SSRN Id1790222

OCS-002–14
March 18, 2011
Riba and Hadith of Six Commodities

© Qazi Irfan, Islamabad (Pakistan)
author@hazariba.com
Abstract
Islamic legal maxim “it is undeniable that rules of law vary with
change in time” is moderately scientific in construct admitting the
evolution process of human knowledge, concepts and practices.
Although this broad-spectrum saying already existing among the
provisions of Islamic Jurisprudence, however more often than not,
the Islamic legalists offer unjust attitudinal resistance for such a
change even be considered let alone be happened and ignore the
reality of humans’ fallibility. The mortal beings of any period who
might be extraordinarily intelligent and perceptive and who can
anticipate or influence the progression of knowledge for several
hundred years next to them, despite that they still face their own
limitations, naturally imposed on them by the era they live in. The
earlier Islamic scholars were aware of this possibility owing to
their towering caliber and accordingly produced this broad rule
for the real world. It is an essential part of our belief that divine
and prophetic sayings hold relevance for all times which implies -
it is only human interpretation and analysis of holy sources that
may transform in the course of evolution. This discourse attempts
to comprehend the wisdom of subject hadith in context of evolved
knowledge and transformed concepts primarily by the economic
intellect of today and investigate the law derived from it. A much
sought coherence in monetary matters within Islamic laws is the
quest and driving force of the endeavor.
Keywords
Riba, Hadith, Contract of Sarf, Forex, Loan, Qard, Endoview, Exoview
JEL Classifications
D63, E42, K19, P19, Z10
Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222
Riba and Hadith of Six Commodities – Page 2
Introduction
Philosophy of the science of hadith is based on two key rudiments;

the authenticity establishing process for the chain of transmission
(sanad) and the text (matn) of hadith itself. The great Muslim scholars
who instituted this discipline were extremely precautious in their
tasks that is visible in their research attitude; all their efforts were
directed to discover and report the exact message of Prophet (SAW)
because they also believed that the prophetic wisdom rests in the
exactness of prophetic messages which indisputably is one of the
two primary sources of Islamic Law. Then we believe Islam is the
religion of nature (fitrah)1, nature is harmonious and since eternal
harmony exists in primary sources, thus the interpretation (or law)
based on these sources shall also conform to nature.
Nature (fitrah) has major common factor in all humans while piety
(taqwa) is entirely individualistic, therefore by desirable quality of
logic – rationalism has preference over pietism, and those who
favour pietism by ignoring rational attitude indeed act against the
nature and thus religion, and consequently can’t practice piety by
themselves in effect. The cautious attitude anchored in taqwa that
we see in earlier scholars is not because of rejecting rationalism
but only because of the absence of ‘corresponding rationality’.
For instance in early Fiqh, it is assumed that every loan (qard) has a
benefit attached to it2 although without quantifying what a benefit
is? There may not be an economic or monetary benefit out of loan
(qard) to the borrower except a mental peace alone, shall any non-
economic and non-monetary bonus be also included in the benefit
arising from delay i.e., the excess through nasi’ah or nasa’ (delay)3
which is the primary argument in defining riba-al-nasiah. There is no
underlying principle or concept behind this piety based thinking
emerging by reason of stern divine and prophetic rulings on Riba.
It might be true, every loan can provide some kind of advantage
to the borrower but is there any rationale that every benefit due to
delay is Riba? The corresponding rationality is absolutely missing
here; even today we have no comprehensible concept as what is
benefit, what is profit, what is riba, so on and so forth. The later
1 Quran 30:30 (Al-Room)
2 Which goes to the borrower along with loan and whether the borrower makes use of it or not
but is available to him.
3 Article 3.1 “Riba in Excess” in “The Concept of Riba and Islamic Banking” by I.A.K. Nyazee
Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222
efforts of characterizing riba-al-nasiah as “riba al-Quran” could not

bring any real change in the previous concept of riba-al-nasiah4 and
this labeling is also without any corresponding rationality for the
concept of loan (qard) it is based on.
The reality of life is such that if we don’t know what is truth which
might be a straightforward ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a question, it takes an
unending debate to find that simple answer. A similar fact in the
evolution of knowledge says if concepts are missing or derailed
then intellectual journey in exploring subjects is never satisfying.
The intellectual expedition on Riba is continuing without a resolve

so far, the concept of loan (qard) produced in this discourse is quite
imperfect rather defective seriously which is evident from present
law-violating state of affairs across common muslims and their
practices – i.e., fixed term loans are not permissible even without
stipulated excess as per existing Islamic Law (the contract of sarf),
but muslims in general, neither do they comprehend nor comply
this unrealistic stance and defy it on daily basis extending mutual
and social cooperation to each other by transacting fixed term
loans without any stipulated excess in the principal amount they
lend, in doing so - there is no feeling of committing any sin. This is
how the nature (fitrah) demonstrates and takes its course.
One may argue or place a question here – who is wrong, people

or the law? But then who will decide this - law or the people? The
answer is simple – law and people can decide but it must conform
to the nature (fitrah) being the scrutiny criterion (Quran 30:30). For the
people or for the law, there is no substantial argument (dalil) to
support this law except the law itself. The source of this law is the
subject hadith of six commodities that we intend to pursue here
and might observe what went wrong in deriving the law from it.
Ahadith of Six Commodities
Out of several reliable collections of ahadith, here the reference for

specific evidences is obtained from Sahih Muslim i.e., two famous
ahadith of six commodities with dissimilar asnad (sing. sanad) varying
a little in concluding sections, employed here for perusal.
4 Today, riba-al-nasiah is a benefit (excess) towards lender only which is a change of stance from
earlier Fiqh but is not reflected in unchanged stances on qard-hasan and the contract of sarf
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222

The Arabic versions5 mention the sanad of hadith.
1. Narrated by Ubadah b. Samit, Hadith #1569, Vol 2, Muslim
Referenced English Translation6 :

Ubida b. al-Simit (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Gold is to be
paid for by gold, silver by silver, wheat by wheat, barley by
barley, dates by dates, and salt by salt, like for like and equal
for equal, payment being made hand to hand. If these classes
differ, then sell as you wish if payment is made hand to hand.
Improved English Translation:

Ubadah b. al-Samit (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: gold in
exchange of gold7, and silver in exchange of silver, and wheat
in exchange of wheat, and barley in exchange of barley, and
dates in exchange of dates, and salt in exchange of salt; like for
like, equal for equal, be exchanged hand to hand. If the genus
differs then sell as you wish if exchange is made hand to hand.
2. Narrated by Abu Saeed Khudri, Hadith #1570, Vol 2, Muslim
5 Sahih_Muslim_Vol2.pdf, Arabic to Urdu compilation of Sahih Muslim by Moulana Aziz-ur Rahman

6 Online Reference - Muslim :: Book 10 : Hadith 3853, web link
<http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=010&translator=2&start=3854&number=3853>
7 The translation of “gold for gold” or “gold in exchange of gold” for the Arabic expression of
( ) is more appropriate instead of the translation used in online reference that is “gold
is to be paid for by gold”.


Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Gold is to be
paid for by gold, silver by silver, wheat by wheat, barley by
barley, dates by dates, salt by salt, like by like, payment being
made hand to hand. He who made an addition to it, or asked for
an addition, in fact dealt in usury. The receiver and the giver are
equally guilty.
Improved English Translation:

Abu Saeed al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: gold in
exchange of gold, and silver in exchange of silver, and wheat in
exchange of wheat, and barley in exchange of barley, and
dates in exchange of dates, and salt in exchange of salt; like for
like, be exchanged hand to hand, he who paid extra or asked
extra, in fact dealt in usury. The receiver and the giver are
equally guilty.
Understanding the Two Ahadith
Let us first list out fine points of hadith texts chronologically:
1. Sahih Muslim hadith # 1569 says:

a) A commodity in exchange of the same commodity (six commodities
stated – gold, silver, wheat, barley, dates and salt)
b) Like for like
c) Equal for equal
d) Hand to hand
e) If the genus differs then sell as you wish if exchange is made hand
to hand
2. Sahih Muslim hadith # 1570 says:

a) A commodity in exchange of the same commodity (six commodities
stated – gold, silver, wheat, barley, dates and salt)
b) Like for like
c) Hand to hand


d) He who paid extra or asked extra, in fact dealt in usury.

e) The receiver and the giver are equally guilty.
The above fine points embrace the philosophy of set transactions

and given conditions in entirety, to comprehend the intact span of
affairs narrated in these evidences, we may start addressing each
subtlety in sequence and explore its substance, certainly without
compromising internal consistency of ahadith. Since my primary
sphere of investigation is the concept level of subject, accordingly
I shall first see content above its legal stature, although that will
eventually help to imply the law but that is only after convincing
coherence established at concept level particularly for the subject
ahadith and generally for overall Islamic beliefs but excluding the
law argued with here. As expected, one has to observe some rules
or norms while delving into such a caring task, employing control
is required, for such reason I have laid down few simple “rules of
interpretation” at my own presumably being enough to serve the
purpose and concerns given that the rules are “belief based” and
I believe all muslims share this belief.
Rules for interpretation :

1. To remain within the text of hadith to find rationale and message,
this is because in our belief – each hadith has a definite message
2. A hadith is internally consistent for its definite message, once this
internal consistency is established and available; it offers external
consistency to other divine and prophetic messages. Belief again9.
3. To explain ahadith here, one shall offer only contextual, natural
and commonsensical argument without ambiguity of sense
4. The primary sources i.e., Quran and Sunnah/Ahadith provide relative
foundational harmony for rule #3.
Naturally, few queries come to mind instantaneously for each fine

point pulled out of the text (matn) of hadith; these logical questions
are also listed before the explanation begins for each section.
9 It is a demand of belief for Muslims that consistency of a prophetic message with other prophetic
and divine messages is deemed certain, however since the reliability of ahadith depend on its sanad
subjected to strict passing criterion in granting any hadith the status of sahih or else, thus if any
inconsistency in sahih ahadith is apparently detectable, then either the ahadith might be researched
again (however have no idea as how), or the disparity shall be resolved according to nature (fitrah)
or the inconsistent subject matter shall be left open for coming times and generations to resolve.

