Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:275

Al-Baqarah (2:275): Those who consume Riba...

Connection between Riba and Sadaqah (Charity)

Know that there is a relationship between Riba (usury/interest) and Sadaqah (charity) based on opposition.

• Sadaqah involves decreasing one's wealth due to God's command.
• Riba involves demanding an increase in wealth despite God's prohibition.
• Thus, they are opposites. This is why God states: {Allah destroys Riba and increases Sadaqat}. Because of this connection, the ruling on Riba is mentioned immediately after the ruling on Sadaqat.

Meaning of "Those who consume Riba"

The phrase {Those who consume Riba} refers to those who engage in transactions involving it. Consumption (Akl) is specified because it is the primary purpose (as in {Those who unjustly consume the wealth of orphans} (4:10)). Just as consuming an orphan's wealth is forbidden, so is destroying it, but consumption is mentioned to signify all other forms of utilization. Similarly, {And do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly} (2:188).

Furthermore, the Riba itself (the excess amount they took in the Jahiliyyah era) was not typically eaten directly; it was spent on consumables and thus eaten. The intent is to forbid disposal or utilization of Riba. God forbids utilizing Riba with the severe warning mentioned.

It is also established that the Prophet (PBUH) "cursed the consumer of Riba, the one who pays it, the witness, the scribe, and the one who facilitates it (muhallil)." This shows the prohibition is not exclusive to the consumer.

Finally, by the principle of mutuality (if A implies B, then not-B implies not-A), the prohibition of Riba cannot be restricted only to consumption and exclude other forms of utilization.

Therefore, based on these four points, the meaning of consuming Riba in this verse is utilizing/disposing of Riba.

Issue 1: Linguistic Meaning of Riba

Linguistically, Riba means increase. It is said: Rabiya al-shay’ yarbu (the thing increased), as in {and it grew and swelled} (22:5). A man arbā if he engaged in Riba transactions. The Hadith states: "Whoever engages in ijbā’ has engaged in arbā." Ijbā’ is selling crops before their fruit appears. This is the linguistic meaning of Riba.

Issue 2: Recitation of "Al-Riba"

Hamzah and Al-Kisa'i recited it with Imālah (inclination) because of the Kasrah (vowel sound) on the letter Rā’. The rest recited it with Tafkhīm (emphasis) with a Fatḥah on the Bā’. In the Mus'hafs, it is written with a Wāw. You have the choice to write it with an Alif, Wāw, or Yā’. The author of Al-Kashshāf noted that writing it with a Wāw follows the dialect of those who use Tafkhīm, similar to how Ṣalāh and Zakāh are written, with an added Alif resembling the Wāw of the plural.

Issue 3: Types of Riba and Their Rulings

Riba is divided into two types: Riba al-Nasī’ah (Riba of Delay) and Riba al-Faḍl (Riba of Excess).

1. Riba al-Nasī’ah: This was the well-known practice in the Jahiliyyah era. They would lend money, stipulating a fixed amount to be paid every month while the principal remained outstanding. When the debt was due, they would demand the principal. If the debtor couldn't pay, they would increase the debt amount and extend the term. This is the Riba they practiced.
2. Riba al-Naqd (Riba al-Faḍl): This is when one sells, for example, one measure of wheat for two measures of wheat immediately (on the spot), or similar transactions.

The Dispute over Riba al-Naqd:

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he initially only prohibited the first type (Nasī’ah), permitting Naqd (spot exchange). Abu Sa'id al-Khudri challenged him, saying, "You witnessed what I did not witness, or heard from the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) what I did not hear."

Later, Ibn Abbas reportedly retracted his view. Muhammad ibn Sirin narrated that while they were with 'Ikrimah, someone mentioned Ibn Abbas's previous ruling. 'Ikrimah said: "I only permitted it based on my own opinion (ra’y). Then I learned that the Prophet (PBUH) prohibited it, so I testify that I now prohibit it and disavow it to Allah."

