Foizaning sotuv-sotib olish (bay') va salam (oldindan to‘lab, keyin yetkazib berish) bitimlarida yuz berishi faqat olti narsada mumkin, ular: xurmo, bug‘doy, arpa, tuz, oltin va kumush. Qarz (qardh) bitimida esa foiz barcha turdagi narsalarda, ya’ni hamma narsada yuz berishi mumkin: birovga biror narsa qarz berib, undan ko‘proq yoki kamroq kutish yoki qaytarilganda boshqa narsa olish harom qilingan. Qarz yoki qarz olingan narsaning to‘lovi xuddi o‘sha miqdorda va o‘sha turdagi narsa bilan amalga oshirilishi kerak. Savdo va salam bilan qarz o‘rtasidagi farq shundaki, birinchisida narsa boshqa turga yoki o‘sha turga almashtirilishi mumkin, qarzda esa faqat o‘sha turga va boshqa hech narsaga almashtirilishi mumkin. Foiz faqat zikr qilingan olti narsada bo‘lishi haqidagi dalil sahobalarning umumiy ijmo’i va Muslim Ubada ibn as-Somit rivoyat qilgan hadisdir: Allohning Elchisi ﷺ shunday degan: “Oltin oltinga, kumush kumushga, bug‘doy bug‘doyga, arpa arpaga, xurmo xurmoga, tuz tuzga — teng-teng, o‘lchovi bilan, qo‘lma-qo‘l (ya’ni darhol) bo‘lsin; agar turlari ajralsa, qo‘lma-qo‘l bo‘lganda xohlaganingizcha sotinglar.” Sahobalarning umumiy ijmo’i va hadis riboga xos narsalarni aniq zikr qilgan, shuning uchun u faqat shu narsalarda bo‘lishi mumkin. Shariat qoidasi: “Barcha narsa asli mubohdir, toki uning harom ekanligiga dalil bo‘lmasa”, riboga aloqador narsalarga ham tatbiq etiladi. Zikr qilingan olti narsadan boshqa narsalar haqida dalil sobit bo‘lmagan, shuning uchun riboo faqat ularda yuz beradi. Bu olti narsaning bir asldan bo‘lgan narsalari va ularga o‘xshash xususiyatga ega narsalar ham kiradi va ular bir xil hukmga ega bo‘ladi, lekin boshqa hech narsa emas. Hikmat (illat)ga kelsak, bu narsalarni taqiqlashning sababi (illat) haqida shariat matni yo‘q, shuning uchun bu holatda sabab chiqarilishi kerak emas, chunki sabab shar’iy bo‘lishi kerak, aqliy emas; va agar sababni matndan chiqarib bo‘lmasa, uni tan olib bo‘lmaydi.

Usury does not take place in the Bay’a (trade) and the Salam (advance sale) except in six items only, and they are: dates, wheat, barley, salt, gold and silver. As for the Qardh (loan), usury can take place in all its types i.e. in everything; it is forbidden for a person to lend something to another, and to expect more or less for it, or to receive something different in return. The settlement of the loan or anything borrowed should be by the same amount and the same type of goods borrowed. The difference between the trading and the Salamon the one hand, and the Qardh on the other hand, is that the former can be exchanged for a different type or for the same type, whereas the Qardh can only be exchanged for the same type and nothing else. As for the evidence that usury can only take place in the six mentioned items, this is derived from the general consensus of the Sahaba and because Muslim reported on the authority of Ubada ibn as-Samit that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “The gold for gold, the silver for silver, the wheat for wheat, the barley for barley, the dates for dates and the salt for salt; like for like, measure for measure and hand to hand (i.e. immediately) and if they differed sell as you wish if it was hand to hand.” The general consensus of the Sahaba and the Hadith have mentioned that specific things are subject to Riba, thus it cannot occur except within these things. The Shari’ah principle stating that: “All things are originally permitted unless there is evidence about the prohibition” applies to the things in which Riba occurs. Evidence has not been established regarding any other things except these six that are mentioned, therefore Riba only occurs in them. Things which are from the same origin and things which fit the description, as the six mentioned, are included and they follow the same rule, but nothing else. As for the reason (Illah) behind prohibiting these things, there is no Shari’ah text to that effect, therefore no reason must be deduced in this instance, simply because the reason must be a Shari’ah one and not rational; and if the reason cannot be deduced from a text, it cannot be recognised.