1. The Six Commodities

Text (matn) section of hadith :
gold in exchange of gold, and silver in exchange of silver, and wheat
in exchange of wheat, and barley in exchange of barley, and dates in
exchange of dates, and salt in exchange of salt
Related queries :
1. Why only six commodities? Shall we restrict to six commodities or
can we add more to the list by analogy (qiyas) of commodities?
2. Can we extend the application of ahadith to other objects?
3. What is the commonality in given six commodities?
A hadith - the saying of Prophet (SAW) certainly had some situation

or a reason of its origination, the message might had been uttered
in one tone or another or through some particular sentiments, but
those sensitivities are not available to us, we have the text (matn)
only that we can explore as per rules defined above, conjecture or
guess about text is least wanted. For instance, the flow of select
text (rhythmic stream of phrases) with coordinating conjunction
“and” (wa) before every commodity gives a narrative impression
of advancing continuity and it looks that this flow is not truncated
but shortened, yet there is no way to claim a position here by this
guess, the sole judgment probability for the tendency of tone was
ended with the very first listener of hadith, now it is impossible that
a definite verbalization of such continuity be detected resolutely
from the text alone by later recipients of the message despite this
advancing continuity style of the text, it will merely be a guess to
include other commodities in the list on this basis. Likewise it also
is a little advanced guess if we make group of stated commodities
like food and metal and extend the list by analogy of genus, its
characteristics or utility since we don’t see any clue in ahadith for
such deduction and if we had then the issue were not existing. The
alternate fact is, there is no point in the figure of six; the list might
have been more if Prophet (SAW) had said or less if so had he said.
There is rigid stance witnessed in the chronicles on this aspect of

ahadith arguing to confine to six stated commodities only, however
a majority of Islamic scholars of mainstream schools of thought
believe there must be other commodities included to the list, both

stances relate to respective implications of “riba al fadl10”. For the

rigid faction, there might be other reasons of inflexibility but one
is sure that they had no certain method to remove their restriction.
On the other hand the majority faction holding the view to expand
the list, employed speculative analogy technique for the purpose.
The analogical deduction methodology with a variety of criterions
they engaged to find the effective cause (illa’), could not result in
building consensus (on illa’), consequently all schools are stuck to
their own positions hitherto, the essential reason of their differing
positions is rooted in the speculative nature of criterion each has
applied, and there is no convincing reason – why one speculative
position should surrender to another speculative position? If you
are neutral and not biased towards any school then it can well be
noticed from dissimilar position of four main fiqhs11; speculation
(guess) may not be wrong in whole but probably it’s a partial truth
or half-done fact, thus for an effective cause (illa’) criterion – a total
agreement would be a demand from them almost out of question,
this never happened as well – history validates.
It is neither denied here nor it should be, to expand the commodity

(object) list but with guess methods because applying speculative
treatment may not hold the internal consistency of hadith and will
distort its definite message consequently. Thus answer to the first
query on this part of hadith text is – no addition to commodity list is
suitable by conjecture or analogical reason or organic parallel,
the argument (dalil) for this position is straightforward i.e., subject
ahadith neither restrict to add more commodities nor offer any
definite provision for commodity-similarity option to employ, and
neither do we find such an analogical option as well (to consider)
from other ahadith at least in my knowledge.
The question here is – how shall we include more commodities if

not by commodity analogy? We shall find some way to do it from
contextual evidence only and since we believe each hadith contain
a definite message; hence firstly we must discover the underlying
principle of its definite message and then apply that rationale to
10A type of Riba having at least two different concepts changed in the process of Fiqh development.
11The analogy (qiyas) method was employed by various fiqhs (Islamic schools of thoughts) to find a
common efficient cause (illa’) in six commodities also known as ribawi items. Hanafi school include
(weight, volume), Shafi school (medium of exchange, eatables), Maliki school (eatables, preserve-
able), Hanbali school (weight, volume, and edibles).

extend the commodity list so that it offers external consistency to

objects not mentioned in hadith. Practically, this methodology is
quite deviating from earlier scholarship.
Given that both ahadith are guiding deeds for Muslims by unfolding
some lawful and unlawful transactions with conditions where few
commodities are just objects to explain those dealings, thus in my
view, the contextual emphasize is not formed on commodities per
se i.e., like on gold (al dhahab) but the transaction of the same – that
is “gold in exchange of gold (al dhahab bi’ dhahab)”12, this is a definite
foreground feature internally consistent by recurrence in selected
evidences i.e., all six occurrences in ahadith where commodities
are different but validate this stability. This format of transaction
that is internally consistent, in conformity with given conditions
will provide a transaction-conditions-similarity option that should
be the natural place for other objects practically.
Thus answer to the second query on this part of the text is yes, we
may extend the application of ahadith to other commodities only if
those objects fall in line with the rationale of transactions. Indeed,
this is one divergent approach from analogical deduction utilizing
commodity attributes (weight, volume, edibles etc.) that we see in
various fiqhs where no unanimity was achieved just because of the
speculative nature of criterion.
Let us briefly reaffirm the difference of understanding; commodity

as such, like gold (al dhahab), is not the focus (subject) of hadith but
the transaction of the same commodity i.e., “gold in exchange of
gold (al dhahab bi’ dhahab)”; accordingly thus, we are not attempting
here to find any kind of commonality in given six commodities by
way of extra-contextual guess methods to extend the list.
Owing to this distinctive approach here, we are shifting objective

focus from commodity-similarity to functional-similarity13 i.e., not
to include more commodities on the basis of their attributes of
similarity but to employ transaction rationale which implies that
any object satisfying this internally defined criterion of ahadith will
come under the effective domain of these ahadith. This resolve of
12 This exchange format applies if true (homogeneously) to one set of conditions or else if not true
(heterogeneously, only in hadith #1569) to the other (a subset of first set of conditions).
13 Of stipulated transactions only since we have not taken commodities as the subject & accordingly
not attempting their functional properties common in all like Exchangeability and Fungibility.

functional-similarity will allow us to include things which are not

commodities such as paper money14. The concept of paper money
was not available to earlier scholars otherwise they definitely had
not used the weight and volume type criteria15 since they could
not ignore the fact of using paper money as money for its obvious
relation to riba and the contract of sarf, this has already been
realized by modern-day scholarship16 and they approve the reality
of using paper money as money though not by given criterion (as
dalil) however by the authority they assume. Now given that paper
money is approved and ruled by the contract of sarf thus to
assimilate present form of money, naturally we need at least one
higher level in the hierarchy of classification (in or) above “genus”
allowing us to insert both commodities and non-commodities as
objects under the effective domain of ahadith. Let us designate this
distinct category as “family of genus” or “genus family”, i.e., all
members of this category are potential objects for the said types
of transactions described within these ahadith; summing up, in this
“genus family”, exchange of its member genus (homo or hetero) is
the subject and genus itself is the object of topical ahadith.
For this part of the text (matn), the abridged position is:
Instead of commodities, we have adapted the subject of ahadith to

be the transactions (homogeneous or heterogeneous exchange) of
few selected genus each possibly having its own species. Since
the subject is modified, accordingly we shall see the possibility of
expansion in the list of objects by means of transactions rationale
(that we have to find), so the commodities-similarity has become
irrelevant and we intend to replace it with functional-similarity
where all probable objects conforming to this option are grouped
in a “genus family” to generalize the list in one labeled category.
The argument (dalil) for our viewpoint lies in natural appearance
of the evidence as seen by our contemporary economic intellect,
there is no explicit restriction to alter the subject or adding objects
(for adding at least, majority of scholars agreed on this view).
14 Paper (fiat) money irks many Islamic minds, but the reality of matter is - so far no sound rejection
is legalized from Shariah by contemporary authorities on religion rather they accept it in practice.
15 Although Shafi School include ‘medium of exchange’ in criteria but that seems had emerged from
the mentioning of gold and silver in the list and not from functional-similarity sought here.
16 Nyazee says “The truth is that if the strict legal position of Islamic Law is adopted, all transactions
in paper currency will become invalid.” ref article 7.3-The Hukm of Modern Currency in his “The
Concept of Riba and Islamic Banking”

2. Diktat – Like for Like

like for like (mithalan bi’ mithal)
Related queries :
1. Is it a condition or just a reiteration of homogeneity?
2. Like for like stands for what likeness?
Homogeneity in six commodities of exchange is already featured

repeatedly for six times in previously selected text of hadith where
this part of the text (matn) relates17, yet the possibility of reiteration
of homogeneity can not be ruled out, equally it may be true as a
condition too. We need to apply commonsensical reason here to
distinguish this. By considering next condition explicated in hadith
after this instruction – no one can believe Prophet (SAW) could had
ordained say for example to transact gold of 22 carat with gold of
18 carat in equal for equal – no sane, normal, rational thinker can
deduce the demand of such an anomalous transaction by ignoring
qualities of gold; suitably around we have a noble evidence in this
connection too, relating to Bilal (RA) where this disparity of quality
in a commodity is dealt with18 and does not illustrate any sense of
transacting dissimilar qualities in equal measures. If we believe
“like for like” command as reiterating homogeneity only, that will
imply, we shall ignore qualities or varieties in commodities which
is quite irrational and illogical deduction, therefore answering the
first query – the set phrase unquestionably is a condition beyond
doubt or at the most a reiteration of homogeneity plus a condition.
What exactly this condition implies? Until this time, we only have
a reason or distinction suggested in arguments that speaks about
the “qualities” in commodities. It is true as well and accepted that
“like for like” shall include same quality or same variety or same
species19 (organically) within a genus or commodity, but this is not
enough to interpret entire spectrum of the diktat because it means
the ‘intrinsic quality’ alone whereas people employ other decisive
17 Irrespective of stance if we take it as a condition or a reiteration (re-emphasize on homogeneity)

18 Muslim hadith #1589, where Bilal (RA) was directed to first sell the inferior quality dates and then
buy the superior quality from its proceeds
19 In the hierarchy of modern scientific classification system, species are the sub category of genus
which in turn is a sub category of a family and so on.

factors in their intended exchanges as well. The inquisitive minds

with current intellect also may not be satisfied if we fail to explain
it further because it is possible that though genus is same and the
species is same, even then the next condition of “equal for equal”
may not hold economic justice in exchange transaction of formal
equality sought in tradition – but hadith is not flawed for sure, it is
only our inadequacies that produce such inconsistencies. We are
required to investigate this by our contemporary intelligence.
The condition of “like for like” is a broad-spectrum expression on

place that may not be translated today simply or entirely to imply
only “different qualities” within a genus, neither the subject ahadith
are saying that explicitly, it has more significance than projected.
The ‘species quality’ element deduced previously from this decree,
in my view, is just because previous explorers of ahadith surmised
stated six commodities as being the subject of the tradition and
the connected law was formed before the economic awareness of
valuation was integrated in to knowledge, accordingly it needs a
revisit of the subject as suggested throughout this discourse.
An example here may help to elaborate the point, let us think of a

commodity (say mango) brought in market from a particular tree
by two different methods of transportation i.e., by sea and by air,
the commodity/genus is same, the quality/species is identical yet
these are sold at distinct prices in same market or you can say the
exchange-value for each is different despite same genus/species.
The above case in point is quoted from a real evidence of practice

in my first hand knowledge, the reason for the difference in prices
is the mode of transportation that affects the freshness and life of
commodity thus valued differently in market. This implies mango
quality may also be ascertained in terms of its freshness and life,
and of course these are not intrinsic features of the commodity but
simply the variable factors of valuation though genus and species
are same; likewise there are non-perishable types of commodities
exhibiting non-intrinsic reasons that forms the basis for different
exchange-values despite being identical in kind and quality. The
economic thinking now is more complex and factorized then past
simple trade practices of essential commodities, value addition is
a subject for example, where identical commodities may produce
articles of trade with varied exchange-values, not ignorable at all.

The natural human requirement of ‘valuation20’ is ubiquitous that

is an accepted truth; several obvious factors structure the basis of
valuation and may vary for each case; acceptability of valuation
factors in people is also ever present; when people do exchanges,
they have many concerns and a consolidated view of all aspects
resulting in exchange describe their value judgment.
Can value judgment of genus be restricted to its ‘intrinsic quality’

only? Even if so, how to translate it in terms of value i.e., what is
its ‘intrinsic value’21? There is no method to define unknown value
contained in genus as such but by the perception of people, social
standards, customs etc., then why these appraisal means shall be
ignored when some unknown value is added to the genus, there is
no corresponding rationality for this exception. We need to think
above mere ‘intrinsic quality’ feature in order to imply a universal
sense of the diktat. The ‘valuation’ (value judgment of whole set of
values) is a prerequisite of exchange, rightly thus “like for like” in
its broad sense shall signify an overall “value judgment” when it
is transformed in to law. The contract of Sarf, unfortunately, fails
to translate this value judgment when it neglects craftsmanship
and sadly does not offer any rationale at all to hold this position.
How one can justify that if an artisan who spent one whole month
in making necklace of 22k gold that weighs 10 grams, be ordered
to exchange his artifact with a coin of 10 grams in 22k gold? Shall
we deduce that making gold artifacts is prohibited indirectly? How
the usurpation of skills, labour and efforts can be justified that is
consumed in making necklace from gold? Absolutely, there is no
“corresponding rationality” for the law that says craftsmanship
has no value; the law formation had missed something definitely;
there is no contextual evidence in its source neither it offers any
harmony with nature, it suggests ignoring what is required to be
honoured and rewarded. It’s undesirable that commodity be given
more import then the human beings, in our age and intellect, such
is not the purpose expected of Sunnah, people are important not
material. This denial facet of law surely has its origin in treating
commodities as subject of ahadith and the deficiency in economic
acquaintance of transaction beyond their qualities.
20Assessment of value or precisely the assessment of exchange-value

21Some value within the genus itself, independent of individual’s perception, thus unknown
practically, intrinsic quality is however different, understandable for its organic or utility features.

