Muslim

Chapter of Sahih Bukhari, Hadith No. 2312: «بَابُ إِذَا بَاعَ الْوَكِيلُ شَيْئًا فَاسِدًا فَبَيْعُهُ مَرْدُودٌ:»
Relationship between the Chapter and the Hadith:
At first glance, there appears to be a contradiction between the chapter heading and the hadith, because Imam Bukhari rahimahullah mentions the return of a void (fasid) sale in the chapter heading, whereas the hadith itself does not explicitly mention returning it. Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah states:
«و ليس فيه تصريح بالرد بل فيه أشعار به، ولعله أشار بذالك إلى ما ورد فى بعض طريقه . . . . ..» [فتح الباري، ج 5، ص: 421 - عمدة القاري، ج 13، ص 218]
“That is, the answer to the apparent problem is that the hadith presented in relation to the chapter heading does not explicitly mention returning (the sale). Perhaps Imam Bukhari rahimahullah is alluding to those chains of transmission which Imam Muslim rahimahullah has mentioned in his Sahih, narrated through the route of Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id radi Allahu anhu. In that narration, the words are «هذا الربا فردوه», thus, in the mentioned hadith, the act of returning is explicitly mentioned.”
If we also reflect on the narration in Sahih Bukhari, the wording of the text is appropriate to the chapter heading. Allamah ‘Ayni rahimahullah says:
«مطابقة الحديث للترجمة تفهم من قوله: ”عين الربا لا تفعل“ لأن من المعلوم أن بيع الربا مما يجب رده.» [عمدة القاري، ج 12، ص: 218]
“That is, the correspondence between the chapter heading and the hadith is found in these words: ‘This is pure usury, do not do this,’ from which it is understood that the sale involving usury must be returned.”
Ibn al-Mulaqqin rahimahullah says:
“The statement of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam: ‘Pure usury,’ means that if someone makes such a sale which is void (fasid), then that sale will be returned, and furthermore, the Prophet’s statement ‘Oh!’ is evidence of its annulment.” [التوضيح لشرح الجامع الصحيح، ج 15، ص: 202]
And this word “Oh!” in itself indicates the rejection of this sale, because for the seller, this is a matter of great concern and grief.
Abdullah Salim al-Basri rahimahullah writes:
«أووه، كلمة بمعنى التذكر والتحزن، ومنه ﴿إِنَّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ لَأَوَّاهٌ حَلِيمٌ﴾» [التوبة : 114]
«قال ابن التين: إنما تاوّه ليكون أبلغ فى الزجر.» [ضياء الساري، ج 17، ص:528]
From the quotations of these commentators, it becomes clear how the chapter and the hadith are related. The chapter heading indicates that a void sale is rejected. Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, in his noble habit, has alluded to a sahih hadith in which the words clearly state the rejection of the sale. Thus, the correspondence between the chapter heading and the hadith is established here.

Benefit:
A few years ago, this humble one had a mubahalah (public challenge) in Karachi regarding the hadith of «عين الربا», and all praise is due to Allah, by His grace and help, Allah the Exalted granted steadfastness and victory to His insignificant and humble servant in defense of the hadith. First, there was a written discussion with the objector. In response to the objector’s one-and-a-half-page objection, by Allah’s grace, this humble servant wrote a scholarly critique of thirty (30) pages, which is beneficial for students and enthusiasts. Below, we present the objector’s question and its complete answer, so that all objections regarding the hadith «عين الربا» may reach the student.

Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim

Two Apparently Contradictory Hadiths in Sahih Muslim

➊ Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 4083, Vol. 4, p. 215:
“From Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id radi Allahu anhu: Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu brought Barni dates (a superior type of date). The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam asked: ‘Where did you get these?’ Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu replied: ‘I had inferior dates, so I gave two sa’ of them and bought one sa’ of these for you to eat.’ The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: ‘Alas! This is pure usury. Do not do this, but if you want to buy dates, sell your dates and then buy other dates with that price.’”

➋ Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 4090, Vol. 4, p. 218:
“Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhuma narrated from Sayyiduna Usamah ibn Zayd radi Allahu anhu that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: ‘There is no riba (usury) in cash transactions.’”

➌ Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 4089, Vol. 4, pp. 217-218:
“From Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhuma: Usamah ibn Zayd radi Allahu anhu narrated to me that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: ‘Usury is in deferred transactions.’”

