Riba in Particular Exchanges: Flour, Meat, Dates, Oils and Composite Goods

1. From the general rule to particular exchanges

The preceding level identified genus and the governing measure or weight. We now ask how the rule applies when a product is milled, roasted, dried, pressed into oil, or contained within another commodity.

Neither market value nor a new product name alone resolves the problem. The jurist must examine the original genus, the effect of processing, whether legally significant equality can be verified, and the components contained in each side of the exchange.

2. Wheat exchanged for flour made from wheat

ولا يجوز بيع الحنطة بالدقيق
Translation: Selling wheat in exchange for flour made from that wheat is not permitted.

Daqiq means flour. Quduri is discussing direct barter of wheat against flour milled from wheat, not the ordinary purchase of flour for a known money price.

Whole grains and flour derive from one material, yet they pack differently within the same volumetric vessel. Equal stated volumes therefore do not establish the required correspondence in this derived same-genus exchange. The uncertainty about equality makes the exchange impermissible in the stated classical rule.

3. Why one saʿ of grain and flour do not establish equality

Imagine a vessel containing whole grains with spaces between them. Finely milled flour may pack more densely into the same vessel. Both vessels can read one saʿ while containing different quantities of the underlying substance.

The problem is not an assertion that flour always weighs a particular amount. It is the failure to establish reliable equality under the relevant classical volumetric measure. Substituting equal weights alone does not automatically settle that juridical test.

4. Wheat exchanged for roasted meal

ولا بالسويق
Translation: Nor may wheat be sold for its own roasted meal.

Sawiq is a meal commonly produced by roasting and grinding grain. Where it is made from wheat, the original material connection survives but roasting and milling prevent confident equivalence between the whole grain and the processed product.

One measured volume of wheat for one volume of wheat-based sawiq does not pass merely because the vessels match. The ruling concerns wheat and its own processed derivative; it should not be extended uncritically to a meal made from a different grain.

5. Flour versus sawiq, and the importance of genus

Fath al-Qadir expands the discussion to flour exchanged for sawiq derived from the same wheat. Abu Hanifa treats the residual genus connection and doubtful equality as prohibitive; the two disciples distinguish the products by their changed use and form. This is explanatory material from commentary, not a verbatim clause in the selected Quduri sentence.

With flour from one grain and whole grain from another, first establish whether the genera differ. The generic label “grain” is not by itself proof of one legal genus; the no-deferment rule based on a shared measuring modality must then be checked separately.

6. Flour exchanged with flour of the same kind

Not every flour-for-flour exchange is the same as forbidden wheat-for-wheat-flour barter. Where both sides are properly identified flour of the same kind, the classical volumetric equality inquiry is different because both sides share a similar processed state.

But one bag of plain flour and another containing additional ingredients may involve a different analysis. Their actual contents and the governing measure must be established rather than assuming that equal prices resolve the matter.

7. The original meat-for-live-animal disagreement

ويجوز بيع اللحم بالحيوان عند أبي حنيفة وأبي يوسف
Translation: According to Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, meat may be sold in exchange for a live animal.

With weighed meat on one side and a live animal on the other, Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf allow the transaction in the classical formulation. They do not treat the living animal as simply an already-weighed quantity of meat; it also includes bones, hide and other parts.

Muhammad ibn al-Hasan imposes an additional condition where the meat belongs to the same type as the animal, in order to address a possible excess in the meat component. These are distinct Hanafi positions, not a unanimous ruling of the three imams.

8. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan’s condition

وقال محمد لا يجوز إلا أن يكون اللحم الذي في الحيوان أقل مما هو المعقود عليه
Translation: Muhammad does not allow it unless the meat within the animal is less than the separated meat being exchanged.

Muhammad ibn al-Hasan permits the same-type meat-for-animal transaction only when the separated meat exceeds the meat within the animal. Under this analysis, an equal portion is matched with the animal's meat and the excess corresponds to other valuable components.

One must not confuse the live animal’s total weight with its meat yield. Bone, hide and other components mean these are not identical quantities. The commentary explains Muhammad’s condition as an attempt to avoid a forbidden surplus in the meat-for-meat component.

9. Worked example: meat against livestock

Suppose the amount of meat in a particular animal is reliably established as approximately 6 kg and 8 kg of the same type of separated meat is offered. Under Muhammad’s proposed matching, 6 kg corresponds to the animal’s meat and the remaining 2 kg may correspond to its other valuable components.