For the second query on likeness, if we restrict the significance of

the diktat holding just the same genus and its species or the same
commodity and its quality, then other possible causes influencing
exchange-values of objects shall be ignored in the exchange, yet
again, this will be unnatural, irrational and illogical deduction.
The current economic intelligence asks to integrate ‘valuation’ by

all applicable means available to exchange-event taking place. It
is the only way to ensure economic justice from exchange-events.
This approach is not new to Islamic thinking, is it not required in
Islam to disclose all pertinent details including faults of the article
of trade, of course for the same purpose of economic justice.
It is undeniable that knowledge has evolved with time, now offers

more aspects to be considered in contracts, e.g. the fineness of
gold22; similarly ‘valuation’ is an indispensable factor required in
transactions. For our times, we may conclude that “like for like” or
likeness shall stand for the same quality or the same species in
the absence of other valuation factors or by integrating economic
aspect of ‘valuation’ let us say it means ‘homo-exchange-values’
(i.e., exchange-values of objects having homogeneous kinds and
identical species) at the same place of transaction23.
We bring in valuation (i.e., judgment/measure of value) replacing

simple intrinsic qualities of commodities, that is - we detached the
ever present concern of value from objects and connected it to
exchange transaction (our perception about the subject of ahadith)
that is inclusive of objects’ qualities. The argument (dalil) for this
change lies in the natural ‘valuation’ requirement of people which
coheres with the broad sense of the diktat and our contemporary
economic intelligence as well. The prior cited tradition <Bilal (RA)>
is a proof of enforced valuation though that was a case of unlike
species but can’t be neglected for identical species for the reason
that economic justice by itself results from exchange transaction.
22The etymology of carat <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=carat&searchmode=term>

tells us that qualities of gold were learned some where in mid of fifteenth century, before that the
fineness of gold was not an issue but only its forms & weight were the aspects of gold contracts.
23Intrinsic quality of same genus/species may not vary on different places at one given time, but their
valuation factors affecting exchange-values might be different on different places, therefore to

consider exchange-values as likeness, the “same place of transaction” shall be a condition

3. Diktat – Equal for Equal24

Equal for equal (sawa’n bi’ sawa)
Related queries :
1. Equal for equal stands for what equivalence?
2. Why such equivalence is sought?
3. Is there some obscured purpose or metaphorical meanings of such
unequivocal equality despite its least appeal?
The sequence or the placement of each expression (diktat) in both

ahadith is highly technical, this decree relates to previous two parts
as discussed above, reinforcing the former sense and generating
a directed view of the definite message. When genus is same and
species or qualities are also same then equality can be achieved
by any standard of measurement suitable for the genus involved
in the exchange. Indisputably, the equivalence sought in tradition
requires some standard unit of measurement in any case.
The “equal for equal” is an open or general expression that can’t

be translated exclusively in any one form of measurement, like in
numbers, the quantitative methods or volumetric units or else; the
obvious inclusive purpose of this diktat can not be justified by one
or the other specific methods of measurement and since subject is
exchange of commodities, appropriately an all-purpose economic
turn of phrase is required to express the broad meaning of “equal
for equal”, in our context, say it is “equal homo-exchange-values”
no matter whatever the method or the unit of measurement is.
It is frequently observed that people question about the sense of

equivalence required here - why one would engage in a futile and
pointless operation of equal homo-exchange-values concurrently.
Indeed, it makes half of the query and whenever I meet this half,
instantly strive to articulate the other half i.e., but why one would
engage in business of unequal homo-exchange-values at once? If
we merge the two to make a query in full then it compels the mind
to think as why shall people assume simultaneous exchanges of
homogeneous equals in the first place i.e., what are the possible
24 Hadith # 1569 only

causes here? There is no perceptible economic reason either for

equal or unequal concurrent exchange of homo-exchange-values;
both queries are genuine if we see it by economic intellect, yet the
possibility of other causes is predictable. The fundamental cause
of exchange-event lies in the circumstances of participants25, that
include economic or otherwise; no exchange-event will ever take
place without its own reason, cause, motive, purpose or the basis
of activity which may be identical or different for each participant.
The intended purpose of participant would be served through the
object(s) of exchange26 that acts as a carrier of gain or benefit to
one, both or all involved in the operation, although loss is also
transported through the object(s) of exchange but it never being
the purpose in its own for any rational economic entity.
In a mutual exchange comprising same genus and same species,

or homo-exchange-values, cause of need or necessity (dharurah) is
certain for one participant (more exactly the sole triggering cause
for such an exchange-event to occur), while the other reason with
second participant may be service or the motive of benefit (faidah)
if he is not having a matching need to agree with the former need,
especially the motive of benefit in such an exchange can’t initiate
the event but is a counter purpose to redeem the cause of need.
In case of equal exchange (of homo-exchange-values), economic

gain is non-existent and there is no reason for exchange-event to
take place except need i.e., only need-to-need or need-to-service
correlation of causes is effectual here. To all good intents and
purposes of human interactions, both forms of relationships are
time-honored, say for instance if one needs to exchange a higher
denomination of currency to its lower units, I think it must have
been in practice from the time when money was invented and its
various denominations are existing simply because people seek
and need this facility to fulfill their commitments on daily basis. It
is vitally imperative27 aspect although seems insignificant, even if
this alone is the purpose of equivalence sought in hadith, it is more
than enough to appreciate the diktat because different value units
in any money/currency systems are irresistible. Here correlations
of causes have social significance in a socio-economic milieu.
25 In my earlier article titled “Murabaha Financing VS Lending on Interest”, Pg.35

26 Ibid, Pg.37
27 It is not difficult to comprehend if one can imagine living without the option of unit systems.

On the contrary, in unequal exchange (of homo-exchange-values)

an economic gain is definitely available because of the inequality
in exchange-values and since exchange-event will occur only due
to the need of one partaker hence only need-to-benefit correlation
of causes is effective here which implies that the difference in two
exchange-values will settle towards one participant at the cost of
the other (in need).
In both cases, the triggering cause of exchange-event is need, to

meet this if the one in need has an option to select need-to-need
or need-to-service type relationship, rationally he will never opt
for need-to-benefit link unless he is not forced to. Absolutely there
is no reason to justify the last disadvantaged option, and current
economic thinking also realize this – “Standard economic intuition of
revealed preference implies that when two parties freely enter into a
contract then neither should be worse off 28”. It can’t only be a matter
of worse-off degree but principle; even negligible worse-off shall
be unacceptable, and no one shall force or be forced to lose.
The need-to-benefit correlation uses force for its realization, this

compulsion has two origins, the circumstances of the person and
the non-availability of first two choices. People must have access
to first options as privileges by the governments. If we try out an
experiment of nature for these options by offering all three to any
economic entity, everyone will pick one of the first two choices29
logically since no one would want to share-out even minimal of
his exchange-value just for nothing. In this perspective, answer to
the second query is – even though people may not desire to get
engaged in simultaneous exchange of homo-exchange-values but
only because of an inevitable need30 and it is not justifiable by
any reason (in economics or ethics) that such need be treated as
an opportunity to take advantage of, rather on the contrary by the
high merits of prophetic wisdom, the dictum suggests the need
must be handled with equality simply because advantage does
not exist actually and there is no understandable justification for
this act of benefit, it’s the demand of nature (fitrah).
28 Roberts, Michael J. and Key, Nigel (2005) "Losing Under Contract: Transaction-Cost Externalities
and Spot Market Disintegration," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization: Vol. 3 : Iss. 2,s
29 Every one of us can apply this to oneself rationally as an experiment, consequently either he will
confirm this proposition or else he might present some argument to differ with.
30 A need shall be considered ‘inevitable’ if there is no motive of benefit but still need exists.

If truth be told, the last query is really challenging, i.e., what is the
purpose in stressing on transacting equal homo-exchange-values
as no appeal or economic cause exists in equal or even unequal
concurrent exchanges? The prophetic messages are not without a
purpose as well that we believe; funny dealings like for example,
“someone swapping ten dinars with someone else’s ten dinars in
tandem” is not harmful affair at all neither it shall invite serious
insistence of order. No economic cause; no need to tackle the fun,
the purpose definitely is non-economic and this conclusion is not
by syllogistic reasoning (qiyas) but a binary complementary truth
of this or that (yes or no) nature i.e., an exchange activity is either
economic or non-economic in its totality. In this perspective, let us
conclude that the purpose or substance of message makes a case
of social function or common behaviour.
Here equivalence is the purpose for which a process of valuation

is essential but no rights for this process are granted to exchange
participants in this part of ahadith then how such equivalence will
be established? The only possibility of equivalence here is when
valuation is preset. The social assigned-exchange-value schemes
are predetermined methods of valuation which are communally
beneficial for all and non-negotiable inherently just because their
units inherit values by assignment of social accord and no one
has any right to alter those norms mutually or by force but only
through another social contract. This is true for other standards of
units too e.g. scientific. In this background, the focal concept of
‘equal-for-equal’ command seems to be the endorsement of social
support and enforcement of social norms (standards) of valuation.
The straight and clearly identifiable non-economic purpose of the

message here is “to respect the valuation standards” prevalent in
society; until this point, it’s the rationale of transaction described
in the first part of traditions. The argument we built earlier is that
‘valuation’ is related to transaction and we can not disregard any
factor influencing exchange-values. The realization of equality in
exchange-values as instructed has no economic sense or demand
so the purpose is societal and relates to assigned exchange-value
schemes defined by society i.e., the valuation standard or simply
the medium of exchange.

