said: "That does not stand: the Messenger of Allah prohibited it, saying: 'Gold for gold, like for like'"; Mu'awiya: "I see no harm in it"; Abu ad-Darda': "I relate to you from the Messenger of Allah and you relate to me your opinion; by Allah, I will never dwell with you" (narrated by Malik in the Muwatta' (1302), ash-Shafi'i in his Musnad (1/242), an-Nasa'i (4572) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (10800)). These two hadiths prove what precedes. The reasoning is that the single contract comprising two different values has the price apportioned over their values, not over their numbers: whoever buys a house share and a slave for a thousand, then deserves the share by preemption, is taken for his portion of the price according to the value of the share and of the slave, not for half the price; likewise the slave and the garment for a thousand: if one deserves the garment or it perishes, the slave is taken for his portion of the thousand, not for the half. If the principles require the apportioning of the price over value, the contract here must be void: it wavers between knowledge of surplus and ignorance of similarity, the value of the mudd accompanied by the dirham being possibly less than the dirham, more, or equal; if less or more, the surplus is known; if equal, the similarity is unknown, and ignorance of similarity equals knowledge of surplus: the contract is void in both cases. If it is objected that the price is not apportioned over value at the time of the contract, except by later deserving, for a price unknown at the contract would make the sale ignorant, we answer that the price must be apportioned over value or over number; the number being void, as it is not deserved, it is apportioned over value, and ignorance of detail with knowledge of the whole does not prevent validity. Their argument that a contract susceptible of validity must not be carried to corruption is refuted by the one who sells a commodity on credit then buys it for cash cheaper: that is not permitted for them although validity is possible, and these are two contracts lawful individually which they made two so as to carry the single contract to validity; were this principle considered, selling a mudd of dates for two mudds would be permitted, each dates following the other, or a mudd against a mudd and the other carried to gift; their argument that similarity is taken by quantity and not by value is refuted by the fact that value is not taken into account but only the similarity of quantity, though by value in the different genera the similarity or the surplus of quantity is known; and Allah knows best (al-Hawi al-Kabir 5/113-115).
In the Tahdhib al-Furuq (the 181st difference, between the rule of prohibiting the sale of the ribawi for its genus and that of its permission), the four imams agreed on the permission of selling the ribawi for its genus if the two are equal in quantity, with no other unit nor foreign genus with them or with one of them; all agreed on the prohibition if the two are equal in quantity and one of them has another unit, for it faces part of one, the other necessarily remaining greater, and the good opinion of Muslims on which Abu Hanifa relies falls. They differed if the genus of the ribawi is one on both sides with a foreign genus with them or with one of them: Malik, ash-Shafi'i and Ibn Hanbal prohibit, on three grounds: the attached may be faced by what remains after the facing less than the equal of that to which it is attached, similarity is a condition and ignorance of the condition entails ignorance of the conditioned, so there is no ruling of validity; it is an avenue toward surplus that must be closed, all the more as the Prophet said: "Do not sell gold for gold nor silver for silver except like for like", placing everything on prohibition except the case of similarity, unknown in the disputed form, so remaining on prohibition is incumbent; and the report of Muslim of the Prophet, to whom was brought a necklace containing gold and beads at Khaybar, and who prohibited selling it before it was taken apart. Abu Hanifa permits, on two bases: the apparent state of the Muslims entails the supposition of similarity, supposition sufficing as in purity; and the affair of the necklace is a single case whose prohibition is not explained by what precedes but by the unknown weight of the ornament, which is not permitted while unknown, the taking apart and the weighing lifting the obstacle. We answer: we do not concede that supposition suffices for similarity in the chapter of riba, knowledge by the testimony of the balance and the measure being necessary, and the chapter of riba being narrower than that of purity, with no assimilation; as for the necklace, we did not say the prohibition was for the unknown weight but for what was mentioned, relying on the hadith "do not sell gold for gold"; on Abu Hanifa's principle, one would even have to permit selling a dinar in a pouch for two dinars, the pouch facing the surplus dinar, and he permitted it: which is abominable; this rule is called "a mudd of 'ajwa and a dirham for two dirhams", and Allah knows best (Tahdhib al-Furuq 3/401-402).
The Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: the question transmitted by the jurists as the "mudd of 'ajwa" comprises three categories, joined by the sale of a ribawi for its genus, with both, or with one of them, a thing of another genus. The first: intending the sale of the ribawi for its genus with surplus by joining to the lesser another genus as a trick, like selling two thousand dinars for a thousand dinars in a handkerchief, or a qafiz of wheat for a qafiz and a ghirara: the correct is prohibition, according to the madhhab of Malik, ash-Shafi'i and Ahmad; no one is incapable, in the riba of surplus, of joining to the lesser something of this kind. The second: intending the sale of a non-ribawi with a ribawi, the ribawi entering as included and accessory, like selling a sheep with wool and milk for a sheep with wool and milk, or a sword with a little silver for a sword or other, or a house adorned with gold for a house: the correct according to Malik and Ahmad is permission; likewise if one intends the sale of the ribawi against the non-ribawi, like selling the house and the sword for gold, or selling it for its genus the two being equal; the question of the alloyed dirhams of our time is of this category: the silver in each of the two dirhams is like that of the other, the copper being an unintended accessory, hence permission, unlike the third category. The latter: both are intended, like selling a mudd of 'ajwa and a dirham for a mudd of 'ajwa and a dirham, or two mudds or two dirhams, or selling a dinar for half a dinar and ten dirhams, or ten dirhams and a pound of copper for ten dirhams and a pound of copper: therein is the famous dispute, Abu Hanifa permitting, ash-Shafi'i prohibiting, two narrations from Ahmad, and Malik detailing between the third and other (Majmu' al-Fatawa 29/462-464).
