The Permissibility of Muslims Dealing in Interest & Other

Impermissible Transactions with Non-Muslims in Dārul Ḥarb

[According to the Ḥanafī School]
Introduction
Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and Imām Muḥammad, two of the founding imāms of the
Ḥanafī school, regarded financial transactions that would normally be
considered impermissible in Sharī‘ah to be permissible when they occur
between a Muslim and non-Muslim residing in Dārul Ḥarb. “Dārul Ḥarb”
refers to a territory that did not come under the jurisdiction of the expanding
Dārul Islām (Islāmically-governed territories) and is not governed by Muslim/s
according to Islāmic governance.
The underlying reason for this ruling is that a non-Muslim in Dārul Ḥarb is not
qualified to be a proper transacting partner. Hence, the transfer of wealth and
assets between a Muslim and a non-Muslim in Dārul Ḥarb when ostensibly in
an impermissible form – entailing, for example, interest (ribā), gambling
(qimār) or excess uncertainty (gharar) –, since the transaction itself does not
qualify as a proper transaction, the impermissibility does not arise. An
analogous situation is of transactions between a master and his slave who he
gives permission to engage in financial transactions. The dealings that occur
between them cannot amount to an impermissible transaction simply because
the master’s slave is not a proper transacting partner for himself (as opposed to
when the slave transacts with another person on his master’s behalf).1
According to a number of the later scholars of the Ḥanafī school, this ruling of
permissibility, however, is limited to when the Muslim partner receives the
excess payment, so that if the excess is given to the non-Muslim partner it will
not be permissible. However, this qualification of the ruling has been
challenged, as will be demonstrated below.
Below, a few representatitive passages from the jurists on this topic will be
quoted and translated. This will be followed by an important discussion on
whether the ruling is limited to the situation that the Muslim partner receives
the “excess” payment or if it extends to all transactions regardless of who
receives the excess. The meaning of “Dārul Ḥarb” and “Darul Islām” according
to the Ḥanafī school will be briefly touched on, and one of the famous
evidences for the above ruling will also be outlined.

1
‫ رواه‬،‫ ال ربا بني العبد وسيده‬:‫ ويقول‬،‫قد صح عن ابن عباس رضي هللا عنهما أنه كان يعامل مكاتبه عقودا فاسدة هي ربا‬
‫ إنه ال ربا بني املسلم واحلريب يف‬:‫ فهذا هو سر قول أيب حنيفة‬،‫ وأهل احلرب كلهم أرقاء يف حق أهل االسالم‬.‫الشافعي يف مسنده‬
‫ وبطل من الربا ما مل يكن مقبوضا ومل يتعرض ملا كان منه‬،‫ وإذا ظهر االسالم عليها وصار أهلها ذمة لنا زالت الرقية‬،‫دار احلرب‬
)٥٧٦‫ ص‬١‫ ج‬،‫ إدارة القرآن‬،‫مقبوضا (أحكام القرآن للتهانوي‬
Some Passages of the Jurists
1. Imām Abū Yūsuf writes:
Abū Ḥanīfah said: When a Muslim enters Dārul Ḥarb under protection,
and sells one dirham for two dirhams, there is no problem in that, since
the laws of the Muslims are not operational over them, so in whatever
form he takes their wealth by willing consent from them, it is
permissible.
…
Abū Ḥanīfah only regarded this as permissible because [of what] one of
the scholars narrated to us from Makḥūl from the Messenger of Allāh
(Allāh bless him and grant him peace) that he said: ‘No interest [is
realised] between the inhabitants of Dārul Ḥarb and Muslims.’ (al-Radd
‘alā Siyar al-Awzā‘ī, p. 96-7)2
2. Imām al-Ṭaḥāwī writes:
Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī, Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad said: There is no
problem in [dealing in] interest (ribā) in Dārul Ḥarb between them [i.e.
the non-Muslim residents of Dārul Ḥarb] and the Muslims. (Ikhtilāf al-
‘Ulamā, 3:491)3
3. Rukn al-Dīn Abu l-Faḍl al-Karmānī (457 – 543 H), the leading scholar of the
Ḥanafīs of Khurāsān in his time, wrote:
When a Muslim or Dhimmī enters Dārul Ḥarb, and trades with one of
them [i.e. the non-Muslim residents of Dārul Ḥarb] with one dirham in
exchange for two dirhams, or anything similar to that from amongst the
sales that are impermissible under the jurisdiction of Islām, this is
permissible according to the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad. It
is likewise if he [i.e. the Muslim] is a prisoner under their dominion, or
he accepted Islām in Dārul Ḥarb without having migrated. Abū Yūsuf
said: For a Muslim in Dārul Ḥarb, only what is permissible for him in

2
‫ ألن أحكام‬،‫ لو أن مسلما دخل أرض احلرب بأمان فباعهم الدرهم بالدرمهني مل يكن بذلك بأس‬:‫قال أبو حنيفة رضي هللا عنه‬
‫وإمنا أحل أبو حنيفة هذا ألن بعض املشيخة حدثنا عن‬...‫ فبأي وجه أخذ أمواهلم برضا منهم فهو جائز‬،‫املسلمني ال جتري عليهم‬
‫ وأهل اإلسالم (الرد على سري‬:‫ وقال أبو يوسف‬،‫ ال ربا بني أهل احلرب‬:‫مكحول عن رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم أنه قال‬
)٦٧-٦٥‫ ص‬،‫ جلنة إحياء املعارف النعمانية‬،‫األوزاعي‬

3
‫ دار البشائر‬،‫ ال بأس ىف الربا يف دار احلرب بني املسليمني وبينهم (اختالف العلماء‬:‫قال إبراهيم النخعي وأبو حنيفة وحممد‬
)١٦١‫ ص‬٣‫ ج‬،‫االسالمية‬
 Dārul Islām [i.e. in terms of dealing with a non-Muslim], is permissible.
(Tajrīd al-Īḍāḥ)4
An almost identical passage is found in Badā’i‘ al-Ṣanā’i‘ of Imām al-Kāsānī.5
4. Qāḍī Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (d. 430) writes:
Abū Ḥanīfah opined with respect to a Muslim that enters Dārul Ḥarb
under protection, and acquires possession of their wealth through an
impermissible transaction, that it is valid and permissible, as though it
was given to him as a gift. Abū Yūsuf and al-Shāfi‘ī said that it is
impermissible…
Muḥammad argued [for this ruling] from Abū Bakr having made a bet
with the disbelievers over [whether] Rome will gain victory over Persia,
and the Messenger of Allāh having permitted him to do that, since he
said: ‘Add to the wager and extend the term.’ The disagreement is found
in gambling just as in an interest transaction…
And Muḥammad narrated with a chain from Makḥūl from the Prophet
(upon him peace): ‘No interest [is realised] between the inhabitants of
Dārul Ḥarb and Muslims.’ (al-Asrār)6
5. Al-Zāhidī in his commentary of Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūrī quotes an earlier text
as follows:
One granted protection from the residents of our territory [i.e. Dārul
Islām], whether Muslim or Dhimmī, in their territory [i.e. Dārul Ḥarb],
or one who accepts Islām there, engages with them [i.e. non-Muslim

4
‫ أو ما أشبه ذلك من البيوع الفاسدة يف حكم‬،‫ فتبايع مع واحد منهم درمها بدرمهني‬،‫إذا دخل املسلم أو الذمي دار احلرب‬
‫ وقال أبو‬.‫ أو أسلم يف دار احلرب ومل يهاجر‬،‫ وكذلك لو كان أسريا يف أيديهم‬،‫ فذلك جائز يف قول أيب حنيفة وحممد‬،‫اإلسالم‬
‫ من بداية كتاب الررف إ ى اهاية كتاب‬،،‫ (جتريد اإلياا‬.‫ ال جيوز للمسلم يف دار احلرب إال ما جيوز له يف دار االسالم‬:‫يوسف‬
)١١٣‫ ص‬،‫ حبث مقدم لنيل درجة املاجستري يف جامعة أم القرى‬،‫السرقة‬

5
‫ فعاقد حربيا عقد الربا أو غريه من العقود الفاسدة يف حكم االسالم جاز عند أيب‬،‫إذا دخل مسلم أو ذمي دار احلرب بأمان‬
‫ ال‬:‫ وقال أبو يوسف‬،‫ وكذلك لو كان أسريا يف أيديهم أو أسلم يف دار احلرب ومل يهاجر إلينا فعاقد حربيا‬،‫حنيفة وحممد رحهما هللا‬
)٦٥٥‫ ص‬٦‫ ج‬،‫ دار الكتب العلمية‬،‫ (بدائع الرنائع‬.‫جيوز للمسلم يف دار احلرب إال ما جيوز له يف دار االسالم‬

6
‫ وقال أبو يوسف‬.‫قال أبو حنيفة يف مسلم دخل دار احلرب بأمان وميلك أمواهلم بعقود فاسدة إنه صحيح حالل كأاها وهبت له‬
‫ زد‬:‫واحتج حممد مبخاطرة أيب بكر مع الكفار يف تغليب الروم على فارس وجتويز رسول هللا ذلك حيث قال له‬...‫والشافعي إنه حرام‬
‫وروى حممد أياا بإسناد عن مكحول عن النيب‬...‫ واخلالف ثابت ىف املخاطرة والقمار كما يف عقد الربا‬.‫ىف اخلطر وأبعد ىف األجل‬
‫ رسالة مقدمة لنيل درجة‬،‫ من كتاب البيوع إ ى كتاب الوقف‬،‫ (كتاب األسرار‬.‫ ال ربا بني املسلمني وأهل احلرب‬:‫عليه السالم أنه قال‬
)٥٥٥-٥٥١‫ ص‬٥‫ ج‬،‫الدكتوراة يف جامعة القرى‬
 residents of Dārul Ḥarb] in a transaction not permissible amongst us,
like usurious transactions and sale of carrion, it is permissible according
to the two of them [i.e. Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad], and according to
Abū Yūsuf only what is permissible in Dārul Islām is permissible. (al-
Mujtabā)7
6. Shams al-A’immah al-Sarakhsī writes:
Muḥammad quoted from Makḥul from the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh
bless him and grant him peace): ‘No interest [is realised] between the
inhabitants of Dārul Ḥarb and Muslims in Dārul Ḥarb.’ Although this
ḥadīth is mursal, Makḥūl is a trustworthy jurist, and a mursal report of
one like him is accepted. This is a proof in favour of Abū Ḥanīfah and
Muḥammad for the permissibility of a Muslim selling one dirham in
exchange for two dirhams with a non-Muslim resident of Dārul Ḥarb in
Dārul Ḥarb. According to Abū Yūsuf and al-Shāfi‘ī, this is not
permissible. And likewise, were he to sell them carrion or wager a bet
with them and take wealth from them through betting, that wealth is
permissible for him according to Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad, as
distinguished from Abū Yūsuf and al-Shāfi‘ī. (al-Mabsūṭ, Dār al-
Ma‘rifah, 14:56).8
7. Burhān al-Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Māzah al-Bukhārī (d. 616) writes:
When a Muslim enters Dārul Ḥarb under protection or without
protection, and engages in a transaction of interest with a non-Muslim
resident of Dārul Ḥarb, in that he purchases one dirham in exchange for
two dirhams, or he purchases one dirham in exchange for a dinar up to
an appointed term*, or he sells wine, swine, carrion or blood to them in
exchange for wealth, Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad said: ‘All of that is
permissible.’ Abū Yūsuf said: Only that which is permissible for
Muslims is permissible for a Muslim and non-Muslim residents of Dārul

7
‫ باشر معهم من العقود اليت ال جتوز فيما بيننا كالربويات‬،‫ أو من أسلم هناك‬،‫مستأمن من أهل دارنا مسلما كان أو ذميا يف دارهم‬
)‫ب‬/١١١‫ ق‬،‫ (اجملتىب‬.‫وبيع امليتة جاز عندمها وعند أيب يوسف ال جيوز إال ما جيوز يف دار اإلسالم‬
8
،‫ ال ربا بني املسلمني وبني أهل احلرب يف دار احلرب‬:‫ ذكر عن مكحول عن رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم قال‬:‫قال رمحه هللا‬
‫ واملرسل من مثله مقبول وهو دليل أليب حنيفة وحممد رمحهما هللا يف جواز بيع‬،‫وهذا احلديث وإن كان مرسال فمكحول فقيه ثقة‬
‫ وكذلك لو باعهم ميتة أو قامرهم‬،‫ وعند أيب يوسف والشافعي رمحهما هللا ال جيوز‬،‫املسلم الدرهم بالدرمهني من احلريب يف دار احلرب‬
،‫ (املبسوط‬.‫وأخذ منهم ما ال بالقمار فذلك املالك طيب له عند أيب حنيفة وحممد رحهما هللا خالفا أليب يوسف والشافعي رحهما هللا‬
)٦٥‫ ص‬١١‫ ج‬،‫دار املعرفة‬
 ‫‪Ḥarb in Dārul Ḥarb. The view of the two [i.e. Abū Ḥanīfah and‬‬
‫‪Muḥammad] is correct. (al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī, Idārat al-Qur’ān, 10:489)9‬‬
‫‪*In bay‘ al-ṣarf, where gold or silver are being exchanged for one another, it is‬‬
‫‪necessary for receipt of both commodities to take place at the time of the‬‬
‫‪contract. Hence, receipt of one of them at a deferred date would render the sale‬‬
‫‪invalid.‬‬
‫‪This passage of al-Muḥīṭ is quoted in al-Fatāwā al-Tatārkhāniyyah10, as well‬‬
‫‪as al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyya.11‬‬
‫‪The same ruling can be found in al-Aṣl of Imām Muḥammad12, the primary‬‬
‫‪source of the Ẓahir al-Riwāyah, the texts which form the foundation of the‬‬
‫‪Ḥanafī school. The ruling is then transmitted in most of the famous Mutūn‬‬
‫‪(basic primers) of the school, like Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūrī13, al-Mukhtār14, al-‬‬
‫‪Hidāyah15, Kanz al-Daqā’iq16 and Sharḥ al-Wiqāyah.17‬‬

