Riba in the Qur`an

Chapter III
Riba in the Qur`an:
A Detailed Examination of Relevant Verses
By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat
(August 2005)
In this chapter we turn to the Qur`anic verses about riba. As noted earlier, the Qur`an
assumes in the main the pre-Islamic concept of riba, which is not identified with interest
of every type but with the particular interest charged when a loan cannot be paid at due
date except possibly with undue difficulty. In the light of the Qur`an it is possible to
make the concept of “undue difficulty” more precise: payment of a loan, in part or in full,
is considered to cause undue difficulty to the borrower if after this payment he would
become eligible to receive zakah. Of course, eligibility for zakah itself needs to be made
precise. But in view of the obligatory status of zakah, we can clearly assume that every
Muslim society in every age has worked out a precise definition of this concept (see the
Conclusion for one such definition.)
The above conclusion means that interest can be charged on the original loan, unless, of
course, the borrower is already in serious financial difficulty at the time the original loan
is granted. This would no doubt appear to many as a shocking interpretation but it is not
only voiced by other Muslim writers1 but is also supported by what most fuqaha consider
to be perfectly permissible: increasing the price of an item in exchange for deferring
payment for a specified time. Writers have pointed out differences between charging
interest on a loan of money and increasing price of a product for deferment, but these
differences are not of any real significance (see Chapter IV).
We now examine the relevant Qur`anic verses to support the above conclusion.
(A)
The Ten Qur`anic Statements about Riba
The Qur`an has four passages found in four different surahs in which riba is condemned
or prohibited. These passages, in probable chronological order, are: 30:39, 4:161, 3:130,
2:275-280 (see Section B where they are reproduced with English translation). Before
examining these passages in detail, it needs to be noted that the first passage, 30:39, has
been considered by some commentators as not about riba as a type of interest. They are
of the view that the word riba in this verse means a gift offered by someone to a person
2
with the hope that the latter will give him in return a greater gift. But most commentators
have come to hold the view that riba in this verse, as elsewhere in the Qur`an refers to a
type of interest. In what follows we accept this latter view (see Chapter IV, Section D for
a more detailed discussion of this issue), although our main conclusion will remain
unchanged if this verse is not considered.
The contents of the four Qur`anic passages mentioned above can be conveniently divided
into ten statements about riba.
1) Riba is a type of increase in a loan.
2) Taking riba is zulm on the borrower.
3) Depriving the lender of ra`s al-mal is zulm.
4) Riba often involved doubling and redoubling of the debt.:
5) Charity is an alternative or an opposite to riba.
6) Riba is not like sale.
7) Riba leads to destruction and sadaqah to growth.
8) Dealing in riba is gaining through the wealth of other people.
9) Riba was prohibited earlier for the Jews.
10) Taking riba is a very serious sin.
Let us examine these ten statements in detail.
First, riba is a type of increase in a loan.
This is clear from the following verses:
O you who believe! Be mindful of God and give up what remains of al-riba if you
are believers. If you do not do so, then receive a declaration of war from God and
his Messenger. But if you repent, you shall have your capital sums (ru`us alamwal).
You do not deal unjustly and you are not dealt with unjustly (2:278-279)
It should be noted, however, that while it is clear from the above verses that riba is some
type of increase on the capital sum, they or other Qur`anic verses do not provide basis
to say that every increase in the capital sum is riba, even if it is pre-determined.
That is, although riba is interest, the Qur`an does not provide basis to consider interest in
every lending arrangement as riba. On the contrary, many of the other statements in the
Qur`an about riba to be discussed below show that the equation riba = interest is not
assumed in the Qur`an.
It may also be noted here that there are at least three traditions about the background of
the revelation of the verses 2:278-279. Only one of these traditions clarifies the exact
concept of riba involved and this concept corresponds exactly to what we have proposed
here, namely, that riba is the increase charged at maturity in case the loan cannot be paid
except with undue difficulty. The tradition given by Baghawi reads:
3
Regarding the word of God: “O believers! Be mindful of God and forego what
remains of riba”, ‘Ata and ‘Ikrimah said that it was revealed concerning al-
‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib and ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan who bought some dates (not
yet harvested). When the time came for harvesting, the owner of the dates said to
them: If the two of you took what is owed to you, I would not have enough for my
children. So would you take half and delay the delivery of the remaining half and
I double it for you? So they acted accordingly and when the agreed time came
they asked for the increased amount. This reached the Messenger of God and he
prohibited it to them. Then God Most High sent down this ayah. So they heard
and obeyed and took only the capital amount.
In 2:280 the Qur`an says “if (the debtor) is in time of hardship, then (grant him) respite
till time of ease”. The use of “if” here suggests that some debtors may not be in hard
times and yet even in their case the increase is being cancelled. But these debtors might
have had only the ability to pay the capital sum and not the interest that had been piled
up. It should be noted that, as shown by the above tradition about al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-
Muttalib and ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, riba often involved doubling the debt in case of nonpayment,
so that payment of capital sum with interest was in many cases much harder
than payment of the capital sum alone.
Second, taking riba is zulm on the borrower.
This is clear from the words, “you do not deal unjustly and you are not dealt with
unjustly” in the verse 2:279 quoted above. The statement that taking riba is zulm clearly
fits with the understanding of riba proposed in this book, since charging interest on a
loan that the borrower has serious difficulty in paying is zulm within the Islamic
perspective. In that perspective those who are in serious difficulties have a right on the
wealth of those who are well off. To deny them this right and then, on top of this,
increase their debt by interest is clearly zulm. In contrast, the simple definition, riba =
interest does not allow us to understand how taking riba is zulm, since there are lending
arrangements with interest that clearly do not constitute zulm on the borrower; rather they
help him to improve his economic situation. Again, an example is a loan to buy a house
on mortgage, which, far from being a zulm on the borrower, helps him to become a
property owner.
Because taking riba is a serious case of zulm, Qur`an 2:278 cancels all unpaid riba
accrued before the revelation of that verse. Like the statement that taking riba is zulm,
this cancellation also becomes problematic if riba is identified with interest absolutely.
For, there is extensive evidence that in Arabia, both before and after Islam, loans were
often advanced for trade. It is not clear what were the exact terms under which these
loans were granted. If they were granted on a fixed interest and that interest was covered
under the definition of riba, then in some cases the general Qur`anic cancellation of riba
would mean that the borrower earned a huge profit – sometimes as much as 100% --
while the lender ended up with nothing. We expect the Qur`an to refine its cancellation of
riba to differentiate between various cases, especially in view of its concern to avoid zulm
on both the lender and the borrower. The fact that it does not do so becomes
4
understandable only if we define riba in the limited sense in which it was understood
before Islam.
It is significant also that the Qur`an does not condemn or prohibit giving riba, but only
taking it. This is evidently because a person who takes a loan on riba is a victim of zulm.
He would not get such a loan unless compelled by circumstances to do so. Hence it is not
necessary to prohibit giving riba. It would be like prohibiting a woman from being raped
or prohibiting a man from being robbed.
Unlike the Qur`an, there are some ahadith that do prohibit paying riba just as they
prohibit taking riba. But more than reasonable doubts can be raised about the reliability
of these ahadith, on the basis of which we can reject them as falsely attributed to the Holy
Prophet (see Chapter IV). These ahadith most probably reflect a later, un-Qur`anic,
understanding of riba, equating it with interest in all its forms. In this understanding
interest becomes an evil in itself regardless of whether or not it causes any zulm on the
borrower and so giving interest or taking interest or facilitating a deal involving interest
are all seen as sinful. But in the Qur`an riba is limited to interest that constitutes zulm on
the borrower, which he is expected to accept only when forced by circumstances to do so.
Consequently, the Qur`an does not prohibit giving riba, only taking it.
:Third, depriving the lender of ra`s al-mal is zulm.
This is clear from the same words in verse 2:279 that make charging riba a zulm on the
borrower. Since many cases of lending involved sale of items on credit, ra`s al-mal
(principal sum) would be naturally the price of the item with any increase added to it for
deferment, and not the price for cash sale. By the same token, if the loan was in the form
of money, then ra`s al-mal would be the amount of loan plus any increase for deferment.
In other words, ra`s al-mal is the amount due at the time when loan could not be paid by
the borrower for financial difficulties. At that point no increase could be added to the
loan.
That depriving the lender ra`s al-mal is a form of zulm is a remarkable statement whose
full implications have not been realized by Islamic writers. This statement does not seem
to fit well with the view that if a loan is given for use in trading, then the lender must
share with the borrower profit as well as loss. For, clearly when both profit as well as loss
must be shared, the lender cannot be guaranteed the principal. But the Qur`an without any
qualifications guarantees the principal.
Elsewhere in the Qur`an and in the Hadith also we do not find any statement of the
principle that profit as well as loss has to be shared in case of a loan for business.
Consequently, the Qur`anic guarantee of ra`s al-mal must be viewed as applicable
generally. Those with the common understanding of riba say that in the Qur`an riba is not
qualified in any way and therefore all interest is prohibited. We would say to them: then
use your logic consistently. The Qur`an lays no conditions for the return of the principal.
So under all loan transactions, the principal remains due.
5
The general Qur`anic guarantee of ra`s al-mal has three possible explanations:
First, in the Qur`an, ra`s al-mal refers not to the original amount of the loan but to the
amount due at the end of the term. In case of a loan for trade, it equals the original
amount plus profit or minus loss. This view, mentioned here only as a theoretical
possibility, is never proposed by any scholar and has no support in the Qur`an or in the
Arabic understanding of the word ra`s al-mal. It should be rejected.
Second, the Qur`an is not talking about loans advanced for trade but only those for
purchasing items the borrower needs for his personal use. If we agree with this, then we
have to agree that riba is not prohibited by the Qur`an for business loans. This possibility
is most unlikely, because the Qur`an does not provide any indication at all for excluding
loans for business. Moreover, the term ra`s al-mal is often applied in the business
context. One dictionary2, in fact, applies it only in that context, defining it as jumlah almal
allati tustathmar fi ‘aml ma (the total amount that is invested in some business).
