The interpretation of taking possession (qabd)

This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.

The interpretation of taking possession (qabd)

The jurists differed over the separation required: is it bodily separation, the exchange remaining valid as long as the two parties remain in the sitting, however long, or must the exchange be immediate? The Hanafis and Hanbalis chose bodily separation. Al-Kasani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the separation meant is that the two contractors leave their sitting each in his direction, or one departs while the other remains; as long as they remain seated in their sitting, however long, they are not separated, since bodily separation is absent; likewise if they sleep in the sitting or faint; and if they rise and go together in one direction and one road, a mile or more, without one leaving the other, they are not separated: only the separation of bodies counts. The option of the sitting (khiyar al-majlis), by contrast, is voided by disregard, whereas here disregard does not count (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 5/215-216; cf. Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 7/137; al-Bahr al-Ra'iq, 6/209; Majma' al-Anhar, 3/162). Muhammad attached this to the option of the sitting to the extent that if one sleeps a long time or shows a sign of disregard, the exchange is void as with that option.

Muhammad also held void the case of a man owed one thousand dirhams by another who owes him fifty dinars: if he sends a messenger who says: "I have sold you the dinars you owe me for the dirhams I owe you," and he accepts, it is void, for the rights of the contract attach to the contracting parties, not to the messenger, and the two are bodily separated. Likewise, if one calls his partner from behind a wall or from a distance, it is not valid, for they are separated at the moment of contract; unlike the ordinary sale, where a messenger validates the contract since taking possession is not a condition of validity there and separation does not void it. What counts is the separation of the two contractors, whether owners or representatives (father, guardian, agent), for taking possession is a right of the contract attaching to the contractors. Bodily separation counts only where it can be considered; otherwise the sitting counts, as in the father who says: "Witness that I bought this dinar from my young son for ten dirhams," then rises before weighing the ten: the contract is void, per Muhammad, for the father is the contractor and bodily separation cannot be considered, and Allah knows best (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 5/215-216).

Sale of a kind against the same kind and against a different kind, such as gold for silver, shares one ruling on taking possession, for all of it is exchange; they differ only on the lawfulness of excess: forbidden at equal kind, lawful at differing kind, but taking possession remains required in both cases (Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 5/215-216). For the Hanafis, mere release does not suffice: mutual taking (taqabud) is required; al-Durr al-Mukhtar says: "mutual taking with the fingers (barajim), not by mere release". Ibn 'Abidin (may Allah have mercy on him) explained: "barajim" is the plural of "burjumah", the joints of the fingers, per the lexicon; the mention of fingers guards against mere release and requires taking by act, so that if the seller places it in his palm or pocket, taking is established (Hashiyat Ibn 'Abidin, 5/258). Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Everything in which excess is forbidden, deferment is forbidden as well, by no disagreement we know of, and separation before taking possession is forbidden, per 'species for species' and 'hand to hand'; the prohibition of deferment is more emphatic" (al-Mughni, 4/30); and: "if the subject of sale is dirhams or dinars, they are taken with the hand" (al-Mughni, 4/90).

The Malikis require one sitting, one time, here and now. Malik reported from Nafi', from 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them), that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "Do not sell gold for gold except like for like, and do not shortchange one over the other; do not sell silver for silver except like for like, and do not shortchange one over the other; do not sell silver for gold, one absent and the other present; and if he asks you to wait until he returns home, do not wait for him: I fear for you the rama, and the rama is riba" (reported by Malik in the Muwatta, no. 1303). Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the scholars differed over the meaning of 'Umar's words regarding how possession is taken in exchange. Malik said: exchange is valid only in immediate presence: if one stays with him from morning to midday sitting, then they part and meet at midday, it is not valid; exchange is valid only at the moment of the verbal offer, and if they move from that place to another, their mutual taking is invalid. Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifah and their partisans say: mutual taking in exchange is valid as long as they have not separated, even if the duration lengthens and they change place. Malik's proof is the Prophet's words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Gold for gold is riba, except hand to hand," which indicates immediacy, not delay; the proof of al-Shafi'i and the Kufans is that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab reported the hadith then said to Talhah: "By Allah, you will not leave him until you take," and added: "and if he asks you to wait until he returns home, do not wait for him": bodily separation is what is meant (al-Istidhkar, 6/355-356; al-Bayan wa-l-Tahsil, 6/441).

