Biashara ya Kimataifa

Biashara ya Kimataifa - Mfumo wa Kiuchumi wa Uislamu | Quran Course

0% read · 10 min left

This chapter was translated automatically from English and may contain mistakes. Read the original

Show original

Biashara ya Kimataifa

25 Foreign Trade

by Taqiuddin an-Nabhani10 min readViewed 87 times

Tangu miamala ya kibiashara ilipohama kutoka kubadilishana bidhaa kwa bidhaa na kuanza kutumia fedha kama njia ya kubadilishana, biashara kati ya watu binafsi ilistawi na kukua. Kazi ilizidi kuwa maalum kwa kila mtu binafsi, kitaifa na kimataifa. Hili lilikuwa mwisho wa zama ambapo mtu binafsi alikuwa akiishi peke yake. Pia lilikuwa mwisho wa zama ambapo vizazi katika kila taifa au watu waliishi ndani ya taifa lao wakiwa wametengwa na mataifa na watu wengine, na hivyo biashara ya ndani na ya nje imekuwa mojawapo ya mahitaji ya maisha duniani kote.

Since trade transactions moved from the bartering of commodities to using money as a medium of exchange, business between individuals flourished and grew.Work became more specialised at an individual level, at a national level as well as internationally. This marked the end of an era when the individual used to live by himself. It also marked the end of the era when generations in each nation or people lived within a nation in isolation from other nations and peoples, and domestic and foreign trade have therefore become one of life’s necessities world-wide.

Kuna tofauti kati ya biashara ya ndani na biashara ya nje. Biashara ya ndani ni miamala ya kibiashara inayofanywa na watu binafsi wanaoishi ndani ya taifa fulani. Aina hii ya miamala inapaswa kufuata kanuni za biashara zilizotajwa na wanazuoni wa fiqhi. Haihitaji kuanzishwa na Dola, wala haihitaji usimamizi wa moja kwa moja, bali usimamizi wa jumla unaolenga kuwalazimisha watu kufuata kanuni za biashara za Kiislamu na kuwaadhibu wale wanaozikiuka, kama ilivyo kwa miamala mingine yoyote, kama vile kuajiri, ndoa n.k. Biashara ya nje inaakisi miamala ya kibiashara inayofanywa kati ya watu na mataifa, si kati ya watu wa Dola moja. Hii inajumuisha miamala kati ya nchi mbili, au kati ya watu wawili ambao kila mmoja ni raia wa nchi tofauti na ambapo kila mmoja ananunua bidhaa kwa lengo la kuzipeleka katika nchi yake. Miamala yote ya aina hii ni sehemu ya kanuni zinazosimamia uhusiano wa nchi moja na nyingine.

Kwa hiyo, hakuna mtu, awe Mwislamu au Dhimmi, ambaye ataruhusiwa kuuza nje bidhaa kama hizo kutoka Dola ya Kiislamu pale ambapo kuuza nje bidhaa hizo kungewasaidia makafiri wanaopigana vita dhidi ya Waislamu. Hata hivyo, ikiwa haiwasaidii dhidi ya Waislamu, kuwauzia bidhaa hizo kutaruhusiwa. Kuhusu usafirishaji wa bidhaa nyingine kama nguo, vyakula au bidhaa nyingine yoyote ya aina hiyo, hili linaruhusiwa kwa sababu Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alimwamuru Thamama awapelekee watu wa Makka chakula wakati walipokuwa maadui wanaopigana naye vita, na kwa sababu kusaidia maadui katika juhudi zao za vita hakutumika katika maeneo hayo. Pia, kwa sababu wafanyabiashara Waislamu walikuwa wakisafiri kwenda nchi zilizokuwa zinapigana vita ili kufanya biashara nazo wakati wa Masahaba, mbele yao na kwa ujuzi wao kamili. Masahaba hawakupinga wala kulaani vitendo hivyo, ingawa wasingetarajiwa kunyamaza kuhusu kitendo hicho kama kingekuwa haramu. Kwa hiyo, ukimya wao juu ya jambo hili, pamoja na ujuzi wao kamili wa jambo hilo, hauwezi kuchukuliwa kuwa kitu kingine zaidi ya makubaliano ya kimya kimya. Wafanyabiashara Waislamu na Dhimmi wataruhusiwa kwa hiyo kuuza nje vyakula na bidhaa, isipokuwa pale jamii inapozihitaji kwa sababu ya uhaba wake, na katika hali hiyo usafirishaji wake hautaruhusiwa.

