Does the imposition of a late fee—even a symbolic one that goes to the poor—contradict the prohibition of usury in transactions based on the principle: "If a commodity mediates, there is no usury," especially in light of the hadith: "The deferment by a wealthy person makes his honor and punishment permissible"?

Imposing late fees for debt repayment is prohibited (haram), even if the fee is designated for the poor or is a fixed amount. Early jurists are not known to have permitted penalizing those who delay payment. The hadith about the wealthy procrastinator cannot be used as evidence to penalize those who delay, as the punishment intended therein is imprisonment, which is administered by the judiciary.

If the person delaying payment is a procrastinator, it is permissible to sue them and compel them to pay, and to make them bear the litigation costs.

The saying: "If an item intervenes, there is no usury (riba)" is not a jurisprudential rule. The mere intervention of an item is not sufficient to negate usury. The inah sale (buy-back agreement) is an example of this, as it is considered usurious by the majority of scholars.

It is permissible to work in a company whose primary activity is permissible, specifically in customer service to waive late fees for clients, as long as this does not involve imposing or collecting prohibited fees, or other similar prohibited acts.