‫‪9‬‬
‫إذا دخل املسلم دار احلرب بأمان أو بغري أمان‪ ،‬وعقد مع حريب عقد الربا‪ ،‬بأن اشرتى درمها بدرمني‪ ،‬أو اشرتى درمها بدينار إ ى‬
‫أجل‪ ،‬أو باع منهم مخرا أو خنزيرا أو ميتة أو دما مبال‪ ،‬قال أبو حنيفة وحممد‪ :‬ذلك كله جائز‪ .‬وقال أبو يوسف‪ :‬ال جيوز من املسلم‬
‫وأهل احلرب يف دار احلرب إال ما جيوز من املسلمني‪ ،‬والرحيح قوهلما‪( .‬احمليط الربهاين‪ ،‬إدارة القرآن والعلوم االسالمية‪ ،‬ج‪١١‬‬
‫ص‪)١٨٦‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫الفتاوى التاتارخانية‪ ،‬مكتبة زكريا‪ ،‬ج‪ ١١‬ص‪٥٣‬‬

‫‪11‬‬
‫الفتاوى اهلندية‪ ،‬دار الكتب العلمية‪ ،‬ج‪ ٣‬ص‪٥١١‬‬

‫‪12‬‬
‫األصل لإلمام حممد‪ ،‬أوقاف‪ ،‬ج‪ ٣‬ص‪٧٣-٧١‬؛ ج‪ ٧‬ص‪ ،١٨١-١٧٦‬ج‪ ١١‬ص‪ ،٦٧‬ج‪ ١‬ص‪٥٧٥‬‬

‫‪13‬‬
‫وال ربا بني املو ى وعبده وال بني املسلم واحلريب يف دار احلرب (خمترر القدوري‪ ،‬مع اللباب‪ ،‬دار البشائر االسالمية‪ ،‬ج‪٣‬‬
‫ص‪)١١٦‬‬

‫‪14‬‬
‫وال ربا بني املسلم واحلريب يف دار احلرب‪ ،‬خالفا أليب يوسف‪ ،‬وعلى هذا القمار (املختار مع شرحه االختيار‪ ،‬دار الرسالة‬
‫العاملية‪ ،‬ج‪ ٥‬ص‪)٧٦‬‬

‫‪15‬‬
‫وال بني املسلم واحلريب يف دار احلرب خالفا أليب يوسف والشافعي‪...‬ولنا قوله عليه السالم‪ :‬ال ربا بني املسلم واحلريب يف دار‬
‫احلرب‪ ،‬وألن ماهلم مبا‪ ،‬يف دارهم‪ ،‬فبأي طريق أخذه املسلم أخذ ماال مباحا إذا مل يكن فيه غدر (اهلداية‪ ،‬إدارة القرآن‪،‬‬
‫ج‪٦‬ص‪)٥١٥-٥١١‬‬

‫‪16‬‬
‫وال ربا بني السيد وعبده وال بني املسلم واحلريب مث (كنز الدقائق‪ ،‬دار البشائر االسالمية‪ ،‬ص‪)١٣٥‬‬

‫‪17‬‬
‫ومسلم وحريب يف داره‪ ،‬أي يف دار احلرب‪ ،‬ألن مالك مبا‪ ،‬فيجوز أخذه بأي طريق كان خالفا أليب يوسف والشافعي (شر‪،‬‬
‫الوقاية‪ ،‬مري حممد كتب خانه‪ ،‬ج‪ ٥‬ص‪)٥٦‬‬
Is the Ruling of Permissibility Limited to the Situation that the Muslim
Receives the Excess?
The way the ruling is worded in the Mutūn and the above passages clearly
suggests that this ruling is unqualified, in that these transactions are permissible
between a Muslim and non-Muslim in Dārul Ḥarb regardless of whether it is
the Muslim that receives the excess or the non-Muslim. Moreover, the textual
evidences quoted by the scholars of the madhhab, some of which were
mentioned in the above quotes, and one of which will be recounted below, are
all open-ended, giving permission for interest between a Muslim and non-
Muslim in Dārul Ḥarb without qualification.
However, according to a view popularised by Ibn al-Humām18 from the late
Ḥanafī scholars, and further supported by Ibn ‘Ābidīn19, the ruling of
permissibility is limited to the situation that the Muslim receives the excess
(although they accept that the way the ruling is worded suggests otherwise).
Hence, according to their interpretation, if the non-Muslim receives the excess
in these transactions, it is impermissible by agreement of the imāms.
Although Ibn al-Humām and Ibn ‘Ābidīn do not quote it, they do have an
explicit precedent from the earlier madhhab. Burhān al-Dīn Maḥmūd ibn
Māzah al-Bukhārī writes after the passage quoted from him under no. 7 above:
I saw in a book that this disagreement is in the [situation] that [the
Muslim] purchases two dirhams from them in exchange for one dirham,
but when he purchases one dirhams in exchange for two dirhams, it is

18
‫ والربا أعم من ذلك إذ يشمل ما إذا‬،‫ال خيفى أنه [هذا التعليل] إمنا يقتاى حل مباشرة العقد إذا كانت الزيادة يناهلا املسلم‬
‫ وكذا القمار يفاي إ ى أن يكون مال اخلطر‬،‫ وجواب املسألة باحلل عام ىف الوجهني‬،‫كان الدرمهان من جهة املسلم ومن جهة الكافر‬
‫ وقد التزم األصحاب ىف الدرس أن مرادهم من حل الربا‬،‫ فالظاهر أن اإلباحة تفيد نيل املسلم الزيادة‬،‫ بأن يكون الغلب له‬،‫للكافر‬
‫ املطبعة الكربى‬،‫ وإن كان إطالق اجلواب خالفه (فتح القدير مع العناية‬،‫والقمار ما إذا حرلت الزياد ة للمسلم نظرا إ ى العلة‬
)٣١١‫ ص‬٦‫ ج‬،‫األمريية‬
19
‫ ويدل على ذلك ما ىف السري الكبري وشرحه‬:‫ قلت‬:‫قال ابن عابدين بعد ما ساق العبارة املذكورة من فتح القدير البن اهلمام‬
‫ على وجه عري‬،‫ ألنه إمنا أخذ املبا‬،‫ وإذا دخل املسلم دار احلرب بأمان يأخذ منهم أمواهلم بطيب أنفسهم بأي وجه كان‬:‫حيث قال‬
‫ حىت لو باعهم درمها بدرمهني أو باعهم ميتة بدراهم أو أخذ ماال منهم‬،‫ واألسري واملستأمن سواء‬،‫من الغدر فيكون ذلك طيبا له‬
‫ فعلم أن املراد من الربا‬،‫ فانظر كيف ج عل موضوع املسألة األخذ من أمواهلم برضاهم‬.‫ اه ملخرا‬.‫بطريق القمار فذلك كله طيب له‬
٧‫ ج‬،‫ دار عامل الكتب‬،‫والقمار يف كالمهم ما كان على هذا الوجه وإن كان اللفظ عاما ألن احلكم يدور مع علته غالبا (رد احملتار‬
)١٥٣‫ص‬
 not permissible by agreement, as this entails assisting them by means of
the excess dirham.20
While this statement is quoted in an authoritative and reliable book, the
reference given is to an unknown book and author. On this basis, the strength
of this quote is uncertain.21 On the other hand, there are explicit statements
from two leading scholars of the school that the transaction is valid according
to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and Imām Muḥammad even if the non-Muslim receives
the excess. One is Burhān al-Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Māzah al-Bukhārī himself, as
found in quote no. 7 above, which, as stated, is reproduced in al-Fatāwā al-
Tatārkhāniyyah and al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyya. This quote explicitly mentions
amongst the scenarios that are regarded as permissible by Imām Abū Ḥanīfah
and Imām Muḥammad: “[the Muslim] purchases one dirham in exchange for
two dirhams.”22
The second leading jurist is the great imām, Shams al-A’imma al-Sarakhsī (d.
483 H), the most famous commentator of the Ẓahir al-Riwāyah. Concluding a
relatively lengthy discussion on this ruling, he writes:
It is the same whether the Muslim acquires two dirhams in exchange for
one dirham or one dirham in exchange for two dirhams, as he has given
the non-Muslim peace of mind by what he gave him, whether that is
little or much, and he took his wealth by means of violability (ibāḥah),
as we have explained.23 24

20
‫ ال جيوز‬،‫ أما إذا اشرتى منهم درمها بدرمهني‬،‫ورأيت يف بعض الكتب أن هذا االختالف فيما إذا اشرتى منهم درمهني بدرهم‬
)١٨٦‫ ص‬١١‫ ج‬،‫ إدارة القرآن‬،‫ ألن فيه إعانة هلم بقدر الدرهم الزائد (احمليط الربهاين‬،‫باالتفاق‬

21
‫ إال أن قائله جمهول‬،‫ هذا وإن كان يوافق ما حبثه ىف الفتح وأيده يف رد احملتار‬:‫قال العالمة خالد األتاسي بعد نقل هذه العبارة‬
)١٦١‫ ص‬٥‫ ج‬،‫ الرشيدية‬،‫ اجمللة لألتاسي‬،‫فال يعارض ما يف جواهر األخالطي املوافق إلطالق عامة املتون كما علمت (شر‬

22
)١٦١‫ ص‬٥‫ ج‬،‫ الرشيدية‬،‫ اجمللة لألتاسي‬،‫فقوله بأن اشرتى درمها بدرمهني صريح يف أنه حيل للمسلم دفع الفال (شر‬

23
‫ويستوي إن كان املسلم أخذ الدرمهني بالدرهم أو الدرهم بالدرمهني ألنه طيب نفس الكافر مبا أعطاه قل ذلك أو كثر وأخذ‬
)٦٦‫ ص‬١١‫ ج‬،‫ دار املعرفة‬،‫ماله بطريق اإلباحة كما قررنا (املبسوط‬

24
‘Allāmah Ẓafar Aḥmad al-‘Uthmānī, who discusses this ruling at length in his I‘lā’
al-Sunan, cites this passage from al-Mabsūṭ, and accepts its implication that the ruling
of permissibility includes the scenario that the non-Muslim receives the excess.
However, he adds the caveat that these transactions are not to be done in a manner
that the Muslim is not benefitting at all. If the Muslim takes a sum of money to be
returned with interest at a future date, it is evident that the Muslim will “gain” in that
he has the money at present, even if the “excess” is for the non-Muslim. (See: I‘lā’ al-
Sunan, Idārat al-Qur’ān, 14:366)
The last part of this sentence refers to a common theme in most discussions of
this ruling. The concept of the violability of a non-Muslim’s wealth and its
implications are central to the opinion of Ibn al-Humām and the later scholars
mentioned above. Hence, it will be discussed below in some detail.
The jurists have stated that the ruling under discussion is premised on the
principle that the wealth of a non-Muslim in Dārul Ḥarb is not inviolable or
protected (ma‘ṣūm), but is in principle violable (mubāḥ), or free for taking.
There are two implications of this legal status of the wealth of a non-Muslim in
Dārul Ḥarb:
1. A Muslim under amnesty in Dārul Ḥarb cannot violate the (implied or
explicit) state of security, and thus cannot take the wealth of non-
Muslim residents of Dārul Ḥarb by usurpation, theft, robbery or any
other method to which they will not give their willing consent.
However, if they give part of their wealth by willing consent, regardless
of how they give it – even if it is in exchange for something Muslims
would not even regard as wealth (e.g. wine) or for a lesser amount – it is
permissible on account of the fact that the factor preventing taking
advantage of the original violability (i.e. the impermissibility of taking
from their wealth without their willing consent on account of the state of
security) no longer applies.

2. Because the non-Muslim’s wealth in Dārul Ḥarb is not granted the same
status of inviolability as other wealth, the method in which their wealth
is acquired is no longer subject to the laws of Sharī‘ah as it applies to
true financial contracts. Rather, all financial transactions become licit as
a consequence of the violability of their wealth, in effect disqualifying
the non-Muslim in Dārul Ḥarb as a true transacting partner. The only
condition that remains, therefore, is the willing consent (riḍā) of the
non-Muslim, and this is achieved in all transactions, whether licit or
illicit in terms of Sharī‘ah.
The first point is evident in a number of statements of the jurists, including
some that were quoted in the first section above.
The second point is implied in al-Sarakhsī’s explanation in the above passage.
Two further passages will be quoted below to prove this second implication of
the violability of a non-Muslim’s wealth.

‘Allāmah Khālid al-Attāsī also makes a similar point. After supporting the view that it
is permissible for the non-Muslim to receive the excess, he points out that a Muslim
will only enter into the transaction in lieu of the benefit he anticipates from it. (Sharḥ
al-Majallah, al-Rashīdiyyah, 2:451)
Amīr al-Atqānī (685 – 758 H), one of the most prominent commentators on al-
Hidāyah, writes:
The wealth of a non-Muslim resident of Dārul Ḥarb is not inviolable, but
is in principle violable. A Muslim who enters under protection is only
prevented from it on account of the transaction of security, so that it
does not result in betrayal. Thus, when a non-Muslim resident of Dārul
Ḥarb relinquishes his wealth by willing consent, the reason for which it
was prohibited [to take it – i.e. breaking the transaction of security] is
eliminated, and it thus becomes an acquisition on the principle of
violability, like taking firewood, grass or game; and [these transactions
are permissible also] because interest does not occur amongst two
people between whom compensation is not [legally] binding on either
one of them for destroying what is in the possession of the other, like a
master with his slave… Dārul Ḥarb may not be analogised to Dārul
Islām because Dārul Islām is a territory of inviolability while Dārul
Ḥarb is a territory of violability. (Ghāyat al-Bayān)25
Similarly, Imām Abū Naṣr al-Aqṭa‘ (ca. 400 – 474 H), the earliest commentator
on Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūrī, alludes to this point almost explicitly in the following
illuminating passage:
[Al-Qudūrī] said: ‘[Interest] is not [realised] between a Muslim and non-
Muslim resident of Dārul Ḥarb in Dārul Ḥarb.’ What he mentioned is
the view of Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad. Abū Yūsuf said: That is not
permissible. Al-Shāfi‘ī also adopted this opinion. The basis of the view
of the two of them [i.e. Abū Ḥanīfah and Muḥammad] is what Makḥūl
narrated that the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:
‘No interest [is realised] between the inhabitants of Dārul Ḥarb and
Muslims in Dārul Ḥarb.’ Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan cited it.
And also because the wealth of a non-Muslim resident of Dārul Ḥarb is
in principle violable. The one granted amnesty is only prevented from
taking from it on account of the transaction [of security]. Thus, when the
non-Muslim resident of Dārul Ḥarb relinquishes it, the reason for
prevention goes away by virtue of his willing consent, and acquiring the
wealth comes to be on the basis of violability. It thus does not amount to

25
‫ حىت ال يلزم‬،‫ وإمنا منع املسلم الذي دخل بأمان منه ألجل عقد اإلمان‬،‫ بل هو على أصل اإلباحة‬،‫مال احلريب ليس مبعروم‬
‫ كاالحتطاب واالحتشاش‬،‫ فإذا بذل احلريب ماله برضاه زال املعىن الذي حظر ألجله فرار ذلك أخذا على أصل اإلباحة‬،‫الغدر‬
‫وال‬...‫ وألن كل شخرني ال جيب الامان على كل واحد منهما بإتالف ما يف يده ال جيري بينهما الربا كاملو ى مع العبد‬،‫واالصطياد‬
)‫أ‬/٥٥‫ ق‬،٦‫جيوز اعتبار دار احلرب بدار االسالم ألن دار االسالم دار احلظر ودار احلرب دار اإلباحة (غاية البيان ج‬
 interest (ribā) because interest is an excess acquired through a
transaction [while this is not a true transaction]…
When the non-Muslim resident of Dārul Ḥarb enters amongst us under
protection, his wealth becomes inviolable, as evidenced by [the fact] that
it is not permissible for anyone to take it. Had even the term for the
contract of security come to an end, it would still not be permissible for
us to take his wealth. This proves that his wealth has become inviolable
[by entering Dārul Islām] by virtue of a quality traceable to the [wealth]
itself; and thus whatever he owns, is acquired on the principle of a
transaction (‘aqd), not violability, as violability is not found like this.
The non-Muslim resident of Dārul Ḥarb [while in Dārul Ḥarb] is not like
this, because his wealth is not prohibited by virtue of a reason that is
traceable to the wealth [itself] as evidenced from [the fact] that all
people take from it besides the Muslim granted amnesty. Thus the
quality of violability is established [in the wealth], and [the Muslim]
acquires ownership of it when the cause of prevention [i.e. betrayal of
the transaction of security] is eliminated by mutual consent. (Sharḥ
Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūrī)26
Abū Naṣr al-Aqṭa‘ almost explicitly alludes to the underlying basis of the
ruling outlined above: that on account of the original violability of the wealth
of a non-Muslim who resides in Dārul Ḥarb, financial agreements that occur
between a Muslim and non-Muslim in Dārul Ḥarb cannot be framed as a true
“transaction” (‘aqd), and are thus not subject to the laws of Sharī‘ah as it
applies to true financial contracts.
However, it seems that Ibn al-Humām and some subsequent jurists focused
only on the first implication of the violability of a non-Muslim’s wealth
(probably because this features more frequently in the texts of the school).
Apparently on account of not taking the second implication into account, they
argued that this principle entails that only “taking” would be allowed, as the
wealth is free for the taking, and since “giving” is not legitimised by this

26
‫ وبه قال‬،‫ ال جيوز ذلك‬:‫ وقال أبو يوسف‬،‫ وهذا الذي ذكره قول أيب حنيفة وحممد‬،‫ وال بني املسلم واحلريب يف دار احلرب‬:‫قال‬
‫ ذكره حممد بن‬،‫ ال ربا بني املسلم واحلريب يف دار احلرب‬:‫ وجه قوهلما ما روى مكحول أن النيب صلى هللا عليه وسلم قال‬.‫الشافعي‬
،‫ فإذا بذله احلريب زال معىن احلظر بالرضا‬،]‫ وإمنا منع املستأمن من أخذه لعقد [األمان‬،‫ وألن مال احلريب على أصل اإلباحة‬،‫احلسن‬
‫إذا دخل إلينا احلريب بأمان فماله حمظور بداللة أنه‬...‫ ألن الربا زيادة مستفادة بالعقد‬،‫ فال يكون ربا‬،‫وصار أخذ املال بأصل اإلباحة‬
‫ فما‬،‫ فدل أن ماله صار حمظورا برفة يرجع إليه‬،‫ ولو زال أمانه بانقااء املدة مل حيل لنا أخذ ماله‬،‫ال جيوز ألحد من الناس أخذه‬
‫ وليس كذلك احلريب ألن ماله ليس مبحظور ملعىن يرجع إ ى املال‬،‫ إذ اإلباحة مل توجد كذلك‬،‫ميلك يستفاد حبكم العقد ال باإلباحة‬
‫ األقطع على‬،‫ فمعىن االباحة قائم متلك هبا إذا زال معىن احلظر بالرتاضي (شر‬،‫ إال املستأمن من املس لم‬،‫بدليل أن مجيع الناس تناوله‬
)‫ب‬/٥٦٧‫ ق‬،١‫القدوري ج‬
reasoning, it is not permissible. Hence, Ibn al-Humām concludes that when the
net-effect of the transaction is that the Muslim receives an excess, it is
permissible, but otherwise it is not.
There are a number of problems with this understanding:
The first is, why should we look at the net-effect and not the individual parts of
the transaction? For instance, when a Muslim gives one dirham in exchange for
two dirhams, he is still giving one dirham to the non-Muslim, and based on the
principle that only taking is permissible, it should not be permissible to give
that one dirham.
Secondly, the first implication of the violability of a non-Muslim’s wealth in
Dārul Ḥarb, which Ibn al-Humām appears to take as the sole basis of this
ruling, does not per se delegitimise giving, but rather its effect is to only
legitimise taking. Since by entering into an ostensibly illicit transaction with a
non-Muslim, wealth comes into the hand of the Muslim, the question that the
jurists addressed is whether that wealth is permissible and pure? Hence, the
quote from al-Dabūsī (no. 4) above clearly frames the discussion in this way.
Strictly speaking, the mere fact that it is permissible to take a non-Muslim’s
wealth by his consent in Dārul Ḥarb does not address the question of whether
the transaction would be permissible if the non-Muslim receives the excess. (In
other words, the reasoning Ibn al-Humām refers to in order to delegitimise the
giving of interest does not relate to the question of giving, but only to the
question of taking.)
As explained above, giving excess would be legitimised by the second
implication of the violability of a non-Muslim’s wealth: that true transactions
cannot take place between a Muslim and non-Muslim in Dārul Ḥarb, and hence
financial agreements between them are not subject to the laws of Sharī‘ah.
Moreover, this is what is entailed by the textual evidences that the imāms of the
madhhab quoted: that the permissibility is based on the principle that interest is
not realised, which is itself a consequence of the principle that the wealth of
non-Muslims in Dārul Ḥarb is in principle violable (mubāḥ).
A third issue with Ibn al-Humām’s explanation is that the early imāms clearly
included gambling amongst the transactions that are permissible between
Muslims and non-Muslims in Dārul Ḥarb. Gambling by definition is a
transaction in which there is uncertainty, so the Muslim may gain the excess
and the non-Muslim may gain the excess. Ibn al-Humām foresaw this problem,
and wrote in response:
 ‫‪Gambling may lead to the non-Muslim being entitled to the wealth that‬‬
‫‪is wagered, in that he attains victory, but what is apparent is that [the‬‬
‫‪principle of] violability only entitles the Muslim for the excess.27‬‬
‫‪This response has the strange consequence that a Muslim can wager a bet with‬‬
‫‪a non-Muslim, but will honour the agreement only if he wins. If he loses,‬‬
‫‪according to the explanation given by Ibn al-Humām, it is not permissible for‬‬
‫‪him to pay the winner. This consequence is obviously flawed, in view of the‬‬
‫‪emphasis the Sharī‘ah places on honouring an agreement.‬‬
‫‪Most of these problems with Ibn al-Humām’s view are articulated in a critique‬‬
‫‪written by the Ḥanafī mufti of Homs, Khālid al-Attāsī (1253 – 1326 H), in his‬‬
‫‪commentary on the Majallah. Since the critique is somewhat lengthy, and‬‬
‫‪producing a translation will entail repeating many of the points mentioned‬‬
‫‪above, I will suffice with citing the Arabic passage in the footnote.28‬‬
‫‪Furthermore, gambling is not the only example of a scenario mentioned by the‬‬
‫‪imāms of the madhhab where the excess may be for the non-Muslim. Another‬‬
‫‪example will be given below.‬‬
‫‪This example relates to a transaction of muḍārabah. Muḍārabah is a special‬‬
‫‪kind of transaction in which one party provides the capital and the other party‬‬