Third, the Qur`an does not accept the principle that in case of a loan for trade, the loss
has to be necessarily shared. It is this explanation that is the most reasonable.
The definition of riba in the pre-Islamic time assumed in the Qur`an implies that initially
two parties in a transaction involving credit can agree on almost any terms that each of
them finds advantageous, including a loan for a specified term with interest, provided the
borrower is not compelled by serious financial difficulties to get the loan or ask for an
extension in the term. It is significant that just after the verses prohibiting riba (2:275-
281) the Qur`an gives elaborate rules about writing and witnessing agreements about
transactions involving credit but does not give any guidance as to the contents of the
agreement. This means that the Qur`an is not too concerned about the terms of a
transaction, but concerned mostly about ensuring that those terms are clearly understood,
remembered, and respected by the parties. This is because these rules for writing and
witnessing together with the rule to fulfill agreements and prohibition of riba would
normally ensure that no party exploits the other.
In order to get an idea of the diversity of arrangements under which business investments
can be made without violating the Qur`an, let us consider two simple but very basic ways
one party can give mal to another for business:
1) The parties become partners in the business in the sense that they have
joint ownership of the business and both parties contribute something to
the business, one of them possibly contributing only labor or skill. And
they run it together. In this case, it is natural that the partners share both
profit and loss according to some formula, although nowhere the Qur`an
and the ahadith say that they have to: if one partner voluntarily agrees to
give all the profit to the other while accepting all the loss himself, there is
nothing that prevents him from doing so.
2) One person (investor) gives to another (‘amil or active partner) some mal
with the understanding that it will be used for a business. The investor in
6
this case has no ownership rights in the business and does not contribute to
the running of the business. In this case there are several possibilities, each
of which is permissible:
i) The investor contributes his mal as a loan without interest to be
returned on demand or after a fixed term without any increase or
decrease. The loan in this case is given to help the ‘amil and not for
profit. Or, it is given for safekeeping.
ii) The investor contributes his mal as a loan given on interest for a
fixed period. We have argued in this book that this is permissible
as long as the ‘amil is solvent and freely accepts the loan with full
understanding of its terms.
iii) The investor and the ‘amil share profit/loss according to some
mutually agreed upon percentages, which would naturally take into
consideration any assets that the ‘amil is contributing such as
factory, employees etc. The maximum loss that the investor can
incur is naturally the amount of his investment while in case of the
‘amil it is the total assets of his business and all his time and effort.
iv) In case of a profit the investor and the ‘amil share the profit
according to some mutually agreed upon percentage. In case of a
loss, the ‘amil bears the loss. The investor’s capital is secure. This
is really a loan in which interest is replaced by a percentage of the
profit. This is permissible because the Qur`an gives a general
guarantee of the principal sum.
v) In case of a profit the investor and the ‘amil share the profit
according to some mutually agreed upon percentages. But in case
of a loss, the investor bears the loss upto the amount of his
investment. The ‘amil does not incur any losses unless the losses
exceed the amount advanced by the investor. And, of course, the
‘amil looses part or whole of the time and effort he put into the
business. This arrangement is permissible because it falls under the
category of muqaradah (or mudarabah or qirad)3, which is
permissible4 even by the agreement of the sholars5, although it is
hardly mentioned in the Qur`an and the Hadith6.
Erosion of the value of money due to inflation
In connection with preventing injustice to the lender there arises the question of erosion
of the value of money over time. Even Usmani recognizes the validity of this point:
[This question] is certainly relevant to the individual loans and unpaid debts.
There are many cases where the creditors really face hardships, especially where
the value of the currency fell to an unimaginable extent, as happened in Turkey,
Syria, Lebanon, and in the States of the former Soviet Union. In our country
[Pakistan] too, the value of the rupee today is much less than it was before 1970.
The question is whether a person who has advanced a sum of Rs.1000/-before
7
1970 and the debtor did not pay the principal till today is entitled to get the same
Rs.1000/-, while this amount has remained not more than Rs.100/- in real terms?
… But we feel that this question needs a more thorough research which before its
final decision in this Court should first be initiated by different study circles of the
country, especially, by the Council of Islamic Ideology and the Commission for
the Islamization of Economy. (185-187)
But while some7 scholars recognize the injustice done to the lender due to inflation, not
many are willing to recognize the obvious fact that apart from inflation the lender bears a
cost in depriving himself for a period the use of the mal loaned. Moreover, he also takes a
risk of losing a part or whole amount lent either because the borrower may refuse to pay
or may not be able to pay. It is only fair to compensate him for this cost whenever
possible without causing severe difficulty to the borrower. The definition of riba in pre-
Islamic times assumed in the Qur`an easily takes care of this without extensive studies by
this or that council or commission. The solution is as follows: In a lending arrangement
for a specific period the lender decides how much interest he needs to charge in order to
cover the erosion of the value of money due to inflation, the cost of depriving himself the
use of the money to be lent for the given period, and the risk of whole or part of the loan
not being returned for one reason or another. The borrower on his part needs to decide
whether the improvement in his economic situation due to the loan justifies the interest.
When both parties find the interest rate agreeable, then the loan is advanced. At the due
date if the borrower is willing and able to pay the due amount (loan + interest) well and
good. If he is able but not willing to pay, then legal action can be taken to recover the due
amount plus such additional costs and interest as are within the means of the borrower. If
he is not able to pay, then the interest is forgone and the principal is recovered without
causing severe difficulties to the borrower. In case the need of the lender is also severe,
then the lender and the borrower may come to an agreement together, either on their own
or through a court, as to what portion of the loan is to be returned.
Two scholars’ rationalization of the assumed prohibition of all interest on
business loans
USMANI
Expressing the customary view, Usmani says:
Another major difference between the secular capitalist system and the Islamic
principles is that under the former system, loans are purely commercial
transactions meant to yield a fixed income to the lenders. Islam, on the other
hand, does not recognize loans as income-generating transactions. They are meant
only for those lenders who do not intend to earn a worldly return through them.
They, instead, lend their money either on humanitarian grounds to achieve a
reward in the hereafter, or merely to save their money through a safer hand. So far
as investment is concerned, there are several other modes of investment like
partnership etc which may be used for that purpose. The transactions of loan are
not meant for earning income. (Para 153)
8
As noted earlier, the principle assumed above by Usmani -- that the only basis for a party
to advance money to another for business is sharing both the profit and the loss -- cannot
be derived from the Qur`an or ahadith. Therefore, Usmani supports the principle on the
basis of some common-sense reasons. Thus he says:
Conversely, if the intent of sharing the profit of the borrower is designed on the
basis of an interest-based loan, it will mean that the financier wants to ensure his
own profit, while he leaves the profit of the borrower at the mercy of the actual
outcome of the business. There may be a situation where the business of the
borrower totally fails. In this situation he will not only bear the whole loss of the
business, but he also will have to pay interest to the lender, meaning thereby that
the profit or interest of the financier is guaranteed at the price of the destructive
loss of the borrower, which is obviously a glaring injustice.
On the other hand, if the business of the borrower earns huge profits, the financier
should have shared in the profit in reasonable proportion, but in an interest-based
system, the profit of the financier is restricted to a fixed rate of return which is
governed by the forces of supply and demand of money and not on the actual
profits produced on the ground. This rate of interest may be much less than the
reasonable proportion a financier might have deserved, had it been a joint venture.
In this case the major part of the profit is secured by the borrower, while the
financier gets much less than deserved by his input in the business, which is
another form of injustice.
Thus, financing a business on the basis of interest creates an unbalanced
atmosphere which has the potential of bringing injustice to either of the two
parties in different situations. (Para 156-158)
This type of extra-Islamic rationalization is often presented but closer examination shows
it to be fallacious. The interest charged on loan given for business need not be considered
a way of sharing the profit that one hopes the business would generate. It is charged for
exactly the same reason for which the price of an item is increased when the payment is
deferred, that is, because the lender takes the risk of loosing part or all of his loan,
relinquishes the use of his mal for a period of time and some erosion of the value of his
mal is very likely to take place during the term of the loan. If the loan is used by the
borrower for business and he makes more than the interest he has to pay, then this is not
injustice to the lender. Similarly, it is not injustice to the borrower if he incurs loss or
makes a profit less than the interest. We can understand this point better by thinking of
another situation considered perfectly permissible even by those who identify riba with
all forms of interest:
Suppose you want to keep some money for safe keeping with me. I say to you: if you
keep this money in trust with me, I will not be responsible for it if something happens to
it. Give it to me as a loan without interest and then I will be responsible for returning it to
you, even if it gets lost for some reason or the other. You agree with this suggestion for it
is obviously better for you. I invest the money in business and return it to you without
9
increase or decrease when you require it or when a fixed mutually agreed upon term
expires. If I make profit I keep it and if I incur loss I have to bear it. All this is considered
perfectly legal in traditional fiqh and in fact it is reported that some sahabah such as al-
Zubayr bin ‘Awwam used to do so (Usmani 88 f (ii); Bukhari 4/358=28978, Muwatta
32/1=11959). Therefore, according to traditional fiqh, it is not an injustice to you if I
make some profit and I do not share that profit with you just as it is not an injustice to me
if I incur some loss and you do not share that loss with me.
Now suppose that it is I who want the loan from you to do business while you have no
need to deposit with me for safe keeping. Considering the various risks you are taking
you tell me that you can lend the money to me at x% interest and considering my
business opportunities I am quite hopeful that I will make a profit no less than x%. Just as
in the case mentioned above, so also in this case, there is no reason why it will be
injustice to you if I made more than x% or injustice to me if I made less than that rate.
