CHAPTER SIX
RIBA AND DAR AL HARB
Many Muslims respond to
lectures on riba with many very important questions and
observations. Some question the juristic opinion of some ulama that there is no
riba in Dar al-Harb. What is Dar al-Harb?
Allah the Most High, informs
us in the Qur’an that the whole earth belongs to Him (7:128). He further
informs us that His righteous servants shall inherit the earth (21:105). What
they, in fact, inherit is the responsibility for maintaining a state of salaam
on the earth, since Allah the Most High, calls for such (10:25). Salaam means
peace, security and the warding off evil. That state of salaam is violated when
aggression is committed, or when a people are being oppressed and tyrannized,
and are themselves crying to the heavens for deliverance from oppression, in
such a situation, Allah the Most High, makes it obligatory on Muslims to fight
to respond to aggression and to liberate the oppressed (4:75). Since the Arabic
for war is harb, such a territory (i.e. territory with which Muslims are at
war) was designated Dar al-Harb.
There is nothing in the Qur'an
or the ahadith of Prophet Muhammad (s) which make riba lawful in
Dar al-Harb! In the Hanafi School of Law, however, there is an opinion which
has now been applied in a rather careless and dangerous way to North America.
The opinion is that riba can be accepted in Dar al-Harb. Here is
the relevant section from Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani’s Kitab al-Siyar al-Kabir
which is the most authoritative work in Hanafi jurisprudence on the Islamic Law
of Nations:
764. I asked:
If a Muslim entered into a transaction with a harbi (i.e. someone from dar al-Harb)
involving usury (riba), or corpses (dead animals), do you-think that
such a transaction would be rejected as null and void?
765. He (Imam
al-Shaybani) replied: Yes, if it took place in Dar al-lslam. If it were in the
dar al-Harb, it should not be regarded as null and void according to the
opinions of Abu Hanifa and Muhammad (b. Al-Hasan).
766. I asked: Why?
You have said that if a Muslim enters the Dar al-Harb, it would be permissible
for him to sell corpses and take two dirhams in exchange for one.
767. He
replied: Yes, it would be quite all right to do so in their land, but not - as
in the former situation - in the Dar al-Islam, where Muslim rulings are binding
on them and where it would not be lawful to do so save what is lawful among
Muslims. If (on the other hand) the Muslims were in Dar al-Harb under an aman,
it would be lawful for him to acquire property from them in accordance (with
their law) by their consent, since Muslim rulings would not be binding on them
there. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa and Muhammad (bin al-Hasan). However,
Abu Yusuf held that he would not approve of (a Muslim being involved in) a
transaction in the dar al-Harb involving riba, wine, or dead animals,
and he rejects it. But Allah knows best!
Even if it were to be agreed
upon that there is no riba between a Muslim and a harbi in the
territory of Dar al-Harb, we would still argue that United States of America is
not Dar al-Harb and hence, the prohibition would still apply In USA. We do so
for the following reasons:
In the first place there can
be no Dar al-Harb without Dar al-Islam. And there is no Dar al-Islam existing
anywhere in the world today, not even in Makkah and Madinah! it was too early,
in his time, for an outstanding scholar like Maulana Manazir Ahsan Gilani to
perceive that Dar al-Islam was coming to an end in his age. Nor even, could
Al-Azhar University perceive this when it convened the Caliphate Congress in
Cairo in 1926 in order to respond to the Turkish abolition of the Caliphate in
1924.
In order for a territory to
be designated Dar al-Islam Muslims must have the freedom, in that territory, to
submit to the supreme authority of the Word and Law of Allah the Most High. In
other words, the shariah must have supremacy over any and all
other laws in that territory. That is no longer possible anywhere in the Muslim
world today. Articles 24 and 25 of the Charter of the UN, for example, are in
conflict with that essential requirement of Dar al-Islam, since they require
that member States recognize, instead, the supreme authority of the Security
Council of the United Nations:
Article 24;
In order to ensure prompt
and effective action by the United Nations, Its members confer on the Security
Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility
the Security Council acts on their behalf. . .
Article 25:
The Members of the United
Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in
accordance with the present Charter.
The Charter of the United
Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the
United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on
24 October 1945. Very few Muslim countries were free from colonial rule at that
time. One of them was Saudi Arabia, which signed this document.
This is just one example
demonstrating that all Muslim countries which are members of the UN (such as
Iran and Sudan. and all others), and are thus contractually obliged to submit
to the supreme authority of the Security Council of the UN, rather than the
supreme authority of Allah the Most High, do not conform with the most
fundamental of all due characteristics of Dar al-Islam. namely that the authority
of Allah. the Most High, must be supreme over the Muslims.
Also, in order for a
territory to be designated Dar al-Islam, the rights of the Muslims must be
respected in that territory. Among those rights are the following:
- freedom to enter the territory of Dar al-Islam,
- a Muslim does not need a visa;
- freedom to reside in that territory,
- he does not need a residence permit;
- freedom to seek his livelihood in that territory,
- he does not need a work permit;
- and freedom to participate in the political process (in accordance with the political Sunnah) in that territory,
- he does not need citizenship!
No Muslim country respects
these rights anymore, not even Iran and Sudan. And foolish Muslims who have
been absorbed in the jahiliyah of nationalism would actually
oppose efforts to restore those rights. And yet the European Community has
copied this aspect of Dar al-Islam and established all of these rights for all
citizens belonging to member countries of the EC.
In order for a territory to
be recognized by Muslims as Dar al-Harb, it has to be so designated in a
proclamation issued by the Amir al-Mumineen. The last time such a proclamation
was made was in 1914 by the khalifa (Caliph) in Istanbul. (The present King of
Saudi Arabia once declared jihad against Israel. He appears to have forgotten
about it). Again in 1991 there was the declaration of jihad which preceded the
Gulf war, and which entered into history as the first ever ‘Yankee jihad’.
If the Muslims were to restore Dar al-Islam anywhere in the world, those
Muslims resident in that territory will then be in a position to elect a khalifa
or Amir al-Mumineen. He, the khalifa, can then (if conditions so-justify)
declare USA or any other country in the world to be Dar al-Harb in accordance
with the laws of war and peace in Islam!
When a territory is
designated Dar al-Harb then Muslims are not permitted to reside in that
territory. If they have any temporary business there they are supposed to
attend to it and then promptly leave that territory.
Harbis (i.e. the citizens of
Dar al-Harb) are a people with whom all Muslims are at war. Hence a harbi can
be killed by any Muslim in accordance with the laws of war. If United States of
America is Dor al-harb then a Muslim would be permitted by his religion to kill
an American (i.e. harbi) in accordance with the laws of war. The harbi may,
however, enter into Dar al-Islam in safety if he is granted an aman (a
guarantee of safety) by any Muslim, male or female.
Finally, the property of a
harbi can be seized by any Muslim in accordance with the laws of war. This
would apply to the property of Americans if United States of America is Dar
al-Harb. The above observations should force Muslims resident in North America
to pause before they accept any opinion to the effect that USA is Dar al-Harb
and that it is permissible for Muslims to take loans on interest in USA, or to
utilize for their own benefit the interest which is paid to them!
If a Muslim accepts the view
that USA is Dar al-Harb, and yet seeks to acquire or to retain US citizenship
or permanent residence (Green Card), he or she would, firstly, be engaged in
clear hypocrisy and even treason against Islam! Such Muslims would face
terrible consequences on the Day of Judgement unless they made tauba and
sought to leave Dar al-Harb as soon as possible. Secondly, the US government
would be entitled to revoke the citizenship and Permanent Residence (Green
Cards) of all such people and arrest or deport them.
to be continued . . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment