Connect with us

Opinion

Did Prophet Muhammad (SAW) Permit 100% Interest Rate? A Rejoinder

Published

on

Bello Sani Yahuza,The writer on Interest

 

By Bello Sani Yahuza

 

“He who talks on a matter out of his profession comes with surprises” – Ibn Hajar (d. 852AH/1449CE) It has never been an issue for a person to have a keen interest in any field of study. But it is an outlandish the way things are going and the way people quickly assume expertise on a subject matter that are not familiar with.

 

They instead, come up with a lot of chaos, contradictions and confusion. So, I came across an article, written by one personality called Ali Abubakar Sadiq, a journalist by profession who claims deep knowledge of the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence where he delves into a delicate and intricate issue of Riba (interest).

Read also: NLC condemns Fuel Price increase, urges FGN to revert to old price

Sadiq alleges that the Prophet Muhammad SAW has permitted a 100% interest rate. So, instead of a solution, he brings more confusion to rather known and well define the concept of Riba in the classical juristic theories and its application in the modern banking system.

 

But, beyond this, the writer creates a world of surprises. In fact, if there is an 8th wonder of the world, I am sure his writing could be the one. I, therefore, write these lines, in order to at least address some of these surprising confusions.

 

I intend to address some technical questions regarding the subject matter. For instance, is it really the Prophet (PBUH) permitted interest? what really interest is? What and what constitutes interest (al-had)? What is the Dhabid of understanding interest? What is the effective cause of and what is the wisdom/Maqasid of prohibiting interest?

 

In sha Allah, I will address these questions along the following surprises itemized based on their importance to the subject matter:

 

  1. The Prophet SAW Accepted Interest: Beyond just surprise, it is rather dangerous to claim that the Prophet (SAW) accepted interest. It can even be sacrilegious. I never read or heard a modernist or an orientalist proclaiming that the Prophet himself accepted and transacted in interest. Had this happen, that could be contradictory, I mean how can Prophet Muhammad SAW prohibits something and practiced it. The legal maxim upholds that, “Prohibition of an issue is by default an enjoinment of its opposite”.
  2. This terminology by jurists fits this context well. Besides, the condemnation of interest in the Qur’anic verses are explicitly clear that, Allah even declare war against devourer of interest (Qur’an 2:179). In another verse He says that the devourers of interest will raise in the day of resurrection in a condition of those beaten by Satan leading him to madness (2:275). Another point is how does the writer reconcile his claim with the verse that says, …and Allah has permitted trade and forbidden interest (riba) “الراب وحرم البيع هللا وأحل .” Qur’an as a legal document and a book of guidance, has unique, distinct, and miraculous style. It is full of laws and principles with a well-defined science of interpretation, in addition to commentaries and exegeses. One cannot interpret it relying upon his weak understanding of the language. Besides, English Qur’anic translated versions like Yusuf Ali and others are not enough to make a person understands the deeper meanings of its verses with their implications. Just as one cannot interpret the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria even if he is what William Shakespeare is to English literature. Only an established court of law can do that.
  3. The only Interest/Riba Prohibited is above 100% Another surprise by the writer is his claim that interest which is not more than 100% is permitted by the Noble Qur’an. The writer builds his novice interpretation of Allah’s saying: “O believers, take not doubled and redoubled interest, and fear Allah so that you may prosper.” (Qur’an 3:130). With this weak, unprecedented interpretation, the writer further exposes his unfamiliarity of what he claims to know. Going by number, how would Qur’an permit 100% interest and forbids something above it? And by volume, does one cup of wine has any difference to two cups, or does stealing ₦100 has any difference to ₦200.
  4. It does not make sense, and that is ridiculous! Simply, the verse prohibited double interest which is 100% and redouble which is more than 100%. Going by the writer’s assertion, how and where does the writer get the permission of 100%? I mean, where does that state in the verse? 3. Riba, Profit, and Gift (Ihsan) Another point the writer seems to lack knowledge of is these three concepts. All of riba, profit, and gift (Ihsan) can come as an increase in repayment, his confusion in understanding the subject matter led him to falsely assume they are the same and equal, and so he messed up with them in his writing. Citing Jabir bin ‘Abdullah’s narration in Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, No. 579, in which the Prophet repaid him the debt he owed him with an extra amount as evidence for interest.
  5. This is clear misunderstanding of the case. This is not interest, had the writer, instead of assuming knowledge, referred himself to the scholars’ interpretation of the hadith, he would have understood it. The Qur’an says: “But if they had referred it back to the Messenger or to those of authority among them, then the ones who can draw correct conclusions from it would have known about it” (Qur’an 4:83). So, interest is clearly prohibited whereas, the other two are allowed. More so, debt on its own is not, and will never be a mechanism for profit-making in Islam. The trajectories of interest, profit, and gift and how they can interchange in a transaction are dynamic.
  6. Interest is a predetermine unjustified increment which promotes exploitation of the giver upon the receiver of the loan. Giving out loan does not make the money increase. Qur’an says: “That which you give as interest to increase the people’s’ wealth increases not with Allah; but that which you give in charity, seeking the goodwill of Allah, multiplies in manifold.” (Qur’an 30: 39). Paradoxically, profit is a justified return or earning upon which all economic and financial transactions are based. While gift is an act of benevolence (Ihsan). So, in essence, giving loans stipulating an increase in the debt agreement is interest, while selling a commodity with the same increase is profit and any addition of both the two instances without stipulating any condition to it, is a gift (Ihsan). As in hadith he cited, “when he (the Prophet) repaid the loan of a camel giving two back (Muwatta Kitab al-Buyu hadith 1346),
  7. Money and Commodity A very basic knowledge of Islamic finance can help one to know that in Islamic law, there is a world of difference between money and commodity. The writer quoted out of context one tradition in Sahih Muslim of Prophet giving a better-quality camel than the original one.
  8. In Shari’ah, a side of being a recognizable unit of account and means of payment for goods and services, money, has no intrinsic value. Money is only viewed as a mechanism for facilitating trade. A ₦100 notes for instance, a side of being a legal tender in Nigeria, one can hardly draw any benefit from it, and the moment that quality preserved by law is removed it becomes nothing.