Qiyos ma'nosi bo'yicha, bu holda ham uni chiqarib bo'lmaydi, chunki qiyos qilish sababida shart shuki, aniq va tushunarli vasf bo'lishi kerak, shunda unga qiyos qilinishi mumkin. Agar aniq vasf topilmasa, taqiq hukmining sababi bo'lishi mumkin emas; birlamchi ism (fe'l shaklidan olinmagan) va noaniq vasf esa ilohiy sabab sifatida qabul qilinmaydi va ulardan qiyos qilib bo'lmaydi. Masalan, Payg'ambar ﷺ Abu Bakra orqali Ibn Moja rivoyat qilgan hadisda aytdilar: "Hakam g'azablangan holda ikki da'vogar o'rtasida hukm chiqarmasin." G'azab hukm chiqarishdan man etishning sababi sifatida qabul qilindi; chunki g'azab man etuvchi omil ekanligi matndan aniq tushuniladi, demak u illat (sabab) hisoblanadi. Bu sabab matnni tushunishdan kelib chiqadi, ya'ni man etish aynan shu sababli. Bu tushuncha aql chalkashib qolishini anglatadi; shuning uchun g'azabga yoki g'azab kabi aqlni chalkashtiruvchi narsaga, masalan, og'ir ochlikka qiyos qilish mumkin. Bunday hollarda g'azabni boshqa narsaga qiyos qilish to'g'ri bo'ladi, chunki "g'azab" ifodasi hukm chiqarishning man etilishini izohlovchi vasfdir. Bu esa Allohning (SWT) quyidagi so'zlaridan farq qiladi:

As for the analogy of the reason, this also cannot be deduced in this instance, for the condition of making analogy in the reason itself must be the presence of a clear and understood description in order that analogy can be made to it. If there were no clear description to be found, there can be no reason behind the rule of prohibition; and things like a primary noun (not derived from a verb form) and a vague description cannot be regarded as divine reason, and analogy cannot be made from it. For instance, when the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said, as reported by Ibn Majah on the authority of Abu Bakra: “A judge must not sit to pass judgement between two disputing parties when he’s in a State of anger.” Anger was considered as the reason for preventing the passing of judgement; this is because it is clearly understood that anger is the preventive factor, thus it was an “illa” (reason); the reason itself was deduced from the understanding of the text, which is that the prevention was because of it. This understanding entails that the mind is confused; therefore analogy can be made to anger or anything similar to what made anger as the reason (Illah) i.e. it would cause the mind to be in a state of confusion, such as severe hunger for instance. In such cases, it would be right to make analogy with the anger on anything else, for the expression of “anger” is a description that explains the prevention of passing judgement. This is unlike Allah (swt)’s saying:

“Sizlarga o‘lik hayvon go‘shti haram qilindi” [Al-Ma’idah: 3]

“Carrion meat has been made unlawful to you” [Al-Ma’idah: 3]

Murdor go'sht explanatory tavsif sifatida prohibition (taqiq) sababi emas, shuning uchun unga qiyos qilib bo'lmaydi va taqiq faqat murdor go'shtning o'zi bilan cheklanadi. Shuningdek, agar riboning (foiz) bug'doyda taqiqlangan bo'lsa, uni boshqa narsalarga qiyos sifatida ishlatib bo'lmaydi, chunki bug'doy birlamchi ism bo'lib, biror ma'noni ifodalovchi ibora emas. Bug'doyda ribo taqiqlangan, chunki u oziq-ovqat, deyish noto'g'ri bo'ladi, chunki bu ma'noni ifodalovchi ibora emas; shuning uchun uni taqiq sababi deb hisoblab bo'lmaydi va boshqa narsalarga qiyos sifatida ham ishlatib bo'lmaydi.

Carrion is not an explanatory description of prohibition, therefore, analogy can not be made to it and the prohibition would in this case be restricted to the carrion meat. Also if usury has been prohibited on wheat, it cannot be used as analogy for anything else, for wheat is a primary noun, and not an expression that carries an understanding. It would be wrong to say that usury has been forbidden in the wheat because it is food, for it is not an expression that carries an understanding, thus it cannot be considered as a reason for the prohibition and it cannot be used as an analogy on other things.

