Companion: Ibn Abbas [d. 687 AH]
“Abdullah Ibn Abbas was a cousin of the Prophet and was born two years before the Hijra (622 A.D.). He is better known for his vast knowledge of Tradition than for the controversial political role he played after the Prophet’s death.
Ibn Abbas, as he is habitually called, as well as some of the Prophet’s companions (Usama Ibn Zayd, Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, Urwa Ibn Zubayr, Zayd Ibn Arqam and leading Meccan scholars) considered that the only unlawful riba is riba al-jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic riba) manifested, … by the lender asking the borrower at maturity date: “Will you settle the debt or increase it?” Increase normally occurred by charging interest accrued on the interest already accounted by the time the loan agreement was concluded. On the contrary, riba al-nasiah and riba al-fadl, both provided for in the famous hadith in relation to the six articles, gold, silver, wheat, barley, dates and salt, are lawful.
This liberal interpretation of riba relies on a hadith that Ibn Abbas has himself reported and which, in his opinion, has superseded the previous one. This last hadith on riba, the authenticity of which is not generally decided but which is interpreted in conflicting ways, say in substance: “No riba except in the nasiah (nasiah here is understood as being the pre-Islamic riba). The opponents of Ibn Abbas’ interpretation of this hadith see it as putting more emphasis on riba al-nasi’a and not as superseding the previous hadith.” [Saleh, pp. 26-27]
To better appreciate the position of Ibn Abbas, it is important to understand that if Ibn Abbas’ position has been authentically reported, and we have no reason to believe that it is any less authentic than other hadiths or narrations about riba, then the blanket Riba-Interest equation becomes untenable. This hadith is available in Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, #386. According to the position of Ibn Abbas, as reported in this hadith, there is no Riba except in transactions involving deferred payments. Thus, riba al-Fadl, another form of riba is denied by this position of Ibn Abbas. The Equivalence School, representing the orthodoxy, argues that interest or “unjustified excess” in ALL forms is prohibited. Such a sweeping position is contradicted by the position of Ibn Abbas. Essentially, what Ibn Abbas’ narration amounts to is that only riba al-jahiliyyah is unlawful ribafrom Islamic viewpoint. [Saleh, p. 27]
If only riba al-jahiliyyah is regarded as prohibited, then in case of inability of the borrower in paying the debt in full, if the principal increases or multiplies in an exploitative environment, only such accretion would be prohibited. Another word, a blanket prohibition on interest can’t be deduced from a prohibition of riba al-jahiliyyah, also known as the prohibited riba in the Qur’an.. That’s why the position of Ibn Abbas and other companions of the Prophet who did not regard riba al-fadl as prohibited is so important, because a broadened prohibition of riba, which claims to include all interests, has been established via riba al-fadl. As Nyazee reflects:
The definitions given by early jurists are not considered suitable for modern transactions by many scholars today. In fact, such definitions are restricted by most scholars to the realm of what they understand to be riba al-fadl. [Nyazee, 2000, p. 2, fn.#7]
Given the existing vagueness about the definition and understanding of riba, the position of Ibn Abbas about rejecting riba al-fadl as covered by the prohibition, one of the closest companions of the Prophet and one of the earliest jurists, is a thorn in the eyes of the orthodox position. Thus, there is a tendency to summarily dismiss it by claiming that later he changed his position, or by arguing that he was merely emphasizing the existence of riba in transactions involving deferred payments. Among others, Fazlur Rahman has discussed the position of Ibn Abbas in great detail in his article “Riba and Interest“, and has exposed the fallacy of those who try to explain away the variant position of Ibn Abbas. Also see Farooq, 2007 (forthcoming).
Companion: Usama Ibn Zayd
In regard to the same hadith of Ibn Abbas, as reported above, Usama, another companion of the Prophet, is also indicated to have the same view. Further discussion about this is available in an article by Dr. Raquib uz Zaman, “Monetary and Fiscal Policies of an Islamic State: The Claims Versus The Reality.” The implication of this view is same as discussed above for Ibn Abbas’ view. [See Abdullah Saeed, p. 30]
Companion: Zayd bin Arqam
“The riba which is prohibited by the Qur’an is called Riba al Duyun, Riba al-Jahili, or Riba al-Nasiah. Some of the followers of the Prophet consider it as the only type of riba which is prohibited in Islam. They depend on the saying related to Ibn Abbas after Usamah ibn Zaid which reads to the effect: ‘There is no riba except al-Nasiah.’ [citation provided above]
This argument also reflects the view of Zaid bin Arqam, by Bara bin Azib, and Ibn al-Zubayr, among the companions of the Prophet.” [Dr. Engku Rabiah Adawiya Engku Ali, “Riba and its prohibition in Islam,” International Islamic University Malaysia.
The implication of this view is same as discussed above for Ibn Abbas’ view. Also, see Saleh, pp. 26-27.
Companion: Bara bin Azib
He is reported to have the same view about riba as the companions mentions above. [Saleh, pp. 26-27; Engku Ali]
Companion: Urwa Ibn al-Zubayr
He is also reported to have the same view about riba as the companions mentions above. [Saleh, pp. 26-27; Engku Ali]
Companion: Abdullah Ibn Masud
He is also reported to have the same view about riba as the companions mentions above. [Saleh, pp. 26-27]
Dawud Ibn Ali [d. 270 AH]
Dawud Ibn Ali is more well known as the founder of Zahirism. In an article presented by Dr. Omar Farrukh, “Zahirism,” the views of al-Zahiri about Riba are explained in detail.
“The Question of Usury (Riba): Usury is forbidden in Islam. 
But a difficulty arose from a tradition concerning it. It is related that the Prophet Muhammad said: “(You may barter) gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates, and salt for salt, only in equivalent quantities and on the spot. In all other commodities you may deal as you like, provided (the barter is transacted) on the spot.”  Early Muslim jurists concluded from this tradition that a quantity of any commodity should not be bartered for a larger quantity of the same commodity; otherwise, the surplus taken would be usury (riba). But if, for instance, a quantity of wrought gold was bartered for a larger quantity of unwrought gold, the surplus would be a gain or, better, a wage for craftsmanship. Furthermore, they considered the six commodities named by the Prophet to be examples only; thus bartering copper, coffee, leather, apples, or wool for a larger quantity of these commodities respectively is also regarded ‘by analogy’ as a form of usury. Dawud ibn `Ali, on the other hand, believed that the Prophet Muhammad had named these commodities on purpose. Had he intended to prolong the list, nothing would have prevented him from doing so. Accordingly, if a man bartered a quantity, say of iron, maize, apples, or pepper for a larger quantity of the same commodity, the surplus would not be usury but gain. [Farrukh, undated]
According to al-Zahiri, in Riba al-Fadl (in-kind exchanges), forbidden riba applies only to the six commodities specified by the Prophet in a hadith.6 As Zahirism rejects qiyas (analogical reasoning), this school rejects any extension of riba to other commodities, which contradicts the IBF Movement’s position of broadly prohibiting all forms of “excesses” (riba), including interest. Dawud al-Zahiri was very controversial and many orthodox scholars were highly critical of him. However, subsequently, Imam Ibn Hazm also embraced Zahirism and became even a more important icon of the school, surpassing al-Zahiri. Ibn Hazm also took the same position as that of al-Zahiri. Another word, the scope of prohibition according to Zahirism is much more limited or narrow than the traditionally broadened prohibition.