دفعہ نمبر 161: بیرونی تجارت تاجر کی شہریت کے لحاظ سے ہوگی نہ کہ اس مال کو تیار کرنے والے ملک کے حساب سے ۔ اس لیے دارالحرب کے تاجروں کو تاجر اور مال کے لیے اجازت نامہ حاصل کیے بغیر تجارت کرنے کی اجازت نہیں ہوگی۔ جن تاجروں کے ممالک کے ساتھ معاہدات ہوں گے ان کے ساتھ انہی معاہدوںکے مطابق برتائو کیا جائے گا۔ ریاست ان تاجروں کو ریاست کے اندر سے ایسا مال لے جانے کی اجازت نہیں دے گی جن کی ریاست میں ضرورت ہو یا جس کے باہر جانے سے دشمن کی عسکری قوت میں اضافے کا خدشہ ہو یا یہ امکان ہو کہ دشمن اس کے ذریعے اپنی صنعت اور اقتصاد کو مضبوط کرے گا۔ تاہم وہ تاجر اپنی ملکیت میں موجود کسی بھی مال کو ریاست کے اندر لا سکتے ہیں۔ اس سے وہ ممالک مستثنی ہیں جو ہمارے ساتھ عملی طور پر حالات جنگ میں ہوں ، جیسا کہ اسرائیل ۔ ایسے ممالک کے ساتھ تمام تعلقات عملی حالات جنگ کے مطابق ہوں گے ۔ خواہ یہ تعلقات تجارتی ہوں یا غیر تجارتی۔
Article 161: Foreign trade is assessed on the basis of the citizenship of the trader and not the origin of the goods. Merchants from countries in a state of war with the State are prevented from trading in the State, unless given a special permission for the merchant or the goods. Merchants from countries that have treaties with the State are treated according to the terms of the treaties. Merchants who are subjects of the State are prevented from exporting any goods that the country needs, or any goods which strengthen the enemy militarily, industrially or economically. However, they are not prevented from importing any property they own. Countries with whom there is a real war between us and their people (such as Israel) are excluded from these rules, since in all relationships with them they take the rules of the actual belligerent countries, whether those rules were linked to trade or not.
This encompasses three issues: firstly: the merchandise is assessed on the basis of the citizenship of the trader, not its origin; secondly: the rules regarding the trader differ according to their citizenship; thirdly: the circumstances in which import and export are forbidden.
As for the first issue: the evidence is that the Shari’ah rules related to the foreign merchants are the rules of trade, and the rules of entering property from the domain of war (Dar Al-Harb) into the domain of Islam (Dar Al-Islam), and taking property out of Dar Al-Islam into Dar Al-Harb, and the rules regarding strengthening the enemies against the Muslims. The Shari’ah rule is the address of the Legislator (swt) connected to the actions of the worshipper, which is why foreign trade is connected to the trader and not to the origin of the goods, since the rules of the Shari’ah connected to foreign trade were only revealed with respect to individuals. The revealed rule connected to property is only connected to it from the angle of it being owned by a specific individual, not only from the angle that it is property. In other words, in consideration that it is property owned by a specific person and not only in consideration that it is a property. Accordingly, the rules connected to foreign trade are the rules connected to the individuals from the angle that the Shari’ah looks at them and their wealth, in other words, from the angle of the rule of Allah (swt) regarding them, and from the angle that the rule of Allah (swt) is in the wealth which is owned by them. From here it is seen that the rules of foreign trade are not connected to the origin of the goods but rather to the merchant.
As for the second issue, it is reported from the narration of Sulaiman Bin Buraydah from his father regarding the instruction of the Messenger for the leaders of the armies that the Messenger said to the leader:
«... ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى الإِسْلامِ، فَإِنْ أَجَابُوكَ فَاقْبَلْ مِنْهُمْ وَكُفَّ عَنْهُمْ، ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ إِنْ فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَلَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، فَإِنْ أَبَوْا أَنْ يَتَحَوَّلُوا مِنْهَا فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ يَكُونُونَ كَأَعْرَابِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَجْرِي عَلَيْهِمْ حُكْمُ اللَّهِ الَّذِي يَجْرِي عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، وَلا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ إِلا أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ»
“…Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajireen and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers)” (reported by Muslim). The angle of deduction from this narration is the words of the Messenger :
«ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ إِنْ فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَلَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ»
“Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajireen and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen”, which mentions in the text that it was a condition to migrate in order to get the same privileges and obligations as the Muslims, in other words, to be encompassed by the rules, and if they did not migrate then they would not have those privileges and obligations, and so the rules would not apply to them. Additionally, the Messenger considered migration to the household of the Muhajireen (Dar Al-Muhajireen) as a condition to have a right over the war booty and spoils, and by analogy this applies to the rest of the properties, and so the one who does not migrate to Dar Al-Muhajireen is equally treated as the non-Muslims from the angle of the sanctity of their wealth, which means that the rules regarding property are inapplicable to them because they did not migrate to Dar Al-Muhajireen. And Dar Al-Muhajireen was Dar Al-Islam, and anything else was Dar Al-Kufr (domain of disbelief), which is why the Messenger used to go out on expeditions to any land which was not part of Dar Al-Muhajireen as he assessed it to be Dar Al-Harb. However, if the inhabitants were Muslims he would not fight against them nor kill them, but rather would invite them to come to Dar Al-Islam, and if they were non-Muslims he would fight them as was indicated by this narration, and also indicated by what was reported from Anas who said:
«كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِذَا غَزَا قَوْمًا لَمْ يُغِرْ حَتَّى يُصْبِحَ، فَإِنْ سَمِعَ أَذَانًا أَمْسَكَ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْمَعْ أَذَانًا أَغَارَ بَعْدَ مَا يُصْبِحُ»
“Whenever Allah's Prophet attacked some people, he would never attack them till it was dawn. If he heard the Adhan (i.e. call for prayer) he would delay the fight, and if he did not hear the Adhan, he would attack them immediately after dawn.” (reported by Al-Bukhari). So the Messenger used to consider that anything outside of Dar Al-Muhajireen was Dar Al-Harb, in other words, Dar Al-Kufr, even if its inhabitants were Muslims, and the rule regarding them is the rule for Dar Al-Kufr from the angle of the applicability of the rules, including the rules regarding property. There is no difference between the Muslims and non-Muslims other than that the Muslims are not fought and killed, and their wealth is not taken, whereas the non-Muslims can be fought and killed and their wealth can be taken. Other than this, the rules regarding them are the same, and this is the evidence for Dar Al-Kufr and Dar Al-Islam. Whoever resided in Dar Al-Kufr or Dar Al-Harb then their citizenship is to Kufr and so the rules regarding Dar Al-Kufr are applied upon them in entirety, irrespective of whether they were Muslim or not, except that the Muslim’s blood and wealth are protected. Based upon them, the merchant from a warring nation (called a Harbi) cannot enter our lands whether they were Muslim or not, unless they were given assurances of security, because they are Harbi, and because the Messenger said:
«وَذِمَّةُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَاحِدَةٌ يَسْعَى بِهَا أَدْنَاهُمْ»
“The protection granted by one Muslim is like one given by them all, and this right is extended to the most humble of them.” (agreed upon from ‘Ali), and he said to Umm Hani:
«قَدْ أَجَرْنَا مَنْ أَجَرْتِ يَا أُمَّ هَانِئٍ»
“O Umm Hani, we granted protection asylum (protection) to whoever you granted asylum to” (agreed upon), and so the entrance of a Harbi into Dar Al-Islam is dependent upon him being giving assurances of security. And his wealth is also given security along with him, and it would require specific security assurances if he wanted to import it separate from him.
As for the one who has a covenant, then he is treated in accordance with his covenant, due to the words of Allah (swt):
((فَأَتِمُّوا إِلَيْهِمْ عَهْدَهُمْ))
“So complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended].” (TMQ 9:4), and there is no difference between the Muslim and non-Muslim in this respect, because both of them are considered as Harbi since they carry the Kufr citizenship, and so they are treated as the Harbi who has a covenant.
The one who carries the Islamic citizenship, whether they were Muslim or Dhimmi, is not prevented from exporting and importing the goods they want, and in the same manner no custom duties are taken from them. As for not preventing them from importing or exporting any goods they want, this is due to the words of Allah (swt):
((وَأَحَلَّ اللَّهُ الْبَيْعَ))
“And Allah has permitted trade” (TMQ 2:275), which is general and so encompasses all trade, irrespective of whether it was in Dar Al-Islam or in Dar Al-Kufr, in other words, it encompasses both domestic and foreign trade. There is no text that restricts this generality or prevents the Muslim or Dhimmi from exporting or importing wealth into or from Dar Al-Islam, and it is also general encompassing both Muslim and Dhimmi, and there is no text which prohibits the Dhimmi or restricts the permission to trade to Muslims. As for not taking any custom duty from them, this is due to what was reported by Abu Ubaid in Al-amwal from ‘AbdAl-Rahman b. Ma’qal who said: I asked Ziyad b. Hudayr: "Whom did you use to take a tenth from? He said – we did not use to take tax Muslims nor the one who was under covenant. I said: Then whom you used to tax? He said:the merchants from Dar al Harb similar to what they used to do with us when we go to them.”And the ‘Ashir was the one who took a tenth from the goods which were entering Dar Al-Islam from Dar Al-Harb. These are the evidences for Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb and the lack of entry for a Harbi into Dar Al-Islam unless he is given an assurance of security, whether he was a Muslim or disbeliever, and to treat one who has a covenant in accordance with that covenant, and the general permission for the Muslim and Dhimmi to trade, which are the evidences for the second issue of this article.
As for the third issue, its evidence is the principle: “If one item of a permitted thing leads to harm, only that one item is prohibited, and the thing remains permitted” which was deduced from the Messenger forbidding the army from drinking from the wells of Thamud which were on the way to Tabuk. Therefore, every merchandise whose export would cause harm to the country, such as food, or whose export would strengthen the enemy against the Muslims, such as weapons and strategic materials, are prevented from being exported, irrespective of whether it was a Muslim, Dhimmi, a person who had a covenant or a Harbi who was engaged in their export. Similarly, this rule applies on the import of goods. If the export of these goods did not cause harm then they are not prevented from being exported or imported by the Muslim and Dhimmi, and the rules related to the one who has a covenant and the Harbi apply to them.