The contradiction in these three hadiths of Sahih Muslim is apparent. Because in hadith 4083, the cash exchange of dates is declared pure riba, while in hadith 4090 it is written, “There is no riba in cash,” and similarly in hadith 4089 it is written, “Usury is in deferred transactions,” meaning there is no usury in cash. [صحيح مسلم، حديث نمبر 4061، جلد 4، ص: 209-210]

Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn Samit radi Allahu anhu stood up and said: I heard the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam forbidding exchanging gold for gold and salt for salt except equal for equal and cash, then whoever gives more or takes more, it is riba. Hearing this, people returned what they had taken. When Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu heard of this, he stood up and delivered a sermon: What is the matter with people? They narrate hadiths from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam which we have not heard, and we were present with him and kept his company. Then Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah radi Allahu anhu stood up and narrated the incident, and then said: We will certainly narrate the hadith we heard from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, even if Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu dislikes it, or as he said: even if it humiliates Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu, I do not care.

The sermon of the scribe of revelation and leader of the Muslims, Sayyiduna Amir Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu, made it clear that there is no usury in cash. Sayyiduna Amir Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu did not consider cash transactions to be usury; rather, he openly delivered a sermon from the pulpit of the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam against those who considered it usury, expressing his astonishment and saying: What is the matter with people? They narrate hadiths from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam which we have not heard, and we were present with him and kept his company.

The hadith of Sayyiduna Amir Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu proved decisive in favor of my position, and I challenged for mubahalah on this very point: that there is no usury in cash, and there is a clear contradiction between the two hadiths of Sahih Muslim. In the presence of the clear sermon of Sayyiduna Amir Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu, there remains no room for interpreting the contradictory hadith.

Researchers among the scholars who have mastery over hadith should further investigate the two apparently contradictory hadiths in Sahih Muslim regarding riba (the one about dates and the one about cash). It must be remembered that in the verses of the Noble Qur’an (Surah al-Baqarah, verses 278, 279, 280), only deferred usury is mentioned, while nowhere in the entire Qur’an is usury in cash mentioned. In the light of the Qur’an as well, Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu is proven correct.

Reconciling the Apparently Contradictory Hadiths in Sahih Muslim

Some people, after a superficial reading of the hadiths, when the correct meaning does not become clear to them, quickly declare them to be in conflict with the Qur’an or mutually contradictory, and thus declare them invalid, which is ignorance and tantamount to aiding the conspiracy of hadith rejection. Regarding Sahih Muslim, Imam Muslim rahimahullah himself says:
«ليس كل شيئ عندي وضعته هٰهنا إنما وضعت ههنا ما أجمعو إليه.» [صحيح مسلم، باب أتشهد فى الصلاة]
“I have not written in Sahih Muslim every hadith that I consider authentic; in Muslim, I have only written those hadiths upon which there is consensus.”

Reflect: There is consensus of the Ummah on all the authentic hadiths of Sahih Muslim, and from the time of the Companions until today, great experts in the science of hadith have passed and have acted upon the hadiths of Sahih Muslim and considered them true. But today, centuries later, a person claims that the hadith is not authentic and proclaims it everywhere. Consider: Were all those who accepted these hadiths as authentic before today misguided? Or did they not understand what this person now understands, who is not even capable of reading the Arabic text?

Dear readers! All these are figments of the mind. There is no disagreement that the marfu‘ and connected hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim are indeed the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Now, here we present those narrations of Muslim which have been rejected by declaring them mutually contradictory.

Imam Muslim rahimahullah mentions a hadith in Kitab al-Musaqat:
«عن أسامة بن زيد رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: لا ربا فيما كان يدا بيد.» [صحيح مسلم، ج 4، ص: 219 كتاب البيوع]
“From Sayyiduna Usamah ibn Zayd radi Allahu anhu: The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: ‘There is no riba (usury) in cash for cash.’”