Therefore, no person, Muslim or Dhimmi alike, would be allowed to export such commodities from the Islamic State where the exporting of such commodities would assist the belligerent disbelievers in their war against the Muslims. However, if it does not assist them against the Muslims, exporting to them would be allowed. As for the export of other commodities such as clothing and foodstuffs or any such commodity, this is permitted because the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) ordered Thamama to supply the people of Makkah with provisions while they were belligerent enemies to him, and because assisting the enemies in their war effort did not apply in such areas. Also, because Muslim businessmen used to travel to the belligerent countries to trade with them in the times of the Sahaba, in their presence and with their full knowledge. The Sahaba did not object nor did they condemn such actions, despite the fact that they would not have been expected to keep silent over such an action had it been unlawful. Therefore, their silence over this, with their full knowledge of it, could only be considered as a silent consensus. The Muslim and the Dhimmi traders would therefore be allowed to export foodstuffs and goods, unless these are needed by the community due to their shortage, in which case their export would not be allowed.

Kuhusu wafanyabiashara walio chini ya mkataba (na Dola), watashughulikiwa kulingana na vifungu vya biashara ya nje vya mkataba ambao Dola imetia saini nao, iwe ni uagizaji au usafirishaji wa bidhaa nje. Hata hivyo, hawataruhusiwa kununua silaha zozote au vifaa vyovyote vya kijeshi ambavyo vinaweza kutumika katika juhudi za vita. Iwapo wangenunua bidhaa kama hizo, wangezuiwa kuzisafirisha nje ya nchi, kwa kuwa hilo lingewasaidia, na ingawa ni wafanyabiashara walio chini ya mkataba, hilo halibadilishi ukweli kwamba siku moja wanaweza kuwa maadui wanaopigana vita. Bidhaa nyingine yoyote, ambayo haichukuliwi kuwa msaada katika juhudi zao za vita, inaruhusiwa kusafirishwa nje. Zaidi ya hayo, ikiwa ni kwa maslahi ya Waislamu kuwapa silaha fulani, zile zinazochukuliwa kuwa hazina ufanisi na ambazo hazifikii kiwango cha msaada wa kijeshi, pia zitaruhusiwa kusafirishwa nje. Hii ni kwa sababu sababu ya Shari'ah (Illah) ya kukataza uuzaji wa silaha au vifaa vyovyote vya kijeshi, vinavyotumika kama msaada wa vita, ni kuzuia kuwapa msaada na usaidizi adui. Kwa hiyo, sababu hiyo ikitoweka, hukumu hiyo haitatumika.

As for the traders under covenant (with the State), they would be treated in accordance with the foreign trade clauses of the treaty which the State has signed with them, whether in imports or exports. However, they would not be allowed to purchase any weapons or any other military hardware that may be used in the war effort. If they bought such commodities, they would be prevented from exporting them abroad, for this would assist them, and although they are traders under covenant, this would not alter the fact that they could one day become belligerent enemies. Any other commodity, which is not deemed an aid in their war effort, is allowed to be exported. Furthermore, if it were in the Muslims’ interest to supply them with certain weapons, those considered noneffective and which do not reach the level of military assistance, they would also be allowed to be exported. This is because the Shari’ah reason (Illah) for prohibiting the sale of weapons or any other military hardware, used as war aid, is to prevent the supply and help of the enemy. Therefore, if the reason vanishes, the rule would not apply.

