Nasai

(1) In the aforementioned narration, Salamah bin Alqamah has two teachers: one is Muhammad bin Sirin and the other is Qatadah. When Muhammad bin Sirin narrated this hadith, he said: [عَنْ مُسْلِمِ بْنِ یَسَارٍ عَنْ عُبَادَةَ بْنِ الصَّامِتِ], and when Qatadah narrated this hadith, he said: [عَنْ مُسْلِمِ بْنِ یَسَارٍ عَنْ أَيی الْأَشْعَثِ الصَّنْعَانِیِّ عَنْ عُبَادَةَ بْنِ الصَّامِتِ]. The meaning is that Qatadah also mentioned the intermediary of Abu al-Ash'ath al-San'ani between Muslim bin Yasar and ‘Ubadah radi Allahu anhu, as becomes clear from the chain of narration of the next hadith: 4567.

(2) ‘Ubadah bin Samit radi Allahu anhu was among the leaders (nuqaba) of the Pledge of Aqabah. He was among the earliest Muslims of the Ansar. His period of education and training under the shade of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is much greater than that of Mu‘awiyah radi Allahu anhu. Mu‘awiyah radi Allahu anhu only became Muslim in the year after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, in 7 AH. He had less opportunity to benefit directly from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, so it is not surprising if Mu‘awiyah radi Allahu anhu did not hear this statement from the blessed tongue of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. This statement is also narrated from Abu Hurayrah, ‘Umar, and other Companions radi Allahu anhum, and it is undoubtedly authentic.

Hadith Commentary:

Benefits and Issues:
➊ In the case where the type (genus) is the same, exchange will take place on the basis of mutual equality.
➋ However, if the type changes, then increase or decrease (in quantity) is permissible.
➌ But in both cases, deferred payment (credit) is not permissible.
➍ When something is to be purchased with money (cash), then selling items on credit is permissible.

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues: (1)
From the hadith of Malik bin Aws and Ubadah bin Samit radi Allahu anhuma, it becomes clear that in the mutual exchange of currency, if the type is the same, then equality and hand-to-hand exchange are necessary. If on one side it is cash and on the other side it is deferred, meaning there is a delay, then this exchange is not permissible.

(2)
From the incident of Ubadah radi Allahu anhu, it is also established that if there is a mutual exchange of gold or silver, whether the gold or silver is in the form of currency (dinar or dirham), in the form of bullion, or in the form of jewelry or utensils, in every case, it is necessary that they be equal and exchanged hand-to-hand. However, the view of Muawiyah radi Allahu anhu was that when it is crafted, i.e., in the form of jewelry or utensils, then it is permissible to take more gold or more silver in exchange for it, because now it is not just gold or silver, but a saleable commodity, in which both credit and disparity are permissible. Abu Darda radi Allahu anhu also objected to this view of Muawiyah radi Allahu anhu, but Muawiyah radi Allahu anhu did not accept his statement. Then Abu Darda informed Umar bin Khattab about this, so Umar radi Allahu anhu forbade Muawiyah radi Allahu anhu from this, from which it is understood that these companions took this hadith in its general meaning, and they considered equality and hand-to-hand exchange necessary in every form of gold and silver exchange, and this is also the position of the majority of the Imams.

(3)
From the narration of Ibn Asakir, it is known that Ubadah radi Allahu anhu heard this narration from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam in Ramadan of the 10th year of Hijrah, and thus it is also established that it is not necessary for a companion who was a companion and associate of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to have heard every hadith from him, as Muawiyah radi Allahu anhu had not heard this hadith. Therefore, Ubadah radi Allahu anhu rejected his reasoning that "I used to be present in your (the Prophet's) gatherings and used to listen to your ahadith, but I have not heard this one, so why do you narrate it?"

(4)
By "a'tiyat al-nas" is meant the stipends given to people from the Bayt al-Mal (public treasury). In this way, it is as if people bought or sold silver or gold utensils on credit, that when we receive our stipends, we will pay their price. So Ubadah radi Allahu anhu forbade this, because in exchange, hand-to-hand exchange is necessary. A gold or silver utensil is under the same ruling as gold or silver, so if it is to be bought, both should be of equal weight and exchanged hand-to-hand, provided the utensil is of pure gold or pure silver.

(5)
Dhahab wa Fiddah (gold and silver): Regarding the cause and reason for usury (riba) in gold and silver according to the four Imams, this discussion has already passed. As for the remaining items (wheat, barley, dates, and salt), the following are the opinions:

(1)
According to Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Ahmad, Imam Ishaq and others rahimahumullah, the cause is being measured or weighed and being of the same type. Therefore, according to them, if any measured or weighed item is exchanged with its like of the same type, it must be equal and hand-to-hand, whether the item is food or not, for example, cotton, wool, grain, iron, brass, gold, and silver, etc.