Ibn 'Abd al-Barr also said in al-Kafi: nothing in exchange permits delay of an hour or more, nor that one hide himself from his partner before mutual taking; not lawful in it are hawalah (debt transfer), warranty (daman), option, respite, or mere inspection; all of it is here and now, in one sitting and one time. With Malik, one does not exchange for what is not in your possession, nor for what is not present with you, even if it arrives before separation: each of the two parties brings out the species he intends to sell, then they separate with no sale between them; if part of the exchange is delayed, what has been taken of it is void with Malik and the whole is void if it was one transaction.

Whoever exchanged dirhams and finds one dirham short may not have that dirham lent to him to complete the exchange between them as a debt, nor gift it afterwards once he knows it is not permitted: the exchange must be undone and each party take back his cash. Likewise, if after a proper separation one finds a defect in what he took: if he demands completion, the exchange is undone by that taking; if he accepts the defect, the exchange is valid. This applies when the exchange was a whole, with no price named for each dinar; if he exchanged several dinars for dirhams naming the price of each dinar, then finds a defective dinar among the dirhams and wishes to return it, only the exchange of one dinar is undone, if that equals the amount of the returned dirhams or less; if it exceeds it, the exchange of two dinars is undone, and so on proportionally (al-Kafi, pp. 303-304). Some of Malik's companions distinguished here between dirhams counted or measured, between a defect of lead, copper or alloy, and between a short or counterfeit coin. Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam said in Usul al-Buyu': whoever exchanged dinars for dirhams by measure and finds among them a coin short, broken or ugly that does not circulate among people may not return it, and nothing of his exchange is undone for it; but if he finds copper, lead or a plated dirham, he may return it if he wishes, and only one dinar is undone from the exchange. The people of Medina and others hold two views on this: one, he replaces it and nothing of the exchange is undone (the view of al-Layth ibn Sa'd, al-Awza'i and Ahmad ibn Hanbal); the other, the exchange is void for the rejected portion only, remaining valid for what he took, and a group also holds this (al-Kafi, pp. 303-304).

The enumeration of the ribawi commodities and their kinds in the Maliki school

All the fruits of vines are one kind however their qualities differ, since the name grape applies to them all; raisins are one kind however their qualities and lands differ; wheat is all one kind however its qualities differ. Selling dates for raisins, raisins for wheat, or dates for sorghum is lawful with excess after species-for-species exchange, but deferment is forbidden, measure uniting them. The meats of livestock (sheep, goats, ewes, bucks) are all one kind: selling a ewe's meat for its fat, its milk or its wool is lawful with excess by weight, deferment being forbidden, weight uniting them. Cotton thread is not sold for cotton at equal weight, for cotton shrinks when spun, like flour against wheat (al-Mabsut, 12/112; Bada'i' al-Sana'i', 5/183, 185; Mukhtasar al-Waqayat, 2/69, 73; al-Jawharah al-Nirah, 3/119, 133; al-Ikhtiyar, 2/35, 39; al-Lubab, 1/400, 405; Khulasat al-Dala'il, 2/81, 89; al-Hidayah, 2/61; Sharh Fath al-Qadir, 7/4, 8; al-Khulasah al-Fiqhiyyah on the school of the Hanafi masters, 2/70).

The number of ribawi commodities and their kinds with the Malikis is as follows:

• 1. Wheat, barley and sult (pearled barley): these three are one kind by the nearness of their benefit; selling part of them against another with excess is forbidden, even hand to hand.
• 2. 'Alas: close in nature to wheat, the food of the people of Sana'a in Yemen.
• 3. Sorghum (dhurah) and millet (dukhn): a grain smaller than a clover seed, the food of the Sudanese.
• 4. Rice. These four are kinds, each independent of the others: excess is lawful among them by counting, and forbidden within one kind.
• 5. The legumes called qataniyyat: lentils, cowpeas (lubiya), chickpeas, lupins, fava beans, chickling vetch (julban), peas (basilah) and kirsannah; excess is forbidden within one kind and lawful between two kinds; they are called qataniyyat because they dwell in the place, that is, stay in it.
• 6. Dates, raisins and figs: distinct kinds.
• 7. The oily seeds: olives, sesame, safflower, red turnip, flaxseed and mustard: their kinds are like those of their oils, so a ratl of pure oil is sold for two ratls of shayraj (inferior oil), or of "hot" oil, by counting.
• 8. The honeys ('usul), whether from bees, dates, cane or otherwise: kinds in which excess is lawful, as a ratl of cane honey for two ratls of bee honey, hand to hand; forbidden within one type.
• 9. Vinegar and nabidh (sweet infusion): each of them is an independent kind, for what is sought from vinegar is not, by custom, what is sought from nabidh.
• 10. All breads, even if partly made of legumes such as fava beans, or partly of wheat, are one kind: excess in them is forbidden.
• 11. Eggs, of hen or otherwise: one kind; equality is sought, even if it requires one egg for two or more.
• 12. Sugar: all its types are one kind; a ratl of refined sugar (mukarrar) or rock candy (nabat) for two ratls of another type is forbidden.
• 13. All milk, of cow or otherwise, in all its forms (milk, curd, churned butter, beaten milk): one kind.
• 14. Meat of domestic or wild birds (kite, rakhamah): one kind in which excess is forbidden; its cooked form is one kind, however the broth differs.
• 15. Sea creatures, fish and others, small and large: one kind.
• 16. All quadrupeds, of livestock (sheep, cattle) or wild (gazelle, wild ox, wild ass): one kind in which excess is forbidden; their cooked form is one kind, however the broth differs.

What completes ribawi food is annexed to it and falls under riba of surplus: what without it the food yields no benefit, such as salt, onion, garlic, and the spices (pepper, coriander, caraway, aniseed, cumin, anise); these are distinct kinds between which excess is lawful by counting.

What is not ribawi

• 1. Medicine is not ribawi, such as colocynth (hanzal), harmal and the other simples.
• 2. Balah (the small date formed before ripening) is not ribawi, for it is not intended for eating; unlike the ripened fruit: it rises from busr (tender fruit) to rutab then tamr (dry date), all ribawi by consensus.
• 3. Fenugreek, dry or green.
• 4. Fruits (pomegranates, peaches) are not ribawi, even preserved in syrup, such as apples, almonds and hazelnuts.
• 5. Water, sweet or salt, is not ribawi, nor even food.

The small balah and water may be sold deferred like medicines, for they are like commodities (Mawahib al-Jalil, 6/170; al-Taj wa-l-Iklil, 3/352, 370; Hashiyat al-Dasuqi on al-Sharh al-Kabir, 4/74; Ibn 'Arafah's al-Mukhtasar al-Fiqhi, 7/466; Sharh Miyarah, 1/488; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 5/57; al-Fawakih al-Dawani, 2/75; Minh al-Jalil, 5/3; Tahrir al-Kalimat, 5/100 and 3/519).

The Shafi'is said: riba is forbidden in every food, measured, weighed or neither, and not in what is not food: it occurs in quince, watermelon, pomegranate and vegetables. Food is what is generally prepared for nourishment, accompaniment, snacking or medicine: grains, stews, sweets, fruits, vegetables, spices and medicines, and rare cases such as acorns and turthuth, a known plant, eaten alone or mixed. The prohibition of riba extends to all medicines, such as the myrobalans (ihlilaj, amlaj) and scammony, and to water. As for fatty substances, they are of three types: those prepared for eating (butter, sann, olive oil, shayraj, oils of walnut, almond, terebinth, turnip, mustard, pine), in which riba applies since they are eaten medicinally; those intended for perfume (oils of violet, rose, jasmine, camphor, ban), in which riba also applies: none of these oils may be sold part for part with excess, nor part of them for shayraj with excess, without disagreement, for all of it is shayraj whose scent varies with what adjoins it; and what is intended for lighting (fish oil, linseed and its oil) is not ribawi. Whatever is neither gold nor silver nor edible nor drinkable carries no riba: excess and deferment are lawful, and separation before taking possession is lawful (al-Majmu', 9/380, 387; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 2/444, 449; al-Najm al-Wahhaj, 4/57; Nihayat al-Muhtaj with al-Shabramilisi's gloss, 3/487; al-Dibaj, 2/29; al-Siraj al-Wahhaj, p. 210; the gloss of Qalyubi and 'Umayrah on I'anat al-Talibin, 2/421; al-Bayan fi madhhab al-imam al-Shafi'i, 5/169).

The Hanbalis said: the measured comprises the other grains, oily seeds and liquids; but water is not ribawi, for it is not customarily hoarded and its default is permissibility. Among measured, edible fruits are: dates, raisins, pistachios, hazelnuts, almonds, terebinth pistachios (butm), hawthorn (za'ror), jujubes, apricots, olives and salt. The weighed comprises gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, flax thread, cotton, silk, hemp, wax, saffron, bread and cheese, due to the custom of weighing them among the people of the Hijaz, per Ibn 'Umar's hadith: "The measure is the measure of the people of Medina, and the weight is the weight of the people of Mecca" (authentic hadith: al-Bayhaqi, 6/31; 'Abd ibn Humayd, no. 803; al-Nasa'i in al-Kubra, 2/29; al-Tabarani, 12/392). What has no custom in Medina or Mecca follows its custom where it is, for what has no custom in the Law reverts to custom (as with taking possession and safekeeping); if lands differ, the prevalent one is considered, otherwise what most resembles it in the Hijaz. Every liquid is measured, and dealing by a measure not in use is lawful. The rest is counted (ma'dud): no riba occurs in it, even if edible, such as watermelon, cucumber, khiyar, walnut, egg, pomegranate. Nor in what craft removes from weight by increasing its value: garments, weapons, coins even if debased, and vessels, for lack of text and consensus, except gold and silver, in which riba occurs by explicit text.

Meat is validly sold for its like if the bone is removed, fresh or dry; with the bone it is not valid, for lack of known equality; dry for fresh is not valid, for lack of equivalence. Meat may be sold against an animal of a different kind, as a piece of camel meat for a sheep, since it is neither its origin nor its kind; but it is not sold against an animal of its kind: Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) "forbade the sale of meat for the animal" (hasan hadith: Muwatta, 2/655; al-Daraqutni, no. 319; al-Hakim, 2/35; al-Bayhaqi, 5/296), for it is selling a kind against its origin, like oil for olives. Ribawi flour is validly sold for its flour if they are equal in fineness or coarseness. The sale of rutab for rutab, grapes for grapes, dry for dry (dates for dates, raisins for raisins), juice for juice (a mud of grape juice for its like), cooked for cooked (cow ghee for cow ghee) is valid, like for like, hand to hand.

Wheat bread is validly sold for wheat bread by weight, like for like, on condition they are equal in dryness or moisture, not if they differ: equivalence in bread is by weight, like dryness, for it is by weight that it is customarily valued, bread not being measurable; if it dries and crumbles, it is sold like for like by measure. A derivative is not validly sold against its origin: oil against olives, shayraj against sesame, cheese against milk, bread against dough, for lack of equality or ignorance of it. Nor are rutab validly sold for dates, nor grapes for raisins: asked about that sale, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Do the rutab diminish when they dry?" They said yes, and he forbade it (authentic hadith: Abu Dawud, no. 3359; al-Tirmidhi, no. 1225; al-Nasa'i, no. 4545; Ibn Majah, no. 2264; Ahmad, 1/175, from Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas).

Muhaqalah (sale of grain still in the spikes against its kind) is not valid, but is valid against another kind, per Anas's hadith (may Allah be pleased with him) in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade muhaqalah; Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) defined it: the sale of grain for one hundred farq of wheat (a farq is sixteen ratls per al-'Iraqi, the famous view among philologists, and Abu 'Ubayd reports three sa's; al-Matali', p. 132; reported by Bukhari, no. 2207), for it is selling grain against its kind, roughly and from one side, for lack of known equality.

Muzabanah (sale of dates on the palm for dates) is not valid, except in the case of 'araya: selling the fresh dates of a palm for their dry equivalent by measure, in less than five awsuq, for a needy person wanting rutab, without a price, on condition of delivery and taking possession before separation; it is not valid for the rest of the fruits, but is valid against another kind, grain or otherwise, such as selling wheat standing in spikes for barley or silver, since equality is not required.

A ribawi commodity is not validly sold against its kind with something added, nor one of the two against a different kind: such as a mud of 'ajwah with a dirham against its like or two muds, or for two dirhams, or a dinar with a dirham for one weighed dinar, out of caution on the matter of riba. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was brought a necklace with gold and beads; a man bought it for nine dinars or seven, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "No, until you separate the two"; he returned it until he had separated the gold from the beads (reported by Muslim, no. 4159, and Abu Dawud, no. 3353, from Fadalah ibn 'Ubayd). But if the addition is negligible and not intended, as salt in bread sold at equal weight, or barley grains in wheat, it counts as nothing, for salt does not affect the weight.