Ibn Abbas's Argument (Initial View): His proof was that {And Allah has permitted trade} (2:275) includes exchanging one dirham for two dirhams immediately. His view was that {And Allah has forbidden Riba} does not cover this, as Riba linguistically means increase, and not every increase is forbidden. Rather, {And Allah has forbidden Riba} only applies to the specific contract known among them as Riba, which was Riba al-Nasī’ah. Thus, the prohibition was specific to Nasī’ah, leaving Riba al-Naqd under the general permission of trade. He argued that prohibiting it based on a single narrator’s report (khabar wāḥid) would require overriding the apparent meaning of the Qur'an, which is impermissible.

The Majority of Jurists (Jumhūr al-Mujtahidīn): They agreed on prohibiting both types. Nasī’ah is prohibited by the Qur'an, and Faḍl (Naqd) is prohibited by the Sunnah (Hadith). The Hadith indicated the prohibition of Riba al-Faḍl in six specific items.

Further Dispute among the Majority:

• General View (Most Jurists): The prohibition of unequal exchange (tafāḍul) is not limited to these six items but applies to others.
• Deniers of Analogy (Nufāt al-Qiyās): The prohibition is restricted only to those six items.

Arguments of the Deniers of Analogy (Restricting Prohibition to Six Items):

1. Specificity of Listing: If the ruling applied to all measurable or edible items, the Prophet (PBUH) would have said, "Do not sell measure for measure with excess," or "Do not sell food for food with excess." Since he specifically listed four items (and two others mentioned in other Hadiths: gold and silver), it shows the prohibition is confined to them.
2. Weakness of Proof: We established that the verse {And Allah has permitted trade} implies the permissibility of Riba al-Naqd. You excluded it from this generality based on a khabar wāḥid for the six items. Then, you established the prohibition for other items by analogy (Qiyās) to those six. This means you specialized the general text of the Qur'an with a khabar wāḥid for the six items, and then established the ruling for others via analogy to those six. Analogy is much weaker than a khabar wāḥid, and a khabar wāḥid is weaker than the apparent meaning of the Qur'an. This constitutes prioritizing the weaker proof over the stronger one, which is impermissible.
3. Necessity of Causality (Ta'līl): Extending a ruling from the context of the text (mawrid al-naṣṣ) to another context is only possible through establishing the ’illah (effective cause) of the ruling in the original context. This is impermissible because: a) It implies determining the ’illah of God's ruling, which is impossible according to Usul principles. b) The ruling in the original context is known (ma’lūm), but the linguistic basis for the ’illah is conjectural (maẓnūn). Linking the known to the conjectural is impermissible.

The Majority View on Causality: The majority agrees that the prohibition of Riba al-Faḍl extends beyond the six items. Since extending the ruling requires establishing the ’illah of the ruling in the text's context, they differed on what that ’illah is:

• First Opinion (Al-Shafi'i): The ’illah for prohibition in the four measured items is edibility (ṭa’m) combined with unity of genus, and for gold and silver, it is their status as currency (naqdīyah).
• Second Opinion (Abu Hanifah): The ’illah is being quantifiable (muqaddar). For dirhams and dinars, the ’illah is weight, and for the four items, it is measure (kayl) and unity of genus.
• Third Opinion (Malik): The ’illah is sustenance (qūt) or what sustains sustenance, like salt.
• Fourth Opinion ('Abd al-Malik ibn al-Mājishūn): The ’illah is anything that yields benefit (yantafi'u bihi).

(The detailed ramifications of these issues are beyond the scope of Tafsir.)