Mpiganaji mwenye uadui hawezi kuingia katika nyumba ya Kiislamu isipokuwa amepewa ulinzi, yaani kibali maalum cha kuingia. Kumpa ulinzi maana yake ni kumpa ruhusa ya kuingia. Akiingia bila ulinzi, jambo lake lazima lichunguzwe. Ikiwa ameingia na bidhaa za kuuza katika ardhi ya Kiislamu, na desturi ya dola ikawa inaruhusu wafanyabiashara kuingia bila ulinzi, hawatadhuriwa, lakini bidhaa zao zitatozwa vizuizi na ushuru uleule uliowekwa kwa bidhaa zote za kigeni, na hizo zitategemea kile wanachowawekea wafanyabiashara wetu; kwa maneno mengine, watatendewa kama wanavyowatendea wafanyabiashara wetu. Wale wanaoingia wataruhusiwa kufanya biashara kulingana na desturi zilizopo, kama ilivyo kwa mfano kwa wale wanaoishi karibu na mipaka ya dola. Wafanyabiashara hawa wataruhusiwa kuingia bila kibali cha kuingia, yaani bila ulinzi. Hata hivyo, ikiwa hakukuwa na desturi ya awali inayoruhusu kuingia kama wafanyabiashara, au desturi hiyo ilikuwepo lakini mtu aliingia bila nia ya kufanya biashara, atatendewa kama mpiganaji mwenye uadui asiyefanya biashara, na damu yake na mali yake havitalindwa ndani ya eneo la dola. Akidai kwamba amekuja akitafuta ulinzi, hilo halitakubaliwa kwake. Hii ni kwa sababu kumpa mpiganaji ulinzi ndiyo sharti la yeye kustahili kulindwa damu yake na mali yake katika ardhi yetu, hivyo asipopewa ulinzi, dola haitawajibika kwa usalama wake. Ulinzi utatolewa kulingana na desturi iliyopo inayohusu na kwa wafanyabiashara pekee, mradi tu wanabeba bidhaa wanazokusudia kufanyia biashara. Kumpa mpiganaji ulinzi pia kunamaanisha kulinda mali yake. Ikiwa aliamua kuishi katika Dola ya Kiislamu na akapewa haki ya makazi, kisha akaamua kuondoka kwenda nchi inayopigana nayo, na kuacha mali yake aliyomwachia Muslim au Dhimmi amsimamie, au akampa mtu mmoja wao kwa mkopo, basi katika hali hii inapaswa kuchunguzwa sababu za kuondoka kwake. Ikiwa aliondoka kwa sababu za kibinafsi, au kama mfanyabiashara, mjumbe, mtalii, au kwa jambo la dharura, kisha akarejea katika ardhi ya Kiislamu, basi ulinzi aliopewa yeye binafsi na mali yake utaendelea kuwa na nguvu. Hii ni kwa sababu, ikiwa aliondoka kwenda nchi inayopigana nayo lakini akiwa na nia ya kuendelea kuishi kama mkazi wa Dola ya Kiislamu, atashughulikiwa kama Dhimmi anayeondoka kwenda nchi inayopigana nayo, hivyo kanuni hiyo hiyo itatumika kwa wote wawili. Kuondoka kwake kwenda nchi inayopigana nayo hakutabatilisha ulinzi wake mradi nia yake ni kuishi katika ardhi ya Kiislamu. Hata hivyo, ikiwa alirejea nchi inayopigana nayo kama mkazi, ulinzi wake binafsi utabatilika, na akitaka kurejea katika ardhi ya Kiislamu, atahitaji kuomba ulinzi upya. Kuhusu ulinzi wa mali yake, jambo hili linapaswa kuchunguzwa. Ikiwa aliiacha katika ardhi ya Kiislamu, kwa kuiweka chini ya uangalizi wa Muslim au Dhimmi, basi mali yake itaendelea kulindwa. Hii ni kwa sababu, mara tu alipofika katika ardhi ya Kiislamu na kupewa ulinzi, ulinzi huo ulihusu yeye binafsi na mali yake pia. Ikiwa mali yake iliachwa na yeye akarejea peke yake nchi inayopigana nayo, ulinzi aliopewa utabatilika mara atakapofika nchi hiyo, lakini ulinzi wa mali yake utabaki halali kwa kile alichokiacha katika ardhi ya Kiislamu, kwa sababu kitu kinachobatilisha ulinzi kinahusu mtu wake tu. Hivyo, ikiwa atakufa, mali yake itahamishiwa kwa warithi wake, kwa sababu ulinzi ni wajibu unaohusiana na mali. Kwa hiyo, ikiwa mali hii ilihamishiwa kwa warithi wake, basi haki ya kulindwa pia inapaswa kupewa warithi wake. Lakini ikiwa angeichukua mali yake pamoja naye, angepoteza ulinzi uliotolewa kwake mwenyewe na kwa mali yake.

A warring belligerent could not enter the Islamic household unless He is given protection i.e. a special entry visa. Giving Him protection means a permission to enter. If He entered without protection it has to be examined. If He entered with commodities to sell in the Islamic land, and the State’s common practice happened to allow traders to enter without protection, they would not be harmed, but their commodities would be subjected to the same restrictions and levies imposed on all foreign commodities, these would be based on what they impose on our traders; in other words, they would be treated the same way they treat our traders. Those who enter would be allowed to trade according to the common practices, as is the case for instance with those who live near the State’s frontiers. These traders would be allowed to enter without an entry visa i.e. without protection. However, if there were no prior common practice allowing them to enter as traders, or such common practice were in force but a person happened to enter with no intention to trade, He would be treated like the non-trading warring belligerent, and his blood and his wealth would not be protected within the State’s territories. If He claimed to have come seeking protection, this would not be accepted of him. This is because giving protection to the belligerent is a condition for Him to deserve the safeguarding of his blood and wealth in our land, so if He were not given protection, the State would not be responsible for his safety. Protection would be given based on the common practice in force concerning and exclusively for the traders, provided they were carrying goods they intended for trade. Giving the belligerent protection would also entail protecting his wealth. If He decided to settle in the Islamic State and were given the right of abode, then He decided to leave to the belligerent country, leaving his wealth behind for a Muslim or for a Dhimmi to look after, or lending it to either of them, it would in this case have to be examined as to the reasons why He left. If He left for personal reasons, or as a trader, an envoy, a tourist or for a pressing matter, and returned to the Islamic land, then the protection He had been given to his person and his wealth would remain in force. This is because if He left to the belligerent country, but with the intention to remain as a resident of the Islamic State, He would be treated like the Dhimmi who leaves to the belligerent country, therefore the same rule would apply to both. His leave to the belligerent country would not nullify his protection as long as his intention is to reside in the Islamic land. However, if He returned to the belligerent country as a resident, his protection for himself would be nullified, and if He wished to return to the Islamic land, He would require a new application for protection. As for the protection given to his wealth, this has to be examined. If He had left it behind in the Islamic land, by leaving it in the care of a Muslim or a Dhimmi, then his wealth would remain protected. This is because once He had reached the Islamic land and was given protection, this protection would cover both his person and his wealth. If his wealth was left behind and He returned by himself to the belligerent country, the protection given to Him would be nullified once He reached the belligerent country, but the protection given to his wealth would remain valid for that which He had left in the Islamic land, due to the fact that the nullifying factor would be restricted to his person only. So if He died, his wealth would be transferred to his inheritors; because the protection is a binding duty related to the wealth. Therefore, if this wealth was transferred to his heirs, so too should the right to protection be given to his heirs. However, if He took his wealth with him, He would lose the protection given to both himself and to his wealth.

Kwa hiyo, bidhaa za biashara za wapiganaji (maadui walio vitani) haziruhusiwi kuingia katika ardhi yetu bila ulinzi kutolewa kwa mmiliki, na ulinzi wake unaenea hadi kwenye ulinzi wa biashara yake. Ikiwa mpiganaji alitaka kuleta bidhaa zake za biashara bila yeye mwenyewe kuingia, ulinzi kwa bidhaa hizo unaweza kutolewa au usitolewe, kwa sababu katika hali hii ulinzi unaoweza kutolewa kwa bidhaa unaweza kutenganishwa na ulinzi uliotolewa kwa nafsi yake. Kwani ikiwa mpiganaji mwenyewe ameingia katika ardhi yetu, na akapewa ulinzi kwa nafsi yake, ulinzi huu utaenea moja kwa moja hadi kwenye bidhaa zake alizoleta pamoja naye, lakini si kwenye mali ambayo hakuileta pamoja naye katika ardhi ya Kiislamu. Ikiwa aliondoka katika ardhi ya Kiislamu na kuiacha bidhaa zake nyuma katika ardhi hiyo, ulinzi uliotolewa kwa bidhaa zake utaendelea kutumika ndani ya ardhi ya Kiislamu, na ulinzi aliopewa binafsi utakoma. Kwa hiyo, Khalifah angeruhusiwa kutoa ulinzi kwa bidhaa za biashara za mpiganaji, yaani kwa bidhaa zake, ikiwa mali hii ingefika katika nyumba ya Kiislamu bila mmiliki wake. Ikiwa ulinzi kwa mali yake, yaani bidhaa za biashara, ulitolewa, angeruhusiwa kusafirisha biashara hii kupitia wakala, mfanyakazi au vinginevyo. Hii inaonyesha kwamba ili mali ya mpiganaji iingie katika ardhi ya Kiislamu, inahitaji ulinzi, kama vile kuingia kwa mpiganaji mwenyewe. Kwa hiyo, biashara ya nje inahitaji ulinzi ili iingie katika ardhi ya Kiislamu, yaani inahitaji kibali kutoka Dola. Kibali kikitolewa, basi Dola itapaswa kulinda mali hii kama mali nyingine yoyote ya raia wake. Ikiwa iliingia bila ulinzi, yaani bila kibali, itakuwa mali isiyo na kinga ambayo Dola inaweza kuikamata. Hata hivyo, hili litatokea tu ikiwa bidhaa hizo ni mali ya wafanyabiashara wapiganaji. Kwa hivyo, ikiwa bidhaa hizi zimenunuliwa na mfanyabiashara ambaye ni raia wa Dola ya Kiislamu, awe Muislamu au Dhimmi, na akataka kuziingiza bidhaa hizo katika Dola ya Kiislamu, hatahitaji kibali katika hali hii. Hili ni kwa sharti kwamba bidhaa hizo ziwe mali yake, na kwamba uhamisho wa umiliki umekamilika katika mambo yake yote. Kwani ikiwa uhamisho wa umiliki haujakamilika bado, kwa sababu mkataba wa mauzo haujakamilika, bali uko katika mchakato tu, kama ilivyo katika shughuli nyingi za kibiashara za sasa, ambapo kwa mfano mnunuzi hafungamani na mauzo hadi apokee hati za usafirishaji, au pale bidhaa bado hazijapokelewa ingawa tayari zimenunuliwa, bidhaa hizi katika hali hii zitachukuliwa kuwa bidhaa za biashara za mpiganaji wa kivita, na kuingia kwake katika ardhi ya Kiislamu kutahitaji ulinzi, yaani kibali. Ikiwa upokeaji wa bidhaa unaanza kutumika mara tu zinapotoka kiwandani au ghalani, au mara zinaposafirishwa, basi bidhaa hizo zitachukuliwa kuwa mali ya biashara ya Muislamu au Dhimmi. Lakini ikiwa makabidhiano hayatakamilika hadi bidhaa zifike mahali zinapokusudiwa, katika hali hii zitachukuliwa kuwa mali ya mpiganaji wa kivita.

Therefore, the trading commodities of the belligerent should not enter our land without a protection given to the owner, and his protection extends to the protection of his trade. If the belligerent wanted to bring his trading commodities in without however entering himself, a protection to his trading commodities may or may not be given, because in this case the protection which may be given to the commodities could be separated from the protection given to his person. For if the belligerent person entered our land, and He were given protection for himself, this protection would automatically be extended to his commodities which He brings with him, but not to the wealth He didn’t bring with Him to the Islamic land. If He departed the Islamic land and left his commodities behind in the Islamic land, the protection given to his commodities would remain in force within the Islamic land, and the protection He had been given to himself would be terminated. Therefore, it would be permitted for the Khalifah to give protection to the trading commodities of the belligerent i.e. to his commodities, if this wealth were to reach the Islamic household without its owner. If protection to his wealth i.e. trading commodities was granted, He would be allowed to transport this trade with an agent, an employee or otherwise. This indicates that for the wealth of the belligerent to enter the Islamic land, it would require protection, just like the entry of the belligerent person. Therefore, foreign trade requires protection for it to enter the Islamic land i.e. it requires a permit from the State. If a permit were given, then the State would have to protect this wealth just like any other wealth belonging to her citizens. If it entered without protection i.e. without a permit, it would be a violable property which the State could seize. However, this would only occur if the commodities were the property of the belligerent traders.Whereas, if these commodities were purchased by a trader who happened to be a citizen of the Islamic State, whether Muslim or Dhimmi, and He wanted to import the goods to the Islamic State, He would not in this case require a permit. This would be on condition that the commodities happened to be his property, and that the transfer of ownership had been completed in all its aspects. For if the transfer of ownership were not yet completed, because the sale deal was not completed, but just happened to be in process, as is the case in most business deals at present, where for instance the buyer would not be committed to the sale until He receives the shipping documents, or where the goods are yet to be received although they had already been bought, these goods would in this case be considered the trading commodities of a belligerent, and their entry to the Islamic land would require protection i.e. a permit. If the receipt of goods took effect once they have left the factory or the warehouse, or once they have been shipped, then the goods would be considered as being the trading property of the Muslim or the Dhimmi. However, if the handover did not take effect until the goods reached their destination, in this case they would be considered as the property of a belligerent.