(2)
According to Imam Shafi'i, the cause is being edible (foodstuff) and of the same type, and one opinion of Imam Ahmad is also the same. According to this view, riba al-fadl applies to all foodstuffs, whether they are measured, weighed, or sold by count; the exchange must be equal, for example, the exchange of apples, pomegranates, or eggs must be equal. But if they are not foodstuffs, then disparity is permissible.

(3)
According to Imam Malik, the cause is items that can be stored and are of the same type, and according to some Malikis, along with this, being a source of nourishment (food) is also a condition, i.e., they must be storable, edible, and of the same type. Shah Waliullah preferred the position of the Malikis (Hujjatullah, vol. 2, p. 107), and Allamah Taqi wrote: "The reasoning of the Malikis is more apparent and preferable both from the perspective of reasoning and practical application" (Takmilah, vol. 1, p. 582). The reasoning of the Malikis is clearer and, both theoretically and practically, more appropriate. Thus, riba al-fadl relates to items that can become food, provided they can be stored, and not to every edible thing. Ibn Rushd al-Maliki, in Bidayah, preferred the position of the Hanafis.

Benefit:
According to some scholars, this ruling applies only to the following items:
gold, silver, wheat, barley, dates, and salt.
Other scholars hold that the same ruling applies even to those items not mentioned in the hadith, that is, items of the same kind should not be exchanged with each other with an increase or decrease (due to difference in quality).

Commentary:
(1)
The exchange of gold for gold, or silver for silver, is only permissible when the amounts on both sides are equal and both parties make payment simultaneously. However, if gold is exchanged for silver, then the condition of equal amounts does not apply, but payment from both sides must still be made in the same sitting. By analogy, it can be said that the exchange of old currency notes for new notes is also permissible under these same conditions. For example, it is not permissible to give or take one hundred and ten rupees in old notes in exchange for one hundred rupees in new notes.

(2)
No one’s opinion is valid in comparison to the Prophetic hadith, even if it is the opinion of a Companion (sahabi). However, it is possible that one Companion understood one meaning from the hadith, while in the opinion of another Companion, that issue does not arise from it, or he considers another hadith to be more preponderant. In such a case, both opinions can be considered together to determine which statement is more correct. If there is an error in this ijtihad (independent reasoning), it is excused by Allah.

(3)
In the eyes of the Companions (sahaba), the importance of hadith was so great that if an opinion was expressed contrary to the hadith, the Companion of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) became so displeased that he even left that region. Umar (radi Allahu anhu) also valued this sentiment of his to such an extent that he ordered Muawiyah (radi Allahu anhu) that Ubadah (radi Allahu anhu) would not be under his authority.

(4)
When there are differing opinions among the Companions (radi Allahu anhum) on an issue, the opinion that is supported by the Qur’an and hadith is more acceptable—just as Umar (radi Allahu anhu), upon learning of both opinions, gave preference to the statement established by the Prophetic command and implemented it as law.

1) Selling wheat for wheat is legally permissible in Shariah provided that the wheat on both sides is equal, and both parties take possession of it in the same sitting.

2) By examining the various chains (isnads) of this blessed hadith, it becomes very clear that the noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum) not only fulfilled the covenant of loyalty they made with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), but they fulfilled it to its utmost right. They fulfilled the requirements of the pledge (bay‘ah) they made at the hand of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), regardless of whether fulfilling this covenant might cause discomfort or displeasure to any of their leaders. Among these great and eminent personalities was also ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit (radi Allahu anhu), who pledged to the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) that he would not fear the blame of any blamer in the matter of Allah’s religion. The main reason why Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit (radi Allahu anhu) narrated this hadith is that, during a certain battle, the people obtained many spoils of war, including silver vessels. At that time, their leader was Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu), who ordered a man to sell those silver vessels that had been acquired as spoils, and that when the people received their stipends from the public treasury (bayt al-mal), the price of those silver vessels would be collected from them at that time. People began to engage in this transaction rapidly. When this matter reached Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit (radi Allahu anhu), he stood up and narrated to the people the aforementioned hadith of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) forbade selling gold and silver on credit. Their buying and selling can only be done in cash, otherwise not. Upon hearing this, the people returned the silver vessels they had bought and canceled the transaction. When Sayyiduna Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu) learned of this, he addressed the people and said: “What is the matter with people that they narrate such ahadith from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) which we have not heard from him, even though we too have accompanied the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)?” Upon hearing this, Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit (radi Allahu anhu) stood up again and repeated the same blessed hadith he had narrated before, and along with it, he also said: “Whatever we have heard from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), we will certainly narrate, no matter how much Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu) may dislike it,” or he said, “even if Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu) feels humiliated by it.” Along with this, Sayyiduna ‘Ubadah (radi Allahu anhu) also said: “If, because of narrating this issue, I am not able to stay even a single night in the army of Mu‘awiyah (radi Allahu anhu), I do not care at all. Whatever I have heard from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), I will certainly narrate, whether today’s ruler likes it or not.” For details, see: (Sahih Muslim, al-Musaqat, Chapter: Exchange and Selling Gold for Silver in Cash, Hadith: 1587). From this detail, it also becomes clear that the Companions (radi Allahu anhum) were living embodiments of “they do not fear the blame of any blamer.” Qadi ‘Iyad (rahimahullah) says that the heavy responsibility Allah has placed upon the scholars of truth requires that they openly clarify the truth before the people, never conceal the truth, fulfill the requirements of justice and fairness, and live in the world as witnesses for Allah.

3) From this hadith, it is understood that special attention should be given to the propagation of the Sunnah, and the knowledge of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) should be spread, even if the greatest of people dislike it. The truth should be spoken openly and in front of everyone.

4) This blessed hadith also establishes the permissibility of mutual buying and selling of the mentioned items. For items of the same kind, equality and mutual possession (taqabud) are conditions. However, if the kinds differ, then disparity is permissible, but the transaction must be hand-to-hand (immediate exchange).

5) This blessed hadith refutes those who consider wheat and barley to be of the same kind. These are not one kind but two different kinds. The aforementioned words of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) are a clear proof of this. He said: “You may sell wheat for barley and barley for wheat as you wish, provided the transaction is in cash, i.e., not on credit from either side.”

6) Disparity in the aforementioned six items is indeed usury (riba). However, there is a difference of opinion regarding which other items, besides these six, are included in the ruling of riba when there is disparity. Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) has included all items that are measured or weighed (makilat wa mawzunat) under this ruling. According to Imam Malik (rahimahullah), in addition to these, all edible items (makulat) that can be stored are included under this ruling. Imam Shafi‘i (rahimahullah) has considered both conditions: that the item be measured or weighed and also be edible. The Zahiri scholars hold that riba is restricted only to these six mentioned items; in other items, disparity is not considered riba. However, this view is not rationally acceptable, because the rulings of Shari‘ah are always applied for some purpose. One of the objectives in prohibiting the sale of the aforementioned items with disparity is to promote simplicity and contentment. Obviously, good quality wheat will not be exchanged for inferior wheat, nor will anyone give high-quality dates in exchange for inferior ones. The benefit of prohibiting such sales is that people will be content with the wheat, barley, and dates they have, and will not be restless in search of taste. This will eliminate inflation. Generally, people possess commodities, not money, so they will not be caught up in the pursuit of acquiring the best of the best, and simplicity and contentment will prevail. Society will be protected from chaos. Keeping this objective in view, the opinion of Imam Malik (rahimahullah) seems more reasonable: that this ruling applies to all items used as food and that can be stored. The Zahiri position is also refuted by the hadith in which the sale of grapes on the vine for a specified amount of dried dates (munqā) is prohibited. In such a sale, disparity is also possible, even though neither munqā nor grapes are among the six items mentioned in this hadith. According to the view of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah), iron, brass, etc., would also fall under this ruling, even though these items are not usually sold as raw materials but rather as manufactured products, and it is nearly impossible to apply this ruling to manufactured goods, because in such transactions, the deal is not only for the material but also for craftsmanship and skill. And Allah knows best.

7) The words “in one sitting” can apparently refer to a house, or to a stage of travel. The latter meaning seems more appropriate, as is evident from the detailed hadith in Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 1587, that this incident occurred during a battle with the enemy, and they were certainly on a journey.

English Translation:

Allah Ta'ala has created gold and silver for trade. And these serve as a standard of value. When gold is exchanged for gold, or silver for silver, any excess or deficiency is prohibited. Therefore, in whatever things serve as a standard of value, excess or deficiency will also be prohibited, for example: currency notes, bonds, and certificates, etc. A bond or certificate of one hundred rupees cannot be bought or sold for more than one hundred rupees; otherwise, it will become usury (riba). If coins of iron or copper are minted, or iron and copper are used as a standard of value, then in their sale or exchange as well, excess or deficiency will be prohibited. For example: a currency note of one hundred rupees will be considered equal to coins of one hundred rupees in exchange. Excess or deficiency will be prohibited. Nowadays, the prevailing shares (stocks) also cannot be sold for less or more than their original value.