Issue 4: Reasons for Prohibiting Riba

Several reasons are mentioned for the prohibition of Riba:

1. Taking Wealth Without Compensation: Riba involves taking wealth without any return. If one exchanges a dirham for two (whether immediately or later), the extra dirham is obtained without compensation. Human wealth is tied to necessity and holds great sanctity (the Prophet PBUH said: "The sanctity of a man's wealth is like the sanctity of his blood"). Therefore, taking it without compensation must be forbidden.
   • Objection: Could the prolonged use of the principal by the debtor serve as compensation for the extra dirham? The debtor benefits from using the money, which the owner could have used for trade and profit.
   • Response: This benefit is speculative (mawhūm); it might occur or not. Taking the extra dirham is certain (mutayaqqin). Sacrificing certainty for speculation involves harm.
2. Hindering Livelihoods: Some say Allah prohibited Riba because it prevents people from engaging in productive labor. If a person can easily gain an extra dirham through Riba contracts, they will neglect the hardship of earning through trade, crafts, and industry, leading to the cessation of public benefit, which relies on these activities.
3. Cutting Off Benevolence (Qard): Riba leads to the cessation of mutual kindness (ma'rūf) in lending. If people become accustomed to lending a dirham only to receive two, the needy person, driven by necessity, will accept the Riba loan. This cuts off compassion, kindness, and benevolence.
4. Exploitation of the Poor: Usually, the lender is wealthy, and the borrower is poor. Permitting Riba enables the rich to take an excess amount from the weak poor, which is unjust according to the Mercy of the Most Merciful.
5. Divine Command: The prohibition of Riba is established by explicit text (Naṣṣ). Not all rulings of obligation need their underlying wisdom to be known to humans. Therefore, we must affirm the prohibition of the Riba contract even if we don't know the specific reason.

{They will not stand} (2:275)

Most commentators say this refers to standing on the Day of Resurrection. Some say it refers to rising from the grave. There is no contradiction, so the term should encompass both meanings.

{except as one stands who is being struck down by the Devil in madness} (2:275)

Issue 1: Meaning of Takhabbatu and Mas

• Takhabbatu means striking unevenly. A person acting without guidance is said to be yakhbaṭu khaṭb ‘a’shwā’ (striking randomly). It also means a camel striking the ground with its hooves.
• Takhabbaṭahu al-Shayṭān (the Devil strikes him) means the Devil afflicts him with confusion or madness, as if striking him unevenly in his mind.
• The affliction of the Devil is called madness (junūn) or confusion (khabal).
• Al-Mas (touching/affliction) means madness. A man afflicted is mamsūs or bihi mas. Its origin is touching by hand, as if the Devil touches a person, causing madness. Madness is then called Mas, just as the Devil strikes him and treads on him with his foot, causing confusion, so madness is called Khabṭah. Thus, Takhabbatu relates to the feet/striking, and Mas relates to the hand/touching.

Two Questions on Grammar:

1. How is Takhabbatu (Form VI verb) transitive?
   • Tafa'ala (Form VI) can sometimes mean intensive action (fa'ala), like taqassama meaning qassama (to divide), or taqaṭṭa'a meaning qaṭa'a (to cut).
2. What is the object of the prepositional phrase {from the affliction (min al-Mas)}?
   • First View: It relates to {They will not stand}. The meaning is: They will not stand up from the affliction they suffer except as one struck by the Devil.
   • Second View: It relates to {O my people} (implied context), meaning: They will not stand except as one struck by the Devil due to the affliction.

Issue 2: The Nature of the Devil's Power (Al-Jubbā’ī's View)

Al-Jubbā’ī argued that the common belief that the Devil causes epilepsy/madness by touching people is false. The Devil is too weak to cause such severe harm. Proofs:

1. God quotes the Devil: {I had no authority over you except that I called you, and you responded to me} (14:22). This explicitly denies the Devil power over striking or killing.
2. The Devil is either a dense body or a subtle one:
   • If dense, he must be visible, as unseen dense bodies (like unseen suns or mountains) are impossible.
   • If subtle (like air), he cannot possess the solidity or strength required to strike or kill a human.
3. If the Devil could cause such harm, he could perform miracles like the Prophets, which would undermine Prophethood.
4. If he had this power, why doesn't he afflict all believers, seize their wealth, expose their secrets, and destroy their minds, given his intense enmity toward them? This is clearly not the case.

