ٱلَّذِينَ يَأْكُلُونَ ٱلرِّبَوٰا۟ لَا يَقُومُونَ إِلَّا كَمَا يَقُومُ ٱلَّذِى يَتَخَبَّطُهُ ٱلشَّيْطَـٰنُ مِنَ ٱلْمَسِّ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَالُوٓا۟ إِنَّمَا ٱلْبَيْعُ مِثْلُ ٱلرِّبَوٰا۟ ۗ وَأَحَلَّ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْبَيْعَ وَحَرَّمَ ٱلرِّبَوٰا۟ ۚ فَمَن جَآءَهُۥ مَوْعِظَةٌ مِّن رَّبِّهِۦ فَٱنتَهَىٰ فَلَهُۥ مَا سَلَفَ وَأَمْرُهُۥٓ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ ۖ وَمَنْ عَادَ فَأُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ أَصْحَـٰبُ ٱلنَّارِ ۖ هُمْ فِيهَا خَـٰلِدُونَ
Allazeena yaakuloonar ribaa laa yaqoomoona illaa kamaa yaqoomul lazee yatakhabbatuhush shaitaanu minal mass; zaalika bi annahum qaalooo innamal bai'u mishur ribaa; wa ahallal laahul bai'a wa harramar ribba; faman jaaa'ahoo maw'izatum mir rabbihee fantahaa falahoo maa salafa wa amruhooo ilal laahi wa man 'aada fa ulaaa 'ika Ashaabun naari hum feehaa khaalidoon
Orang-orang yang makan (mengambil) riba tidak dapat berdiri melainkan seperti berdirinya orang yang kemasukan setan lantaran (tekanan) penyakit gila. Keadaan mereka yang demikian itu adalah disebabkan mereka berkata (berpendapat), sesungguhnya jual beli itu sama dengan riba, padahal Allah telah menghalalkan jual beli dan mengharamkan riba. Orang-orang yang telah sampai kepadanya larangan dari Tuhan-nya, lalu terus berhenti (dari mengambil riba), maka baginya apa yang telah diambilnya dahulu (sebelum datang larangan); dan urusannya (terserah) kepada Allah. Orang yang mengulangi (mengambil riba), maka orang itu adalah penghuni-penghuni neraka; mereka kekal di dalamnya.
Those who consume usury will not stand except as one stands who has been struck down by Satan's touch. That is because they say, "Trade is just like usury" — but God has permitted trade and forbidden usury. Whoever receives a warning from their Lord and stops may keep what is past, and their affair rests with God. But whoever returns — those are the companions of the fire; in it they will remain.
Khabṭ is what a beast does trampling ground it cannot see, striking with its feet at nothing in particular, and the form used here makes it repeated and continuous. The comparison the verse reports runs the way round nobody would expect: they took usury as the settled term and likened trade to it, instead of defending usury by appeal to trade. The reply keeps their two words and pulls them apart.