When two solvent people freely and in full knowledge agree on a transaction involving
credit from which both can benefit, it is not injustice if God benefits one more than the
other by the transaction. Only if we from the beginning can reasonably expect that one
party will get potentially more benefit than the other party does the transaction become
unjust. But in this case the parties would not agree, if they are free, and capable of
understanding the implications of the transactions. If any of the parties agrees because he
is obliged to do so, then part of the interest will become riba and is haram. This is, for
example, the case if a loan cannot be paid except with undue difficulty. In this case the
borrower has the potential of sinking deeper and deeper into debt and getting financially
ruined while the lender does not face a similar prospect. Also, the borrower is obliged to
renew the loan. Hence interest in this situation is riba and therefore prohibited.
Usmani further stresses his point by drawing attention to the following situation:
“There may be a situation where the business of the borrower totally fails. In this
situation he will not only bear the whole loss of the business, but he also will have
to pay interest to the lender”.
But similar situations can arise in transactions that have always been considered
permissible in Islam. Take, for example, the case of someone who buys an item on credit
with the price increased for deferment of the payment. The buyer could loose the item
through accident, theft or some other reason, but he would still be liable to pay the
increased price on the due date. As another example consider a muqaradah arrangement,
in which one person (investor) gives x dollars to another person (‘amil) who uses the
capital to build a business, say a shop of some kind, without investing anything of his
own money. He works day and night, living on his past savings, and putting all the
revenue back into the shop. But the business does not produce any profit. After a year or
so all the assets are sold. The money from the sale of these assets and all the cash
generated by the business add up to almost the same amount as initially invested. Since
there was no profit or loss, the investor would get back his x dollars. He, therefore, did
not loose much (assuming that the annual inflation rate is low) while the ‘amil lost a
year’s hard work.
10
Thus for every type of arrangement there can be individual cases in which one party may
gain or loose more than the other. This is even true of partnerships in which profit/loss is
shared according to the contributions made by the parties. This is because the value of
work, skills, and talent contributed by the parties to the joint enterprise are often difficult
to measure, a fact that often leads partnerships to end in fights. It is significant that in
Islamic banks by far the most preferred form of financing is murabahah/bay‘ bi althaman
al-‘ajil10, whereby the bank buys for the client an item and resells it to the client
on credit for an increased price. In most Islamic banks about 80% of the total funds
invested are advanced under such an arrangement, which is really equivalent to a loan
with interest. If business loans on interest are on average as unjust to one or both of the
parties as Usmani and many other writers claim, then Islamic banks and/or their clients,
being free to choose among a number of available financing alternatives, would shy away
from murabahah/bay‘ bi al-thaman al-‘ajil instead of preferring it so overwhelmingly
over other bank products such as muqaradah and musharakah.
MAWDUDI
A reasoning similar to the one presented by Usmani but from a somewhat different angle
is also given by Mawdudi. Commenting on Qur`an 2:275 he says in his Tafhim:
In trade, commerce, industry, agriculture etc one has to spend both labor and
capital and at the same time one has to face risks, without any guarantee of fixed
profit. Let us for the present leave aside the case of the debtor who borrows
money for consumption and not for production, and also the issue of the rate of
interest. Let us compare the case of the money lender who lends money at a
moderate interest for profitable business with the case of those engaged in other
kinds of business. They devote their whole time, labor, talent and invest their own
capital etc and work day and night so that their business may become profitable
by virtue of their own efforts. But even then they are not guaranteed any fixed
profit but have to bear all the risks. On the contrary, the money lender, who lends
his capital only, goes on receiving a fixed amount of profit without any risk
whatsoever. By what reasoning and on what principle of logic, justice and
economics is it right for him to receive a fixed amount of profit?
This reasoning ignores the fact that money does not fall from the sky. The money that an
investor lends to a businessman might well have been the result of hard work similar to
the one in which the borrower is now engaged. The interest is partly a fruit of that past
labor. Moreover, the investor provides to the borrower a chance, often more than 50%,
for improving his economic condition. This chance, which would not exist without the
contribution of the investor, is also worth something and interest is partly a payment for
it. Finally, it is not true that the investor takes no risk at all. The very transfer of control to
someone else of one’s money involves some risk and of course there is an extremely high
risk of some erosion of the value of money over time. Interest is also partly a
compensation of these risks.
11
It should also be noted that Islam nowhere teaches that gain should be always based on or
be commensurate with effort and labor. If this were so, it would not have permitted
inheritance. For, sometimes through inheritance a youth can get a huge amount of wealth
without ever doing anything at all to earn it. And what about the owner of rental
buildings who has employees to manage them and who receives a large amount of net
income [= rent (paid by working people!) minus expenses] while he sits at home?
No doubt in Islam the best money is that which is acquired by the use of one’s own labor,
skills or talent, but Islam does not teach that money acquired with little or no use of one’s
effort is intrinsically bad, which is something that Mawdudi seems to be assuming in his
comments.
Fourth, riba often involved doubling and redoubling of the debt.:
The relevant verse is:
O you who have believed! Devour not riba, doubled and redoubled (ad‘afan
muda‘afah). Fear God that you may prosper. (3:130)
The question is: What is the significance of the phrase “doubled and redoubled” in this
verse? Some have suggested that the phrase restricts the prohibition of riba to the case
when the interest rate is excessive. They contend that when the rate is moderate, interest
is not the prohibited riba. Usmani rightly rejects this interpretation. However, his own
explanation of the Qur`anic phrase is also unsatisfactory. He says:
“No verse can be interpreted in isolation from the other relevant material available
in other parts of the Holy Qur'an. … The most detailed treatment of the subject of
riba is found in Surah al-Baqarah … . These verses include the following
command:
"O you who believe! Fear God and give up whatever remains of riba, if
you are believers." (2:278)
The words "whatever remains of riba" in this verse indicate that every amount
over and above the principal has to be given up. This point is further clarified in
express terms by the following sentence:
"And if you repent (from the practice of riba) then you are entitled to get
back your principal." (2:278)
These words do not leave any ambiguity in the fact that repentance from the
practice of riba is not possible unless any amount exceeding the principal is given
up and that a lender is entitled only to the principal he has actually advanced.
(Para 92- 94)
12
No one can disagree with the principle stated here that we must take into account all the
verses relevant to a topic under consideration. But often there arises the question of
which verses should be interpreted in the light of which others. Here Usmani has chosen
to interpret the verse using the phrase “doubled and redoubled” (3:130) in the light of the
verses commanding the believers to forego “what remains of riba” (2:278-279). But we
can proceed in the opposite direction and interpret 2:278-279 in the light of 3:130. That
is, we can understand riba as excessive rate of interest and interpret “what remains of
riba” as the remaining interest at this excessive rate. Usmani does not provide any
justification why 2:278-279 should be given priority, but we can provide a reason why
3:130 should have priority: 3:130 is the foundational verse for the prohibition of riba in
the Qur`an. Earlier verses (30:39, 4:161) do not formally prohibit riba while later verses
(2:275-280) provide further instruction as to how to implement the prohibition, telling us
that the riba that has already been consumed need not be returned (v. 275) while the riba
that has not been paid must be forgone (278-280). It is reasonable to give priority to the
foundational verse 3:130 over those that provide further details.
Regarding the phrase “doubled and redoubled” in 3:130 Usmani also says:
“These words have rather been used to refer to the worst kind of practice of riba
rampant at that time.” (Para 94)
He elaborates the point by two examples:
A self-evident example of this style of the Holy Qur'an is the verse which says:
"Do not sell my ayat for a little price." (2:41)
Nobody can take this verse to mean that selling the verses of the Holy Qur'an is
prohibited only because the price claimed is very low and that if the verses are
sold for a higher price, the practice can be held as permissible. Every person of
common sense can easily understand that the words "for a little price" used in this
verse are not of restrictive nature. They are rather meant to indicate the evil
practice of some people who used to commit the grave sin of selling the verses of
the Holy Qur'an and still did not gain much in financial terms. It never means that
the blame is directed towards the "little price" they gain; rather the blame is
directed to the selling of verses itself. (95-96)
But in the Qur`an the phrase “thaman qalil” (little price) may be more meaningful than
Usmani allows. In several verses the Qur`an makes it clear that all that this life has to
offer is mata‘ qalil (3:197, 4:77, 9:38, 16:117, 39:8). So in 2:41 the Qur`an may be saying
that any price in exchange for God’s signs is “little”.
The second example given by Usmani is:
13
Similarly, at another place the Holy Qur'an says:
"And do not force your slave girls to prostitution if they want to remain chaste."
(24:33)
Obviously it does not mean that if the girls do not want to remain chaste, one can
force them to prostitution. What the verse means is that although the prostitution
in itself is a grave sin, yet it becomes all the more evil if a girl is forced to indulge
in this profession while she intends to remain chaste. The words "if they want to
remain chaste" are not of restrictive nature meant to qualify the prohibition with
their desire to remain chaste. These words have been added only to indicate the
increased severity of the crime. It is in the same style that the words "doubled or
redoubled" have been used with riba in the verse of Surah Al ‘Imran. They are not
intended to qualify the prohibition of riba with doubling or redoubling. They are
only meant to emphasize the added severity of the sin if the interest charged is so
exorbitant or excessive. (97-98)
Yet, the words “if they want to remain chaste” are not simply added to “indicate the
increased severity of the crime”. They are more meaningful, being connected on the one
hand with the command, “do not force”, and on the other hand with the promise of
forgiveness. The question of “forcing” others to do something only arises when they
themselves do not want to do it. The words “if they want to remain chaste” are meant to
make this point more explicit. The same words also stress a presumption behind the hope
of forgiveness given later in the verse to those slave-girls who are forced. The verse is
saying: if the slave-girls themselves want to be chaste and they are forced by their
masters to do prostitution, then they will find God forgiving and merciful. But if they
themselves want to lead a corrupt life, they would be punishable.
