The Qur'an

Ribā in the Qur’an

Text-bound analysis of addressee, responsibility, and the scope of the prohibition

Abstract. Contemporary discourse often treats ribā (interest/usury) as a universally shared moral transgression, assigning equal culpability to all parties in interest-bearing transactions. This article argues that such a position is not directly grounded in the Qur’anic text itself, but reflects later juridical generalization. Through close grammatical, semantic, and contextual analysis of Qur’anic passages addressing ribā, the study shows that the Qur’an consistently directs censure toward actors who actively take, consume, and institutionalize ribā, rather than toward debtors or consumers operating within constrained economic systems.

1. Method and Scope

This study adopts four constraints: (1) text-immanent reading (Qur’an interpreted by its own discourse), (2) grammatical identification of subject/addressee, (3) semantic analysis of key lexemes and verb constructions, and (4) separation of Qur’anic address from later legal abstraction. The goal is not apologetics, but delimitation: what the Qur’an itself addresses, and whom it addresses.

2. The Qur’anic Corpus on Ribā

Explicit ribā passages are limited and concentrated in: 2:275–279, 3:130, 4:161, and 30:39. Any claim about the Qur’an’s position on ribā must be built from these passages and their internal logic.

3. Grammatical Identification of the Addressee

3.1. Q 2:275 — the agent who “consumes” ribā

The discourse opens with a relative clause defining the subject:

ٱلَّذِينَ يَأْكُلُونَ ٱلرِّبَوٰا۟ — “Those who eat/consume ribā…” (Q 2:275)

The form is agentive: alladhīna (“those who”) + active imperfect verb ya’kulūna (“they consume”) with al-ribā as direct object. In Arabic legal-economic idiom, “eating/consuming wealth” commonly denotes active appropriation/benefit (not passive exposure).¹ The verse does not frame the debtor as the moral subject; it frames the beneficiary of ribā as the subject.

3.2. Q 2:278–279 — “leave what remains of ribā” presupposes control

وَذَرُوا۟ مَا بَقِىَ مِنَ ٱلرِّبَوٰا۟ — “Leave/abandon what remains of ribā…” (Q 2:278)

The imperative dharū (“leave/abandon”) presupposes that the addressee has something in hand—i.e., a remainder of ribā that can be relinquished. That maps naturally to a creditor position (holding a claim to surplus), not to a debtor position (bearing an obligation). In other words, the command is meaningful precisely where the addressee has enforceable surplus to forgo.

4. Ribā as Extraction and Unjust Accumulation

4.1. Q 4:161 — ribā aligned with wrongful consumption of others’ wealth

وَأَخْذِهِمُ ٱلرِّبَوٰا۟ … وَأَكْلِهِمْ أَمْوَٰلَ ٱلنَّاسِ بِٱلْبَـٰطِلِ
“…their taking of ribā… and their consuming people’s wealth wrongfully…” (Q 4:161)

Two agentive acts are paired: akhdh (taking) and akl (consuming). Ribā is thereby integrated into a broader ethical category: unjust appropriation of others’ wealth. This is a structural critique of extraction, not a moralization of indebtedness.

5. Q 30:39 — the criterion of “growth” within others’ wealth

وَمَآ ءَاتَيْتُم مِّن رِّبً۬ا لِّيَرْبُوَا۟ فِىٓ أَمْوَٰلِ ٱلنَّاسِ فَلَا يَرْبُوا۟ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ
“Whatever you give as ribā so that it may grow within people’s wealth— it does not grow with God.” (Q 30:39)

The verse targets intentional, engineered increase “within people’s wealth.” The critique is not “borrowing” as such, but a particular kind of growth mechanism—gain generated through asymmetry and leverage rather than through real value creation.

6. The Debtor as an Absent Moral Subject

Across the ribā passages, the moral subject is consistently constructed as the agent who takes/consumes/retains ribā. The debtor/consumer is not foregrounded as the primary addressee in these ribā polemics. This observation does not “solve” later jurisprudential debates; it simply records the Qur’an’s own address-pattern: the text condemns exploitative accumulation and the retention of surplus claims, rather than narrating the borrower as the central moral agent.

7. Post-textual Generalization and Moral Transfer

Later legal discourse often generalizes the prohibition by treating participation in any interest-bearing arrangement as uniformly culpable. That move may be defended on extra-textual grounds (legal theory, social policy, precautionary rules), but it should be recognized as post-textual abstraction rather than something directly demanded by the Qur’an’s grammatical addressee-structure.

8. Conclusion

1. The Qur’an frames ribā primarily as active appropriation and retention of surplus claims (Q 2:275–279).
2. Ribā is explicitly linked to wrongful consumption of people’s wealth (Q 4:161).
3. The Qur’anic critique targets engineered growth within others’ wealth (Q 30:39).
4. Therefore, within the text’s own address-pattern, ribā functions as a critique of exploitative accumulation and asymmetrical power, not a blanket moral criminalization of the state of indebtedness.