Valid is: "Give me silver for half this dirham, and fulus (base coin) for the other half," for equality lies in the silver and taking possession in the fulus. Riba of deferment is forbidden between two sales sharing the cause of riba of surplus: one is not sold for the other deferred, per the Prophet's words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "When these categories differ, sell as you wish, hand to hand." Except if one of the two counter-values is a price, that is, gold or silver, as sugar for dirhams, bread for dinars, iron, lead or copper for gold or silver: the deferred sale is valid, else the door of salam would close for most weighed goods, while the Law has eased its way and the two monies are the root of its capital; as soon as one counter-value is a price and the other a priced good, deferment is lawful. What does not fall under riba of surplus, such as garments and animals, does not forbid deferment: 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered him to equip an army, and he took a camel for two among the zakah camels (hasan hadith: Abu Dawud, no. 3357; Ahmad, 2/171).

A debt is not validly sold for a debt: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade selling kila' for kila' (goods on credit), that is, selling what is owed for a deferred price on the very debtor, or for cash not yet taken before separation, or making it the capital of a salam (weak hadith: al-Daraqutni, no. 319).

The exchange of gold for gold and silver for silver is valid at equivalence, by weight not counting, on condition of taking possession before separation; if the two exchangers separate before mutual taking, the exchange is void, for taking possession is a condition of the contract's validity, per the Prophet's words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "sell gold for silver as you wish, hand to hand" (reported by Muslim, no. 1587). Length of sitting does no harm as long as they remain together; if they walk to one party's house together, it is valid; the agent's taking before his principal leaves the sitting is like the principal's taking; and if one of the two dies before the taking, the contract is void.

The wisdom of forbidding riba of deferment in foodstuffs

Also valid is offsetting one money against the other at its price of the day, the exchange being by species and debt. Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: I came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and said: "I sell camels for naqi' (soaked nabidh); I sell for dinars and take dirhams, and I sell for dirhams and take dinars." He said: "No harm in taking at their price of the day as long as you do not part and there is something between you" (weak hadith; al-Mughni, 4/27-37; Kashshaf al-Qina', 3/292, 308; Manar al-Sabil, 2/45, 55; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 3/246, 266; al-Rawd al-Murbi', 1/579, 587; al-Insaf, 5/12, 20; I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, 2/400). Part of these sales will come under the chapter of forbidden sales, with the scholars' disagreement, Allah willing.

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: the four edible categories are the object of people's greatest need, for they are the world's staples and what completes them. Care for people's interests led to forbidding them to sell one part against another deferred, kind equal or differing, and to sell one part against another cash with excess even if their qualities differ, while permitting them excess between differing kinds (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, 2/402, 405).

The secret, and Allah knows best: had deferment been permitted among them, no one would do it except to gain; then his soul would grow stingy about selling cash, greedy for profit, and food would grow scarce for the needy whose harm intensifies. Most of the earth's people have neither dirhams nor dinars, especially the townsfolk and the desert dwellers, and they pass food from hand to hand. The Lawgiver's mercy toward them therefore forbade deferment riba in food as in prices; otherwise the formula "will you pay, or will you let it grow" would enter it, and a single sa', if taken, would become many qafiz; they would then be weaned from deferment, then weaned from selling it with excess hand to hand, for the sweetness of profit drives them to trade in it deferred, which is corruption itself. With two distinct kinds it is different: forcing equality in their sale would harm them and they would not do it, and permitting deferment between them is a path to "will you pay, or will you let it grow"; so completing care for their interests meant restricting them to selling it hand to hand as they wish, securing the benefit of immediate exchange and warding off the corruption of deferment. Unlike selling for dirhams or other weighed goods deferred: need calls for that, and forbidding it would harm them and block salam, which is among their interests for what they need more than others; the Law does not come with that. There is no need for them to sell these categories part for part deferred, which is a very near path to the corruption of riba; so what their need calls to was permitted for them in all that, being no path to a grave corruption, and they were forbidden what need does not call to and which usually serves as a path to a grave corruption.