Thus, although in both examples Usmani is correct in saying that the additional words are
not of restrictive nature, they in both cases are more meaningful than he allows. The same
is true about the phrase “doubled redoubled” in 3:130.
In ancient times, when a loan could not be paid on due date it was usual to double the
debt. Recall the case mentioned above in which al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib and
‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan paid cash for some dates not yet harvested. When the farmer could
not deliver half of the amount of dates at harvest, he asked ‘Abbas and ‘Uthman to give
him more time in exchange for doubling the amount of undelivered dates. That the farmer
himself asked for the doubling of the amount shows that in case of non-payment of a debt
it was quite usual to charge an interest of 100%. Such an exorbitant rate was not
demanded simply out of greed but had an economic reason: if the loan could not be paid,
then the risk of extending the time would be extremely high, which required a very high
interest rate. What made the lender to grant the extension despite the risk was the
possibility of enslavement of the borrower and/or his family.
14
When the debt was doubled for a man who could not pay even half of that amount, he
was likely to be unable to pay the debt when the new due date arrived. At that time his
debt will be doubled again, that is, the original debt would be redoubled. This gives the
Qur`anic phrase “doubled redoubled”. The phrase is not restrictive in nature in the sense
that if the interest rate is moderate riba ceases to be haram. But it is descriptive in nature
in the sense that it says something about riba as understood in the Qur`an. It tells us that
riba often involved doubling and redoubling of the debt, which almost always, if not
always, occurred when the borrower could not pay the loan on the due date because of
serious financial difficulties, since no one would willingly and knowingly choose to let
his debt increase so rapidly. The phrase “doubled and redoubled” thus tells us once again
that the riba of which the Qur`an talks is the riba of pre-Islamic times, i.e., the increase
imposed when the loan could not be paid on the due date.
Contrary to what some Muslim writers have suggested, the phrase “doubled redoubled”
does not mean that the Qur`an prohibits compound interest but not simple interest. For,
it is easy to see that if we accept simple interest, then we must also accept compound
interest. This is because accepting simple interest means accepting the principle that the
lender is entitled to some increase. Such an increase, if not paid on the due date is, by the
same principle, also subject to some increase just as the principal amount is subject to
increase. For example, suppose that A borrows from B $10000 for a year at an interest of
10%. One year later A owes $11000 to B. A is able to pay the loan with interest but
decides that it is better for him to have the loan extended for another year. One possibility
is that A pays B the interest of $1000 and keeps $10000 for one more year. In this case,
he pays $11000 at the end of the second year. Another possibility is that A keeps the
whole amount ($11000) for one more year. In this case, it is clear that if charging 10%
on 10000 is justified, then it is also justified to charge 10% on the interest of 1000 piled
up during the first year. That is, at the end of the second year A should pay a total of
11000 + 11000(0.1)=12100. This is compound interest and our argument shows that it is
justified if the simple interest is justified..
Fifth, charity is an alternative or an opposite to riba.
Two of the passages about riba – 30:39 and 2:275-281 -- follow immediately after
exhortation to spend in charity. The first actually puts riba over against zakah:
That which you give for riba in order to increase through the property of (other)
people, will have no increase with God. But that which you give as charity
(zakah), seeking the Countenance of God (will increase); it is these who will get a
recompense multiplied.
Even if in this verse riba is not understood as some type of interest, the contrast between
riba and sadaqah is found in another verse:
God brings riba to destruction, but gives increase (yurbi) to sadaqah. God loves
not anyone ungrateful and wicked. (2:276)
15
Now such contrast between riba and sadaqah/zakah is perfectly understandable if we
bring to mind a man who cannot pay his debt except with great hardship. Such a man
needs charity, not doubling of his debt. But if we bring to mind a man who is living in a
house bought on mortgage or a businessman who borrowed money on interest to expand
his profitable business, then the contrast between riba and sadaqah is not meaningful. A
man who has enough income to pay monthly mortgage payments and who after some
years will become owner of a house does not need charity just as a businessman who is
generating some profit with the money he has borrowed on interest does not need charity.
Only when the house owner or the businessman becomes unable to meet his obligations
except with undue difficulty interest will become riba and the question of charity as an
alternative or contrast will arise.
The fact that the Qur`an considers sadaqah/zakah as an alternative to or an opposite of
riba can be used to more precisely define the meaning of phrases like “undue hardship”
or “serious financial difficulty” that we have been using in connection with the definition
of riba. Thus we can say a person is in “serious financial difficulties” if he or she is
eligible for zakah. Similarly, payment of a loan may be said to cause “undue hardship” if
it will make the borrower eligible for zakah. Hence riba is interest taken from a person
who is eligible for zakah or who is likely to become eligible for zakah if the interest is
charged.
Sixth, (from a moral point of view) riba is not like sale.
This is stated in the following verse:
Those who eat riba do not stand (yaqumun) except as stands one whom Shaytan
has thrown by the touch into confusion (yatakhabbatu). That is because they say:
"Sale is like riba". God has permitted sale and forbidden riba. Those who receive
admonition from their Lord and desist (from taking riba) shall have what is past;
their case being for God (to judge). But those who repeat (the offence) are
companions of the fire. They will abide therein. (2:275)
It is generally thought that the Qur`an here assumes the statement of the riba eaters – sale
is like riba – to be wrong from an economic point of view and as a result some Muslim
writers try to show its error using economic arguments, usually very weak. This
understanding of the verse has also contributed to the insistence by writers that there is a
real distinction between interest and sale of an item with price increased for deferment of
the payment. But careful reflection shows that the Qur`an is not objecting to the
statement of the riba eaters from an economic point of view but from a moral point of
view. From an economic point of view it is possible to agree with the riba eaters without
violating the Qur`an.
It is clear that the riba eaters did not say that sale is like riba in order to make an
economic statement. They did so to draw a moral conclusion: riba is justified. And it is
this moral conclusion that the Qur`an is rejecting. That is why it does not make any
economic observations against the statement. It simply attributes it to the influence of the
16
Shaytan. Had the Qur`an considered the statement as the result of an erroneous economic
thinking, it would have said, as it often says, that “they are a people who do not think or
use their reason.” The reference to the influence of Shaytan alone as an explanation of the
riba eaters’ statement shows that the Qur`an looks at the statement in terms of the moral
categories of good and evil and not from an economic point of view. The Qur`an also sets
aside the economic point of view when it later says: God has permitted sale and
forbidden riba.
It is evident that the moral difference between sale and riba is not related to their
difference as financial transactions. In other words, their similarity as financial
transactions does not mean that they are both comparably justified from a moral point of
view. For, we can easily think of two transactions that are very similar in economic terms
but very different from a moral point of view. Take, for example, two sales – sale of salt
and sale of cocaine. As sales they are at least as similar in economic terms as are sale and
riba, and yet morally the two are poles apart. One is permissible in any system while the
other is almost universally considered immoral.
Thus it is possible to read the verse as agreeing with the statement of the riba eaters and
objecting only to the moral conclusion they draw from it. This reading of the verse is
supported by other instances in which the Qur`an attributes a perfectly true statement to
disbelievers and yet condemns them for saying it, no doubt because of the way they use
it. Thus in 16:35 we read:
And those who practice say: "If God had so willed, we would not have
worshipped anything besides him - neither we nor our fathers, - nor would we
have prohibited anything disregarding him." So did those before them. Then do
the Messengers have any obligation except clear communication?
Here what the mushrikun say is perfectly true, since the Qur`an also states it in 6:107:
Had God willed, they would not have committed shirk. We have not made you (O
Prophet) watcher over them, nor are you a disposer of their affairs.
Yet despite the fact that the Qur`an agrees with what the mushrikun say in 16:35, it is
obvious that the Qur`an assumes them to be in error. Clearly their error does not lie in
what they are saying but the pervert and frivolous way in which they are using it to
justify their practice of shirk11. Consequently, the Qur`an does not answer them by a
philosophical discussion concerning determinism. It rather addresses the purpose behind
the words of the mushrikun, which is to keep resisting the message of the Prophet and
sticking to shirk. Therefore the answer given is that the Messengers are not responsible
except to convey the message. If people want to reject that message, the Messengers are
not responsible for it.
Similarly, in 2:275 the error of riba eaters is not in saying that sale is like riba but in the
perverted use of this fact to justify their practice of riba. Therefore the Qur`an does not
enter into any economic arguments but tells the riba eaters that they are in the grip of
17
their evil inclinations and at the same time gives the simple message to anyone willing to
pay heed that in moral terms sale and riba are poles apart: one is basically good and the
other is basically evil.
It is also significant that the Qur`an does not tell us why riba is morally evil. In 2:279 it
simply assumes that riba is zulm on the borrower and therefore evil. This means that the
Qur`an views the moral evil in riba to be obvious. If the riba eaters cannot see this, then
that is because they have been thrown into moral confusion by the touch of Shaytan.
Now there arises the important question: what kind of understanding of riba makes it an
obvious moral evil?
If riba is identified with interest absolutely, then it is impossible to consider the statement
of the riba eaters to be false, either from economic or moral point of view. From an
economic point of view, there is indeed no difference between sale of an item with price
increased for deferment and interest. And there are cases in which it is far from obvious
why interest is moral evil. However, if riba is identified with the interest charged when
the loan cannot be paid, then it becomes obvious that it is a moral evil. To see this let us
take an example that was common in ancient times: Consider a farmer with a small piece
of land who borrowed some money to buy seed. He planted the seed but the crop failed.
The farmer could not fully feed his family much less return the loan with interest. Since
the loan could not be paid, it was doubled. In the next season he had to borrow more
money for seed. But the crop was not sufficient to pay back most of what he had
borrowed along with the interest. Since the interest kept piling up, after a few seasons he
lost his land and he became virtual slave of the lender. In this case the price of seed
turned out to be man’s whole property and his freedom. From an economic point of view,
this riba may be like sale, but it is clear that from a moral point of view it is evil. This is
an extreme case but a similar conclusion would apply for any loan transaction in which
only one party has the potential of gaining.