Payg'ambar ﷺ haqida: Muslim Mu’ammar ibn Abdulloh orqali rivoyat qilgan hadis: “Ovqat ovqatga, teng miqdorda”. Ahmad Abu Sa’id al-Xudriy orqali rivoyat qilgan hadis: “Rasulullah ﷺ ularga turli xil ovqatlarni taqsim qildilar, ulardan biri boshqasidan yaxshiroq edi. Shunda u (Abu Sa’id) dedi: ‘Biz o‘zaro almashishni boshladik, shunda Rasulullah ﷺ bizni bunday qilishdan qaytardilar va faqat o‘lchov bilan, o‘lchovga teng, hech qanday ortiqchasiz savdo qilishni buyurdilar’”. Shuningdek, An-Nasoiy Jobir orqali rivoyat qilgan hadis: Rasulullah ﷺ dedilar: “Bir uyum ovqat boshqa bir uyum ovqatga, yoki bir uyum ovqat belgilangan o‘lchovdagi ovqatga sotilmasin.” Bu hadislarning barchasi harom bo‘lish sababi ovqat ekanligini ko‘rsatmaydi. Aksincha, ular faqat ribo ovqat mahsulotlarida sodir bo‘lishini ko‘rsatadi, shuning uchun u barcha turdagi ovqat mahsulotlarini o‘z ichiga oladi va bu umumiy qoida bo‘lib qoladi. Keyin Rasulullah ﷺ ning hadisi ribo sodir bo‘ladigan ovqat turlarini aniqlash uchun keldi. Chunki boshqa ko‘plab ovqat mahsulotlari borki, ularda ribo sodir bo‘lsa ham harom bo‘lmaydi, masalan, baqlajon, qovoqcha, sabzi, shirin qovun, qalampir, sarimsoq va uzum ham ovqat mahsulotlaridir. Sahobalarning ijmosiga ko‘ra, ularda ribo bo‘lmaydi, garchi ovqat degan ibora ularga ham tegishli bo‘lsa ham, chunki ular yeyiladigan narsalardir. Shuningdek, Muslim Oisha (roziyallohu anho) orqali rivoyat qilgan hadisda Rasulullah ﷺ dedilar: “Ovqat tayyor bo‘lganda namoz yo‘q”, ya'ni ovqat yeyishga tayyor bo‘lsa. Agar har bir turdagi ovqatda ribo sodir bo‘lganda edi, yuqorida zikr qilingan ovqatlar ham ribo mavzusi bo‘lar edi. Bu shuni ko‘rsatadiki, ovqat haqidagi hadis umumiy bo‘lib, ribo Rasulullah ﷺ ning: “Bug‘doy bug‘doyga, arpa arpaga, xurmo xurmoga...” degan so‘zlarida belgilangan turlarda sodir bo‘ladi. Xuddi Qur'on Hadis bilan xos qilinishi mumkin bo'lganidek, Hadis ham boshqa Hadis bilan xos qilinishi mumkin. Shuning uchun savdo va salamda riboning (foizning) faqat Hadisda zikr qilingan olti turda yuz berishi aniqlanadi.

As for the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) Hadith reported by Muslim on the authority of Mu’mmar ibn Abdullah: “The food for food, in equal quantities”, and the Hadith reported by Ahmed on the authority of Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri “that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) divided among them different types of food, some of which was better than the other, so He said: ‘We started bidding amongst ourselves so the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) prohibited us from doing so and ordered us not to trade in it except by measure for measure with no increase whatsoever’”. As well as the Hadith reported by An-Nisai on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “A heap of food must not be traded for another heap of food, nor the heap of food for the fixed measure of food.” All these Ahadith do not indicate that the reason of prohibition is the food. Rather they merely indicate that usury does occur in the foodstuffs, therefore it includes all types of foodstuffs which makes it a general rule; then came the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) to specify the types of food in which usury occurs. This is so because there are many other types of foodstuffs where usury, if it occurred, would not be forbidden e.g. aubergines, courgettes, carrots, the sweet, peppers, garlic and grapes are foodstuffs. Usury does not occur in them according to Ijma’a of the Sahaba, despite the fact that the expression of food does apply to them, for they are edible things; and because Muslim reported on the authority of Ayisha (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “No prayer when food is ready”, i.e. the food is ready to eat. Therefore, if usury occurred in every type of food, the above mentioned foods would have been the subject of usury; this indicates that the Hadith of food is general and usury occurs in the types specified by the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) in his saying: “The wheat for wheat, the barley for barley, the date for dates...”. And just as the Qur’an can be specified by the Hadith, so can the Hadith be specified by another Hadith. Therefore, usury in the trading and the Salam occurs only in the six types mentioned in the Hadith.