From this hadith, it appears that there is no usury in cash for cash. But the contrary hadith, which is also narrated in Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Buyu‘, al-Musaqat wa al-Muzara‘at:
«عن أبى سعيد رضي الله عنه يقول: جاء بلال رضي الله عنه بتمر برني فقال له رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: من اين هذا؟ . . . . .» [صحيح مسلم، ج 4، ص: 215]
“Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id radi Allahu anhu says that Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu brought Barni dates (a superior type) to the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam asked: ‘Where did you get these?’ Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu replied: ‘I had inferior dates, so I gave two sa’ of them and bought one sa’ of these for you to eat.’ The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: ‘Alas! This is pure usury. Do not do this, but if you want to buy dates, sell your dates and then buy other dates with that price.’”

From the first hadith, it appears that there is no usury in cash for cash. But the second hadith, narrated from Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu, proves that Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu made a cash transaction, yet the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam declared it pure usury. So, which of these two hadiths should be accepted as true? Which hadith should be considered actionable?

Answer: Even a superficial reading of the Qur’an would raise similar objections, which is why the Qur’an has announced:
«﴿فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ﴾» “Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know.” [النحل: 43]

Therefore, rather than relying on one’s own conjecture, it is better to benefit from the clarifications and knowledge of the experts.

Dear readers! There is no contradiction whatsoever between the two aforementioned hadiths; rather, both are authentic and correct in their respective contexts. The hadith which states that there is no usury in cash for cash means that the commodities are different; if the commodities are different, then a form of usury can arise, as is evident from the hadith of Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu, because there is another hadith which clarifies the context and place of both these hadiths and removes the contradiction between them:
«عن أبى هريرة قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم التمر بالتمر، الحنطة بالحنطة، و الشعير بالشعير، والملح بالملح، مثلا بمثل، يدا بيد، فمن ذاد أو استذاد فقد أربى، إلا ما اختلف ألوانه.» [صحيح مسلم، كتاب المساقات، رقم الحديث: 1588]
“From Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu: The Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: ‘Sell dates for dates, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, equal for equal, cash for cash; then whoever gives more or takes more, it is usury, except when the type is changed (then excess and deficiency is permissible).’”

Reflect: The hadith of Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu is not at all contrary to the hadith of Sayyiduna Usamah radi Allahu anhu, because Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu gave two sa’ of inferior dates and bought one sa’ of good dates. Thus, the hadith of Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu has clarified that if there is no change in type in a cash transaction, then giving more and taking less is pure usury, and Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu also gave more dates and bought fewer dates. For this very change, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam declared it pure usury. If Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu had made the transaction with a change of type, for example, buying wheat for salt or barley for wheat, then it would not have been usury. This is the meaning of both hadiths; thus, there is no contradiction between them. Now, reconciliation between the two hadiths has been established, and no contradiction remains. If, despite this, someone still presents a contradiction and claims to have received inspiration, then such a person is not an inspired human but rather an inspired chameleon, because authentic hadith is the foundation of religion; what opposes it is not inspiration but rather the whisperings of Satan. Listen further:

In another hadith in Sahih Muslim, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
«. . . . . فإذا اختلف هذه الأصناف فبيعوا كيف شئتم إذا كان يدا بيد.» “When the type changes (for example, wheat for barley), then sell as you wish (with excess or deficiency), but it must be cash.”

Now, this hadith has clarified that there is no usury in cash for cash when the types are different and the transaction is cash; if the type is the same and there is excess or deficiency, then it is pure usury.

The summary of the entire discussion is that the hadith which states that there is no usury in cash for cash refers to when the types are different, and the hadith of Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu, in which the transaction was cash for cash, was declared usury because the type was the same. The hadiths of Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah and Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn Samit radi Allahu anhuma have summarized that if the type is the same, then excess or deficiency is riba (usury).

Now we will discuss this issue in detail.

It is an established principle that one verse of the Qur’an explains another, and one hadith explains another. Even a first-year student is aware of this basic principle. If, at first glance, a hadith appears to contradict another, it does not necessarily mean that there is an actual contradiction, because such apparent contradictions are also found in the Qur’an, where two verses seem to oppose each other, but a third verse resolves the contradiction. For example, Allah the Exalted says:
«﴿فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ شَقُوا فَفِي النَّارِ لَهُمْ فِيهَا زَفِيرٌ وَشَهِيقٌ o خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا مَا دَامَتِ السَّمَاوَاتُ وَالْأَرْضُ إِلَّا مَا شَاءَ رَبُّكَ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ فَعَّالٌ لِمَا يُرِيدُ﴾» [هود : 106-107]
“But as for those who are wretched, they will be in the Fire; for them therein is sighing and wailing. They will abide therein as long as the heavens and the earth endure.”