This is clarified by one who owns one of these categories and needs another: he needs to sell his for dirhams to buy the other, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Sell the lot for dirhams, then buy jaynib with the dirhams"; or to sell it against that same category at equality; in either case he needs to sell cash. Unlike being allowed deferment: then he would sell it with excess and need to buy the other category with excess, for its owner would let it grow on him as he let it grow on another: deferment would thus produce loss on both sides, and deferment in two categories, as in one type, is the source of harm and corruption.

Reflect on what deferment is forbidden in: it is either one category, or two categories of one purpose or near purposes, such as dirhams and dinars, wheat and barley, dates and raisins; when the purposes diverge, deferment is not forbidden, as wheat and garments, iron and oil. Had selling a mud of wheat for two muds been permitted, it would be ready trade, and souls would seek deferred trade for the sweetness of gain: they were therefore forbidden it, and forbidden separation before taking possession, to complete this wisdom and guard this benefit. The two contractors may contract for immediate delivery, custom proceeding on each party's patience with the other; as the practitioners of stratagems do who conclude a contract having agreed on something else, as they conclude a marriage having agreed on the divorce that makes the woman lawful again (tahlil), and conclude the sale of goods for a term having agreed he will return them without that price. Had separation before taking been permitted them, they would sell cash and defer the claim for profit, falling into the same peril (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, 2/402, 405).

The cause of forbidding riba of surplus in dirhams and dinars

The secret of the matter: they were forbidden trade in prices at equal kind, for that corrupts the purpose of prices, and trade in staples at equal kind, for that corrupts the purpose of staples. The same meaning exists in selling silver ingot (tibr) and coined (ayn): tibr has no craft sought for itself, so it is like the dirhams whose equality the Lawgiver willed; hence his words: "its tibr and its ayn are equal." Thus appears the wisdom of forbidding deferment riba between kind and kinds, and riba of surplus within one kind: the first prohibition concerns purposes, the second means and the closing of paths; nothing of riba of deferment is therefore permitted (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, 2/402, 405).

The jurists differed over the cause of forbidding riba of surplus in dirhams and dinars (gold and silver), in two opinions:

• First opinion: the cause is their being weighed (mauzunayn): the view of the Hanafis and the Hanbalis in the madhhab.
• Second opinion: the view of the Malikis, the Shafi'is and Ahmad in one narration, that the cause of riba in the two monies is money-ness (thamaniyyah), that is, being the price of things generally in all the lands of the world; and with the Shafi'is and Ahmad in that narration the cause is restricted to the two, gold and silver, for money-ness is an attribute of nobility by which wealth subsists. Were the cause of prices weight, the exchange of the two monies for weighed goods deferred would not be lawful, for one of the two attributes of riba of surplus suffices to forbid deferment.

Imam al-Mawardi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: as for the cause of riba in gold and silver, al-Shafi'i's school is that it is being the kind of prices generally; some of our companions said: the value of destroyed goods (mutallafat) generally; and some of our companions combined the two, all of it near (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 5/91-92). Abu Hanifah, for his part, made the cause of gold and silver being weighed of a kind, as he made the cause of wheat and barley being measured, his proofs being shared between the two questions, and he devoted the argument in this question to establishing his cause and invalidating ours, with three arguments:

• Riba in gold and silver is established by explicit text; extracting a cause that would not transmit the ruling beyond them is pointless, whereas explanation by weight is transmissive and by prices not transmissive.
• Were gold and silver explained by money-ness (which is not transmissive), they could also be explained by being silver and gold (not transmissive either); since gold cannot be explained by its being gold, nor silver by its being silver, for lack of transmission, they cannot be explained by money-ness for lack of transmission.
• Explanation by prices is contradicted both ways: directly, by fulus, which are prices in some lands with no riba in them among you; and inversely, by vessels of gold and silver, which are not prices yet carry riba; explanation by weight is continuous, contradicted by no direct or inverse counter-case.

The proof of the validity of our cause and the invalidity of his, besides what preceded from him, is threefold:

• Explanation by weight establishes riba in weighed copper, lead, cotton and flax; were riba established in worked copper by the cause of weight as in gold and silver, worked and broken copper would stand equal in forbidding excess, as worked and broken gold and silver stand equal; yet they permitted excess in worked copper and lead against unworked (a basin for two basins, a sword for two swords) while forbidding excess in worked gold and silver, forbidding a ring for two rings and a bracelet for two bracelets: the two differ in cause and ruling, and had they shared the cause they would share the ruling; weight is therefore not the cause of the ruling.
• Were weight in gold and silver the cause establishing riba in weighed copper and lead, exchanging gold and silver for copper and lead deferred would have to be forbidden, since they share the cause of riba, as silver for gold is forbidden for their shared cause; since exchanging gold and silver for copper and lead is lawful while silver for gold is not, the ruling differs between silver and gold, and copper and lead, in the cause of riba; weight is therefore not the cause of riba. Al-Shafi'i argued with these two proofs against weight being the cause of riba.
• The usul establish that when a ruling is suspended on gold and silver it is restricted to them without analogy: see how zakah, suspended on them, did not extend to copper or other weighed goods, and how drinking in vessels of silver and gold was forbidden, the prohibition restricted to them over all other vessels; likewise the riba suspended on them must be restricted to them, its cause not transmitting beyond them (al-Hawi al-Kabir, 5/91-92; al-Mughni, 4/26, 28; al-Insaf, 5/11).

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) reported the two views and held money-ness to be the truth: "Some said the cause in them is their being weighed; this is Ahmad's view in one of the two narrations from him, and Abu Hanifah's. Others said the cause is money-ness; this is al-Shafi'i's, Malik's and Ahmad's view in the other narration, and this is the correct view, indeed the sound one: they agreed on the lawfulness of exchanging them for weighed goods such as copper and iron; were copper and iron ribawi, selling them deferred for cash dirhams would be forbidden, since whatever carries riba permits excess between differing kinds without deferment, and a cause annulled by another operative difference proves its invalidity. Besides, explanation by weight has no suitability, being pure transmission, unlike explanation by money-ness: dirhams and dinars are the prices of goods, and the price is the standard by which wealth is valued; it must therefore be fixed and stable, neither rising nor falling; were the price to rise and fall like commodities, we would have no price by which to value goods, and all would be commodities. People's need for a price by which to value goods is vital and general, possible only through a value by which worth is known, and that only through a price by which things are valued while it stands on one state and is not valued against others, for it would become a commodity rising and falling, corrupting people's dealings, with discrepancy and grave harm, as you saw of the corruption of their dealings and the harm that befell them when fulus were made a commodity prepared for profit: harm spread and injustice prevailed. Had they been made a single price that neither increases nor decreases, things being valued by it and not it by others, people's affair would be right. Had riba of surplus in dirhams and dinars been permitted, such as giving sound coins and taking broken ones, or light for heavy in greater number, they would become merchandise, or it would lead to riba of deferment in them necessarily; for prices are not sought for themselves but as a means to goods: if they became goods sought for themselves, people's affair would be corrupted. This is a rational meaning specific to monies, not extending to other weighed goods." (I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, 2/401-402.)

Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "The most apparent is that the cause in that is money-ness, not weight, as most scholars said; excess is not forbidden in other weighed goods, such as lead, iron, silk, cotton and flax. Among the proofs is the scholars' agreement on the lawfulness of exchanging the two monies for weighed goods, which is selling a weighed good for a weighed good deferred; were the cause weight, this would be forbidden. The objector says this permission is istihsan (juristic preference), contrary to the cause, and that it was permitted for need while analogy forbids it: he must then make the cause of riba what he mentioned, which contradicts his view. The specification of a cause, even if called istihsan when unexplained, is a legal proof requiring that the ruling be suspended on the mentioned cause and restricting the case by a meaning that prevents the ruling from being established by the general texts and hadiths; otherwise the cause would be invalid. Explanation by money-ness is explanation by a suitable attribute: the purpose of prices is to be a standard of wealth by which wealth's measures are known, not to be benefited from in themselves; when part of them is sold against part deferred, trade is intended, contradicting the purpose of money-ness; requiring immediacy and mutual taking completes its purpose of serving to obtain claims, for that occurs only by taking them, not by their being owed, they being a price from both sides; the Lawgiver therefore forbade selling a price for a price deferred. When fulus become prices, the meaning applies: a price is not sold for a price deferred." (Majmu' al-Fatawa, 29/471-472.)