If the quantity inside the animal cannot be reliably determined, merely writing down a guessed figure does not establish the comparison. This numerical illustration explains the doctrinal structure, not a blanket practical authorization for an uncertain transaction.

10. Fresh dates exchanged for dried dates

ويجوز بيع الرطب بالتمر مثلا بمثل
Translation: Fresh dates may be exchanged for dried dates in equal quantity, according to the position recorded here.

Rutab are fresh dates and tamr are dried dates. The selected Quduri text permits their exchange like for like, so equality at the applicable measurement remains essential. It does not permit extra dry dates simply because the other side is fresh.

There is a genuine disagreement here. Quduri records Abu Hanifa’s position, whereas the two disciples and many jurists reject even an apparently equal fresh-for-dried barter because drying changes quantity. The difference must not be hidden under a universal verdict.

11. Why jurists disagree over wet versus dry

The issue turns on two distinct observations. One is equal volume at the time of contracting, emphasized by Abu Hanifa’s recorded position. The other is loss of volume on drying, which the two disciples and many jurists treat as a reason to prohibit the exchange.

Five saʿ of fresh dates and five saʿ of dried dates may measure equally today, but fresh dates shrink when dried. The legal disagreement is therefore substantive and cannot be reduced to a mere difference in commercial grade.

12. Grapes exchanged for raisins

والعنب بالزبيب
Translation: The same stated ruling applies to exchanging grapes for raisins.

ʿInab means fresh grapes and zabib raisins. Quduri places grapes-for-raisins beside fresh-dates-for-dried-dates: the inquiry is whether drying preserves the legally relevant genus and how equality is judged.

Under the allowance recorded from Abu Hanifa, relevant equal quantities must be established. Other jurists view the shrinkage caused by drying as defeating the test. It would be inaccurate to present the permission as agreed across all schools.

13. Distinguish dry-fruit barter from fruit still on the tree

The earlier issue of muzabana concerns fruit still attached to the tree bartered against a quantity of dried fruit assessed by estimation; uncertain quantities are central there.

The present riba issue concerns a direct exchange of identified measured quantities of fresh and dried fruit. Calling both cases simply “fresh for dry” obscures distinct legal concerns and the specific scholarly disagreements governing them.

14. Olives exchanged for extracted olive oil

ولا يجوز بيع الزيتون بالزيت
Translation: Olives may not be exchanged for their extracted oil unless the condition stated next is fulfilled.

An olive contains olive oil together with pulp and other residual matter. In exchange for already extracted olive oil, the embedded oil component must be assessed separately from the rest of the olives.

Quduri requires the oil given outside to exceed the oil contained within the olives. A matching amount then corresponds to the embedded oil, while the excess corresponds to other valuable components. Where the inside oil quantity is unknown, the condition cannot simply be presumed satisfied.

15. The external oil must exceed the internal oil

حتى يكون الزيت والشيرج أكثر مما في الزيتون والسمسم
Translation: The separate oils must exceed the oil contained within the olives and sesame seeds.

Assume it can be reliably established that the olives contain 4 kg of oil, and 6 kg of extracted oil are offered. The legal allocation is:
4 kg of outside oil ↔ 4 kg embedded in the olives.
2 kg of outside oil ↔ the remaining valuable pulp and components.

If only 4 kg are offered, nothing remains in exchange for the residual matter; 3 kg fall short of the oil itself. Neither meets the text’s stated condition. The calculation is illustrative and depends upon reliable knowledge of the embedded amount.

16. Thajir: the residual material and allocation

فيكون الدهن بمثله والزيادة بالثجير
Translation: The oil corresponds to an equal amount of oil, and the additional amount corresponds to the residual pulp.

Thajir refers to the residual pulp or press-cake after oil extraction. The expression al-ziyadah bi-l-thajir means that the excess extracted oil is assigned in exchange for that residual matter, rather than counted as an excess against the embedded oil.

This is not a device of simply renaming countervalues. The real components of each side, their lawful value and the embedded ribawi part must be identified. An unexplained excess cannot be legitimized by labeling it as something else.

17. Sesame seeds and extracted sesame oil

والسمسم بالشيرج
Translation: The same restriction concerns sesame seeds exchanged for sesame oil.

Simsim is sesame seed; shiraj is extracted sesame oil. Quduri links this with the olive case because the proposed barter again places oil inside a raw commodity against extracted oil.

For example, if the embedded oil is reliably found to be 2 kg and 3 kg of extracted sesame oil are offered, 2 kg are matched against the oil and 1 kg against the residual press-cake. Without credible knowledge of the embedded content, hoping it is smaller is not sufficient.