Differ….31
4. Diktat – If the Genus Differ….
If the genus differs then sell as you wish if exchange is made hand to
hand
Related queries :
1. The condition “if the genus differs” applies to discrete genus
exchange only or also to hybrid genus exchange?
2. What is the significance of “if the genus differs”?
3. What does it imply “then sell as you wish”?
We will not discuss hand to hand part of this diktat here but in the
next section because that also applies to previous fine points and
may be discussed in its overall perspective collectively.
In the simplest formats of exchange the genus are either identical

or discrete i.e., it is either homogeneous or heterogeneous type of
exchange and no third format is probable; the hybrid exchange is
possible when minimum two objects are there on one side of the
equation at least e.g., if gold is transacted with “gold plus silver”.
In such a case, the previously explained conditions shall apply to
homo-exchange-values on two sides of the equation and residual
exchange-values shall be transacted as per recent order, so there
appears no trouble even if hybrid type of exchange situation is
faced, the hadith regulates precise rules for both simple and hybrid
formats. In this context, we don’t need to repeat the homogeneous
factor of hybrid but to explore the discrete format only, this in fact
is the outward appearance of exchange here i.e., heterogeneous.
A discrete form means “gold in exchange of silver, wheat, barley,

dates or salt”, “silver in exchange of any of other five” or “one in
exchange of any one from other members of genus family”, these
are explicit meanings of “if the genus differs”, whereas its implied
demand is compelling more than expected i.e., implicitly, it says
the identification of objects is must simply because no distinction
in genus can be established unless objects are not identified. This
implied condition has principal significance internally consistent
31In
hadith #1569, although the sequential order of this diktat comes after “hand to hand” command
but since “hand to hand” also applies to earlier conditions, therefore order of this diktat is raised
here in the order list of explanation.

from start of tradition to its conclusion, will discuss its place when
discussing “hand to hand” in next part, though here we may stay
around minimal deduction that ‘objects must be identified’ in
heterogeneous exchange. In principle, if heterogeneity can’t be
established for unidentified things, so should be the homogeneity
that is – ‘objects must also be identified’ in case of homogeneous
exchange. Considerately in above stance, we have a general rule
from the tradition asking that for stated transactions, objects must
be identified for exchange (homo or hetero).
The previous conditions of “like for like” and “equal for equal” are
not applied in case of differing objects; however it still upholds the
“hand to hand”’ condition, we may quickly go over the reasons for
the exclusion of previous two conditions in case of heterogeneous
exchange; here we may recall, the ‘heterogeneity or homogeneity’
is wanted only in commodities that are stated in traditions or in
the extended list that we theorized as a “genus family”.
Obviously, it looks natural once genus are distinctive, the order of

“like for like” is not practicable because ‘organic distinctiveness’
existing in genus by nature, is the basis of such classification and
this categorization is explicitly recognized in hadith32, so when this
distinction is established at the root then there is no question of
‘likeness’ condition; accordingly the prophetic message maintains
its “internal consistency” by this omission. If you think back to the
‘valuation’ feature we introduced while discussing “like for like”
diktat, what about its relevance and application when likeness is
not sought here? Does this mean the theory of adding ‘valuation’
characteristic is proven wrong? Not really, ‘valuation’ is an issue
of transaction and not particular to commodity; it is applicable to
genus or commodity but also to other elements and dynamics of
transaction e.g. skills and labour of an artisan used in making an
object of exchange, the treatment of commodities causing some
value addition like when rice, wheat, citrus fruits and other items
are refined resulting in their higher exchange-values. These are
the factors of ‘valuation’ applicable to any object of exchange and
present regardless of ‘genus likenesses’ wanted or not, hence the
introduced ‘valuation’ premise is not redundant.
32The explicit sense when the tradition says “if the genus differs”

In the very next part of the current diktat, the rights of ‘valuation’
are assigned to the participants in exchange when the tradition
says “sell as you wish”, the ‘valuation’ aspect is offered even when
genus are different. Therefore, there is no extra-contextual reason
theorized (as per our set rules) in new added feature of ‘valuation’.
Remember, such freedom was not given in earlier exchange form
we concluded and hence proves our logical judgment there.
Next, we need to see what privileges the participant may have in

this assigned authority of ‘valuation’? A simple logic shall get us
its answer i.e., prophetic messages are non-contradictory – that
we believe, therefore whatsoever is established for earlier part of
the tradition can not be overruled by this authority given here. It is
already expected that the focal concept of “equal for equal” was
the enforcement of “valuation standards” defined by society; thus
anything that is left after fulfilling first obligations may comprise
the privileges of the participants.
Other than logic, the meaning of “sell as you wish” shall imply the
‘individual or personal valuation rights’. If society declares that
one dinar equals ten dirhams, no individual has the right to assert
his own ‘valuation’; conversely if such exchange relation is not set
by the social order then people are naturally free to use their own
‘valuation’ perception. Moderately thus, we may conclude that for
exchange of heterogeneous objects in “genus family”; the rights
of ‘valuation’ are to participants if not defined by the social order.
This diktat actually brings forth another angle of deliberations i.e.,

‘the reality of exchange types and their handling conditions’, if we
organize a diagram to depict all fundamental types of exchanges
for the “genus family”, the count is four since we have identical or
discrete genus; two for genus and other two for species; the types
of exchanges as declared in subject ahadith are intra-species and
inter-genus, other types of transactions possible in ‘genus family’
but not declared explicitly are inter-species and intra-genus. The
last one i.e., intra-genus will essentially have either intra-species
or inter-species form only, therefore just three types are actually
possible, two are discussed in the first hadith but the third type i.e.,
inter-species is not talked about here. If a prophetic evidence for
this type is also included in our efforts, it will complete the entire
spectrum of elementary exchange transactions, illustrated below.

“Genus Family”
Gold Others
Silver Salt
Wheat Dates
Barley
Genus
(Objects of Exchange)
Homogenous Heterogeneous
(Intra-Genus Exchange) (Inter-Genus Exchange)
Identical Species Discrete Species

(Intra-Species) (Inter-Species)
Homogeneous Homogeneous Heterogeneous

Homo-Species Hetero-Species Either Species
In hadith # 1569 & 1570 In hadith # 1589 In hadith # 1569
Entire Spectrum of Elementary Exchange Transactions
In this context, let us include the tradition cited above relating to

Bilal (RA) describing inter-species exchange type:
Narrated by Abd Sa’id, Hadith #1589, Vol 2, Muslim33
33 Ibid. P.1007 vol. 2, Arabic to Urdu compilation of Sahih Muslim by Moulana Aziz-ur Rahman

Abd Sa'id reported: Bilal (Allah be pleased with him) came with
fine quality of dates. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)
said to him: From where (you have brought them)? Bilal said: We
had inferior quality of dates and I exchanged two sa's (of inferior
quality) with one sa (of fine quality) as food for Allah's Apostle
(may peace be upon him), whereupon Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) said: Woe! it is in fact usury; therefore, don't
do that. But when you intend to buy dates (of superior quality), sell
(the inferior quality) in a separate bargain and then buy (the
superior quality). And in the hadith transmitted by Ibn Sahl there
is no mention of" whereupon".
Brief Inference in our context:
The external consistency available from above tradition reveals if

species of genus are distinctive (i.e., intra-genus and inter-species
exchange), almost certainly their exchange-values or ‘valuation’
aspects shall be different because of respective uniqueness, and
thus a ‘value judgment’ is required to settle the transaction justly.
The rights of this assessment are not assigned to the participants,
individually or mutually, rather a mediator is placed in between to
assert neutral and fair exchange relation between unlike objects.
The prime reason for this via route is the absence of ‘proportional
value judgment’ in terms of exchanged objects, in relation to each
other. Even if ‘exchange-values’ are assigned to these objects by
the social order, the relation between assigned-exchange-values
is required to be defined for the purpose of economic justice. This
approach is well summed up in calling it as “marking to market35”
procedure.
The point in the mention of entire spectrum of such transactions is

that the feature of ‘valuation’ is not neglected in traditions, the set
conditions for different exchange types have corresponding facts
in human intuition and throughout the spectrum of transactions
the purpose appears is – economic justice, where the contractual
aspects are intelligently handled by imposed conditions.

35 El-Gamal, Mahmoud A. Web link <http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~elgamal/files/riba.pdf>

4. Diktat – Be Exchanged Hand To Hand

be exchanged hand to hand (yadan bi’ yadin)
Related queries :
1. What is the “rational significance” of hand to hand condition?
2. What is the “functional equivalent” of hand-to-hand?
3. Does this hand-to-hand directive apply universally prohibiting any
time involving transaction of all fitting objects under the ambit of
subject ahadith e.g. silver, gold and money in loan contracts?
The contract of sarf laid emphasis on recent condition more than it

does on any other conditions stipulated in ahadith accentuating its
legal significance. The influence or importance of the decree can
also be envisioned from a tradition of Umar (RA), “From your hand
to his hand. If he asks you to wait behind the wall (of a room), do not
wait for him, and if he jumps from the roof, then, jump with him.”36
Certainly, hand-to-hand condition has its distinctive connotation
understood differently within piety and liberal reasoning, such as
“exchange at once” or “in a reasonable session” or “the technical
possession of modern age” etc., all such positions are legal forms
to enforce the diktat, which in any case is required to execute the
command, however as usual these legal opinions do not offer a
clue for the obscured purpose of the command i.e., why it is that
hand-to-hand is given so much substance or what is the reason in
enforcing the condition of simultaneity? In a roundabout way,
what happens if some delay is encountered? What does delay do?
Where to find the justification of disapproving the delay i.e., in the
intention, in commodities, in exchange or else?
A logical resolve of these queries will form rational significance

of the diktat internally consistent with definite message of ahadith
that in fact is more important than any legal position, to be more
precise, it is actually required to form an accurate legal position.
The issue of simultaneous exchange has remained a challenging

task for earlier scholars as well compelling great thinking minds
to assume and go for extra-contextual justification in search of its
36 Ibid. Article 7.2.1 - Quoting Al-Sarakhsi

underlying principle that prophetic message might have destined.

The enormity of challenge and its stress on thinking minds can be
assessed from the requirement of justifying a credit sale, say of
wheat or salt against gold or dinar, in a situation when the hadith
demands that even if commodities differ, the exchange has to be
simultaneous. The credit sales were practiced in those days, and
there was no comprehensible reason or objection that such credit
sales should have been prohibited, it was neither making a sense
to them nor some one in this age would agree to. That was a real
paradoxical situation, it is thus they landed in grave syndrome of
“estimation methods37” that is – in the times of Prophet (SAW), the
estimation of gold and silver were by weight and estimation of
other four commodities were by measure, so they derived a feeble
legal position in the diversity of estimation methods to allow the
sale of four items on credit against gold/silver or dinar/dirhams.
Since, six commodities were assumed as the subject, so they also

looked legal substance there, but such is not an argument, it’s a
legal position because no ‘corresponding rationality’ is on offer to
understand the reasons in employing this technique, what makes
the difference if methods of estimations are not the same? Some
methods are replaced, now wheat, barley, dates, salt are sold by
weight instead of measure so the previous position has already
lost its basic differentiation if there was any, and insisting on this
reason of legality would be a double jeopardy.
The other truth is, despite having challenges on intellectual front

to solve contemporary issues which are pending because existing
interpretation or law is not sufficient to handle those challenges
of transformed intellect; the modern scholarship is hardly willing
to address concepts of existing laws. By the high merits of Islamic
thinking, it is not piety that arguments are not noticed but ignored
just to uphold a position which does not offer an argument; this in
fact reflects rigidity and incapability of modern intelligentsia and
indicates elemental reason of decline. Is it not an uphill task that
we have no financial or monetary policy? Despite interest-free
fixed-term loans are illegal by law but rampant, is it not an issue?
People are not for law; law is for people, if people are changed in
their intellect, then man made law may be changed if not suited.
37 Ibid. Article 5.3 The sub-principles in Sunnah

In this age of widespread economic thoughts and deliberations,

who can defend the contract of sarf for its two problems at least,
firstly, how to justify neglecting ‘value addition’ in an artifact that
consumed skills and labour while hadith does not order like this?
Secondly, why people shall not undertake fixed term interest free
loans, is it not just an implication of derived rules which have no
second evidence in primary sources except the derivative? Where
are the “corresponding rationalities” answering the law positions
realistically to satisfy the nature and the common-sense? Though,
these are not new queries, and as far as my limited knowledge is
concerned, whenever such types of queries are raised, these are
treated by authority and not by reason or if by any reason that is
not convincing. Such are the tribulations emerged because of the
delusion on Riba, an exact concept of which is still undecided.
The only ray of hope is in attitude to improve by logic and reason,

ready to absorb evolved knowledge and experience, and seeking
improvement in harmony with nature and human instinct. We can
surely move forward if we show such acceptability, this discourse
with its line of argument is an effort by reason to resolve issues
we are facing i.e., for the interpretation, there is nothing wrong
rather an enhanced thinking conforming to our contemporary age
that if we grasp “the exchange (homo or hetero)” being the subject
in place of commodity, to apply economic thinking of “valuation”
in transaction instead of just restricting to quality of commodity,
and seeking equivalence in “complying standards of valuation”
as a replacement for equal weights or equal measures. All such
modifications do not imply that the earlier thinking is rejected in
any way, it is not. We are here to say all this just because of those
great minds who taught us as how to think and handle issues, all
credit goes to them for their efforts providing us a foundation to
improve as they expected.
The approach is to translate the sense using current intelligence

and philosophy that is acceptable to eternal divine and prophetic
wisdom, with the intention of rectifying practical obsolescence of
existing laws. This exactly was the approach of those great minds
who gave the law first as all of them utilized the knowledge and
practices then in use, it was the natural way and still is; argument
(dalil) matters only and that comes from the intellect which reflects
the state of human acumen in any age.