Some of the points mentioned above are also recognized by Usmani. Thus, regarding the
statement of the riba eaters that “sale is like riba”, Usmani makes the following
comments:
“Their objection was that when we increase the price of commodity in the original
transaction of sale because of its being based on deferred payment, it is treated as
a valid sale. But when we want to increase the due amount after the maturity date,
when the debtor is not able to pay, it is termed as riba while the increase in both
cases seems to be similar. This objection of the non-believers of Makkah has been
specifically mentioned by the famous commentator Ibn Abi Hatim [d. 327] on the
authority of Sa‘id ibn Jubayr:
18
"They used to say that it is all equal whether we increase the price in the
beginning of the sale, or we increase it at the time of maturity. Both are
equal. It is this objection which has been referred to in the verse by saying
'They say that the sale is very similar to riba.'"
The same explanation is given in al-Bahr al-Muhit by Abu Hayyan [d. 745] and
several other original commentators of the Holy Qur'an.” (51-52)
This explanation of the verse recognizes that riba is interest charged at maturity of a loan
when it cannot be paid. Usmani also recognizes that the Qur`an does not look at the riba
eaters’ statement from an economic point of view:
[When the disbelievers argue, ‘sale is nothing but similar to riba’, the Holy
Qur'an] “could have mentioned the difference between interest and profit in pure
logical manner, and could have explained how the profit in a sale is justified
while the interest is not. The Holy Qur'an could have also spelled out the evil
consequences of riba on the economy. But this line of argument was intentionally
avoided, and the brief and simple answer given by the Holy Qur'an was: God has
allowed the sale and has prohibited riba."
But Usmani incorrectly draws from this the following conclusion:
“The hint given in this verse is that the question whether these transactions have
an element of injustice is not left to be decided by human reason alone, because
the reason of different individuals may come up with different answers and no
absolute conclusion of universal application may be arrived at on the basis of pure
rational arguments. The correct principle, therefore, is that once a particular
transaction is held by Allah to be haram, there is no room for disputing it on the
basis of pure rational argumentation because Allah's knowledge and wisdom
encompasses all those points which are not accessible to ordinary reason. If the
human reason was fully competent to reach the correct decision unanimously in
each and every issue, no divine revelation would be called for. There is a wide
area of human conduct in which the Creator did not give a specific command. It is
this area where human reason can well play its role, but it should not be burdened
to play the role of a rival to the express divine injunctions.
We find the conclusion expressed in the above quotation incorrect for the following
reasons:
19
First, not all Muslims who reject the absolute identification of riba with interest use
rational argumentation to dispute what God has made haram. Some of them, hopefully
including myself, use rational arguments in order to understand the sources of Islam
(exactly as the Qur`an invites us to do) and to determine exactly what is it that God has
made haram.
Second, when the Qur`an says that God has permitted sale and prohibited riba this does
not meant the prohibition of riba is largely beyond human understanding. It is like saying
that God sends down rain, which does not mean that falling of rain is largely beyond
human understanding. It is true that because of some evil inclinations human beings
cannot arrive at the permissibility of all that is beneficial and prohibition of all that is
harmful: they will prohibit some beneficial things and permit some harmful things. But
once revelation has given expression to what is good and what is bad, human beings can
understand it. Thus when the Qur`an strongly condemns the deliberate killing of a
Muslim, or adultery, stealing, or cheating or other such acts, we can all understand it.
Why is it only the alleged prohibition of every form of interest that we have difficulty in
understanding?
Third, as argued above, the reason the Qur`an does not answer the statement of the riba
eaters by economic observations is that it does not view their statement wrong from an
economic point of view. It only condemns their use of it in justifying riba.
Fourth, we may also mention, although this is not the strongest reason, some
commentators have suggested that the words “God has permitted sale and prohibited
riba” are a part of the riba eaters’ statement, that is, they say: “Sale is like riba (and yet
you say) God has permitted sale and prohibited riba.”
Seventh, riba leads to destruction and sadaqah to growth.
This is stated in 2:276 and clearly implied in 30:39. The word used in 2:276 to describe
the effect of riba is mahaqa, which is used in one of its forms for the waning of the moon
till it vanishes. The word used to describe the increase given to sadaqah is yurbi, which is
related to riba. Likewise, in 30:39 it is said that those who deal in riba do not increase
(yarbu) in the sight of God, whereas those who give zakah, they would grow many fold,
for which the word used is mud‘ifun, the same word that is elsewhere used for increasing
the debt by doubling or redoubling. Thus the Qur`an is saying that while by practicing
riba we may appear to grow manifold in wealth and by giving in charity we apparently
loose wealth, in reality it is the opposite. We grow manifold with the practice of charity
even though we give some of our wealth to others, while we move to destruction with the
practice of riba, even though we take from other people their wealth.
This principle becomes perfectly understandable if we define riba as interest charged
when a loan cannot be paid or when one party has the potential of getting worse
economically. It is not difficult to see that in this sense riba would have harmful effect on
the economy of the society. It will create a class of deprived people whose children
would not be able to get education and advance in life. (See below for the effects of such
20
riba on the Jewish society in the past and Chapter V for other similar examples). The
spirit of meanness implied in such riba would bring the worst from the people creating
not only economic problems but also other social problems. As a result the whole society
including many of those who practice riba will suffer. In contrast a society in which the
relatively well-off people help by charity those who are less fortunate will prosper. For,
the money given to the poor is not lost but is put back into the economy, making it grow.
Also, the spirit of magnanimity implied in charitable actions would bring the best in most
people who will contribute positively not only to economy but also in many other ways,
making everyone happier and more prosperous, including many of those who gave their
money in charity.
But if we identity riba with every and any type of interest, then the principle that riba
leads to destruction is not convincing, since it is clear that some interest-based
arrangements do have a positive effect on economy and help in the realization of the
Islamic goal of equitable distribution of wealth. Such lending arrangements distribute the
wealth more widely and generate economic activity and prosperity. Ordinary workers can
become home owners and people with limited capital can build businesses.
The principle that charity leads to growth and riba to destruction has a spiritual and
supernatural dimension arising from the fact that the avoiding of riba and practice of
sadaqah becomes much easier and much more beneficial if we have a perspective on life
that is based on belief in God and the hereafter. There is no doubt that because of the
nature of economics, avoiding of riba and practice of charity will benefit society as a
whole but this benefit may not be reaped by all individuals during their lifetime. It is
possible that some of those who practice riba may amass a lot of wealth and stay rich for
the rest of their life just as some of those who practice sadaqah may not have all that they
give returned to them manifold. This fact would make it difficult for most people to
practice sadaqah and avoid riba if they do not believe in God and the hereafter.
On the basis of Islamic teachings we can go further and state that spiritual outlook
created by the belief in God and the hereafter results in some benefits, even in this world,
beyond those created by economic processes. If we simply practice charity and avoid
exploitative interest for economic reasons only, then the good effects would be less than
if we do so with belief in God and the hereafter. This excess of benefits in this world is
how we can understand the concept of barakah.
Eighth, dealing in riba is gaining through the wealth of other people.
That which you give for riba so that it may increase through the property of
(other) people, will have no increase with God but that which give as charity … .
(30:39) [See Chapter IV, Section D for the basis for this translation.]
It is understood here that this gain is one-sided, that is, “(other) people” do not gain in a
lending arrangement based on riba. This is exactly what happens in riba as we have
defined it. But if we define riba as interest in all its forms, then the statement will not be
21
true generally, since in many lending arrangements with interest, e.g. sale of houses on
mortgage “(other) people” also gain as do the lenders.
The idea that riba is a gain through the wealth of other people is also present in 4:161.
Ninth, riba was prohibited earlier for the Jews.
This is stated clearly in 4:161, where talking about the Jews the Most High says:
And their taking of riba, though they were forbidden from it, and their devouring
of men’s wealth wrongfully.
Referring to this verse Usmani says:
“Here this practice is termed as riba in the same manner as it is termed in Surah
Al ‘Imran or Surah al-Baqarah. It means that the practice of riba prohibited for
Muslims was the same as was prohibited for the Jews.”
This is not quite true. The Qur`an may use a word employed in earlier traditions but give
it somewhat different meaning. Thus it tells us that earlier people were enjoined salah,
zakah and sawm but that does not mean that their forms of salah, zakah and sawm are
exactly the same as those of Islam. We can say only that the salah, zakah and sawm in
Islam and in the earlier religions had essentially the same purpose. Similarly, even if the
Holy Qur`an uses the same word riba to refer to what was prohibited to the Jews, it is
more than possible that in some way the riba of the Qur`an may be different from the one
prohibited in the Jewish scriptures. We can only assume that the two are identical in their
essential purpose. This is confirmed when we turn to the Jewish scriptures. We find that
the prohibition of usury or interest in the Old Testament is almost always found in the
context of protecting the poor from injustice. In Section B we have given all the relevant
passages from the Old Testament in full. Let us briefly review them here.
The Hebrew word “neshek” used in the Old Testament for usury is derived from 'nashak'
which literally means "bite", almost always of a serpent. In addition, some passages use
the words “marbit” or “tarbit” derived from “raba”, meaning “increase”. But these words
are used in parallel to “neshek” so that the sense is “usury, a biting increase” an apt
reflection of the injustice to the weak and poor that the prohibition of usury is meant to
fight. But this concern for injustice does not come through only in the use of the word
“neshek”. It is very explicit in most relevant passages in the Old Testament. Thus Exodus
22:25 prohibits usury with explicit reference to the poor:
If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with
them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them.
Likewise Leviticus 25:35-37 talks of interest only to those who fall in difficulty:
22
If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall
support them; they shall live with you as though resident aliens. Do not take
interest in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let
them live with you. You shall not lend them your money at interest taken in
advance, or provide them food at a profit.