In this verse, Allah the Exalted has announced that the disbelievers will remain in Hell as long as the heavens and the earth endure. But another verse seems to announce something else about the people of Hell. Allah the Exalted says:
«﴿وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَكَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا أُولَئِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُونَ﴾» [البقرة : 39]
“And those who disbelieve and deny Our signs, they are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein forever.”

The verse from Surah al-Baqarah indicates that the people of Hell will remain in Hell forever; those disbelievers will never come out of Hell. But the verse from Surah Hud seems to threaten the people of Hell with punishment only as long as the heavens and the earth endure. Apparently, there is a contradiction between these two verses, and if an orientalist, like the objector, keeps repeating that he challenges all scholars to resolve the contradiction between these two verses, and when the scholars answer, he says, “I do not accept it; to me, there is a contradiction…”—then how can such an orientalist be made to understand? Whereas the apparent contradiction between the two verses is resolved by a third verse. Allah the Exalted says:
«﴿يَوْمَ تُبَدَّلُ الْأَرْضُ غَيْرَ الْأَرْضِ وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ وَبَرَزُوا لِلّٰهِ الْوَاحِدِ الْقَهَّارِ﴾» [ابراهيم : 48]
“On the Day when the earth will be changed to another earth, and the heavens [as well], and they [all] will appear before Allah, the One, the Prevailing.”

The blessed verse of Surah Ibrahim has resolved the contradiction between the two verses, clarifying that on the Day of Resurrection, these heavens and earth will be changed; that is, the heavens and earth mentioned in Surah Hud are not the worldly ones, but those which Allah the Exalted will keep everlasting. The explainer of the Qur’an, Sayyiduna Muhammad Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, clarified this (in whose hadith the objector sees contradiction everywhere), whom Allah the Exalted Himself appointed to the position of explaining, interpreting, and summarizing the Qur’an. His hadith is:
Umm al-Mu’minin A’ishah radi Allahu anha asked: When the heavens and the earth will be changed, where will the people be on that day? The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam replied: “On the Sirat (bridge).” [صحيح مسلم، صفة القيامة]

Dear readers! You have read and understood that there was an apparent contradiction between the two verses, but the third verse provided reconciliation and harmony between them.

In exactly the same way, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, “There is no usury in cash for cash,” and in another hadith, Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu gave two sa’ of Barni dates (which were inferior) and bought one sa’ of good dates, and the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, “This is pure usury,” even though this transaction was also cash. Apparently, there is a contradiction between these two hadiths, just as there was an apparent contradiction in the Qur’an, but a third hadith resolved this contradiction.

Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu narrates that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:
“Sell dates for dates, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, equal for equal, cash for cash; then whoever takes more, it is usury, except when the type is changed (for example, dates for wheat, barley for salt, etc., then excess and deficiency is permissible).”

This third hadith clarified that when the type is the same, i.e., dates for dates, barley for barley, and there is excess or deficiency, then it is usury, and if the type is changed, then excess or deficiency is permissible in cash. Thus, it is clear that the hadith which says there is no usury in cash refers to transactions where the types are different, and the hadith of Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu indicates that if the types are not different, then excess or deficiency in cash is also usury.

It should also be remembered that the hadith which mentions that usury is in deferred transactions has another part which clarifies that this hadith is conditional upon the change of types, and it does not relate to the hadith about a single type (such as the hadith of Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu), because the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was asked: What about selling wheat for barley and gold for silver? (i.e., when the types are different), so the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: «لا ربا إلا فى النسية» “Usury is in deferred transactions.” See Imam Sarakhsi’s [المبسوط، ج 12]. Thus, it is clear from this hadith that “usury is in deferred transactions” is conditional upon the change of types. Now, to forcibly declare it contradictory to the hadith of Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu and reject it is nothing but following one’s desires and nurturing one’s reprehensible beliefs.