All the old paper currencies and coins after they were abolished by law of the land, they are as good as trash. But the commodity on the other hand, has intrinsic value, this means a real economic value. So, naturally one can benefit from food, cloth, shelter by eating, waring, privacy etc.

Advert

 

The implication of that from the jurisprudential perspective is that, one cannot buy and sell money on credit and add anything above the principal. Any increment is interest. The legal maxim says “any loan returns with benefit is interest”. Simply put it, Islam approves Time value in commodity transaction, but prohibits time value of money (TVM).

 

To really understand the concept of Riba in the Islamic jurisprudence, one must know the difference between money and commodity, it is one major yardstick and fantastic point of difference between Islam and the interest-based systems.

 

  1. Collateral as Riba Again, another surprise here, the writer claims that taking collateral in giving loans is also an interest. Citing another narration out of context on Prophet’s taking grain from a Jew on credit and giving him collaterally.

 

The question is how does the collateral in this contract stand as riba? Then, why the Jew had to return back the collateral when the debt was repaid?

 

A clear contradiction and confusion! Collateral is separate rule in the Islamic commercial transaction.

Let the writer refer to Qur’an 2: 282, to know the rules related to collateral.

 

  1. The Definition of Riba The writer here claims that the definition of interest is given in the Noble Qur’an when Allah says “Do not devour riba double and redouble” Qur’an 3:130. This verse does not define interest at all. Rather, it explains one scope, an aspect, and a dimension of interest. Why? because, the cultural context and the prevailing economic system in the Arabia during revelation is that, riba is well known by all and sundry.

The known maxim says: “A known matter does not need definition”. Interest is so pervasive that everybody was transacting in it. Perhaps, this is part of the wisdom of its gradual revelation and prohibition. So, let the writer refer to the gradual legislation of interest in the Qur’an.