The simultaneity38 is a property associated to events, in our case

to exchange-events; it is also one of the reasons in switching the
subject from commodities to exchange-transaction, commodities
can’t hold this condition of being in the state of simultaneousness,
only events can do. The diktat demands to associate the condition
(i.e., property) of simultaneity as an order for exchange-events to
happen at the same time in one reference frame.
In its literal sense ‘simultaneity’ will be exact when the difference

of time in exchange-events is zero, that is almost impossible for
humans but only by chance, so a natural demand arises for the
approximation of this property to define a ‘time window’ that may
be considered suitable as a ‘reference frame’ for ‘simultaneity’; it’s
not a new approach rather every one had faced this issue to settle
in justifying the diktat, for instance the earlier mentioned sense of
“exchange at once” or “in a reasonable session” or “the technical
possession of modern age”, all do refer to this approach, that is to
approximate the ‘reference frame’ where the lone factor of time is
employed as an ‘independent variable’ to decide its practicability.
The use of time factor is suitable for practices, correlates to legal

implementation of the decree; however it does not help in finding
the corresponding rationality of aimed simultaneousness which is
our principal query here, for that very reason, we have to find and
include another ‘independent variable’ in defining the ‘reference
frame’ of simultaneity. In fact, this lacking is a cause of differing
positions on the matter since no other criterion or parameters are
available to define the extent, size or limits of the ‘time window’.
The lively theme of interpretation is revolving around the concept

of ‘valuation’ which we estimate as an indispensable factor for all
exchange-transactions, and since ‘simultaneity’ is directly related
to these events as well, hence next independent variable that we
are searching for, has its highest probability in ‘valuation’.
As established, we have a basket of few “mediums of exchanges”,

here for the purpose of simplicity, let us reconsider the basket as
containing various currencies comprising present and past ones,
this will not change our argument or the sense we are projecting.
38In its extensive definition, simultaneity is the property of two events happening at the same time
in at least one reference frame. <http://simultaneity.askdefine.com/>

From the period of metal-based to localized forms and now paper

money, the legal assignment of value to its units has never been
permanent i.e., the individual currency units in any scheme never
had an endless or constant relation between its assigned-value
and corporeal composition, that is, exchange worth of a currency
is changed by changing its internal formation. We need referring
to this common observable fact frequently, so for the purpose of
simplifying the practice, let us coin a new term here representing
internal variation in exchange worth of currency as “E Endoview”.
ndoview
In the era of metal based monies, endoview in functional monies
were occurring when coins were minted and re-minted by varying
its weight or by adding impurities for any good or bad reasons,
despite endoview, most of the times the coins were carrying same
face-values or assigned-values that existed before the alteration
occurred in their corporal makeup. Then it is also a historical fact
that in bi-metallic money regimes the exchange-rate say between
dinar and dirhams was always varying and never had a constant
relation between them. In earlier context, that was the “Exoview
Exoview”
Exoview
experience of money (the external variation in exchange worth of
currency). Today, fiat currencies are devalued or revalued as the
regimes want it to do (endoview trend), again for any good or bad
reasons, not of concern here, and these regimes define exchange
relation for currencies of other origins (exoview practice).
Whatever the represented forms of money are, its worth is set by

assignment only and the authority who does this, do also have the
rights to effect endoview and exoview aspects of the currencies it
manages, regardless of the use of this prerogative by authorities
who might be claiming any reason(s) justified or unjustified that is
not of concern here, the fact remains, the endoview and exoview
actions are ever present and people accept them as an obligation
and readjust their judgments and dealings accordingly because of
their inescapable relationship with society and governments.
The only difference in present and past practices is the frequency

of exercising the prerogative by authorities i.e., say for instance,
endoview in coins was not frequent but in years and decades, and
exoview mostly set by markets was also less frequent then today
when we see these privileges are being exercised time and again
between each dawn and dusk by the authorities and the markets.

The endoview strategies like re-minting, revaluation, devaluation

or else, are put into effect across the board in financial jurisdiction
served by any functional money therefore no relative erosion of
exchange-value is expected in terms of currency itself owing to
the reason that the reworked units of money are assigned their
previous face-values i.e., a dinar remained a dinar and a rupee
remains a rupee, one may call this implementation by any name
like ‘tax’ or whatever, the matter of fact is, these practices have
been used in the pretext of monetary and economic management
primarily and since applied evenhandedly to all therefore mostly
acceptable. It is up to the integrity and sensibility of governments
to use this tool in the interest of the public but people in any case
have “to respect the valuation standards” defined or re-defined. In
an absolute single currency jurisdiction, the endoview application
‘will not affect any exchange-value relation whatsoever’ implying
that no exoview incident of currency may occur, nevertheless, if
we perceive the entire state of affairs of endoview phenomenon
in multi-currency setting or its subsequent effects, we may realize
that this privilege must only be available to socially responsible
governing bodies working for public-centric policies.
An endoview occurrence in one currency is an essential cause for

an exoview incidence if and only if there are other currencies also
functioning in the same jurisdiction; exoview have other possible
causes as well e.g. demand and supply circumstances of working
monies in the territory etc. Irrespective of its cause, if exoview is
happened even in one currency only, it has the potential to affect
‘every other exchange-value relation’ inside the jurisdiction.
The purpose of stretching above arguments to extreme situations

of absolute single currency and then multi-currency environments
is to draw a parallel of two obvious situations as portrayed within
noble evidence, though there is a lot more in between these limits.
The logical implications of exoview occurrence are serious thus if
a real concern of people is pursued, it is the exoview occurrences.
If exoview is the concern of people then its frequency is the most
relevant ‘independent variable’ to define the ‘reference frame’ of
simultaneity simply implying that the commanded simultaneous
transactions must be concluded before next transient phase, that
is – before any transformation occurs in exchange-value of any of
the currency (objects) that are being exchanged (homo or hetero).

The time interval (i.e., T=1/Exoview Frequency) set by frequency is

the maximum allowable extent of ‘time window’ not to be violated
in order to maintain the legality of hand-to-hand diktat, indicating
any position is a valid position within the realm of ‘time window’.
This inference in fact corresponds to common human nature i.e., if
the intention of people is to settle the matter in equivalence with
immediate effect, then leniency of time period that does not inflict
loss is acceptable to them if they don’t possess other reason(s) of
urgency. Moreover in particular, this deduction also coheres with
our basic theme of ‘valuation’ applicable to all fundamental forms
of transactions stated in cited ahadith where prophetic messages
revealing explicit common purpose of ensuring the deliverance of
precise equal exchange-values to the participants. If delay in the
settlement of involved objects occurs beyond this ‘time window’, it
will cause inequality on delivery by external reasons of exoview
incident. In this context of arguments, answer to the first query is,
the ‘rational significance’ of “hand-to-hand” diktat is to protect the
participants (in transaction) from (economic) externalities39.
The answer to second query can also be offered from previously

stated arguments i.e., the ‘functional equivalent’ of hand-to-hand
diktat is – the function of exchange complying its rationale import
must be completed within defined ‘time window’ by any practical
customary technique.
The remaining query is relatively sensitive since it addresses an

issue of daily life practice which is against the law but not against
the nature so to find the narrow line causing the breakage of law
is a touchy bit naturally. Nevertheless, if we observe the set rules
of interpretation and attempt to find its answer from thematic
notion of ‘valuation’, it shall work positively.
As argued previously that ‘valuation’ is an indispensable factor

required in transactions, shall it mean if ‘valuation’ is not possible
or proper then the transaction will not occur? I think, it is not so,
the ‘valuation’ is a prerequisite for the purpose of delivering exact
equivalent of exchange-values in a mutual affair, this reciprocal
event in short is a contractual matter to be governed by the norms
of society and the perception of people, however, an impossibility
39In economics, the externality may be defined as an indirect effect on the participants (in our case)
of exchange transaction that is caused by outside economic agents not involved in the transaction.

or inadequacy of ‘valuation’ that is – the ‘uncertainty of valuation’

may not stop people from entering into transactions because of
human instincts (fitrah) purporting either good or bad reasons for
their involvement, for instance, good reasons like helping some
one at the cost of uncertainty, bad reasons are obvious too since
‘uncertainty of valuation’ is the only reason that actually tempts
people to speculate and gamble. Thus any transaction having an
‘uncertainty of valuation’ becomes a simple matter of ‘intention’,
another Islamic legal maxim - “matters are determined according
to intentions40” based on a famous hadith, has special significance
here, asking to differentiate between two intents, that is - how the
spheres of ‘relevant intentions’ are to be defined in principle?
Let us rewrite – the ‘uncertainty of valuation’ implies impossibility

or inadequacy of valuation, this feature may be present, for some
reasons in concurrent exchanges, however it’s an integral aspect
of every future transaction; we have several noble evidences from
primary sources helpful in comprehending the issue from subjects
of Riba, Qard, Dayn, Salam etc., or legal handling of issues by great
Fiqh scholars setting rules for contracts like Modarabah, Musharakah,
Bai Salam etc. though we may disagree with derivative outcomes on
the subject in some respects that might be basic or otherwise, for
instance, the noble prophetic tradition on Salam is a pertinent case
to study the uncertainty of valuation where in my humble opinion
the relevant prophetic evidence is a ‘rule’ in effect rather than an
‘exception (rukhsah)’ as considered in Fiqh, nevertheless that is not
a matter under discussion here. The uncertainty of valuation in its
absolute continuum can be divided in two complementary parts
of gharar and risk in my perception i.e., gharar is an uncertainty of
valuation rationally unacceptable, and risk is the one acceptable;
the rationality speaks of itself as originating from belief, intellect,
knowledge, experience etc., and must be the principle of division
in affair with uncertainty of valuation for its acceptability (as risk)
and unacceptability (as gharar). This perspective is consistent with
what is prohibited like speculation, gambling, selling or buying of
“unborn calf in its mother’s womb” or “the catch of the diver” or
“the birds in the sky“ and what is permitted e.g. investing, selling
and buying with advance or deferred payments etc., not any such
matters escape of this attitude towards ‘uncertainty of valuation’.
40 Article #1 <http://www.islamic-world.net/economics/99_sharia_maxims.htm>