This is the answer to those hadiths which the objector was unable to understand, or perhaps does not want to understand. Allah knows best the conditions of hearts. We can only say:
«إن كنت تدري فتلك مصيبة»
«وإن كنت لا تدري فالمصيبة أعظم»

Two well-known Companions, Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar and Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhum, initially held the view that there is no usury in cash transactions. But when the hadith reached them, they retracted their position. Imam Muslim rahimahullah mentions:
«عن أبى نضرة قال: سئلت ابن عمر و ابن عباس عن الصرف، فلم يربا به بأسا، فإني لقاعد عند أبى سعيد الخدري رضى الله عنه، فسألته عن الصرف، فقال: ما ذاد فهو ربا، فانكرت ذالك لقولهما، فقال: ألا أحدثك إلا ما سعت من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، جاء صاحب نخلة بصاع من تمر طيب وكان تمر النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم هذا اللون، فقال له النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم: إني لك هذا؟ قال: انطلقت بصاعين . . . . .» [رواه مسلم، كتاب المساقات، رقم الحديث: 4087]
“Abu Nadrah narrates: I asked Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar and Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhum about sarf (i.e., exchanging gold for gold or silver for silver, i.e., the same type), and they saw no problem in this transaction (even if there was excess or deficiency, provided it was cash for cash). Then I was sitting with Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id radi Allahu anhu, and I asked him about sarf. He said: Whatever is in excess is riba. I denied this because of what Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar and Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhum had said. Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id radi Allahu anhu said: I will only narrate to you what I heard from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. A man with dates went to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam with one sa’ of good dates (this is similar to the hadith which the objector denied, narrated in Sahih Muslim from Sayyiduna Bilal radi Allahu anhu), and the Prophet’s dates were of that type. The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam asked: ‘Where did you get these dates?’ He replied: ‘I took two sa’ of dates and bought one sa’ of these dates in exchange, because their price in the market is such and such.’ The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: ‘Woe to you! You have engaged in usury. When you want to do this, sell your dates for something else, then buy whatever dates you want with that.’ Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id radi Allahu anhu said: When dates are exchanged for dates, there is usury; when silver is exchanged for silver (with excess or deficiency), there will definitely be usury (even if it is cash for cash). Abu Nadrah said: Then I went to Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma, and after that, he also forbade it (that if the type is the same and there is excess or deficiency, even if it is cash, it is not permissible), and I did not go to Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma. But Abu al-Sahba’ narrated to me that he asked Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma in Makkah, and he also considered this transaction disliked (i.e., Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma, like Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma, changed his position upon receiving the hadith).”

In fact, Imam al-Hakim rahimahullah has added in al-Mustadrak al-Hakim that:
«إنه رجع عن ذالك لما ذكر له ابوسعيد حديث الذى فى الباب واستغفر الله وكان ينهى عنه أشد.»
“When the hadith of Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id radi Allahu anhu reached Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma, he sought forgiveness from Allah and strictly forbade (his previous position).”

Imam Hazimi further narrates that Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma said:
«كان ذالك برائيي وهذا ابوسعيد الخدري يحدثني عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فتركت رأيي إلى حديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم» [نيل الأوطار، ج 5، ص: 250]
“Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma said: (There is no usury in cash transactions when it is the same type) this was my opinion, and Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id radi Allahu anhu narrated to us the hadith of the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, so I abandon my opinion for the hadith of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.”

Imam ‘Abd al-Razzaq rahimahullah has narrated the statement of Ziyad rahimahullah, who was the freed slave of Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma. He said:
«فرجع عن الصرف قبل أن يموت بسبعين يوما» [مصنف عبدالرزاق، رقم: 14548]
“Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma retracted from the issue of sarf seventy (70) days before his death.”

Imam Tabarani rahimahullah said in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir that Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma would seek forgiveness from Allah regarding the issue of sarf and would say: «استغفر الله و أتوب إليه من الصرف».

Dr. Wahbah al-Zuhayli hafizahullah said that the hadith of Sayyiduna Usamah radi Allahu anhu, “Usury is in deferred transactions,” and the hadith that with one type and excess or deficiency, it is usury—there is consensus of the Tabi‘in on the ruling of usury in these two hadiths. [الفقة الإسلامية، ج 5، ص: 373]

From this hadith, it is clearly established that the Companions retracted their previous positions, alhamdulillah, because the position of the Companions is always in accordance with the authentic hadith. They would not accept analogy or the statement of another Companion or person in opposition to the hadith; rather, upon receiving the hadith, they would abandon all analogies and accept and act upon the hadith.

