such as the lender’s staying in the borrower’s house on account of the loan.
- Hence the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Every loan that brings a benefit is usury.” Ibn Masʿūd likewise said, “Every loan that yields a benefit is usury.” The Vizier (Ibn Hubayrah) cited this as an agreed-upon principle, and al-Muwaffaq confirmed: “Every loan that is given on the condition of an increase is, by unanimous agreement, forbidden.”
Although the isnād of this ḥadith is disputed, it has many supporting narrations. Among them is what al-Bukhārī recorded (3814) from ʿAbd Allah ibn Salām: “If a man owes you a due and he sends you a load of straw, or a load of barley, or a load of fodder, do not take it, for that is usury.” Al-Bukhārī and others transmit additional reports, and the foundational legal principles uphold this ruling.
Sharḥ al-Zād states: “Every stipulated condition that brings a benefit is unlawful—such as the lender’s residing in the borrower’s house, or stipulating repayment with something better.”
A loan that draws any benefit therefore belongs to the third category of ribā.
- Sharḥ al-Zād further says: “If the borrower himself initiates a benefit without any prior condition or implicit understanding after repayment, or repays with something finer without stipulation, it is permissible.”
Al-Muwaffaq adds: “An increase in amount or quality is allowed so long as there is neither stipulation nor prior arrangement, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) borrowed a young camel and returned one that was better, saying, ‘The best of you are those who repay their debts in the finest manner’” (agreed upon).
This is counted, both customarily and in the Sacred Law, among the traits of noble character.
-
When money is transferred from one country to another, taking a fee equal to the bank’s service charge is unobjectionable, for it is payment for the service rendered.
-
Ibn al-Qayyim states in Tahdhīb al-Sunan: “There are two narrations from Ahmad regarding a man who lends dirhams and stipulates that repayment be made in another town where transporting the coins incurs no cost. One narration holds that it is impermissible—a view also disliked by Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī—while another narration from Ahmad permits it, because the benefit is shared by both parties and is not exclusive to the borrower. This permissibility is likewise reported from ʿAlī and Ibn …”