In Deuteronomy 15:1-11 it is commanded that “every seventh year you shall grant a
remission of debts.” Then it is said:
There will, however, be no one in need among you …
An alternative translation of the Hebrew is interesting:
Except when there shall be no poor among you;
That is, the law about remitting debt would be in force until such time as there will be no
poor in the community. The connection between the prohibition of usury and poverty is
very close here.
In Nehemiah 5:1-13 we find a graphic expression of the conditions that led people to
borrow on usury and the effects it had on those who borrowed. The reasons for borrowing
were famine and/or paying king’s tax (verses 3-4). Some said, “We are having to pledge
our fields, vineyards and houses, that we might buy grain during the famine”. Others said,
“We are having to borrow money to pay the kings tribute”. As a result, “we are forcing
our sons and daughters to be slaves, and some of our daughters have been ravished; we
are powerless and our fields and vineyards now belong to others.” These complaints led
Nehemiah to convince the rich and the powerful to stop taking interest and to “restore to
them, this very day, their fields, their vineyards, their olive orchards, and their houses,
and the interest on money.” (verses 10-11).
In Proverbs 28:8 taking usury is put in opposition to being kind to the poor:
One who augments wealth by exorbitant usury gathers it for another who is kind
to the poor.
In Isaiah 58:3 taking usury is put in parallel to oppressing workers:
Look, you serve your own usury on your fast day, and oppress all your workers.
In Ezekiel (18:5-13; 22:6-12) the connection between usury and injustice to the weak and
poor is not too direct. But it seems to be implicit:
18:5If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right … 7does not oppress
anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread
to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 8does not take advance or
23
accrued interest, withholds his hand from iniquity, executes true justice between
contending parties … .
22:6 The princes of Israel in you, everyone according to his power, have been
bent on shedding blood. .. 12In you, they take bribes to shed blood; you take both
advance interest and accrued interest, and make gain of your neighbors by
extortion; and you have forgotten me, says the Lord GOD.
Although the New Testament is not recognized by the Jews, many traditions in the
Christian scriptures reveal the understanding of the Jews about their laws, especially
around the time of Jesus. In Matthew 25:14-30 = Luke 19:12-23 we have a parable about
a man, going on a journey, who summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them;
to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his
ability.” While two of the slaves use the money in trade and make some profit for the
master, “the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground
and hid his master’s money.” When the master returned from his journey he praised the
first two slaves but to the third one he said, “You wicked and lazy slave! You ought to
have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what
was my own with interest.” This parable suggests that the Prophet Jesus and other Jews
of his time might not have considered all interest as sinful.
Tenth, taking riba is a very serious sin.
Since the Qur`an commands the believers not to eat riba (3:130), taking riba would be
disobedience of God and hence a sin. The following two Qur`anic statements add to the
seriousness of the sin of riba:
Those who eat riba do not stand except as stands one whom Shaytan has by the
touch thrown into confusion. (2:275)
O you who believe! Fear God, and give up what remains (due to you) from riba, if
you are believers. If you do not do it, then take a notice of war from God and his
Messenger. (2:278-279)
This seriousness of the sin of taking riba is not understandable in case of many lending
arrangements with interest. But it is quite understandable in case of interest charged when
a borrower cannot pay the loan on due date, especially if we keep in mind some extreme
cases to which it can lead.
We have already noted that in ancient times the money lenders could enslave the debtor
and/or his family in case the loan could not be paid at the due time. In our times also
similar enslavement can take place, although it is not legal any more. Thus in some
countries poor families starving for cash are offered a loan on the condition that one of
their girls will work to pay off the loan. The work involved is prostitution, of which the
family may or may not know. The debt is usually doubled through interest and in most
24
cases the wages of the girl, always very low, are not sufficient to pay off the debt. As a
result she remains a virtual slave of the lending party. According to a report of Asia
Watch Women's Rights Project once a girl is inside a brothel, escape is, if at all possible,
very dangerous. Most of the girls work 10-14 hours a day, with a typical allowance of
$1.20 a day.
In addition to the debt bondage of women who are used for prostitution, there are other
tragic cases of riba in our times. Some lenders, called loan sharks, advance loans to
people desperate for cash at an exorbitant interest of about 100% per year. For late
payment the fee can be as high as 1 to 1.5% per day. When it becomes clear that the debt
will not be paid, the debtor is sometimes killed.
When riba is understood as interest charged from those who are in serious financial
difficulties or are desperate for cash to support some addiction and when we also keep in
mind cases like those mentioned above, a saying attributed to the Prophet becomes
understandable: taking riba is worse than committing adultery with one’s mother. But
neither such sayings nor the Qur`anic verses become understandable if we think of
interest charged for a loan borrowed by a solvent man to buy a property or to expand his
business.
Conclusion
We conclude our examination of the Qur`anic verses about riba by stating the main rules
governing loan transactions that they suggest. This requires defining some terms.
An item/service is considered necessary if it belongs to the following categories:
a) Food, clothes, accommodation, health, and education -- each of average quality
according to standards prevalent in one’s country -- for oneself and for one’s
dependents.
b) Items/services needed for the maintenance or growth of one’s business or
profession.
A person is eligible for zakah if he or she does not have enough income or savings to pay
for the necessary items/services described under a).
A person is solvent if he/she has enough wealth and/or expected income to meet his/her
financial obligations in all of his/her loan transactions, without becoming eligible for
zakah.
Riba is interest charged when the borrower is no longer solvent.
A loan transaction is viable for the borrower if it is realistically expected to increase the
marketable assets of the borrower by an amount equal to or greater than the amount of the
loan plus any interest. For example, if you borrow money to buy materials and labor for
renovating your house, but the expected increase in the value of the house is less than the
25
amount borrowed plus interest, then this is not a viable transaction. A loan transaction is
viable for the lender if the interest rate covers the risk of non-payment of the loan and
the expected erosion over time of the value of the loan due to inflation.
In the following rules no distinction is made between interest on a loan and increase in
the price of an item for deferment of the payment. When one is prohibited, so is the other.
And when one is permissible, so is the other.
A) The following are permissible when the transaction is freely agreed to by parties,
when the parties are solvent, when they or their trusted agents are capable of
understanding the transaction in all its implications, and when the transaction does not
involve any forbidden act such as buying or selling drugs:
a) Sale of a necessary item/service with deferred payment, with price increased for
deferment.
b) Loan with interest for the purchase of a necessary item/service.
c) A business partnership in which investment is without interest and profit/loss as
well as ownership of the business is shared.
d) Loan with interest for use in a business.
e) Loan for use in a business with no interest and with both the profit and loss shared
according to agreed proportions.
f) Loan for use in a business with no interest. In case of profit, the profit is shared
according to agreed proportions, but the loss is not shared by the lender. That is,
the principal sum is secure.
g) Loan for use in a business with no interest. The profit is shared according to
agreed proportions, but the loss is not shared by the borrower.
B) The following are prohibited:
1) Charging interest when the borrower is not solvent or charging interest after the
borrower, who was once solvent, has ceased to be so.
2) Increasing the price of a necessary item/service for deferment of the payment
in case of a person who is not solvent.
C) The following is to be encouraged:
Helping a man in financial difficulty either with interest-free loan or with
sadaqah. Such help is fard kifayah (collective obligation) for the Muslims.
D) The following is to be discouraged:
Giving or taking loan with or without interest for the purchase of items/services
that are not necessary, unless the transaction is considered viable for the borrower.
Similarly, we need to discourage buying or selling on credit items/services that
26
are not necessary, with or without increase in the price for deferment of payment,
unless the transaction is considered viable for the borrower.
This last rule follows from the Qur`anic prohibition of israf and from those ahadith that
discourage incurring unnecessary debt.
E) Interest rate. The Qur`an’s prohibition of riba proceeds from a deep concern for
justice. In riba one party in the transaction has the potential of sinking deeper into
economic difficulties while the other party has the potential of growing in wealth and
power, which is clearly unjust. From the same concern for justice we can derive the
following general restriction on the rate of interest: the rate should be such that parties in
the loan transaction have approximately the same potential to grow in real economic
terms, unless one party willingly and without being constrained by circumstances accepts
a markedly lower potential of growth. The prohibition of riba can be considered a
particular case of this general principle: when the borrower has no potential of growth the
interest rate must reduce to 0%.
The potential for growth can be assessed by the parties for the particular loan transaction
they are entering into. Or, the parties may use evaluation by economists of the average
profit that 100 units of money are expected to generate in a particular economy.
One of the parties may agree to less advantageous interest rate because he does not care
or because he feels constrained by some circumstances. In the first case there is no harm.
In the latter case, constraining circumstances may be real financial difficulties or some
emotional compulsion such as vanity or the need to satisfy some addictions like gambling
or drugs etc. In case of compulsion by real financial difficulties any interest knowingly
charged over and above the expected potential of growth for the borrower will be
tantamount to riba. In case of emotional compulsions such as vanity12, disadvantageous
terms are a form of punishment that the party inflicts on himself by accepting those
terms. It is sinful to knowingly exploit such emotional compulsions. And in case of
addictions any loan transaction is haram except when if it is clearly helpful as a step
towards cure, e.g., when suddenly depriving the addict of drugs may cause death and
gradual deprivation along with punishment and psychological treatment is judged to be
the best.
In case of a business investment, one may argue that the best way to ensure that none of
the parties has an advantage over another is that they become partners in business and
share both profit and loss. But while this is true, we cannot restrict all investment to
partnership. For the sake of economic health it is important to give people, as does the
Qur`an, maximum freedom to come to arrangements that they find convenient and
advantageous and to which they freely and in full knowledge agree. Interest-based
investment gives people many more choices and much greater freedom. As noted earlier,
when given a choice, both the borrower and the lender would usually prefer interestbased
investment over partnership.