Dear readers! Reflect: The position on which the objector challenged has already been retracted by the Companions, and they accepted the hadiths of Sayyiduna Bilal, Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn Samit, Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, and Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhum.

Imam Nawawi rahimahullah has said a very beautiful thing. He says:
«معنى ما ذكره أولا من ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما و ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما: أنهما كانا يعتقد أنه لا ربا فيما كان يدًا بيد، و أنه يجوز بيع درهم بدرهمين، و دينار بدينارين . . . . . وكان معتمدهما حديث أسامة بن زيد إنما الربا فى النسيئة ثم رجع ابن عمر و ابن عباس عن ذالك حين بلغهما حديث أبى سعيد، كما ذكره مسلم من رجوعهما صريحًا وهذه الأحاديث التى ذكرها مسلم تدل على أن ابن عمر و ابن عباس لم يكن بلغهما حديث النهي عن التفاضل فى غير النسيئة فلما بلغهما رجعا إليه.» [الديباج، ج 4، ص: 136]
“Initially, Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar and Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhum held the view that in cash for cash transactions, excess or deficiency is not riba, even if it is the same type, and they considered it permissible to sell one dirham for two dirhams, one dinar for two dinars, and one sa’ of dates for two sa’ of dates, and similarly, in wheat and all usurious commodities, they considered selling with excess or deficiency permissible, provided it was hand to hand, and whatever was deferred would be riba. Then both Companions retracted, because the hadith of prohibition had not reached them; when it did, both Companions radi Allahu anhuma changed their position.”

From these hadiths and quotations, it is clear that both senior Companions, Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar and Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma, changed their position. Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma was a great scholar of the Qur’an, and the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam prayed for his knowledge of the Qur’an, and this prayer was accepted, making him a great mufassir among the Companions. Yet, when the hadith came, he did not do as the objector did—objecting that there is no mention of usury in cash in the entire Qur’an. Rather, Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas radi Allahu anhuma, who was a mufassir and scholar of the Qur’an, immediately turned to the hadith and changed his position, because he knew well that the true intent and interpretation of the Qur’an is contained in the hadith of the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

Note: We will also answer the objector regarding the verse of the Qur’an ahead, insha’Allah.

This is clear evidence that turning to authentic hadith is a sign of honesty. Because if the objector does not change his position, he is proving that Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas, Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar, Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn Samit, Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah, Sayyiduna Bilal, Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id al-Khudri radi Allahu anhum—all were upon an incorrect position, which is sheer excess, because the Companions clearly stated that they heard from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. When a Companion testifies that he heard from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, he is making it clear that it is indeed the hadith of the Messenger. And you know well that the Companions radi Allahu anhum would sacrifice their lives for the hadith, and especially when they narrated hadith, they would narrate only the words or meaning they heard from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

Now we come to the argument presented by the objector in rejection of the hadiths of:
➊ Sayyiduna Abu Hurayrah
➋ Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id
➌ Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas
➍ Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar
➎ Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn Samit
➏ Sayyiduna ‘Umar radi Allahu anhum

The objector, to prove his position that “there is no usury in cash,” presents a hadith (note that the hadith the objector presents to prove his position is also from Sahih Muslim, and the one he rejects is also from Sahih Muslim; the only difference is that the hadith which fits his mind is authentic, and the one which goes against his mind and position is contradictory—in other words, the standard of judgment is his deficient intellect… whereas the science of hadith criticism is also the science of asma’ al-rijal, and according to this science, both hadiths are sound and strong in chain). The objector writes:

Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn Samit radi Allahu anhu stood up and said: I heard the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam forbidding exchanging gold for gold and salt for salt except equal for equal and cash, then whoever gives more or takes more, it is riba. Hearing this, people returned what they had taken. When Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu heard of this, he stood up and delivered a sermon: What is the matter with people? They narrate hadiths from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam which we have not heard, and we were present with him and kept his company. Then Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah radi Allahu anhu stood up and narrated the incident, and then said: We will certainly narrate the hadith we heard from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, even if Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu dislikes it, or as he said: even if it humiliates Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu, I do not care.