Most of the jurists held that the contract touched by riba is always annulled and returned, being permitted in no way, and that whoever practices riba has his contract broken and his act returned, even if ignorant, for he did what the Lawgiver prohibited, and the prohibition entails prohibition and corruption. The proof is the hadith of the two Sa'ds reported by Malik, already cited:
You have practiced riba; return them.Narrated by Imam Malik in the Muwatta' (1297), in mursal form
Ibn Abd al-Barr said: his words "You have practiced riba; return them" prove that the prohibited sale is always returned: if the commodity is lost, one reverts to the value according to the jurists (Al-Istidhkar 6/351). Ibn Battal said: the scholars agreed that the sale which occurs prohibited is annulled and returned, according to his words: "Whoever does a deed not in accordance with our order, it is rejected"; it is reported that the Messenger of Allah ordered the return of this sale, according to Bilal b. Rabah and Abu Sa'id al-Khudri; Mansur and Qays b. ar-Rabi' reported from Abu Hamza, from Sa'id b. al-Musayyib, from Bilal: "I had inferior dates; I bought better ones in the market for half their measure, two sa's for a sa'; I came to the Prophet and told him what I had done; he said: 'This is riba itself; go and return it to its owner, take your dates, sell them, then buy the dates'" (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by Ibn Battal 6/322-323). As-Sarakhsi said: the void contract deserves breaking and return, for performing it is a disobedience and persisting in disobedience is disobedience; that is why he said: "You have practiced riba; return them", without rebuking them for their act, for the prohibition of riba was not yet widely known: he excused them by ignorance (al-Mabsut 14/7).
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri said: Bilal came to the Prophet with barni dates; the Prophet said: "From where is this?" Bilal: "We had inferior dates; I sold two sa's for one, to feed you"; the Prophet then said:
Ah, ah: this is riba itself, riba itself; do not do so; but if you want to buy, sell the dates in another sale, then buy with that.Narrated by al-Bukhari (2188) and Muslim (1594)
In Muslim's version: "This is riba; return it, then sell our dates and buy us from this" (Muslim 1594). Al-Qurtubi said: our scholars said: his words "Ah, riba itself" mean the prohibited riba in person, not what resembles it; and "return it" indicates the obligation of annulling the riba transaction, which is valid in no way: it is the view of the majority, against Abu Hanifa for whom the sale of riba is lawful in its origin as a sale, prohibited in its description as riba: the riba falls and the sale remains valid; otherwise the Prophet would not have annulled the transaction but would have ordered the return of the surplus over the sa' while maintaining the sale against the sa' worth twenty; everything of a manifest prohibition is annulled: the buyer returns the commodity in itself, and if it perished in his hand, he returns the value for what has a value, like the real estate, the goods, the animal, and the like for what has a like of weighed or measured, food or commodity. Malik said: the manifest prohibited is returned, lost or not, and what people dislike is returned, unless lost, in which case it is left (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 3/358).
An-Nawawi said: the Prophet's words in the hadith of Abu Sa'id to the one who had bought a sa' for two: "This is riba; return it" prove that what is received by a void sale must be returned to its seller, and that in returning it he recovers the price; if it is said that the preceding hadith does not mention the order to return it, we answer that apparently it is one single event in which he ordered its return, that some transmitters preserved it and others did not, and we accept the addition of the trustworthy; even if the two events were established, the first would be carried to his having ordered its return as well without that reaching us; and even if he had not ordered it while both were established, we would carry it to his not knowing its seller, being unable to determine him, so that it would be a lost wealth, owed in value to whoever has a claim on him, the taken dates standing as compensation: no problem in the hadith, praise be to Allah (Sharh Sahih Muslim 11/23-24; see Fath al-Bari 4/400). Ibn Rushd detailed: whoever sells a sale in which he practices riba without permitting it undergoes the painful punishment if he is not excused by ignorance, and the sale is broken as to what subsists; the proof is the order to the two Sa'ds to sell vessels of the spoils of gold or silver, which they sold every three for four in specie or every four for three in specie, and the words of the Messenger of Allah: "You have practiced riba; return them" (narrated by Malik in the Muwatta' (1297) in mursal form). If the sale is lost, he has only his capital, whether he took the riba or not: if he took it, he returns it to its owner; likewise whoever practiced riba then repented: he has only his capital and returns what was taken to the one from whom he took it. As for the one who embraces Islam with riba: if he took it, it belongs to him, according to the word of Allah:
"Whoever receives an admonition from his Lord and puts an end to it keeps what he acquired before."
Surah Al-Baqara (The Cow), 275
and according to the words of the Messenger of Allah: "Whoever embraces Islam upon something, it belongs to him" (authentic hadith, narrated by al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra (18038) and others). If he did not take the riba, it is not permitted to him to take it: it is dropped in favor of the one upon whom it was, with no known disagreement (Muqaddamat Ibn Rushd 2/9-10).