Arguments of Those Affirming the Devil's Power:

1. The verse about Solomon (PBUH) where the Jinn performed difficult tasks for him.
   • Response: They were commanded to do so during Solomon's time, and this was a miracle specific to him.
2. This verse itself, {being struck down by the Devil}, implies the Devil causes the affliction through his touch (Mas).
   • Response: The Devil touches through his harmful whispering (waswasah), which triggers the condition. This is like Job’s complaint: {Indeed, adversity has touched me} (38:41). Madness occurs because God created the afflicted person with a weak temperament and an excess of black bile, making them fearful upon hearing the whisper, leading to collapse. This is why this affliction is not found in the wise, complete, or resolute, but only in those with temperamental deficiencies or brain defects.

Al-Qaffāl's Alternative View: People attribute epilepsy to the Devil/Jinn, so the Qur'an addresses them according to their common understanding. Also, people often attribute ugly things to the Devil to condemn them, as in {its fruit is like the heads of devils} (37:65).

Issue 3: Interpretations of the Punishment

1. Rising Insane: The consumer of Riba will be resurrected insane on the Day of Judgment, serving as a specific sign to identify them to the onlookers.
2. Inability to Move Swiftly (Ibn Munabbih): People will rise quickly from their graves ({They will come forth from the graves swiftly} (70:43)), except for the consumers of Riba. They will rise and immediately fall down, like one struck mad, because God will have inflated their stomachs with the Riba they consumed, making them heavy. They try to rush but cannot. This differs from the first view as it attributes the inability to physical weight, not madness. This is supported by the narration during the Mi'raj where the Prophet (PBUH) saw men whose stomachs were huge, causing them to fall when they tried to stand, and Gabriel identified them as consumers of Riba.
3. Spiritual Confusion (My Preferred View): This relates to the verse: {Indeed, those who fear Allah, when touched by a wandering thought from Satan, remember, and thereupon they see clearly} (7:201). Satan calls toward desires and preoccupation with other than Allah—this is the Mas (touch). Whoever is like this is confused (mukhabbaṭ) in worldly affairs, pulled sometimes by ego and sometimes by faith. The consumer of Riba is excessively devoted to worldly love. When he dies holding that love, it becomes a veil between him and God. The confusion he experienced in the world due to love of wealth causes him confusion in the Hereafter, subjecting him to the humiliation of the veil. This interpretation aligns the preamble with the conclusion better than the first two.

{That is because they say, "Indeed, trade is like Riba"} (2:275)

Issue 1: The People's Fallacious Analogy

The people justified Riba based on this suspicion:

• If one buys a garment for ten and sells it for eleven (spot exchange), it is permissible. Therefore, selling ten for eleven (in Riba al-Naqd) should also be permissible. They saw no rational difference.
• Similarly, for Riba al-Nasī’ah: If one sells a garment worth ten for eleven due to a month's delay, it is permissible. Therefore, giving ten for eleven with a month's delay should also be permissible, as they saw no difference between the two scenarios, both involving mutual consent.
• They argued that trade exists to fulfill needs. A person might be destitute now but wealthy in the future. If Riba is forbidden, the lender gives nothing, leaving the person in need. If Riba is permitted, the lender gives money hoping for an increase, and the debtor repays it when able. Repaying the excess later is easier than remaining in need now. This logic supports permitting Riba just as we permit other sales to fulfill needs.

God's Response: God answered this with one word: {And Allah has permitted trade, but He has forbidden Riba}. The response is that their argument is opposing a clear text (Naṣṣ) with analogy (Qiyās), which is the work of Iblis. When God commanded Iblis to prostrate to Adam, he countered with analogy: {I am better than him; You created me from fire and him from clay} (7:12). Those who reject Qiyās use this verse as proof that religion is based on Naṣṣ, not Qiyās.

Al-Qaffāl's Distinction: He differentiated the two cases:

• In selling a garment worth ten for twenty (spot), the garment itself is the counter-value for the twenty. Since mutual consent was reached on this exchange, neither party took anything without compensation.
• In selling ten for ten (with excess), the extra ten is taken without compensation. The argument that the compensation is the delay is invalid, as delay is not a tangible asset that can be exchanged for the extra ten. Thus, the difference between the two scenarios is clear.