18. Composite goods: matching the common component

The underlying reasoning in both olive and sesame transactions is a ribawi component contained within one composite countervalue and offered separately on the other side. Determine the embedded quantity, allocate its equal against the same component, and then examine whether excess can correspond to other valuable matter.

Hanafi commentary applies comparable reasoning to nuts and extracted oil, milk and clarified butter, or grapes and juice. Each case still requires its own inquiry into genuine components and credible quantities; the formula is not permission for every imagined mixture.

19. Meat from different animal genera

ويجوز بيع اللحمان المختلفة بعضها ببعض متفاضلا
Translation: Meats of different animal kinds may be exchanged in unequal quantities.

Luhum mukhtalifah are meats from different animal genera, such as goat meat and beef. Quduri permits unequal quantities between these distinct meats. The general word “meat” does not make every animal source a single juristic genus.

Where both are weighed commodities, the shared measure can still bar deferment even though different genera permit unequal quantities. Hence the allowance for unequal amounts must not be mistaken for permission to ignore all other exchange conditions.

20. Milk of cows and sheep or goats

وكذلك ألبان البقر والغنم
Translation: The same applies to the milk of cattle and sheep or goats.

Quduri next mentions the milk of cattle and small livestock. Although both products are called milk, their originating animal genera differ under the juristic analysis. A difference in the exchanged quantities is therefore evaluated through the same genus-distinction principle.

For example, specified cow’s milk exchanged promptly for specified goat’s milk can involve different amounts; whether a shared measuring attribute bars delay remains a separate question. Permission for an unequal amount alone does not establish permission for deferred delivery.

21. Vinegars derived from different fruits

The same sequence includes a comparison of vinegar derived from dates and vinegar derived from grapes. Their different source materials matter for the legal classification; the shared label “vinegar” does not automatically make them one genus.

For example, date-derived vinegar and grape-derived vinegar have different source ingredients. The legal analysis considers their original genera and the applicable measure; conditions concerning quantity and delivery still require examination.

22. Bread exchanged for wheat

ويجوز بيع الخبز بالحنطة
Translation: Bread may be sold in exchange for wheat.

Quduri also permits unequal quantities in an exchange of bread for wheat. Hanafi commentary explains that manufactured bread is not treated simply as raw wheat within the same classical volumetric category; its processed state changes the applicable legal analysis.

For example, an identified number of loaves may be bartered for a defined quantity of wheat, subject to the remaining sale requirements. Do not assume this is identical to prohibited wheat-for-its-own-flour barter: finished bread is classified differently. The text also mentions dahn, oil or fat; its genus and measure must be considered on their own terms.

23. Historical master–enslaved person rule

ولا ربا بين المولى وعبده
Translation: In the stated historical framework, no riba is deemed to arise between a master and an enslaved person under the relevant conditions.

Quduri ends with a historical master–enslaved person rule formulated within classical legal assumptions about property ownership. Under some classical conditions, property held by an enslaved person was not treated as independently owned for this exchange analysis.

Hanafi commentaries expressly qualify the issue by trading authorization, creditors’ rights, and the status of a mukatab. This is historical jurisprudence and does not describe present-day employment or imply that one person may own another person today.

24. The classical dar al-harb question

ولا بين المسلم والحربي في دار الحرب
Translation: Nor, under this historical doctrinal position, is riba deemed to arise between a Muslim and a harbi in dar al-harb.

The final Quduri clause concerns a Muslim and a harbi in the historical legal territory termed dar al-harb. This belongs to classical inter-polity law and cannot be equated automatically with any contemporary non-Muslim country or individual.

Hanafi commentaries report disagreement: a qualified allowance from Abu Hanifa and Muhammad, opposed by Abu Yusuf and other jurists. This clause is not a blanket authorization to take property unlawfully, disregard modern laws, or declare present-day banking contracts automatically permissible.

25. Integrated decision method for this section

Wheat × own flour/sawiq: required volumetric equivalence is not demonstrable; the direct barter is barred.
Meat × live animal: Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf allow it; Muhammad imposes an additional condition.
Fresh × dried dates / grapes × raisins: Abu Hanifa permits like-for-like exchange; the two disciples and the majority disagree.
Olives × oil / sesame × oil: embedded oil must be known and outside oil must exceed it; the excess corresponds to residue.
Different meat/milk types: unequal quantities may be possible, while deferment requires a separate check.

The remaining text of Bab al-Riba is complete. Bab al-Salam follows, concerning advance payment for specified goods delivered later.