This hadith is mentioned by Imam Muslim rahimahullah in Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Musaqat. The objector tries to prove his position from this hadith, that Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn Samit radi Allahu anhu narrated a hadith (that usury can occur in cash), and against this, he quoted the statement of Sayyiduna Amir Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu and considered his statement decisive as if it were a hadith, and refrained from accepting the explicit statement of the Companion who said, “I heard from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam,” because this hadith narrated by Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn Samit radi Allahu anhu from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was rejected, as it was against the objector’s position, and the statement of Sayyiduna Amir Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu, which is not a hadith but his opinion, was accepted because it supported the objector’s position. If we reflect on the words of the hadith, Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu said:
«ما بال رجال يتحدثون عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أحاديث قد كنا نشهده و نصحبه فلم نسمعها منه.»
“What is the matter with people that they narrate hadiths from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam? We kept the company of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, but we did not hear this hadith from him.”

The statement of Sayyiduna Amir Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu that “we did not hear this hadith” shows that the hadith which Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn Samit radi Allahu anhu was mentioning was not known to Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu. Thus, it is an established principle that not every Companion knew every hadith, nor did every Companion comprehend every hadith. A famous hadith that in blood money all fingers are equal reached Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu during his rule; before that, he was unaware of this hadith. [ديكهيے فتوی امام ابن تيميہ رحمہ الله، ج 2، ص 436]

Even the senior Companions, the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the Ten Promised Paradise, the Companions of Badr, the Companions of Uhud radi Allahu anhum, did not receive all hadiths. Imam Ibn al-Qayyim rahimahullah has discussed this issue in detail. For further evidence, see I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in, vol. 4, p. 19. Thus, similarly, this hadith did not reach Sayyiduna Amir Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu, so he denied it.

Challenge:
My challenge to all objectors is to prove that the statement of Sayyiduna Amir Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu is a hadith, because the objector is trying to prove that it is a hadith, as he has written in his letter or quotations (remember, the Companions who narrated that there is no riba in cash, that hadith is conditional upon the change of types, and the discussion between Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn Samit and Sayyiduna Amir Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhuma is about a transaction of the same type; if there is excess or deficiency in the same type, it is usury, and there is no hadith declaring it not to be usury. That is why Sayyiduna Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu could not provide evidence, and our challenge is specifically about this issue: that the objector should prove from Sayyiduna Amir Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu a hadith that in a transaction of the same type, if it is cash for cash, excess or deficiency is never usury). We say with great confidence that Sayyiduna Amir Mu’awiyah radi Allahu anhu did not narrate any hadith; rather, it was his opinion, which is clear evidence that he was unaware of the hadith. There are many Companions who did not know about certain issues or hadiths, and later, when the hadiths reached them, they retracted.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah says:
Whoever believes that every authentic hadith reached every Imam or specific Imam is making a gross and ugly mistake. [رفع الاعلام، ص: 238]

I think the objector is also unaware of this, because this is a subject related to the science of hadith. My belief is that the statement of any person, no matter how great, will not be accepted against the hadith of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam; rather, it is obligatory to follow the hadith of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and the decision of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam will be enforced. Allah the Exalted says:
«﴿فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّى يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا﴾» [النساء : 65]
“But no, by your Lord, they will not truly believe until they make you judge in all disputes between them, and then find in their selves no resistance against your decision, and submit with full submission."

Honour the Companions and respect them, and do not harbour any resentment in your hearts towards the Companions, for they were that pure group with whom Allah was already pleased. Sayyiduna Ameer Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhu) was not one to reject hadith. This incident occurred between him and Sayyiduna Ubadah (radi Allahu anhu) because at that time Sayyiduna Muawiyah did not have the hadith. Had the hadith been available to him, he would never have given precedence to his own opinion; rather, he would have given precedence to the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). Therefore, the noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum) are very exalted and great. To harbour even a mustard seed's worth of ill-feeling in one's heart towards them is tantamount to losing one's faith. (Muhammad Husain Maimon)

Now the readers should decide for themselves: should one believe in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) or, like the objectors, rely on analogy and opinions? Because the religion is the name of the Qur'an and authentic hadith, not the name of opinions and analogies.

Alhamdulillah, we have established that the position on which the objectors have boldly announced a challenge (mubahalah) is itself based on mere opinion.

The objectors should read the proofs we have presented a hundred times and become acceptors of hadith like Sayyiduna Ibn Umar and Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhuma). They should not unnecessarily ride the horses of analogy and conjecture against the hadith. They will certainly gain fame for this act, but not the wilayah (closeness) of Allah, because the wilayah of Allah the Exalted lies only in accepting the word of the Noble Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and in following him. Allah the Exalted says:

"O Prophet! Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you." [Aal Imran: 31]

Esteemed readers! There were many Companions to whom certain hadiths had not reached. Outwardly, their fatwa would not conform to the hadith, but as soon as they became aware of the hadith, they would immediately retract their position without any hesitation. Let me mention a principle here: if one Companion says, "I did not hear such-and-such hadith from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)," and another Companion on the same issue says, "I heard the hadith from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)," then the word of the Companion who says "I heard it" shall be accepted, because the Companion who denied it has an excuse — he simply did not hear it from the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). Therefore, Sayyiduna Ameer Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhu)

Hadith Commentary:
It is understood from this that in transactions involving the same kind of commodity, any increase or decrease constitutes usury (riba).
The method prescribed is that the inferior quality should be sold separately for cash, and then with that money, the superior quality of the same commodity should be purchased.
The transaction conducted by Hazrat Bilal (radi Allahu anhu) was invalid (fasid).
The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) annulled it, as is mentioned in the narration of Muslim.
The narration of Sahih Muslim to which Hazrat Maulana Waheed uz-Zaman has alluded is transmitted in the Book of Riba from Hazrat Abu Sa'id (radi Allahu anhu) himself,
in which these words are found:
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said, "This is riba, so return it."
That is, this is usury; therefore, return it.
On this, Allamah Nawawi writes:
"This is evidence that what is received through an invalid (fasid) sale must be returned to its seller, and when it is returned, the price is also to be reclaimed. If it is said that in the previous hadith it is not mentioned that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered its return, the answer is that apparently it is one and the same incident, and in it, he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered its return. Some narrators preserved this detail, and some did not. Therefore, we accept the addition of the trustworthy narrator. And if it is established that these are two separate incidents, then the first is to be interpreted as if he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) also gave this order, even if it did not reach us. And if it is established that he did not give this order, despite them being two incidents, then we interpret it as the seller having become unknown and could not be identified later. In that case, the property is lost for the one who took on the liability of its price, and this refers to the dates he received in exchange. Thus, it is established that there is no problem in the hadith, and all praise is due to Allah."
(Nawawi)
That is, this matter is evidence that such a sale, in which possession is taken, is also invalid (fasid), and it is obligatory to return it to the seller, and when the sale is annulled, its price is also annulled.
If it is said that in the previous hadith it is not mentioned that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered its return,
the answer is that apparently it is one and the same incident, and in it, he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered its return.
Some narrators remembered this, and some did not.
Thus, we accepted the addition of the trustworthy narrator.
And if it is established that these are two incidents, then the first is to be interpreted as if he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) also gave this order, even if it did not reach us.
And if it is established that he did not give this order, despite them being two incidents,
then we interpret it as the seller having become unknown and could not be identified later.
In that case, the property is lost for the one who took on the liability of its price, and this refers to the dates he received in exchange.
Thus, it is established that there is no problem in the hadith.
All praise is due to Allah.
This note was written today, 5th Safar 1390 AH, in the Prophet’s Mosque, Madinah Tayyibah, at the time of Fajr, in the course of revision.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
Although there is no explicit mention of returning (the goods) in this hadith, Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, in accordance with his usual practice, has alluded to that narration which Imam Muslim rahimahullah has recorded:
"Return them, for this is a usurious (riba) transaction."
(Sahih Muslim, Al-Musaqat wal-Muzara‘ah, Hadith: 4084(1594))
In reality, this type of incident occurred twice:
One incident took place before the prohibition of riba, where the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam did not order the transaction to be annulled, and the other occurred after the prohibition of riba, in which the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ordered the transaction to be annulled.
(2)
From this hadith, it is understood that if an agent (wakil) carries out a corrupt (fasid) sale, it will not be valid; rather, the transaction must be annulled and the goods returned.
(Fath al-Bari: 4/417)
(3)
It is also understood from this that riba (usury) is haram (forbidden), and it is not permissible to take it under any circumstance, even if, for some reason, it is deposited into our account.