If ’intention’ matters in ‘uncertainty of valuation’, will it not matter

when ‘certainty of valuation (exact exchange-values)’ is sought in
subject traditions? It sounds like a foolish question and that it is,
since no transaction can take place without having an intention
and already quoted the undisputed maxim above, but the reason
in raising this question is to highlight the fact that there are two
hemispheres of ‘valuation’ where intentions have to be different.
The subject ahadith are not referring to both intentions as well that
is very much clear and there is no contextual evidence for such
deduction rather the ‘certainty of valuation’ is assured by all ways
possible which implies that any transaction having ‘uncertainty of
valuation’ can not be covered within the realm of these traditions.
The tradition of Umar (RA) cited earlier and all Prophetic traditions
of similar context verify without omission that the ‘intention’ of all
such matters is ‘to settle in equivalence (certainty of valuation)’ of
two exchange-values, Prophet (SAW) clearly prohibited41 selling of
gold with gold or silver with silver if anyone of the two is absent,
then in another tradition42 with similar context as of subject ahadith
the selling of silver with gold is prohibited with deferment. What
else could be the reason for these prohibitions if the uncertainty of
valuation at settlement is not?
A credit price (say of a camel) agreed (say) in dinars is payable by

equivalent dirhams at the time of payment, similarly, a qard hasan
obtained in one currency can be settled in another currency with
equivalent of the first, these are established provisions allowed in
Fiqh which are very much explicable. Since the exchange-values in
these cases are defined and will be delivered exactly without any
disparity i.e., an exact liability is discharged just in another form
of prevalent currency which is acceptable by any standard. What
else could be the reason for these provisions if the certainty of
valuation at settlement is not?
The purpose of above deliberations is to emphasize that primary

decisive human factors in a transaction are intentions, valuation
and rationality, all the rest are relative subjects in reference to
41 Hadith # 1560 Vol.2 - Arabic to Urdu compilation of Sahih Muslim by Moulana Aziz-ur Rahman
Online Reference - Muslim :: Book 10 : Hadith 3845, web link
42 Ibid - Hadith # 1578

these essentials, i.e., gold, silver, dinar, and dirhams or concurrent

and delayed settlement, all are correlated issues to be seen in the
context of these fundamentals. A consolidated summary of above
scheme of thoughts may be portrayed as below:

Equality $ " % !
Inequality Acceptable ! " #
Unacceptable
NATURAL

RISK

FORCED

GHARAR

This is an all-inclusive conceptual premise for a transaction. The

resulting domains of permissible and impermissible are definitely
subject to some conditions that might be explicit or implied while
some objects are required for the purpose of fulfilling those terms
of domain. We have discussed explicit conditions so far and now
let us include briefly the implied condition that we showed earlier
while discussing “if the genus differs...” diktat, i.e., objects must be
identified for exchange (homo or hetero). The idea of identification
relates to the argument of ‘valuation’ not reliant on ‘ownership or
possession’ which was subsequent feature made primary through
inadequate conception of “hand to hand” order; the ‘identification’
notion primarily encompasses the previous diktats as well as the
current one and signifies that it is not always necessary to own or
possess things of trade (e.g. agency idea) but the rights of trade
(ownership included) where existence and specifications of the
article of trade are the real conditions for a thing to be identified.

The legal sense of two concepts is poles apart, identification will

not conflict with any thoughts of primary sources because it also
includes ownership and possession logic when required but it has
far reaching legal implications if compared to unnecessary legal
justifications we see in contracts based on prevalent laws. This is
a definite improvement from simple ownership to identification of
objects that perfectly coheres with the projected scheme however
no further discussion is sought at this moment.
By now, we have concluded that the subject ahadith encompassing

‘certainty of valuation’ domain only. A loan transaction by nature,
either specifying fixed time period or open time frame, is a case
of ‘uncertainty of valuation’ where intention matters and one may
not have two intents for one transaction. Let us first understand,
briefly, the case of loan from Fiqh; loan (qard) is a sale of currency
with currency with some delay since every sale (or exchange) of
same or unlike counter-values in Islamic Jurisprudence is called a
bay. The format of bay which involves only dayn i.e., dayn bi’ dayn
shapes the contract of sarf and given that Fiqh sets rules therefore
the contract of sarf speaks about the principles for the exchange of
currency and there is no explicit mentioning of ‘loan’ as such in
this contract but when it articulates ‘the counter-values must be
delivered and taken possession of within the session of the contract. In
other words, a condition for delay can not be stipulated43’, enforced by
a second rule of options saying ‘No option (khiyar) can be stipulated
in this contract. The reason is that an option delays the transfer of
ownership and this violates the first condition of spot delivery and
possession’, implies that loans are not permissible with or without
stipulated excess as the condition of simultaneity can not be
observed due to delay.
These rules presumes that the goal of participants shall only be to

exchange the objects; any reason or rationality is rejected in very
absolute44 way since the rules do not judge ‘why one may intend
to transact these objects’ which is like ‘you do exchange but do not
43 Article 4.4.1.3 – The Contract of Sarf in The Concept of Riba and Islamic Banking by IAK Nyazee,
yet in another write-up from him the clauses of contract are rephrased but not conflicting. Since I
regard Nyazee as one of the most knowledgeable jurist of modern times and rate him very high
for his legal (Fiqh) insight on Riba therefore most of my references on Riba are from his work.
44 Possibly because a concurrent exchange of similar objects was considered meaningless or trivial
thus indirect conclusion is reached that it is only delay that actually is the substance of prohibition
but this may only be an assumption not a reason or absolute conclusion or valid argument.

know why’; Nyazee portrays this deadlock situation excellently by

saying45 “The tradition of ‘Ub¯adah (God be pleased with him) is not
saying that you undertake the transactions mentioned; it is saying that
if you undertake such transactions, then, here are the rules you must
follow”, this exactly reflects the connotation of sarf rules outlawing
loans, simply saying regardless of any intention (like he says: if
you undertake), implying – matters can also be determined devoid
of intentions, but this is a serious inconsistency vis-à-vis the hadith
(inamal aamalo bin neyaat) and the legal maxim quoted earlier about
intentions, therefore we must try to understand this inconsistency
which is different from legal inconsistency. A ‘legal inconsistency’
means ‘a conflict of deduced rules with a primary evidence’46, in
the methodology of Fuqaha, if this happens to be the case then it is
corrected by offering exemption (rukhsah) to the evidence i.e., an
exemption is to undo the reparation that is caused by the paradox
of rules since primary evidence can not be ignored in any case, it
is thus exemption granted for Qard as Qard Hasan which otherwise
can not be allowed as per rules deduced, still justification for this
exemption is required even by guess or strange theorization. It is
imperative to comprehend that correcting methodology (rukhsah) is
applied only to deduced rules for its divergence with the primary
evidence and this technique by itself signifies the possibility of a
judgment oversight at conceptual or theorization level. If such an
omission exists at that level then it had to be transmitted onward
without resolve for the reason that we can not expect from great
scholars that they could have left it unresolved if had realized. The
inconsistent matter of intention that we noticed here above, is of
that sort i.e., conceptual. It has already been differentiated in our
approach where the origin of this conceptual disagreement again
is the same i.e., the issue of subject – commodity or transaction.
There are other conceptual challenges as well relating to Riba and

at least five of them are quite critical in nature that we can argue
with reasonably for their philosophical outlook but it is not desired
here since those are not related to the subject ahadith and I have to
finish this discourse too, accordingly it will be adequate to confine
to one more conceptual argument in our context of loan, that isn’t
a matter of difference with Fiqh rules on loan but the conception.
45 Article 4.8, Page # 71 – The Prohibition of Riba, Elaborated by Nyazee (2009), emphasis added.
46 For its understanding and terminology used in Fiqh.

But shall we or can we try to tackle the conceptual discrepancies

using our current intellect where the intention (if it really matters
to legalism) is not criticism but to recover the coherence lost in the
process of theorization? I think we can rather we should, simply
because the original ideas of primary sources are not restricted to
any age while removing inconsistencies is actually obligatory to
uphold the supremacy of primary wisdom. I don’t see any reason
that forbids undertaking such efforts of reversing a theorization
mismatch; the only requirement is to establish that there exists a
conceptual problem. Legal positions, deduced rules or principles
are secondary to concepts and become invalid if a real problem
in their concepts is identified. Let us try one such case of concept.
In the early Fiqh or you can say the original concept of riba al nasiah
as quoted or defined by Nyazee, conveys, ‘riba al nasiah, means Riba
arising out of delay; excess from the benefits of delay; the benefit
of Riba al-nasiah goes to the borrower47’, these perceptions tell the
whole hypothesis about the branch of Riba – quite shocking rather
distasteful and very disagreeable. First of all, it’s not defined what
a benefit is? Though we all know it is an advantage of some kinds
not just one kind. The concept of riba al nasiah is not identifying any
particular kind of benefit but all benefits with only distinction that
the cause of such benefits is delay and this effect (of the cause) is
certain without doubt because the statement is absolute in nature
giving no option to consider otherwise. There is nothing as well in
other essentials of a loan transaction i.e., intention, money itself,
and the transfer of ownership of money from lender to borrower,
that gives a clue of the kind of benefit that the borrower will enjoy.
If Riba is an evil, which it is, then some evilness is must to identify
emerging by this act of loan where we see no means to detect the
same from the dynamics of the transaction. It is not enough to say
that benefit is Riba, if some benefit goes towards the borrower, so
what? There is no corresponding rationality observed or common
for this definition of riba al nasiah. This may be the reason that later
scholars disowned the early Fiqh concept and replaced it with their
own labeling of “riba al-Quran”, their reasons of rejecting and then
renovating the concept are not known, at least to me. The rukhsah
justification given for qard hasan due to uncorroborated riba al nasiah
concept is also not convincing as well, that is – the benefit toward
47 Page # 53, 52, and 56 – The Prohibition of Riba, Elaborated by Nyazee (2009).

borrower is considered as gifted or donated to him by the lender

and since a gift can not be reclaimed therefore period may not be
fixed, hence qard hasan (open time frame loan) is permitted while a
loan with fixed time frame is not permitted, here the stipulation of
time period is considered as a call for the redemption of the loan.
If Riba is an evil then how its evilness will be removed by gifting or
donating? Conversely, if this act of gifting or donating the evil is
acceptable or rational then Riba will lose its meaning in effect and
no defense line would work then. In fact, these concepts and logic
are not consistent with other concepts of loan and charity that are
enlightened in other traditions of Prophet (SAW), for instance, “qard
given twice is like sadaqah (of the same amount) given once”; then
in another tradition, Prophet (SAW) said, ‘sadaqah will be rewarded
by ten times its amount, while qard will have a reward of eighteen
times’.
The above cited prophetic evidences clearly indicate that the act
of qard (loan) is superior than the act of sadaqah (charity); economic
intellect can understand this better than a mere legal mind; loans
are given to active or potential economic agents (as implied from
their promise to return), means they produce value wanted by all
to consume, while in case of sadaqah (though is a good act too), the
probability of its recipient for getting involved in producing is less
than becoming a mere consumption engine of value produced by
others, accordingly prophetic wisdom screening economic logic of
the acts. Does it make sense to attract or convince legal minds?
Then, if we inquire the economic justification of a ‘fixed term’ loan

contract, that is commonsensical too; firstly, when a lender gets a
promise of payment for his money within a given time frame – the
common human nature (fitrah) indicates that a fixing of period will
increases the probability of loan commitments in the society and
this will mean more economic activities in the economy; secondly,
both lender and borrower can plan better for their other activities
related to money and become more rational and responsible.
A lot can be said on the positive economic sense of loans science,

but the absolute negativity attached to loans (via riba al nasiah) is
neither final nor convincing; justification of rukhsah is hypothetical
and not convincing too; both “old Fiqh” concepts are inconsistent
with the optimistic perceptions of above prophetic evidences.

The sole reason for the exclusion of qard (loan) and the innovation
of qard hasan is the initial idea of uncorroborated riba al nasiah which
has its Sunnah evidence in subject ahadith chiefly the “hand to hand”
diktat. Though, succeeding scholars disowned the early concept of
riba al nasiah and tailored its sense from concealed to stipulated
kind of excess however they did not questioned its manifestation
in the contract of sarf which is based on concealed benefit. In other
words, if riba al nasiah is the “stipulated excess” then no stipulation
of excess in a ‘loan contract’ will mean no Riba in it, and the ‘fixed
term’ reason of rejection will not be relevant then. The “stipulated
excess” defining feature for riba al nasiah is identical to the original
Fiqh definition for riba al fadl (excess through estimation or qadr48), no
substitute concept is offered for new legal position of riba al fadl but
categories of Riba are retained at the cost of rationality, why then
people will not be confused? The situation is - the contract of sarf
is based on early theorization of Riba, which was modified later on,
however no subsequent amendment in the contract of sarf done to
reflect that change – this inconsistency exist as of today.
If current economic intelligence is employed, we may resort these

issues harmoniously, our belief suggests - it was only the absence
of corresponding rationality in theorization process conducted by
great Fiqh founders which forced them to take the piety thinking
route of banning the doubtful because of the severe commands in
primary sources, a proof for this argument is the adjustment done
by following scholars, however for reasons, they also could not do
full reparation task. The matter is serious; people want to believe
in law but not unbelievable law, it is imperative to recognize that
people don’t know and don’t believe these positions even exist. I
don’t remember exactly but it is long time since I am inquiring the
people from varied walks of life asking them to respond - if they
conduct fixed term loans, that is not allowed in Islamic law, and
the responses usually received are of kind – you must be wrong; it
can not be like this; don’t say silly things about Islamic law; it’s
not engineers’ task to ponder on Islamic law; even very learned
people who have quite reasonable knowledge of religion, do not
believe this. One thing is common in all responses that no one is
willing to believe if the implications of rules described in the
contract of sarf are banning ‘fixed term loans’.
48 3.1.1 “Excess through qadr (estimation)” in “The Concept of Riba and Islamic Banking” by Nyazee

There must be some philosophical base for any legal viewpoint or

a legal system; we believe ‘valuation’ as the philosophical matter
of transactions that we find in all noble traditions persistently, we
learned this by transformed economic intellect of this age which is
different from the simple concept of equivalence of previous age,
certainly the reason of this update have its roots in our changing
of the subject from commodity to transaction. A transaction must
have an intention that shall be accounted for in a judgment, while
valuation has two exclusive spheres of certainty and uncertainty
and since the purpose of subject evidences falls in one of the two,
therefore the other is irrelevant. Hence, the answer to third query
is – “hand to hand” can’t be applied universally to both spheres of
transaction’s intentions and does not cover a loan that is a case
of uncertainty of valuation.
For above two parts of the text (matn), the abridged positions are:
The condition of simultaneity (hand to hand) is quite challenging,

its ‘rational significance’ seems to protect the transacting parties
from (economic) externalities. Until now, there was no reason or
clear mechanism in Islamic jurisprudence to define a legally valid
‘time window’ for this condition, we introduced exoview fact as its
reason and its frequency as a mechanism to defined the same. In
previous diktat “if the genus differs…” it is comprehended that an
‘up to date’ valuation (i.e., exchange relation) is necessary due to
exoview effects in a multi-currency setting. Since, we changed the
subject of ahadith to transaction which is an intended act, therefore
it’s required to identify the intention applicable to these traditions,
evidently it is the equivalence or the ‘certainty of valuation’; then
we argued, the ‘uncertainty of valuation’ can not be covered in the
textual provision of subject ahadith. We also argued that primary
decisive human factors in a transaction are intentions, valuation
and rationality, while all the rest are relative subjects in reference
to these essentials hence the previous conception on commodities
becomes irrelevant in our theorization process. We discussed the
uncorroborated concept of riba al nasiah as available in early Fiqh to
demonstrate next that there exist no corresponding rationality for
the concept which was although modified by later scholarship but
its manifestation in the contract of sarf was not adjusted. There is
no solid reasoning to prohibit ‘fixed term’ in a loan contract and
people in general don’t know/believe such binding of Islamic law.

5. Diktat – He who paid extra….49

He who paid extra or asked extra, in fact dealt in usury.
Related queries :
1. How to define which extra?
2. Extra, even if agreed mutually, will it be Riba?
3. Is Riba here intrinsically different from Riba in a loan?
The matter of excess or extra though apparently looking simple is

full of twists and turns; what is extra or excess that forms Riba is a
continued convoluted subject from start and since the injunction is
stringent in nature thus piety rules here as well, consequently we
notice stances lacking convincing rationalization for ‘excess’ that
may be Riba, for instance, the earlier Fiqh case of riba al nasiah where
the idea of ‘concealed excess caused by delay’ was employed to
define this branch of Riba. The idea of ‘stipulated excess’ was a bit
practical – the one that can be estimated by some way and this is
used to define riba al fadl in early Fiqh and riba al nasiah in subsequent
times. The unified early Fiqh definition of Riba speaks about extra
as “excess in the exchange of two counter-values”, where excess
is indeterminate since it is not yet identified what ‘value’ is? All of
these descriptions of excess are not clear-cut to represent Riba; the
concealed one is almost vague, no detectable concept exist about
this excess; then stipulated excess is not always Riba since excess
is stipulated in valid contracts like Murabaha financing in modern
banking which is approved by current scholarship; then excess is
sometimes conditional too, like in Modarabah, and all of these cited
‘cases in point’ relate to ‘money for money’ forms of transactions.
There is no issue in saying that Riba is excess, collectively agreed

by all in history, but the issue is what sort of excess since all kinds
of excesses can’t be Riba, therefore we need to attach a property
or attribute to ‘excess’ that shall indicate or distinguish – it is Riba.
The earlier attachments of concealed and stipulated descriptions
to Riba are not distinguishing factors for very unfortunate reasons
of having no backing concepts and also don’t possess the faculty
49In hadith #1570 only

to do the required demarcation they seem to be employed for. The

concealed one comes from hypothetical supposition which is
rejected by succeeding scholars perhaps for its unconvincing and
hard to believe argument. The prevalent ‘stipulated’ description is
also lacking in its sense and practical implementation, to clearly
delineate between a Riba and no-Riba transaction, thus at times we
see ‘risk’ brought-in for the purpose of demarcation but that does
not suit everywhere such as in Murabaha financing and risk itself is
another undecided parameter because every loan/debt affair has
some element of risk and then you need to define which risk, why
this risk and not that risk. It is undeniable to say that the issue of
“which excess” is resolved or does not exist and if someone is not
willing to recognize this as an issue or no more an issue, then this
mind-set becomes an issue bigger than the actual issue.
The notions of ‘concealed’ or ‘stipulation’ are not inferred directly

from subject hadith since the tradition only saying “extra“, but by
external reasoning or evidence of practices such as increasing of
loan principal or debt liability, though these are definitely Riba yet
stipulation is not suitable as an argument which limits the span of
prohibition to those practices only from where the idea borrowed
and consequently new practices are excluded of embargo, this is
actually happening in our times. Would it not be better to beg the
prophetic traditions again with our current intellect and existing
practices so that we may deduce a fresh reason to employ as an
attribute to excess, since ultimately, contextual inference is more
convincing and accurate than an extra-contextual hypothesis? It
is possible for us today as we find a corresponding rationality for
this attribute now in our age from current practices that was not
available previously; it is evident and clear that we may realize.
Let us revert again to our central philosophy where transaction is

adapted as the subject of prophetic traditions and ‘valuation’ to be
the indispensable factor to determine right and wrong illustrated
in noble evidences.
Although, we have already discussed the possible correlations of

causes for mentioned transactions when “equal for equal” diktat
was deliberated, however, here it is required to move further with
that understanding to discover the attribute but more important is
to relate it with current practices falling under prohibition.

The tradition says “he who paid extra or asked extra”, here paying
or asking, obviously are the acts of exchange participants; extra
can’t be anything good or bad in itself but the ‘act of extra’ can be;
or we can say an ‘extra’ or ‘excess’ or ‘benefit’ is bad or illegal if
acquired through an act which is bad or illegal, therefore let us try
to find out the important ‘attribute’ for ‘excess’ within acts as seen
by our way of thinking i.e., an act that is not acceptable by nature;
the act that is not acceptable in our theme of valuation too. It may
not be a difficult task since we can identify some commonsensical
rules of valuation in an affair of exchange and then relating them
to all possible exchange formats for the purpose.
Commonsensical Rules for Valuation :

1. Defining exchange-relation among exchange-values is the prime
purpose and requirement of a valuation process.
2. In the presence of an exchange-relation, valuation is automatic
and none of the participants get the rights of valuation.
3. In the absence of exchange-relation, an internal or external
reference or yardstick is mandatory to determine the relationship.
4. When exchange-relation is to be determined, both participants get
the rights of valuation.
As a matter of fact, the exchange-value of an item is pre-assigned

or not pre-assigned i.e., negotiable or non-negotiable, this sounds
analogous to Fiqh terms of dayn and ayn, anyhow, if we use these
exclusive exchange-value provisions in all possible combinations
for ‘entire spectrum of elementary exchange transactions’ that
we portrayed earlier under the diktat “if the genus differ...”, this will
give us a simple view of all exchange conditions as below:
Exchange-Value : Exchange-Value
Exchange Class
(NN for Non-Negotiable & N for Negotiable)
1. Intra-Species (Intra-S) NN : NN N: N
2. Inter-Species (Inter-S) NN : NN NN : N N: N
3. Inter-Genus (Inter-G) NN : NN NN : N N: N
Let us first speak about each exchange condition of valuation and

then we will draw a chart of possible situations of exchange.

Commonsensical Exchange Conditions of Valuation :

In a mutual transaction, if the exchange-values are:
1. Intra-S and both are non-negotiable – valuation is automatic since
the exchange-relation exists and valuation rights are to none.
2. Impossible condition as species are identical, both must be same.
3. Intra-S and both are negotiable – valuation is automatic since the
exchange-relation exists and valuation rights are to none.
4 Inter-S and both are non-negotiable – an external reference is
mandatory and valuation rights are to none.
5. Inter-S when one is negotiable and the other non-negotiable - the
non-negotiable becomes the internal reference and the rights of
valuations are to both.
6. Inter-S and both are negotiable – an external reference is
7. Inter-G and both are non-negotiable – an external reference is
8. Inter-G when one is negotiable and the other non-negotiable - the
non-negotiable becomes the internal reference and the rights of
valuations are to both.
9. Inter-G and both are negotiable – internal or external reference is
not-mandatory (optional) and valuation rights are to both.
Above conditions illustrate five possible exchange situations (S):
Possible Exchange Situations

(NN for Non-Negotiable, N for Negotiable)
Exchange Class NN : NN NN : N N: N
1. Intra-Species (Intra-S) 1: YES-S1 2:Impossible 3:Unlikely
2. Inter-Species (Inter-S) 4: YES-S2 5: YES-S3 6: YES-S4
3. Inter-Genus (Inter-G) 7: YES-S2 8: YES-S3 9: YES-S5
This idea of totality is available from noble evidences of prophetic

wisdom and the entire ‘certainty of valuation’ sphere is sorted out
in related ahadith handling each possible exchange situation with
natural and commonsensical justification. All situations (S) in red
color signify that “no valuation rights” are to participants and all
situations (S) in green color signify valuation rights are available
to participants, we may see “acts” in this perspective.