‫‪27‬‬
‫وكذا القمار يفاي إ ى أن يكون مال اخلطر للكافر‪ ،‬بأن يكون الغلب له‪ ،‬فالظاهر أن اإلباحة تفيد نيل املسلم الزيادة‪ ،‬وقد‬
‫التزم األصحاب ىف الدرس أن مرادهم من حل الرب ا والقمار ما إذا حرلت الزيادة للمسلم نظرا إ ى العلة‪ ،‬وإن كان إطالق اجلواب‬
‫خالفه (فتح القدير مع العناية‪ ،‬املطبعة الكربى األمريية‪ ،‬ج‪ ٦‬ص‪)٣١١‬‬
‫‪28‬‬
‫وذكر يف فتح القدير أن التعليل يقتاي حل مباشرة عقد الربا وحل القمار إذا كانت الزيادة يناهلا املسلم من احلريب دون‬
‫العك س‪ ،‬مث استظهر أن مرادهم من حل الربا والقمار ما إذا حرلت الزيادة للمسلم نظرا إ ى العلة‪ ،‬وإن كان إطالق اجلواب خبالفه‪.‬‬
‫واستدل له يف رد احملتار مبا ىف السري الكبري وشرحه حيث قال‪ :‬وإذا دخل املسلم دار احلرب بأمان فال بأس بأن منهم أمواهلم بطيب‬
‫أنفسهم بأي وجه كان‪ ،‬ألنه إمنا أخذ املبا‪ ،‬على وجه عري من الغدر‪ ،‬فيكون ذلك طيبا له‪ ،‬واألسري واملستأمن سواء‪ ،‬حىت لو باعهم‬
‫درمها بدرمهني أو باعهم ميتة بدراهم أو أخذ ماال منهم بطريق القمار فذلك كله طيب له‪ .‬اه ملخرا‪ .‬فانظر كيف جعل موضوع‬
‫املسألة األخذ من أمواهلم برضاهم‪ ،‬فعلم أن املراد من الربا والقمار يف كالمهم ما كان على هذا الوجه وإن كان اللفظ عاما ألن‬
‫احلكم يدور مع علته غالبا ه ما يف رد احملتار‪ .‬أقول‪ :‬وفيه نظر ألن اتفاقهم على حل أخذ املال منهم على قوهلما بطريق املقامرة‪،‬‬
‫يدل على حل مباشرة عقدها‪ ،‬ومن املعلوم أن املقامرة مبعىن املخاطرة‪ ،‬فيجوز مبقتاى عقدها أن يكون املسلم هو الغالب فيأخذ‬
‫مال اخلطر‪ ،‬وجيوز أن يكون هو املغلوب فيخسره فهل ميكن أن يقال‪ :‬ال حيل له دفع مال اخلطر هلم مع أن عدم دفعه ليس يف‬
‫يده؟!‪...‬على أن إطالق املتون قاطبة أن ال ربا بني املسلم واحلريب يف دارهم‪ ،‬مبعىن أنه حيل ذلك‪ ،‬ظاهر يف حل ذلك مطلقا‪ ،‬وإن‬
‫كان املسلم آخذا أو دافعا‪ ،‬وأما التعليل املذكور فإمنا هو لكون ما يأخذه من الربح بالعقد الفاسد واملراباة من الدراهيم والدنانري‬
‫وغريها من املثليات واملقامرة طيبا حالال ال خبيثا حراما‪ ،‬وهذه العلة ال حيتاج إليها إذا كان هو الدافع‪ ،‬وال يقال إنه مايع ملا له‬
‫بدفع الفال يف عقد املرباة ودفع مال اخلطر ىف املقامرة‪ ،‬ألنه مل يقرد مبباشرة تلك العقود إال االسرتبا‪ ،‬فيأخذ منهم املال بفال‬
‫جزئي لريبح به فاال أكثر يف جتارته ويقامرهم على مال يأمل أن يربح أكثر منه (شر‪ ،‬اجمللة لألتاسي‪ ،‬الرشيدية‪ ،‬ج‪ ٥‬ص‪-١٦١‬‬
‫‪)١٦١‬‬
trades with the capital investment in order to make some profit. The profit will
then be shared between the two parties according to the percentage share that
was agreed in the contract. Any loss will be borne by the investor (rabb al-māl),
not the working partner (muḍārib). According to Sharī‘ah, the profit must be
shared according to a percentage, and it is not permissible to stipulate a fixed
amount of profit for either party. For example, if the parties agree that from
whatever profit is made, the investor and working partner will each receive
50%, this is permissible. But if they agree, for example, that the working
partner will receive 100 dirhams from the profit, and the rest of the profit will
go to the investor, this is impermissible.
In al-Aṣl of Imām Muḥammad, the ruling of such impermissible muḍāraba
transactions between Muslims and a non-Muslims residing in Dārul Ḥarb is
discussed, as follows:
When a Muslim or Dhimmī enters Dārul Ḥarb under protection, and
hands over wealth to a non-Muslim man residing in Dārul Ḥarb in a
transaction of muḍārabah, in exchange for a profit of 100 dirhams [for
the working partner i.e. the non-Muslim resident of Dārul Ḥarb], or the
non-Muslim residing in Dārul Ḥarb hands over wealth to him in a
transaction of muḍārabah, in exchange for a profit of 100 dirhams, this
is permissible by extrapolating from the view of Abū Ḥanīfah and
Muḥammad.
If, based on this, the working partner was to make a purchase or a sale,
and acquire profit or loss, the loss will be borne by the investor and the
profit will be shared according to what they agreed: the working partner
will take a full share of 100 dirhams from that profit, and whatever
remains will be for the investor. If there is only 100 dirhams profit, all of
that will be for the working partner, and if the profit is less than 100
dirhams, that will also be for the working partner. The working partner
is not entitled to anything besides this from the investor because the
investor did not agree to 100 dirhams for him except from the profit.
According to the view of Abū Yūsuf, the muḍārabah is
impermissible…and their ruling in that is like their ruling in Dārul
Islām.29

ً‫ أو دفع إليه احلريب ماال‬،‫ فدفع إ ى رجل حريب ماالً مااربة بربح مائة درهم‬،‫وإذا دخل املسلم أو الذمي دار احلرب بأمان‬
29

‫ فإن اشرتى املاارب على هذا وباع فربح أو وضع‬.‫ فإن هذا يف قياس قول أيب حنيفة وحممد جائز‬،‫مااربة بربح مائة درهم‬
‫ فإن مل‬،‫ وما بقي فهو لرب املال‬،‫ يستويف املاارب من ذلك الربح مائة درهم‬،‫ والربح على ما اشرتطوا‬،‫فالوضيعة على رب املال‬
‫ وال شيء‬،ً‫ وإن كان الربح أقل من مائة درهم فذلك للماارب أياا‬،‫يكن يف املال من الربح إال مائة درهم فهي كلها للماارب‬
،‫ وأما يف قول أيب يوسف فاملااربة فاسدة‬.‫ ألن رب املال مل يشرتط له املائة درهم إال من الربح‬،‫للماارب على رب املال غري ذلك‬
)٥٧٥‫ ص‬١‫ ج‬،‫ أوقاف‬،‫ (األصل‬.‫ وحاهلما يف ذلك كحاهلما يف دار االسالم‬،‫وللماارب أجر مثله‬
It is clear from this example that in the situation that the investor is a Muslim
and the working partner a non-Muslim, it is possible that the non-Muslim will
receive the entire share of the profit, and the Muslim will not receive any. Even
still, according to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and Imām Muḥammad, the transaction is
valid, and the two partners will each be entitled to what they agreed.
Dārul Ḥarb and Dārul Islām
Since this ruling only applies to transactions that take place in Dārul Ḥarb, it is
necessary to understand which territories fall under “Dārul Ḥarb” (non-Muslim
territory) and which fall under “Dārul Islām” (Muslim territory).
By default, a region is Dārul Ḥarb. Dārul Ḥarb then becomes Dārul Islām in
one of two ways: a) the Muslim powers of Dārul Islām overpower it and annex
it to their territories; b) Muslims come in power and begin to govern according
to the laws of Islām.
Imām Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ explains:
The status of a territory [i.e. whether it is Dārul Ḥarb or Dārul Islām] is
connected only to dominance and power, and implementing the
jurisdiction of a religion...When we overpower a Dārul Ḥarb, and
implement our laws in it, it becomes Dārul Islām, whether it is
contiguous with Dārul Islām or not.30
He also writes:
A Muslim may be secure in Dārul Ḥarb, and that does not detract from
its status as Dārul Ḥarb and does not necessitate that it is Dārul Islām.31
He further says:
When a Muslim army enters Dārul Ḥarb, the regions which it acquires
do not become Dārul Islām for as long as they are not able to implement
their laws.32

30
‫مىت غلبنا على دار احلرب وأجرينا أحكامنا فيها صارت دار‬...‫حكم الدار إمنا يتعلق بالظهور والغلبة وإجراء حكم الدين هبا‬
)٥١٧-٥١٥‫ ص‬٧‫ ج‬،‫ دار البشائر االسالمية‬،‫ خمترر الطحاوي‬،‫ سواء كانت متامخة لدار االسالم أو مل تكن (شر‬،‫االسالم‬
31
،‫ خمترر الطحاوي‬،‫املسلم قد يأمن يف دار احلرب وال يسلبه ذلك حكم دار احلرب وال يوجب أن يكون من دار االسالم (شر‬
)٥١٧‫ ص‬٧‫ ج‬،‫دار البشائر االسالمية‬
32
‫سرية املسلمني إذا دخلت دار احلرب ال ترري البقاع اليت حرلوا فيها من دار االسالم ما مل يتمكنوا فيها إلجراء أحكامهم‬
)٥١٧‫ ص‬٧‫ ج‬،‫ دار البشائر االسالمية‬،‫ خمترر الطحاوي‬،‫(شر‬
(Although the above statements were made in the context of a polemic between
Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and his two students, the context shows that the above
points are points of agreement, not points of departure.)
In al-Aṣl, while pointing out a key difference between Dārul Ḥarb and Dārul
Islām, Imām Muḥammad says:
Dārul Ḥarb: the Muslims have not overran or liberated it; Dārul Islām:
the Muslims have overran and liberated it.33
Hence, those regions of the world where the jurisdiction of Islām has never
reached, like UK and America, fall under Dārul Ḥarb.
For territories that were once Dārul Islām to lose their status as Dārul Islām and
become Dārul Ḥarb, there are stricter conditions according to Imām Abū
Ḥanīfah. One may refer to the detailed discussions in the books of
jurisprudence for further detail.
One of the Prominent Textual Evidences for this Ruling
The scholars of the Ḥanafī madhhab, beginning with Imām Muḥammad
himself, cited several textual evidences to substantiate this ruling. One of the
evidences that features quite prominently in many of the writings of the Ḥanafī
jurists is the interest transactions of ‘Abbās (may Allāh be pleased with him) in
Makkah while it was still considered Dārul Ḥarb i.e. before the Conquest of
Makkah. This evidence was used by Imām Muḥammad and the subsequent
Ḥanafī scholars. Imām al-Ṭaḥāwī wrote extensively on it in his Sharḥ Mushkil
al-Āthār. Below I will summarise the argument as presented by Imām al-
Ṭaḥāwī.
Al-Ṭaḥāwī first proves based on an authentic account that at the time of the
Conquest of Khaybar, in the seventh year of Hijrah, ‘Abbās (may Allāh be
pleased with him), a resident of Makkah, had already accepted Islām.34 He
further shows from an authentic narration found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and other
collections that interest had been prohibited at the time of the Conquest of
Khaybar.35 Moreover, according to another authentic narration found in

33
٥‫ ج‬،‫ف عليها املسلمون وفتحوها (األصل‬ ِ ‫أرض احلرب مل ي‬
َ ‫وجف عليها املسلمون ومل يفتحوها وأرض اإلسالم قد أ َْو َج‬ُ
)١١٥‫ص‬

34
‫ فتأملنا هذا احلديث فوجدنا ما قد دلنا على أن إسالم العباس كان قبل‬:‫ قال‬،‫بعد سياق الطحاوي حديث حجاج بن عالط‬
،‫ مؤسسة الرسالة‬،‫ مشكل اآلثار‬،‫ وهو إقراره كان لرسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم بالرسالة من هللا وت رديقه ما وعده (شر‬،‫ذلك‬
)٥١١‫ ص‬٨‫ج‬

35
)٥١٥‫ ص‬٨‫ ج‬،‫ مشكل اآلثار‬،‫فكان يف هذه اآلثار أن الربا قد كان يومئذ يف دار االسالم حراما بني أهل االسالم (شر‬
Muslim’s Ṣaḥīḥ amongst other collections, the Prophet (Allāh bless him and
grant him peace) declared on the Day of ‘Arafah, when performing Ḥajj in the
tenth year of Hijrah, ‘The interest of pre-Islāmic days has been abolished. The
first interest I abolish is the interest of ‘Abbās, the son of ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib.’
Al-Ṭaḥāwī then says:
In this is evidence that interest existed in Makkah while it was a Dārul
Ḥarb before being conquered [by the Muslims]…In the statement of the
Messenger of Allāh: ‘The first interest I abolish is the interest of ‘Abbās,
the son of ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib’ is proof that the interest of ‘Abbās was still
in effect until the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him
peace) abolished it, since he can only have abolished that which was in
effect, not something that had already been invalidated before he
abolished it.
The Conquest of Khaybar was in the year seven of Hijrah, and the
Conquest of Makkah was in the eighth year of Hijrah, while the Ḥajj
was in the tenth year of Hijrah. In this is proof that ‘Abbās was engaging
in interest right the way till Makkah was conquered, although he was a
Muslim before that. In this is proof that interest was permissible
between Muslims and non-Muslims in Makkah while it was Dārul Ḥarb,
and this is while it was impermissible between Muslims in Dārul Islām.
In this is proof of the permissibility of interest between Muslims and the
inhabitants of Dārul Ḥarb in Dārul Ḥarb, just as Abū Ḥanīfah and al-
Thawrī opined.36
This is the basic argument, which al-Ṭaḥāwī expands on further in the chapter.
However, one obvious problem with this argument is that the Prophet (Allāh
bless him and grant him peace) abolished the interest of ‘Abbās in the 10th year
of Hijrah while Makkah was conquered in the 8th year of Hijrah. Would this
suggest then, following Imām al-Ṭaḥāwī’s reasoning, that ‘Abbās was
engaging in interest even while Makkah was Dārul Islām?!
‘Allāmah Ẓafar Aḥmad al-‘Uthmānī addresses this apparent flaw in the
argument in his I‘lā’ al-Sunan (14:346-7). He shows that the interest

36
،‫فكان يف ذلك ما قد دل على أن الربا قد كان مبكة قائما ملا كانت دار حرب حىت فتحت ألن ذهاب اجلاهلية إمنا كان بفتحها‬
‫ فدل ذلك أن ربا العباس قد كان‬،‫ ربا العباس بن عبد املطلب‬،‫ أول ربا أضع ربانا‬:‫وكان يف قول رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم‬
‫ وكان فتح خيرب‬،‫ ال ما قد سقط قبل وضعه إياه‬،‫قائما حىت وضعه رسول هللا صلى هللا عليه وسلم ألنه ال ياع إال ما قد كان قائما‬
‫ ففي ذلك ما‬،‫ وكانت حجة الوداع يف السنة العاشرة من اهلجرة‬،‫ وكان فتح مكة يف السنة الثامنة من اهلجرة‬،‫يف سنة سبع من اهلجرة‬
‫ ويف ذلك ما قد دل على أن الربا قد كان حالال‬،‫ وقد كان مسلما قبل ذلك‬،‫قد دل أنه قد كان للعباس ربا إ ى أن كان فتح مكة‬
‫ ويف ذلك ما قد دل على‬،‫ وهو حينئذ حرام بني املسلمني يف دار اإلسالم‬،‫بني املسلمني وبني املشركني مبكة ملا كانت دار حرب‬
)٥١٨‫ ص‬٨‫ ج‬،‫ مشكل اآلثار‬،‫ كما يقوله أبو حنيفة والثوري (شر‬،‫إباحة الربا بني املسلمني وبني أهل احلرب يف دار احلرب‬
transactions of ‘Abbās were in fact abolished twice. First in the Conquest of
Makkah, as found in an authentic report from Qatādah, who said: ‘It was
reported to us that the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said in his
sermon on the Day of the Conquest [of Makkah]: “Beware, the interest of pre-
Islāmic times is all abolished, and the first interest I begin with is the interest of
‘Abbās.”’37 This announcement was made regarding the transactions with the
non-Muslims of Makkah. However, ‘Abbās still had ongoing transactions of
interest with non-Muslims of other regions that had not yet come under the
jurisdiction of Dārul Islām. Once, these regions had also become part of Dārul
Islām, a second announcement was made to abolish these transactions.38
Conclusion
Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and Imām Muḥammad opined that financial transactions
that are normally deemed impermissible in Sharī‘ah are permissible when they
occur between a Muslim and non-Muslim resident of Dārul Ḥarb. As shown
above, their opinion is regarded as the stronger position of the school, and is
well-substantiated. Moreover, it was shown that this permissibility is not
limited to the situation that the excess payment is received by the Muslim, but
the permissibility is unqualified, whether the Muslim or the non-Muslim
receives the excess payment. (Regardless of who receives the excess payment,
it is evident the Muslim will only enter into such a transaction for some gain or
benefit.)
It should be obvious based on the detailed discussion of the reasoning given for
this ruling by the scholars of the Ḥanafī school that this ruling relates only to
financial transactions between a Muslim and non-Muslim living in Dārul Ḥarb.
It cannot therefore be deduced or extrapolated from this ruling that something
besides these specific financial transactions are also permissible in Dārul Ḥarb.
The impermissibility of other actions, whether they relate to a Muslim’s
personal acts in Dārul Ḥarb or his interactions with non-Muslims in Dārul Ḥarb
in capacities other than financial dealings, are governed by the normal rules of
Sharī‘ah.

‫ «أ ََال‬:‫ال ِيف ُخطْبَتِ ِه يَو ْو َم الْ َف ْت ِح‬

َ َ‫صلَّى هللاُ َعلَْي ِه َو َسلَّ َم ق‬ َِّ ‫يب‬ َّ ‫ ذُكِ َر لَنَا أ‬:َ‫ َع ْن قَوتَا َدة‬،‫ ثنا َس ِعي ٌد‬:‫ال‬ َ َ‫ ق‬،‫ ثنا يَ ِزي ُد‬:‫ال‬َ َ‫ ق‬،‫َح َّدثَونَا بِ ْش ٌر‬
َ ‫اَّلل‬ َّ َِ‫َن ن‬
37

)٦١‫ ص‬٦‫ ج‬،‫ مكتبة هجر‬،‫ب» (تفسري الطربي‬ ِ ِ‫اس بْ ِن َع ْب ِد ال ُْمطَّل‬ِ َّ‫ئ بِ ِه ِربَا ال َْعب‬ ُ ‫اهلِيَّ ِة َم ْو‬
ُ ‫ َوأ ََّو ُل ِربًا أَبْوتَ ِد‬،ُ‫ضوعٌ ُكلُّه‬ ِ ‫إِ َّن ِربا ا ْجل‬
َ َ

38
‫ ال وضعه عن مجيع من كان يرابيه من املشركني من أهل‬،‫معناه وضع ربا العباس عمن كان يرابيه من أهل مكة بعد ما فتحت‬
)٣١٥‫ ص‬١١‫ ج‬،‫ إدارة القرآن‬،‫البالد اليت تأخر فتحها عن فتح مكة (إعالء السنن‬