Issue 2: Scope of the Warning

The apparent meaning of {That is because they said, "Indeed, trade is like Riba"} suggests the severe punishment is for permitting (istiḥlāl) Riba, not merely engaging in or consuming it while knowing it is forbidden. If this is the case, this verse alone does not prove Riba is a major sin (kabīrah).

• Objection: The beginning of the verse implies the standing in confusion is because they consumed Riba.
• Response: The phrase {That is because they said...} explicitly states the cause of that confusion is this statement/belief. Therefore, the beginning of the verse must be interpreted metaphorically. We already interpreted "consuming" as "utilizing." Here, we interpret "consuming" as permitting and deeming lawful (istiḥlāl) Riba, as "consuming" can mean "permitting utilization," e.g., "So-and-so consumes God's wealth greedily." If we interpret consumption as istiḥlāl, the beginning of the verse matches the end. However, the majority of commentators interpreted the verse as a warning against those who utilize Riba, not just those who permit it.

Issue 3: Why "Trade is like Riba" and not "Riba is like Trade"?

The question is why the verse reverses the analogy: since the permissibility of trade is agreed upon, they should have compared Riba to trade (the agreed-upon standard).

• Answer: Their goal was not adherence to the structure of Qiyās. Their objective was to assert that Riba and trade are identical in all relevant aspects. If they are identical, why is one permitted and the other forbidden? In this context, the order of presentation does not matter.

{And Allah has permitted trade, but He has forbidden Riba} (2:275)

Issue 1: Is this statement from the disbelievers or Allah?

1. View 1: Part of the Disbelievers' Speech: They said, "Trade is like Riba," and then questioned: "And you say {And Allah has permitted trade, but He has forbidden Riba}? How can this be?" They state this as an absurdity, arguing that if the two are identical, differentiating them by permitting one and forbidding the other is inconsistent with the wisdom of the Wise.
2. View 2 (Majority): Statement of Allah: The disbelievers' speech ended at {Indeed, trade is like Riba}. The subsequent phrase is Allah's statement, refuting their claim.

Proofs for View 2 (It is Allah's Speech):

1. View 1 requires assuming additions (like interpreting it as a rhetorical question of denial or assuming it's a narration of the Muslims' statement), which violates the principle that assuming additions is contrary to the default. Making it Allah's statement from the start requires no such assumption.
2. Muslims have always relied on this verse in all matters of trade. If they knew it was the speech of the disbelievers, they would not use it as proof.
3. Following this statement, Allah says: {So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists, then he shall have what has already passed, and his affair is with Allah}. This shows that Allah refuted their suspicion (that trade equals Riba). If {And Allah has permitted trade, but He has forbidden Riba} were not Allah's speech, then the refutation of their suspicion would be missing, making the following verse about admonition inappropriate for the context.

Issue 2: The Scope of "Trade" (Al-Bay' - The Noun with Al)

Al-Shafi'i's view is that {And Allah has permitted trade} is an ambiguous statement (mujmal) that cannot be used as definitive proof. This is my preferred view.

Proofs for Ambiguity:

1. Linguistic Principle: A singular noun defined by the definite article (al-lām) does not inherently convey absolute generality ('umūm); it only defines the essence (māhiyyah). Therefore, it suffices to establish the ruling for a single instance.
2. Weakness of Generality: Even if we grant it implies generality, its generality is weaker than that conveyed by plural forms. For example, {And Allah has permitted trade} implies generality weakly, whereas "And Allah has permitted the trades (al-biyā'āt)" would be stronger. A generality that requires countless, unquantifiable exceptions is unfit for the speech of God and His Messenger, as it implies falsehood, which is impossible for God. Generalities that admit only very few exceptions are permissible, as using a general term to cover the majority is common in Arabic. Thus, interpreting this as absolute generality is unsound.
3. Narrative Evidence: 'Umar (RA) said: "The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) passed away, and he had not asked us about Riba." If this phrase implied absolute generality, 'Umar would not have said this. Thus, the verse is mujmal.
4. Contradiction: {And Allah has permitted trade} implies every sale is permissible, while {and He has forbidden Riba} implies every increase (Riba) is forbidden. Since every sale intends an increase (profit), the first part permits all sales, and the second forbids all increases. Thus, one cannot distinguish the lawful from the unlawful using this verse alone; it is mujmal, requiring reference to the Prophet's (PBUH) clarification.