Before taking up the matter of acts and exclusive privileges, let us

first talk about the one unusual situation (#3) marked “Unlikely”, it
means two identical negotiable exchange-values (e.g. 1 kilo dates
in exchange of exactly the same kind of dates weighing 1 kilo), it’s
actually the only exchange-form conceived in previous insight of
subject evidence (the sole or key source of ‘riba al fadl’ concept). It
was thus assumed from this inference that since this is a needless
exchange therefore the purpose might be to ban the loans50, in our
current economic understanding, this argument has no appeal.
The rights and no-rights of valuation correspond to freedom and

prohibition of acts naturally, no confusing state of affairs here. If
people get the rights of valuation in a mutual affair then there is
no possibility of Riba in it like in situation S3 (trade) and S5 (barter)
or no likelihood of illegality, however when people don’t enjoy the
privileges of valuation and need to follow an internal or external
reference for the purpose of valuation to define equivalence in an
exchange where ‘certainty of valuation’ is intended, then an extra
or excess causing inequality is only because of disrespecting and
exploiting the situation by force, explicit or implied; previously we
argued logically - there is no understandable justification (natural
or economic) for an economic agent to agree on this inequality,
such justification was a real concern of great Fiqh scholars as well
e.g., “all excess over what is justified by the counter-value51”, and
on Riba issue, several similar statements in Islamic jurisprudence
are notable though lacking precision in definition.
The situations (S1, S2, S4), marked red, not offering negotiability of
exchange-values, are eloquent framework of situations stated in
various ahadith of Riba where excess is not workable but only by an
act of force. Let us recall, the concept here is, ‘extra’ does not exist
actually. Any ‘act of extra’ here is irrational and unwarranted. We
have several expressive lexicon describing this unacceptable act
causing excess or inequality, such as ‘contrived’ or ‘unjustified’ or
‘unnatural’, however ‘forced’ as an attribute suits the most i.e., a
‘forced increase’ or ‘forced extra’ or ‘forced excess’ goes well with
the situation and matching with the negativity in a mutual affair
of exchange. This also summarizes the answer to first query.
50 It may be dubbed as a case “thrown the baby out with the tub water”.
51 Ibn al-Arabi on Riba-al-fadl as reported in famous judgment on Riba by SCP.

The next two queries can be discussed briefly since related points
are already made here above; however as argued earlier we may
realize the corresponding rationality of the prohibition in this age
and time that was not available previously, so firstly let us serve
it briefly though it will require another effort to go in its details.
The prophetic traditions cover the whole realm of exchange forms

that we have shown above; nothing escapes of these situations in
a mutual exchange. Some of these situations were not even dealt
with in Fiqh because of some reasons including that of the subject
(commodity), consequently several existing practices may not be
addressed by accessible ideas in the Fiqh; unfortunately, current
scholarship is inducing further incoherence by handling issues in
careless ways, for instance, the case of forex transactions – the
modern scholarship suggests a ridiculous idea to consider one of
the currencies as commodity and as usual offering no supporting
concept or basis/argument (dalil) for this proposal. How and why?
The answer is total silence; perhaps this is better to keep silent
rather than offering incongruous arguments.
In the famous judgment on the case of Riba with the supreme court
of Pakistan, in conclusion, while describing Riba-al-Sunnah, says “A
transaction of money for money of the same denomination where the
quantity on both sides is not equal, either in a spot transaction or in a
transaction based on deferred payment52“, let us see this statement
of judgment in our perspective.
There are several issues with this statement, like it has nothing to
do with the intention of the participants in exchange, it applies to
all ‘money for money’ transactions and no differentiating factor is
included to cohere with pure ‘money for money’ transactions like
Modarabah and Murabaha financing etc., however at this moment we
may focus the one which, in our perception, forms the underlying
reason of Riba prohibition in Sunnah.
In above cited statement, the transaction of ‘money for money’ of

same denomination is addressed but what if the denominations
are not the same, that is – if rupee is transacted with rupee, that is
included in the meaning of the statement but it does not include if
52SCP Judgment on Riba – Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani Part - Conclusion article 242(i) repeated
in the Order of the Court

rupee transacted with dollar, riyal etc. (i.e. second denomination,

value unit, is different) whereas the two ahadith we discussed here
above cover both types of exchanges. In hadith of six commodities,
one form is stated, while from the second hadith of dates relating
to Bilal (RA) the second form is evident, both evidences speaks of
Riba and both involve dates as the object of exchange. The reason
of such neglect is that second evidence is not considered to define
Riba from Sunnah and naturally the definition covers the type that is
obtainable in the former evidence only, this is the methodological
problem in effect.
The neglected evidence says if the qualities of dates are different,

means the species are different, implies the exchange-values are
not the same whether negotiable or non-negotiable, i.e., whether
money or not-money – then an external reference is required to
attain the ‘certainty of valuation’. All fiat monies today are same
genus and since their exchange-values are different so they are
just different species of money similar to the species of dates. Yet,
if impractical minds do not agree with this argument (i.e., all fiat
monies are the species of the same genre) even then the noble
evidences are not lacking, it is said in another hadith53 that gold for
silver must be equal and hand to hand otherwise Riba, same turn
of phrases, same verdict of Riba though genus are different. In our
deliberated context of valuation, either exchange is Inter-Species
or Inter-Genus, both involve Riba in given situations that perfectly
cohere with quoted evidences, this type (i.e., when denominations
are different) has to be accommodated in any definition of Riba
derived from Sunnah and when this kind of transaction is included
in Riba, then equivalence of two different currencies will have to
be defined as well that can’t be just quantitative but as suggested
in neglected evidence that is, through the process of valuation by
asserting the exact exchange-relation between two currencies.
Simple quantitative equivalence in case of same denomination is

true, however for different currencies the equivalence has to have
some reference but not several references that we unfortunately
see in foreign currency business these days i.e., there are three
exchange-rates (official, bid, ask) for each pair of currency where
the official rate is never applied hence equivalence in exchange
53 http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=34&translator=1&start=105&number=344

is never achieved as per the demand of hadith. These bid and ask
rates just correspond to ‘who paid extra or asked extra’ mention
in prophetic tradition but neglected in the definition of Riba derived
from Sunnah. Who is not aware of the terrible fallouts/effects of this
artificial and speculative forex business which has surpassed the
real economic activities by manifolds? If some one is still not able
to recognize the prophetic wisdom of prohibition then devil might
had touched him to madness. The front end mechanics of bid and
ask rates is the building block of forex, greed and speculation are
the implicit driving forces of this activity, the extra is forced Riba,
this practice was not existing previously therefore we can’t hold
them responsible for its omission but in this age and time, there is
no excuse for us to neglect the prophetic evidence unambiguously
describing the current phenomenon of forex inequality.
If current Islamic Banking scholars have no argument to negate

above explanation, then they must come up with brave heart and
mind to denounce all foreign currencies business that is based on
different buy and sell rates, Riba from these practices is hurting the
mankind more than the Riba incorporated in loans, even if it is not
more yet it is prohibited Riba, keeping silence is a burden of guilt.
The next are answers to other two queries, in brief:
A mutual agreement for an extra in a concurrent exchange seems

impossible and impracticable, why some one will want to do that?
There is no understandable reason detected hitherto, however if it
be possible voluntarily i.e., without explicit or implied compulsion,
even then it may not become a reason of forming the law because
it is not the common nature (fitrah) of people. The answer to next
query is - no such provision in law is possible allowing extra even
if agreed mutually.
A forced increase or excess in a contract of loan is Riba; stipulated

excess is also forced because it does not exists ex-ante and shall
not be stipulated in a contract, and any such agreement is false
implying an explicit or implied existence of compulsion. There is
no difference in Riba discussed here and Riba in a loan transaction.
The Fiqh types of riba exist because of disjointed concepts in early
thinking, in our understanding, there are no types of Riba and that
we have shown through coherent concepts.

6. Diktat – The receiver and ….54

The receiver and the giver are equally guilty.
In the philosophy of Islam which revolves around nature, divine

and prophetic commands define what is right and what is wrong,
what one can do and what he should not, the whole fabric of any
belief system is woven around such moral and ethical standards;
a violation of these principled judgments is the guilt of actions by
the followers of the doctrine; in human nature, guilt is a negativity
realized by its actor while acting against his nature or belief.
In subject tradition, the demarcation of right and wrong is explicit,

conforming to the nature and economic intellect that we noted; a
moral judgment is given as expected.
Conclusion
No such statement from any Fiqh scholar ever made, claiming – he

has completed the interpretation of divine and prophetic text and
no further thinking is required. Still, the holy text is an object of
philosophical and scientific investigation, definitely the intellect is
enhanced and investigation techniques are improved, thus results
may be different and better, the law may be modified accordingly.
It is undeniable that rules of law vary with the passage of time.
Riba (interest, usury) is an economic matter; an exchange-event is

fundamental to this branch of social science and the focal point of
deliberations. The noble prophetic traditions have addressed all
possible forms of exchange-events while revealing the wisdom of
prohibition of Riba to imply economic justice. The law formation in
Fiqh concentrates particularly on post-transaction piece of justice
and speaks less on the wisdom where the reason of prohibition is.
The contemporary and evolved human intellect is able to see the
noble evidences through a different and better perspective which
offers a coherent view of wisdom and justice.
54In hadith #1570 only

SSRN Id1790222

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

SSRN Id1790222

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSRN Id1790222

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCS-002–14

March 18, 2011

Riba and Hadith of Six Commodities

Philosophy of the science of hadith is based on two key rudiments;

efforts of characterizing riba-al-nasiah as “riba al-Quran” could not

The intellectual expedition on Riba is continuing without a resolve

One may argue or place a question here – who is wrong, people

Ahadith of Six Commodities

Out of several reliable collections of ahadith, here the reference for

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222

The Arabic versions5 mention the sanad of hadith.

1. Narrated by Ubadah b. Samit, Hadith #1569, Vol 2, Muslim

Referenced English Translation6 :

Improved English Translation:

2. Narrated by Abu Saeed Khudri, Hadith #1570, Vol 2, Muslim

5 Sahih_Muslim_Vol2.pdf, Arabic to Urdu compilation of Sahih Muslim by Moulana Aziz-ur Rahman

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222

Referenced English Translation8 :

Improved English Translation:

Understanding the Two Ahadith

Let us first list out fine points of hadith texts chronologically:

1. Sahih Muslim hadith # 1569 says:

2. Sahih Muslim hadith # 1570 says:

8 Online Reference - Muslim :: Book 10 : Hadith 3854, web link

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222

d) He who paid extra or asked extra, in fact dealt in usury.

The above fine points embrace the philosophy of set transactions

Rules for interpretation :

Naturally, few queries come to mind instantaneously for each fine

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222

1. The Six Commodities

A hadith - the saying of Prophet (SAW) certainly had some situation

There is rigid stance witnessed in the chronicles on this aspect of

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222

stances relate to respective implications of “riba al fadl10”. For the

It is neither denied here nor it should be, to expand the commodity

The question here is – how shall we include more commodities if

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222

extend the commodity list so that it offers external consistency to

Let us briefly reaffirm the difference of understanding; commodity

Owing to this distinctive approach here, we are shifting objective

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222

functional-similarity will allow us to include things which are not

Instead of commodities, we have adapted the subject of ahadith to

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222

2. Diktat – Like for Like

Homogeneity in six commodities of exchange is already featured

17 Irrespective of stance if we take it as a condition or a reiteration (re-emphasize on homogeneity)

which in turn is a sub category of a family and so on.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222

factors in their intended exchanges as well. The inquisitive minds

The condition of “like for like” is a broad-spectrum expression on

An example here may help to elaborate the point, let us think of a

The above case in point is quoted from a real evidence of practice

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1790222

The natural human requirement of ‘valuation20’ is ubiquitous that

Can value judgment of genus be restricted to its ‘intrinsic quality’

20Assessment of value or precisely the assessment of exchange-value