27
Finally, we note that it is permissible for an Islamic government to place such
restrictions on the interest rate as are considered beneficial for the people by a majority of
experts.
(B)
Relevant Texts from the Qur`an and the Bible
THE QUR`AN
30:38-39
So give what is due to kindred, the needy, and the wayfarer. That is best for those
who seek the Countenance of God, and it is they who will prosper.
That which you give for riba so that it may increase through the property of
(other) people, will have no increase with God but that which you give as charity,
seeking the Countenance of God, it is those who (do that) will get a recompense
multiplied.
4:161
28
And their taking of riba though they were forbidden from it and their devouring of
men’s wealth wrongfully. And We have prepared for those among them who
reject faith a painful punishment.
3:130
O you who believe! Devour not usury, doubled and multiplied; but fear God that
you may prosper.
2:274-281
29
2:274 Those who spend of their wealth (in charity) by night and by day, in secret
and in public, have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor
shall they grieve.
275 Those who eat riba do not stand except as stands one whom Shaytan has by
the touch thrown into confusion. That is because they say: "Sale is like riba". God
has permitted trade and forbidden riba. Those who after receiving admonition
from their Lord, desist, shall have what is past; their case being for God (to
judge). But those who repeat (the offence) are companions of the fire: They will
stay therein.
30
276 God will destroy riba, but will give increase for deeds of charity. God does
not like those ungrateful and wicked.
277 Those who believe, and do deeds of righteousness, and establish regular
prayer and regular charity, will surely have their reward with their Lord. On them
shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
278 O you who believe! Fear God, and give up what remains (due to you) from
riba, if you are believers.
279 If you do not do it, then take a notice of war from God and his Messenger.
But if you repent, you shall have your capital sums: Deal not unjustly, and you
shall not be dealt with unjustly.
280 And if the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to
repay. But if you remit it by way of charity, that is best for you if you only knew.
281 And fear the day when you shall be brought back to God. Then every person
shall be paid back what he earned, and [people] shall not be dealt with unjustly.
THE OLD TESTAMENT
In the following quotations we have used New Revised Standard Version of the Bible
except that the word “interest” has been replaced by “usury” which is more reflective of
the Hebrew word “neshek” derived from “nashak”, to bite.
Exodus 22:25 – 27
22:25 If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal
with them as a creditor; you shall not exact usury from them. 26If you take your
neighbor’s cloak in pawn, you shall restore it before the sun goes down; 27for it
may be your neighbor’s only clothing to use as cover; in what else shall that
person sleep? And if your neighbor cries out to me, I will listen, for I am
compassionate.
Leviticus 25:35 - 37
25:35 If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall
support them; they shall live with you as though resident aliens. 36Do not take
usury in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let
them live with you. 37You shall not lend them your money at usury taken in
advance, or provide them food at a profit.
Deuteronomy 15: 1-11; 23:19 – 20
31
15:1Every seventh year you shall grant a remission of debts. 2And this is the
manner of the remission: every creditor shall remit the claim that is held against a
neighbor, not exacting it of a neighbor who is a member of the community,
because the Lord's remission has been proclaimed. 3Of a foreigner you may exact
it, but you must remit your claim on whatever any member of your community
owes you. 4There will, however, be no one in need among you, because the
LORD is sure to bless you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a
possession to occupy, 5if only you will obey the LORD your God by diligently
observing this entire commandment that I command you today. 6When the LORD
your God has blessed you, as he promised you, you will lend to many nations, but
you will not borrow; you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over
you. 7If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any
of your towns within the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be
hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. 8You should rather open
your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. 9Be
careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the
year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility
and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the LORD against you, and you
would incur guilt. 10Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this
account the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you
undertake. 11Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I
therefore command you, "Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your
land."
23:19 You shall not charge usury on loans to another Israelite, usury on money,
usury on provisions, usury on anything that is lent. 20 On loans to a foreigner you
may charge usury, but on loans to another Israelite you may not charge usury, so
that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you
are about to enter and possess.
Nehemiah 5:1-13
5:1 Now there was a great outcry of the people and of their wives against their
Jewish kin. 2For there were those who said, "With our sons and our daughters, we
are many; we must get grain, so that we may eat and stay alive." 3There were also
those who said, "We are having to pledge our fields, our vineyards, and our
houses in order to get grain during the famine." 4And there were those who said,
"We are having to borrow money on our fields and vineyards to pay the king's
tax. 5Now our flesh is the same as that of our kindred; our children are the same as
their children; and yet we are forcing our sons and daughters to be slaves, and
some of our daughters have been ravished; we are powerless, and our fields and
vineyards now belong to others."
6 I was very angry when I heard their outcry and these complaints. After thinking
it over, I brought charges against the nobles and the officials; I said to them, "You
32
are all taking usury from your own people." And I called a great assembly to deal
with them, 8and said to them, "As far as we were able, we have bought back our
Jewish kindred who had been sold to other nations; but now you are selling your
own kin, who must then be bought back by us!" They were silent, and could not
find a word to say. 9So I said, "The thing that you are doing is not good. Should
you not walk in the fear of our God, to prevent the taunts of the nations our
enemies? 10Moreover I and my brothers and my servants are lending them money
and grain. Let us stop this taking of usury. 11Restore to them, this very day, their
fields, their vineyards, their olive orchards, and their houses, and the usury on
money, grain, wine, and oil that you have been exacting from them." 12Then they
said, "We will restore everything and demand nothing more from them. We will
do as you say." And I called the priests, and made them take an oath to do as they
had promised. 13I also shook out the fold of my garment and said, "So may God
shake out everyone from house and from property who does not perform this
promise. Thus may they be shaken out and emptied." And all the assembly said,
"Amen," and praised the LORD. And the people did as they had promised.
Psalms 15:1, 5
15:1 O LORD, who may abide in your tent? Who may dwell on your holy hill?
[Those] …who do not lend money at usury, and do not take a bribe against the
innocent. Those who do these things shall never be moved.
Proverbs 28:8
One who augments wealth by exorbitant usury gathers it for another who is kind
to the poor.
Isaiah 58:3
"Why do we fast, but you do not see? Why humble ourselves, but you do not
notice?" Look, you serve your own usury on your fast day, and oppress all your
workers.
Ezekiel 18:5-13, 16-17; 22:6-12
18:5If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right-- 6if he does not eat
upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not
defile his neighbor's wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period,
7does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no
robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 8does
not take advance or accrued usury, withholds his hand from iniquity, executes true
justice between contending parties, 9follows my statutes, and is careful to observe
my ordinances, acting faithfully--such a one is righteous; he shall surely live, says
the Lord GOD. 10 If he has a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, 11who does
33
any of these things (though his father does none of them), who eats upon the
mountains, defiles his neighbor's wife, 12oppresses the poor and needy, commits
robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits
abomination, 13takes advance or accrued usury; shall he then live? He shall not.
He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be
upon himself. 14But if this man has a son who sees all the sins that his father has
done, considers, and does not do likewise, 15who does not eat upon the mountains
or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor's
wife, 16does not wrong anyone, exacts no pledge, commits no robbery, but gives
his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 17withholds his hand
from iniquity, takes no advance or accrued usury, observes my ordinances, and
follows my statutes; he shall not die for his father's iniquity; he shall surely live.
22:6 The princes of Israel in you, everyone according to his power, have been
bent on shedding blood. 7Father and mother are treated with contempt in you; the
alien residing within you suffers extortion; the orphan and the widow are wronged
in you. 8You have despised my holy things, and profaned my sabbaths. 9In you
are those who slander to shed blood, those in you who eat upon the mountains,
who commit lewdness in your midst. 10In you they uncover their fathers'
nakedness; in you they violate women in their menstrual periods. 11One commits
abomination with his neighbor's wife; another lewdly defiles his daughter-in-law;
another in you defiles his sister, his father's daughter. 12In you, they take bribes to
shed blood; you take both advance usury and accrued usury, and make gain of
your neighbors by extortion; and you have forgotten me, says the Lord GOD.
NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew 25:14-30
25:14 ‘For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and
entrusted his property to them; 15to one he gave five talents, to another two, to
another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16The one who
had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five
more talents. 17In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more
talents. 18But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in
the ground and hid his master’s money. 19After a long time the master of those
slaves came and settled accounts with them. 20Then the one who had received the
five talents came forward, bringing five more talents, saying, “Master, you
handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents.” 21His master
said to him, “Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy
in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your
master.” 22And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, “Master,
you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.” 23His
master said to him, “Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been
trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the
34
joy of your master.” 24Then the one who had received the one talent also came
forward, saying, “Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you
did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; 25so I was afraid, and I
went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.” 26But his
master replied, “You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where
I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? 27Then you ought to have
invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have
received what was my own with interest. 28So take the talent from him, and give
it to the one with the ten talents. 29For to all those who have, more will be given,
and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what
they have will be taken away. 30As for this worthless slave, throw him into the
outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Luke 19:12-23
19:12So he said, ‘A nobleman went to a distant country to get royal power for
himself and then return. 13He summoned ten of his slaves, and gave them ten
pounds, and said to them, “Do business with these until I come back.” 14But the
citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, “We do
not want this man to rule over us.” 15When he returned, having received royal
power, he ordered these slaves, to whom he had given the money, to be
summoned so that he might find out what they had gained by trading. 16The first
came forward and said, “Lord, your pound has made ten more pounds.” 17He said
to him, “Well done, good slave! Because you have been trustworthy in a very
small thing, take charge of ten cities.” 18Then the second came, saying, “Lord,
your pound has made five pounds.” 19He said to him, “And you, rule over five
cities.” 20Then the other came, saying, “Lord, here is your pound. I wrapped it up
in a piece of cloth, 21for I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man; you
take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.” 22He said to him,
“I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! You knew, did you, that
I was a harsh man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow?
23Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned,
I could have collected it with interest.” 24He said to the bystanders, “Take the
pound from him and give it to the one who has ten pounds.” 25(And they said to
him, “Lord, he has ten pounds!”) 26“I tell you, to all those who have, more will be
given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
27But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—
bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.”’
1 For example, commenting on Qur`an 2:275, Yusuf ‘Ali says : “Usury is condemned
and prohibited in the strongest possible terms. There can be no question about the
prohibition. When we come to the definition of Usury there is room for difference of
opinion. Hadhrat 'Umar, according to Ibn Kathir, felt some difficulty in the matter,
as the Apostle left this world before the details of the question were settled. This
was one of the three questions on which he wished he had more light from the
Prophet. Our 'Ulama, ancient and modern, have worked out a great body of literature
on Usury, based mainly on economic conditions as they existed at the rise of Islam. I
35
agree with them on the main principles, but respectfully differ from them on the
definition of Usury. As this subject is highly controversial, I shall discuss it, not in the
Commentary, but on a suitable occasion elsewhere. The definition I would accept
would be: undue profit made, not in the way of legitimate trade, out of loans of gold
and silver, and necessary articles of food, such as wheat, barley, dates and salt
(according to the list mentioned by the Holy Apostle himself). My definition would
include profiteering of all kinds, but exclude economic credit, the creature of modern
banking and finance.”
2 Ibrahim Anis and others, Al-Ma‘jam al-Wasit, al-Qahirah, 1972.
3 Here are some texts defining muqaradah:
“Malik related to me from al-‘Ala` ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman from his father from
his grandfather that ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan gave him some money as qirad to
work with on the condition that the profit would be divided among them.”
(Muwatta 32/2 = 1196)
Mudarabah or Qirad is: “to give somebody out of your capital a part to trade
in with the condition that the profit is shared equally by both of you , or a
determined share of the profit is allocated to him … The active partner is
called darib as he is the one who travels and trades. One can call the investor
as well as the active partner mudarib or muqarid as both share the profit
between them.” (Ibn Hazm, al-Muhalla)
The term mudarabah is derived from “darb on earth” [Qur`an ]. It has been
so named because mudarib (user of the loaned funds) is entitled to a share in
the profit on account of his effort and work. He thus shares in the profit and
uses capital in trade (darb on earth) according to his discretion. People of
Madinah call this contract muqaradah and that is according to what is
reported from ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan who advanced to a man an amount as
muqaradah [Muwatta 32/2=1196, quoted above]. This is derived from the
word qard, meaning “severing” (qat‘): the owner of capital severs a portion of
his capital from his use and puts it under the use of the ‘amil (one engaged in
commercial activity). (Sarakhsi, al-Mabsut)
[Muslims agree on the definition of qirad] that a person gives capital to a
person for use in trade with a specified portion of the profit taken by the
‘amil, any portion on which the two had agreed be it one-third, one-fourth or
half.” (Muhammad Ahmad bin Rushd al-Qurtubi, Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa
Nihayat al-Muqtasid)
It is interesting that all these texts talk only of sharing profit and say nothing of
sharing loss. This could be for one or both of the following two reasons: a)
Muqaradah was generally used for buying and selling under conditions that made
some profit fairly certain. b) The terms of muqaradah were originally variable, not
always stipulating the sharing of the loss.
36
4 It is very likely that qirad or muqaradah was practiced before Islam, not only in
Arabia, but also elsewhere. We do not know the exact conditions that governed it,
which probably means that the conditions were variable and depended on the
parties. It is also very likely that the Holy Prophet knew about muqaradah and the
fact that nothing against it has been reported from him shows that he approved it.
5 “There is no difference of opinion among Muslims about the legality of qirad. It
was found in jahiliyyah and confirmed by Islam.” (Muhammad Ahmad bin Rushd al-
Qurtubi, Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid).
Although scholars agree on the permissibility of qirad or muqaradah, they have
imposed different conditions under which it is to be practiced. Thus most of them say
that the investment must be in the form of cash money. According to most, even
investment in the form of unminted gold and silver is not allowed, while some
Hanbali and Maliki scholars allow investment in the form of any goods when their
price is well determined. There is also difference of view as to whether the ‘amil can
also contribute capital. Much more agreement, if not a complete consensus is found
on the condition that the investment must be disposable at the time of transaction.
One cannot, for example, invest money or goods one is expecting from somewhere
at a future time or even designate as his investment a debt that the ‘amil owes to
him, unless the debt is first paid. There is also consensus on that the ‘amil must
have complete freedom as to how to use the capital invested, except that Shafi‘ites
allow the investor to determine the type of business for which the ‘amil may use the
investment. Scholars also agree almost universally that the duration of muqaradah
must not be limited in advance. Each party can terminate the arrangement at any
time by providing a notice to the other. Finally, some scholars restrict muqaradah to
buying and selling and do not allow the ‘amil to use the capital for manufacturing.
In the absence of any clear verbal instruction of the Prophet about muqaradah, the
above rules formulated by our past fuqaha have no binding force. In my view the
absence from the Qur`an and authentic ahadith of any restrictions on the terms of a
transaction involving credit beyond that they should be written, well understood,
respected and not involve riba or deal in haram things is more significant than the
actual way muqaradah was practiced in the time of the Prophet. This absence means
that God and his Messenger want to give the parties maximum flexibility as to what
type of business associations and partnerships they want to form.
6 There is only one hadith that refers to muqaradah:
Al-Hasan bin ‘Ali al-Khallal related to us: Bishr bin Thabit al-Bazzar related to
us: Nasr bin al-Qasim related to us from ‘Abd al-Rahim bin Da`ud from Salih
bin Suhayb from his father who said: The Messenger of God said: “Three
things have blessing: sale (with payment deferred) to a term, al-muqaradah,
and mixing wheat and barley for home (use) but not for sale.” (Ibn Majah
2280)
37
But the isnad of this hadith is weak. Concerning three narrators in the isnad nothing
positive has been said by anyone. About Nasr bin al-Qasim, Bukhari said that his
hadith is fabricated; about ‘Abd al-Rahim bin Da`ud, al-‘Uqayli said that his hadith is
ghayr mahfuz; and Salih bin Suhayb is majhul (unknown). In any case, the hadith
does not tell us anything about muqaradah other than that the Prophet approved it,
a fact not in doubt. The hadith says nothing about the necessity of sharing both
profit and loss and imposes no other conditions for muqaradah to satisfy.
7 It has been suggested by some others that in an interest-free economy there will
be no inflation in the long run. This is doubtful. Inflation can be the result of many
factors including the natural and permissible tendency among traders to increase
their profits.
8 This tradition is about al-Zubayr bin ‘Awwam who died with a huge debt and a lot
of real estate. Bukhari reports: “The source of the debt that al-Zubayr owed was that
if somebody brought some money to deposit with him, he would say, "No, (I won't
keep it as a trust), but I take it as a debt, for I am afraid it might be lost." It is
understood that al-Zubayr invested this money in real estate and possibly other
businesses.
9 This tradition reads:
Malik related to me from Zayd ibn Aslam that his father said: ‘Abd Allah and
‘Ubayd Allah, the sons of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab went out with the army to
Iraq. On the way home, they passed by Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari who was the
amir of Basrah. He greeted them and made them welcome, and told them
that if there was anything he could do to help them, he would do it. Then he
said, “There is some of the property of Allah which I want to send to the amir
al-mu`minin, so I will lend it to you, and you can buy goods from Iraq and
sell them in Madinah. Then give the principal to the amir al-mu`minin, and
you keep the profit.” They said that they would like to do it, and so he gave
them the money and wrote to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab to take the money from
them. When they came to sell they made a profit, and when they paid the
principal to ‘Umar he asked, “Did he lend to everyone in the army the like of
what he lent to you?” They said, “No.” ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “He made
you the loan, because you are the sons of the amir al-mu`minin, so pay the
principal and the profit.” ‘Abd Allah was silent. ‘Ubayd Allah said: “You do not
need to do this, amir al-mu`minin. Had the principal decreased or been
destroyed, we would have guaranteed it.” ‘Umar said: “Pay it.” ‘Abd Allah was
silent, and ‘Ubayd Allah repeated it. A man who was sitting with ‘Umar said,
“Amir al-mu`minin, better that you make it a qirad. ‘Umar said, “I have made
it qirad.” ‘Umar then took the principal and half of the profit, and ‘Abd Allah
and ‘Ubayd Allah, the sons of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab took the other half."
In this tradition Sayyidna ‘Umar does not object to taking a loan, investing it in
business, and keeping the whole profit and returning the principal to the lender. His
objection was only based on the possibility of favoritism in the granting of the loan.
38
10 Murabahah and bay‘ bi al-thaman al-‘ajil are essentially sales on credit with price
increased for deferment of payment. In the context of Islamic banking murabahah is
considered a short term financing. The customer asks the bank to provide financing
to purchase stock and inventories, spares and replacements, or semi-finished goods
and raw materials. The bank will buy the items and subsequently sell them to the
customer at its purchase price plus a profit margin. The customer pays this increased
price after a few months in lump sum..
Bay‘ bi al-thaman al-‘ajil is used particularly in Malaysia for financing the acquisition
of assets and the payment is usually done, possibly by instalments, over a longer
period compared to murabahah. It has been utilized by the banks to provide the
customers medium and long term financing to acquire items which may include
landed property, houses, motor vehicles, furniture, stock and shares, etc.
11 If we examine the statement of the mushrikun in a serious way, we will find that
it applies determinism (the belief that everything without exception happens
according to the will of God) selectively. The mushrikun do not see or do not want to
see that God may not have only willed that they would do shirk but also that they
will as a consequence of their shirk abide in hell for ever. And they also do not see
that God may have willed that they will do shirk for a certain period of time and
then with the coming of the Prophet they will repent from it.
12 Vanity may, for example, make some people buy unnecessary items/services only
to impress others with credit cards, paying very high interest rate.