{So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists} (2:275)

The verb is feminine (ja’athu) because Maw'iẓah (admonition) is grammatically feminine, or because it means Wa'ẓ (admonishment). Abi and Al-Hasan read it as {So whoever has received an admonition (ja’atuhu) from his Lord...}.

{and desists}: Meaning, he stops.

{then he shall have what has already passed} (2:275)

Issue 1: Interpretation of "What Has Passed"

1. Weak View (Al-Zajjāj): Allah pardons the sins committed before this verse was revealed, like {Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease, what has already passed will be forgiven them} (8:38). This is weak because before the prohibition was revealed, the act was not a sin. How can the verse promise pardon for a sin that did not exist? Furthermore, God attributes it to them with the possessive pronoun: {he shall have what has already passed}, implying ownership, not pardon for a sin.
2. Stronger View (Al-Suddi): He keeps what he consumed of Riba. He does not have to return it. However, if the debt was not yet settled, he is only entitled to the principal, as clarified later: {But if you do not do it, then be informed of a declaration of war from Allah and His Messenger} (2:279).

Issue 2: Meaning of Salaf

Al-Wāḥidī stated that Salaf means "preceding." Anything placed before you is salaf. Hence, al-ummah al-sālifah (the preceding nations). Al-sālifah (the neck) is so named because it is elevated in front. Al-sulfa is what is presented before food. Sulāfat al-khamr is its finest part, as it is the first to emerge from the juice.

{and his affair is with Allah} (2:275)

I hold that this verse is specific to one who stops permitting (istiḥlāl) Riba, without clarifying whether he stopped consuming it or not.

• Proof from the Preamble: {So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists} does not specify what he desisted from. It must refer to the preceding context, which is their statement: "Trade is like Riba." Thus, {and desists} refers to stopping this belief.
• Proof from the Conclusion: {And whoever returns, then those are the companions of the Fire, therein abiding eternally}. This means returning to the previously mentioned statement: permitting Riba.

If a person stops permitting Riba, his situation is one of two:

1. He stops permitting Riba AND stops consuming it. In this case, he acknowledges God's command and deserves praise and honor. But {his affair is with Allah} implies that God may punish him or forgive him, which is not the status of a fully obedient believer.
2. He stops permitting Riba but continues consuming it (if he hasn't paid it back yet). In this case, his affair is entrusted to Allah, similar to {Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that of whom He wills} (4:48). This supports our view that hope for God's pardon remains for the major sinner.

{And whoever returns, then those are the companions of the Fire, therein abiding eternally}

This means whoever returns to permitting Riba to the extent that he becomes a disbeliever (kāfir).

The phrase {then those are the companions of the Fire, therein abiding eternally} is conclusive proof that eternity in the Fire is reserved only for the disbelievers. The phrase {those are the companions of the Fire} restricts this status to those who return to the disbelievers' statement, and {therein abiding eternally} also implies restriction. This proves that being a "companion of the Fire" and "abiding eternally" only applies to disbelievers.

While we include all disbelievers under this general ruling, it remains true for the major sinner (ṣāḥib al-kabīrah). Our doctrine is that if a major sinner believes in God and His Messenger, God may pardon him or punish him, and his affair is entrusted to God. If punished, he will not abide eternally but will be removed from the Fire. God clarifies the correctness of this doctrine in this verse by saying {his affair is with Allah}, indicating the possibility of pardon for the major sinner, as explained.

Furthermore, {then those are the companions of the Fire, therein abiding eternally} indicates that even if God admits him to the Fire, He will not make him abide eternally, as eternity is specific to the disbelievers, not the believers. This is a noble clarification and an excellent interpretation.