Bundan tashqari, oltin va kumush ularning vaznida baholanadi, shuning uchun foiz taqiqlanishining sababi ular vaznli narsalar ekanligidir, deb aytish noto‘g‘ri bo‘lur. Shuningdek, bug‘doy, arpa, xurmo va tuzda foiz taqiqlangan, chunki bu turdagi oziq-ovqatlar hajm o‘lchovi bilan baholanadi, shuning uchun taqiqlanish sababi ular hajm o‘lchovi bilan baholanishidir, deb aytish ham noto‘g‘ri, chunki vazn va o‘lchov Hadisda bu turdagi oziq-ovqatlarning ta’rifi sifatida zikr qilingan, sabab sifatida emas. An-Nasoiy Ubada ibn as-Somit rivoyat qilishicha, Allah Elchisi ﷺ shunday degan: “Oltin oltin evaziga, quyma va tanga bir xil, vazn vazn evaziga; kumush kumush evaziga, quyma va tanga bir xil, vazn vazn evaziga; tuz tuz evaziga, xurmo xurmo evaziga, bug‘doy bug‘doy evaziga, arpa arpa evaziga, teng va bir xil tarzda; kim ortiqcha bersa yoki ortiqcha olsa, u foizxo‘rlikka tushgan bo‘ladi.” Hadis taqiqlanish qo‘llaniladigan holatni bayon qilgan: oltin va kumushda vazn farqi, bug‘doy, arpa, tuz va xurmoda hajm o‘lchovi farqi. Bu almashinuv shaklini, ya’ni savdoning qanday amalga oshishini ko‘rsatadi, taqiqlanish sababini emas. Demak, foiz har bir o‘lchanadigan yoki tortiladigan narsada emas, balki yuqorida zikr qilingan olti turda sodir bo‘ladi: oltin va kumushda vazn bilan, boshqalarida esa o‘lchov bilan. Qarz berish va olish (Qardh) esa zikr qilingan olti tur va boshqa turlarda, hamda mulkka ega bo‘lish mumkin bo‘lgan va mulkning qonuniy ravishda o‘tkazilishi mumkin bo‘lgan har qanday narsada ruxsat etilgan. Bu holda foiz faqat qaytarishda ko‘proq yoki kamroq qaytarish shart qilinganda, yoki olingan narsadan past sifatli narsa qaytarish sharti qo‘yilganda sodir bo‘lishi mumkin.

Furthermore, it would be wrong to claim that usury has been forbidden in gold and silver because they are estimated in weight, making the reason of prohibition the fact that they are weighed items. And it would be wrong to say that usury in wheat, barley, dates and salt is forbidden because such items are estimated in volumetric measure, thus making the reason of prohibition the fact that such types of foodstuffs are estimated in volumetric measure, this is wrong because the weight and measure were mentioned in the Hadith as a description of those types of foodstuffs and not as a reason. An-Nisai reported on the authority of Ubada Ibn as-Samit that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “Gold for gold, ore and coins alike, weight for weight, and silver for silver, ore and coins alike, weight for weight, and salt for salt, dates for dates, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, equally and similarly; so He who were to increase or take an increase, He would fall into usury.” The Hadith has explained the situation in which prohibition applies, which is the difference of weight in gold and silver, and the difference of volumetric measure in wheat, barley, salt and dates. This shows the way of exchange i.e. the trading takes place, not a reason for the prohibition. Therefore, usury does not occur in every measured or weighed item, but only in the six types mentioned above in weight for gold and silver, and in measure for the others. As for lending and borrowing (Qardh), this is permitted in the six types mentioned and in other types and in any other thing that can be subject to ownership and whose ownership is lawfully transferable. Usury in this case can only occur if it is stipulated for a higher return or a lower return, or if a condition is laid for lower quality than what has been loaned.