 

  1. Riba and Mutual Consent The writer says “There is nothing in the Quran or Hadith that prohibits the pre-fixing of the rate of return, as long as it occurs with the mutual consent of the parties and doesn’t exceed 100%, since the prophet’s payment of two camels for one is 100% interest”. Another glaring misconception! When, where and how the mutual consent of the parties constitutes a source of law in Shari’ah? Or when does it make permitted what is prohibited? I need an answer to this please!

 

  1. Originality The technical aspect of the writing is another drawback of the writing. Apart from verses and hadith he cited; the writer uses most of the writings which are from the secondary sources. The writer claims ownership as if he is the original writer of the issues. He did not acknowledge his sources which some of them are just copied and paste from online internet sources such as Wikipedia and so on.

 

The arguments made by the modernists and orientalists like Muhammad Akram Khan, Timur Kuran, Muhammad Omar Faruq who use TVM, inflation, and so on to defend the banking interest.

 

Other scholars who are moved by political fatwas such as Sheikh Tantawi and other scholars from Egypt, their fatwa is controversial not accepted even in Al-Azhar.

 

Another aspect I find also, apart from modernists’ argument on interest, the writer’s claim on Jassas as the first to interpret interest as all increase, Ottoman’s dealing with interest and historical narration of legalizing interest, these and many others, are not acknowledged. Most of them are copied from Wikipedia (source – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riba#Non-orthodox_approach).

 

You can see, getting access to information source does not make a person knowledgeable of the subject matter.

 

  1. Warning My advice to the writer is to call his attention that while knowledge is never a monopoly of anybody, but it has its own standard, discipline, and decorum anybody must adhere to. And while, one will never claim to know everything, the jack of all trade will always be a master of none.

Allah The Almighty says: “You have given all of the knowledge but a little”. That is why professionalism is very important and every person should follow his own profession. Nevertheless, no one is denied the benefit of having an interest in any particular field of study.

 

But that aspect should be handled with maturity and respect of the discipline.

 

  1. Admonition, In conclusion, the entirety of religion is based on admonition (Nasihah). My first and foremost admonition to the writer is to quickly repent from alleging the Prophet of accepting riba.

 

It is a grievous sin to falsely attribute something to Allah or to His Messenger. Some scholars rank it equal with the association (shirk) or more grievous than shirk.

 

I also call him to withdraw his claim and adopt the authentic view accepted by the Muslims ummah. The Prophet says: “My nation will never unite on falsehood” You cannot fault the Ummah in its entirety but, individuals cannot be certain of their personal views.

 

 

Bello Sani Yahuza bellokano2000@gmail.com  International Islamic University, Gombak, Malaysia. 14/07/2020

Opinion

The Cap That Stopped a Boy’s Tears: Remembering Sadiq Modibbo

Published

on

 

By Sanusi Bature Dawakin Tofa

Fifteen years have passed since I last held my son, Sadiq Modibbo, in my arms. Even now, the memory of his laughter and the warmth of his tiny hand remains vivid in my mind. There was something remarkable about him, a light that shone through even in moments of fear or pain.

I remember the first time I realized how deeply he loved the simple things that connected him to me.

Whenever he cried, I would gently remove my cap, and just like that, his tears would stop. It was as if the gesture spoke to him in a language only he and I shared—a language of love, trust, and comfort.

Sadiq was often unwell, and our visits to the hospital were frequent. Yet, despite his fragile health, he carried himself with an unusual courage. The doctors, nurses, and other caregivers grew to know him well. They would smile at his little jokes, or nod knowingly when he quieted at the sight of me.

In those hospital rooms, I learned to see him not just as my son, but as a symbol of resilience. Every day, I watched him endure injections, treatments, and long hours of discomfort, yet he faced it all with a quiet strength. Even then, the cap—the small, unassuming piece of cloth—became a tool of love, a reminder that he was never alone.

Advert

Sadiq’s love for Kwankwasiyya was another remarkable part of his personality. It was a fascination that seemed larger than his years, and it sparked countless conversations between us. I would watch him with wonder, seeing how a young boy could find joy and meaning in something so vibrant, even in the midst of illness.

I often imagined what he would be like today if he were still alive. Would he be arguing with me as passionately as ever? Would his laughter fill our home in the way it did when he was a boy? The “what ifs” are endless, but in my heart, I carry the certainty that his spirit lives on in every memory, every smile, every small gesture of love that he shared.

