Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah:

It is mentioned in the Economic System book under the title "Riba and Currency Exchange" (p. 261; English edition p. 125) "As to the Prophet's (saw) saying: "Food for food and like for like"... So all of this do not prove that the cause of prohibition is food, but prove that usury happens in food and includes all food, so it is general. The Prophet's Hadith that is narrated by Ubadah bin as-Samit has limited the usurious types of food in: barley, wheat, dates, and salt, so the general food mentioned in the previous texts is considered in the section of general things through which is meant particularity, which are the four types of food" End.

I have two questions, please clarify them for me, and may Allah Reward you:

1. Why did we say that the Hadith narrated by Ubadah bin as-Samit in which the six types are mentioned- specifies the Hadith (food for food with like for like), although there is no conflict between the general and specific here, so as to say general through which is meant specific, where this is done to remove any conflict?

2. Why wasn't the food, the "To'm" (الطُعم) in the four types (barley, wheat, dates, and salt) considered a reason, knowing that it is a derived word, and it is also a suitable understood description?

Answer:

بالنسبة لحديث مسلم عن معمر بن عبد الله قال كُنْتُ أَسْمَعُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، يَقُولُ: «الطَّعَامُ بِالطَّعَامِ مِثْلًا بِمِثْلٍ»، قَالَ: «وَكَانَ طَعَامُنَا يَوْمَئِذٍ الشَّعِيرَ»

1. According to the Hadith narrated by Muslim on authority of Ma'mar bin Abdullah that he said: I used to hear Prophet Mohammad sallalahu alaihi wassalam saying: "food for food and like for like." He said: "Our food in those days consisted of barley." Although Ma'mar bin Abdullah mentioned the type of food at that time which was barley, but it may be said that this is what Ma'mar bin Abdullah has mentioned; yet, the text of the Hadith includes it and includes something else on the grounds that the word food is general, but we understand from it that usury can happen in all food...

أما حديث مسلم عن عُبَادَةَ بْنَ الصَّامِتِ، قَالَ: إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «يَنْهَى عَنْ بَيْعِ الذَّهَبِ بِالذَّهَبِ، وَالْفِضَّةِ بِالْفِضَّةِ، وَالْبُرِّ بِالْبُرِّ، وَالشَّعِيرِ بِالشَّعِيرِ، وَالتَّمْرِ بِالتَّمْرِ، وَالْمِلْحِ بِالْمِلْحِ، إِلَّا سَوَاءً بِسَوَاءٍ، عَيْنًا بِعَيْنٍ، فَمَنْ زَادَ، أَوِ ازْدَادَ، فَقَدْ أَرْبَى»

As to the Hadith narrated by Muslim on authority of Ubadah bin as-Samit, that he said: I heard Prophet Mohammad sallalahu alaihi wassalam: "forbidding selling gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates, and salt for salt, unless it was equal amount for equal amount, like for like, whoever gives more or takes more has engaged in Riba."

It is understood that the occurrence of riba is restricted to the four types of food and does not occur in anything else, due to the wording of the Hadith indicates restriction, as it mentioned tangible nouns and it combined a conditional ruling "equal amount for equal amount, like for like..." with each word of the Hadith, so it showed that the restriction of Hukm in these types and forbade it in others...

Therefore your claim does not contradict with the Hadith: "الطعام بالطعام..." "food for food..." and the Hadith:"الذهب بالذهب..."  "gold for gold..." arose from your assumption that the Hadith regarding gold does not demonstrate restriction. If you knew that it demonstrates restriction as we have clarified above, you would have said that there is a conflict that does not allow working with the two Ahadith except by specification; as the first Hadith shows the occurrence of riba in every food, and the second Hadith shows the occurrence of riba only limited to a part of the food and not every food, rather it is in four types of food, that he combines the two Ahadith through specification.

2. As to why the word (الطعم) "To'm" derived from the word ‘food' "Ta'am" was not considered an illah (cause), especially that it is a describing concept (وصف مفهم)... The answer to this is specification of the words of the Hadith about wheat with that about (barley for barley) has transferred the derived ‘food' word to the words: barley, wheat, dates, and salt which are tangible nouns and the describing concept (وصف مفهم) cannot be in tangible nouns but in the derived words. If the Hadith were "الطعام بالطعام مثلاً بمثل" "wheat for wheat like for like", and there wasn't a specific Hadith: "...وَالْبُرِّ بِالْبُرِّ، وَالشَّعِيرِ بِالشَّعِيرِ، وَالتَّمْرِ بِالتَّمْرِ، وَالْمِلْحِ بِالْمِلْحِ..."  "... And barley for barley, wheat for wheat, dates for dates, and salt for salt ..." If it were like that, it would have been possible to say there is a illah (cause/reason), however the specification transferred food to tangible nouns ‘barley, wheat...' If the specified were mentioned, then it will be a Hukm (ruling) that will be carried out.

This is why we say that ‘food' (at-To'm) is not an illah (cause/reason), for the mentioned riba substance.