| المستخلص: |
This paper deals briefly with the prohibition of usury, the reasons behind its prohibition, its types, and its ratio legis. The paper also focuses on an extremely important issue, namely usurious dealings in non-Muslim countries based on Hanafi jurisprudence and explains the opinions of Hanafi scholars on-the matter. Imam Abu Hanifa and Muhammed (may God have mercy on them) maintained that there is no usury between a Muslim and a harbi (non- Muslim) in dar al-harb (non-Muslim country). They do not permit usury as they opine that this transaction between a Muslim and a harbi in dar al-harb is not considered usury but is a particular transaction whose ruling in dar al-harb differs from its ruling in a Muslim country. A transaction in which a Muslim takes extra from a harbi in dar al-harb is not the kind of transaction recognized as usurious in Muslim countries but is a permissible transaction provided it does not involve deceit. Contrary to what some people think, Abu Hanifa and Muhammed did not leave this type of transact'on open, but laid down governing restrictions and rules. Ignorance of these rules and restrictions may lead one to engage in usurious dealings which is prohibited in Islam and may also prompt some to attribute false opinions to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence as evidence for usurious dealings and for engaging in corrupt contracts in foreign countries under the pretext that they are permissible in the Hanafi school. The rules and restrictions governing this type of transaction are as follows: 1- That the person a Muslim engages with in this type of transaction be a harbi. 2- That this transaction occur in dar al-harb. 3- That the transaction be free of deceit and fraud or nullify a contract or agreement in the event that a Muslim enters dar al-harb under pledge of security. Consequently, it is impermissible to appropriate or take the wealth of a harbi through any means without his consent. 4- Any increase over the original value of the transaction is to be in the Muslim's favor; otherwise, the transaction would be impermissible. The position of Abu Yusuf, on the other hand, is the impermissibility of such a transaction between a Muslim and a harbi whether it occurs in dar al-harb or in a Muslim country. This is likewise the opinion of the majority of scholars. In spite of the strong evidences on which Abu Hanifa and Muhammed base their position, the paper preponderates the position of Abu Yusuf by way of caution and because the majority of the public lack knowledge of the rules and restrictions related to this matter. is of four kinds: 5- - Jahl that cannot stand as an excuse and doubt; Anything for which there is clear proof that renders ignorance obstinacy and denial. This includes the ignorance of a disbeliever. 6- - Jahl that cannot stand as an excuse but is of a lesser degree than that of a disbeliever: This includes the ignorance of a person who follows his whims and caprices (innovator), the ignorance of a transgressor, the ignorance of one whose ijtihad contravenes a nass qati' (definitive text) or ijma' (consensus. 7- -Jahl that may constitute doubt: Ignorance based on the presumption of valid ijtihad in that the ijtihad does not contravene the Quran, the Sunnah, or ijma' (consensus). 8- ~ Jahl that is admissible as an excuse. A person who demonstrates this type of ignorance is not blameworthy. Examples include a person who converts to Islam in a non-Muslim country and does not migrate to a Muslim country and the ignorance of a person who has right to pre-emption. The research paper mentions the considered principle concerning al-'udhr bil jahl which is the inability of coming into knowledge about a matter. Consequently, no excuse is accepted from one who has the capacity to acquire knowledge [about a particular matter] and fails to do so. In such a case, that person is blameworthy for negligence; otherwise, his ignorance is admissible as an excuse.
|