Birthdays were special for Sadiq. He would light up at the smallest celebration, reminding us all of the beauty in simple joys. Even as a child who faced health struggles, he found light in each day. I can still see him running toward me, his eyes shining, his cap slightly askew from excitement.

Mourning him has been a lifelong journey. The world continued around us, but I learned that grief is a quiet companion. It is in the small moments—the empty chair at the table, the quiet hospital rooms, the cap that no longer needs to be removed to stop tears—that his absence is most felt.

Yet, even in sorrow, there is comfort. I tell myself that Sadiq’s courage, his love, and his laughter have left a lasting imprint. The lessons he taught me—about patience, joy, and unconditional love—remain guiding lights in my life. Every time I see a child comforted by a parent, I am reminded of him.

Today, I remember Sadiq not with despair, but with gratitude. The cap that stopped his tears symbolizes so much more than a simple gesture; it is a testament to the bond between father and son, to the small acts of love that shape a life. May Allah grant him eternal peace, and may his memory continue to inspire those who knew him—even for just a moment.

Sanusi Bature Dawakin Tofa is the Director General Media and Spokesperson to Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Restoring the Dignity of the Kano Emirate

Published

on

Two Prince of Kano Emirate and Emirs

 

By Muhammad Bello, Dutse, Jigawa State

The lingering power tussle between His Highness Aminu Ado Bayero and His Highness Muhammadu Sanusi II over the revered throne of the Emir of Kano has continued to generate intense public debate and concern across Northern Nigeria and the country at large. For an institution that has historically commanded immense respect, influence, and cultural significance, the prolonged dispute has unfortunately diminished the prestige and moral authority associated with the Kano Emirate.

The Emirate of Kano is not just a traditional stool; it represents centuries of history, leadership, and cultural identity. As one of the most respected traditional institutions in Nigeria, the stability of the throne is crucial not only for Kano State but also for the broader traditional governance structure in the North.

In view of this reality, urgent and sincere efforts must be made to resolve the crisis in a manner that restores dignity, unity, and respect to the institution.

As part of the Kano First Agenda of His Excellency Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf, there is a timely opportunity to take bold and statesmanlike steps toward resolving the impasse. One practical approach would be for the state government to constitute a high-level reconciliation committee made up of respected traditional rulers, eminent Islamic scholars, religious leaders, and elder statesmen from within Kano State and across the country.

Advert

Such a committee would carry the moral authority and neutrality required to engage all parties involved and recommend a sustainable solution.

In my humble opinion, the committee should consider the following options:

First, both contending Emirs should be encouraged, in the interest of peace and the preservation of the dignity of the Kano Emirate, to voluntarily step aside by tendering their resignations. While this may appear difficult, history has shown that sacrifices made for peace often preserve institutions for future generations.

Second, the Kano State Government should allow the kingmakers to conduct a fresh and transparent nomination process for a new Emir. Transparency and adherence to tradition will help restore public confidence in the institution.

Third, in order to ensure neutrality and avoid further controversy, both current claimants to the throne should not be part of the new selection process.

The objective of these recommendations is not to undermine any individual but to safeguard the long-term stability, unity, and honour of the Kano Emirate. Institutions of such historic importance must be protected from prolonged political and legal battles that could erode their legitimacy.

Ultimately, wisdom, patience, and a spirit of sacrifice are required from all stakeholders. The people of Kano and indeed Nigerians hope to see a peaceful resolution that restores the dignity of the throne and preserves the rich heritage of the Emirate for generations to come.

May Almighty Allah continue to guide our leaders toward decisions that promote peace, justice, and unity.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Restoring the Glory That Was Always There: Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf and the Historical Vision Behind Kano First

Published

on

 

 

By Saminu Umar Ph.D | Senior Lecturer, Department of Information and Media Studies, Bayero University, Kano

Advert

Kano does not need to be invented. That is a truth so fundamental, so historically self-evident, that it should not need to be stated at all, and yet the circumstances of recent decades have made its restatement not merely appropriate but urgent. There is a tendency, in the discourse of Nigerian development, to treat every governance initiative as a beginning, as though the society being governed had no prior history of achievement, no accumulated wisdom, no tested traditions of institutional excellence on which new efforts might be built. This tendency is not merely intellectually lazy, but it is, in the specific context of Kano, a form of historical injustice, a failure to reckon honestly with the civilizational inheritance that this state carries and that its people have never entirely abandoned, even through the long and painful decades in which their institutions were hollowed out, their values eroded, and their confidence systematically undermined by the combined weight of misgovernance, corruption, and the slow cultural dislocation that follows when a society loses trust in the institutions that are supposed to embody its highest aspirations.
Kano was, long before Nigeria existed as a political entity, one of the most sophisticated and enduring centers of civilization in West Africa. Its greatness was not the greatness of conquest or of externally imposed order. It was the greatness of organic development, of a society that built, over centuries, a coherent and self-sustaining civilization on foundations that were simultaneously material and moral. The trans-Saharan trade networks that made Kano a commercial hub of continental significance were sustained not merely by geography or by the availability of goods, but by a culture of commercial integrity, of trust between trading partners, of contractual reliability, and of the kind of reputational accountability that makes markets function across distances and between strangers. The Islamic scholarship that gave Kano its intellectual authority was not merely a religious tradition. It was a governance philosophy, one that placed knowledge, justice, accountability, and the subordination of personal interest to public duty at the center of what it meant to hold power. The traditional political institutions that maintained Kano’s social order were not instruments of oppression but, at their best, mechanisms of consultation, legitimacy, and the managed resolution of social conflict.
These were not accidental achievements. They were the products of deliberate cultivation, of generations of Kano’s people choosing, consciously and consistently, to organize their collective life around values that made both individual flourishing and communal solidarity possible. That is what a civilization is: not a collection of buildings or a record of territorial expansion, but a living tradition of values, practices, and institutions that enables a human community to achieve, across time, more than any individual generation could accomplish alone. Kano built such a civilization. And the question that every serious governor of Kano must eventually confront, whether they frame it in these terms or not, is whether they are adding to that civilization or subtracting from it.
It is against this civilizational backdrop that the Kano First Initiative under Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf must be understood, not as a new idea imported into Kano from outside, not as a political slogan invented to win elections and abandoned when the votes are counted, but as a deliberate act of historical retrieval, an attempt to reach back through the debris of recent decades and recover the foundations on which Kano’s genuine greatness was built. The initiative’s framework document states this explicitly and without embarrassment: Kano’s most persistent challenges are not solely infrastructural or economic in nature. They are fundamentally behavioral, normative, and narrative failures, accumulated over time and reinforced by weak value transmission, fragmented authority, and uncoordinated messaging. This is a diagnosis of remarkable historical honesty, and it is one that only a governor with a genuine understanding of what Kano has been and what it has lost could have authorized.
Governor Yusuf’s historical vision is not nostalgic in the sentimental sense of the word. He is not proposing a return to a romanticized past that never existed in the uncomplicated form that nostalgia requires. He is proposing something simultaneously more modest and more ambitious: the recovery of specific values, specific institutional principles, and specific civic traditions that demonstrably worked, that demonstrably sustained Kano’s coherence and productivity over centuries, and that demonstrably began to break down when they were displaced by the governing logic of extraction, patronage, and the systematic subordination of public interest to private accumulation. Islamic ethical governance, communal responsibility, the dignity of productive labor, respect for legitimate authority, the centrality of knowledge in public life, these are not abstract ideals. They are the operational principles of a civilization that actually functioned, and their recovery is not a romantic aspiration but a practical governance imperative.
The intellectual architecture through which this recovery is being pursued bears the clear fingerprints of the Honourable Commissioner for Information and Internal Affairs, Comrade Ibrahim Abdullahi Waiya, whose contribution to the Kano First Initiative has been, in every meaningful sense, the contribution of a man who understands both what Kano is and what it needs. The framework he has championed integrates three traditions that, taken together, give the initiative both its cultural legitimacy and its analytical credibility: the Islamic ethical governance tradition that historically underpinned Kano’s stability and justice, Kano’s own sociocultural heritage of communal solidarity and institutional accountability, and the modern behavioral change communication science that provides the methodological tools for translating values into measurable social outcomes. This integration is not accidental. It reflects a deep conviction, shared by both the governor and his commissioner, that genuine renewal cannot be achieved by importing foreign solutions but only by excavating and rebuilding on Kano’s own foundations.
The scale of what has been lost must be honestly acknowledged if the scale of what is being attempted is to be properly appreciated. Kano today carries wounds that decades of misgovernance have inflicted on its social fabric with a thoroughness that cannot be undone quickly or easily. Youth disaffection has reached levels that express themselves in drug abuse, street violence, and the nihilistic political thuggery that represents, at its core, the rage of young people who were promised a future and received instead a void. Institutional trust, once the bedrock of Kano’s civic life, has been so systematically eroded that the default posture of many citizens toward their government is not engagement but cynicism, not participation but withdrawal. The digital media ecosystem, which should be a tool of civic enlightenment, has in too many instances become a vehicle for the amplification of the very misinformation, polarization, and moral dislocation that the Kano First Initiative is designed to address. These are not small problems, and they will not yield to small solutions.
What gives the Kano First Initiative its historical seriousness is precisely that it does not pretend otherwise. The four-phase implementation framework, stretching from 2026 through 2030, is built on the recognition that the restoration of a civilization’s normative foundations is a generational project, not a political campaign. Phase One builds the empirical foundation, the baseline surveys, perception mapping, and narrative architecture that genuine social intervention requires. Phase Two deploys coordinated, multi-channel behavioral activation across youth networks, religious institutions, traditional authorities, and community organizations. Phase Three scales what works and deepens digital engagement. Phase Four embeds the initiative permanently into Kano’s governance architecture through a dedicated directorate and the annual Kano Values Index. This is not the timeline of an administration managing its image. It is the timeline of a government that has looked honestly at the depth of the challenge and committed itself to the depth of response that the challenge demands.
There is an emotional dimension to this story that deserves to be named directly, because it is one that the purely analytical framing of policy discourse tends to obscure. Kano’s people love their state with an intensity and a pride that is, even in a country of fierce regional loyalties, remarkable. They carry within them the memory of a greatness that their grandparents knew and that they themselves have glimpsed, in fragments and in moments, even through the long decades of disappointment. When Governor Yusuf speaks of restoring Kano’s glory, he is not merely making a political argument. He is speaking to something that lives in the hearts of ordinary Kano citizens, something that has survived misgovernance, political manipulation, and cultural erosion with a resilience that is itself a testament to the depth of Kano’s civilizational roots. That emotional resonance is not a weakness in the Kano First philosophy. It is one of its greatest strategic assets, because renewal that connects with people’s deepest sense of identity and pride generates the kind of civic energy that no top-down programme can manufacture.
The work of restoring that glory belongs, ultimately, not to government alone but to every institution, every community leader, every journalist, every religious scholar, every teacher, every trader, and every young person in Kano who chooses, in their daily conduct, to live by the values that made this civilization great. Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf has provided the vision, the institutional framework, and the personal example of a leader who is willing to pay the political costs that genuine commitment to the public good always exacts. Comrade Ibrahim Abdullahi Waiya has provided the intellectual architecture and the communication infrastructure through which that vision can be translated into civic reality. The rest, as it must always be when a society is serious about its own renewal, belongs to the people.
Kano’s glory was never lost. It was covered over, layer by layer, by the accumulated debris of decades of bad governance, institutional betrayal, and the slow erosion of the values that once made it shine. The Kano First Initiative is not building something new on empty ground. It is clearing the ground of debris so that what was always there can breathe again, grow again, and reclaim the space in Nigeria’s national life and in West Africa’s historical memory that Kano has always, by right of civilization, deserved to occupy. That is the historical vision behind Kano First. And it is a vision worth every effort, every sacrifice, and every ounce of collective will that Kano’s people can bring to its realization.

 

Saminu Umar Ph.D is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Information and Media Studies, Bayero University, Kano. surijyarzaki@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Trending