Hii ndiyo mwisho wa kile kinachohusu mienendo ya wafanyabiashara na bidhaa za kibiashara zinazoingia na kutoka katika ardhi ya Kiislamu. Kuhusu ushuru unaotozwa kwa bidhaa hizi, hukumu ya Shari'ah hutofautiana kulingana na wafanyabiashara wenyewe, wala si kulingana na aina za bidhaa za kibiashara. Hii ni kwa sababu Uislamu hauzioni bidhaa za kibiashara kuwa mali tu, wala hauzioni kwa kuhusiana na asili yake, bali kwa kuwa bidhaa hizo zinamilikiwa na watu binafsi. Kwa hiyo, ushuru unaowekwa kwenye bidhaa za kibiashara utategemea wafanyabiashara wenyewe, bila kujali asili ya bidhaa na bila kujali aina yake. Hivyo basi, iwapo mfanyabiashara angekuwa raia wa Dola ya Kiislamu, awe Mwislamu au Dhimmi, hakuna ushuru wa 'Ushr wa forodha ungewekwa katika biashara yake kabisa. Hii ni kwa sababu Ad-Darimi, Ahmad na Abu 'Ubayd wameripoti kwa mapokezi ya 'Uqbah bin 'Amir kwamba alimsikia Mtume wa Allah (ﷺ) akisema: "Mwenye kutoza maks (ushuru wa forodha) hataingia peponi." Abu Muhammad alisema: "Anamaanisha ushuru wa 'Ushr, na yule anayekusanya zaka kwa bidhaa zinazoagizwa kutoka nje." Muslim bin Musbih ameripoti kwamba siku moja alimwuliza Ibn 'Umar: "Je, ulijua kwamba 'Umar alichukua zaka kutoka kwa Waislamu?" Akasema: "Hapana, sikujua." Ibrahim bin Muhajir ameripoti: "Nilimsikia Ziyad bin Hadeer akisema: 'Mimi ndiye wa kwanza kukusanya zaka katika Uislamu'." Nikamuuliza: "Ulikuwa unakusanya kutoka kwa nani?" Akajibu: "Hatukuwahi kutoza zaka kwa Mwislamu wala kwa mwenye mkataba (Dhimmi); tulikusanya zaka kutoka kwa Wakristo wa Bani Taghlib." 'Abdurrahman bin Ma'qal ameripoti: "Nilimuuliza Ziyad bin Hadeer: Ulikuwa unatoza kutoka kwa nani? Akajibu: 'Hatukuwahi kutoza Mwislamu wala mwenye mkataba.' Nikasema: 'Basi ulitoza kutoka kwa nani?' Akajibu: 'Wafanyabiashara maadui waliokuwa wanatozwa, kwani walikuwa wakitutoza tulipokwenda kwao kufanya biashara.'" Ya’aqub Ibn ‘Abdurrahman Al-Qarri alisimulia kwa mamlaka ya baba yake aliyesema: ‘Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz alimwandikia ‘Uday Ibn Arta’ah ifuatayo: “Waondolee watu mzigo wa Fidya (fidia), mzigo wa kulazimika kutoa chakula kama kafara, na pia waondolee mzigo wa Maks yaani ushuru wa forodha. Kwa hakika, si ushuru wa forodha bali ni kuzuia haki ya watu, ambayo Allah (swt) anasema:

This is as far as the movements of traders and trading commodities in and out of the Islamic land are concerned. As for the levies imposed on these commodities, the Shari’ah rule varies according to the traders, and not according to the types of trading commodities. Because Islam does not view the trading commodities as being merely a property, nor does it view them in relation to their origin, but rather to the fact that the trading commodities are owned by individuals. Therefore, levies imposed on the trading commodities would depend on the traders themselves, regardless of the origin of goods and regardless of their type. Therefore, if the trader were a citizen of the Islamic State, Muslim or Dhimmi alike, no ’Ushr customs would be imposed on his business whatsoever. This is because Ad-Darimi, Ahmed and Abu ‘Ubayd reported on the authority of ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir that He heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say: “He who imposes maks (custom duty) would not enter paradise.” Abu Mohammed said: “He (pbuh) means the ‘Ushr customs, and the one who collects the tithe on imported commodities”. Muslim bin Musbih reported that He once asked Ibn ‘Umar: “Did you know that Umar took from the Muslims the tithe?” He said: “No, I did not”. Ibrahim Ibn Muhajir reported: “I heard Ziyad Ibn Hadeer say: ‘I was the first to collect the tithe in Islam’. I asked: “Whom did you use to levy the tithe?” He replied: ‘We never used to levy the tithe on a Muslim or a covenantor (Dhimmi); we collected the tithe from the Christians of Bani Taghlib.’ ‘Abdurrahman Ibn Ma’qal reported: “I asked Ziyad Ibn Hadeer: Whom did you use to levy? He replied: ‘We never used to levy a Muslim or a covenantor.’ So I said: “then whom did you levy?” He replied: ‘The belligerent traders, for they used to levy us when we went to them on business.’ Ya’aqub Ibn ‘Abdurrahman Al-Qarri reported on the authority of his father who said: ‘Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz wrote to ‘Uday Ibn Arta’ah the following: “Remove from people the burden of Fidya (redemption), the burden of having to provide food as atonement, and also remove the burden of Maks i.e. customs. Indeed, it is not customs duty but the withholding of people’s due, in which Allah (swt) says:

...yeye anayekuletea sadaka (Sadaqah), ipokee kutoka kwake; na yule asiyefanya hivyo, Mwenyezi Mungu atamhesabu kikamilifu. Kariz Ibn Sulayman alisema: "Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz alimwandikia 'Abdullah Ibn 'Awf Al-Qarri yafuatayo: 'Panda hadi nyumba iliyoko Refah iitwayo nyumba ya Maks, ibomoe, kisha ichukuliwe mpaka baharini na kutupwa humo, bila kuacha athari yake yoyote.'" Abu 'Ubayd aliripoti simulizi hizi tano katika kitabu cha Al-Amwal. Abu Ubayd alisema: "Maana ya simulizi hizi ambazo tumetaja ushuru wa ushr, chuki dhidi ya ushuru wa forodha na onyo kali dhidi yake, ina mizizi yake katika siku za ujinga (Jahiliyya), wakati ilikuwa ni desturi ya wafalme wa Kiarabu na wasio Waarabu kuwatoza wafanyabiashara 'sehemu ya kumi' ya mali zao endapo walipita katika ardhi zao. Hili linadhihirishwa katika barua zilizotumwa na Mjumbe wa Mwenyezi Mungu ﷺ kwenda majimbo mengine kama Thaqeef, Bahrain, Doomat al-Jandal na wengineo miongoni mwa waliosilimu, ambamo aliandika: 'Wasibanwe wala wasitozwe.' Kwa hiyo, tulipata kutokana na hili kwamba ilikuwa desturi ya siku za ujinga (kukiwa na hadithi nyingi kuhusu hilo zilizotufikia) hadi Mwenyezi Mungu (SWT) alipoondoa desturi hii alipomtuma Mjumbe wake ﷺ na Uislamu," yaani, ilikuwa ni desturi ya siku za ujinga kutoza zaka, yaani ushuru wa forodha (Mukus), basi Mwenyezi Mungu (SWT) akaiondoa hii kwa Uislamu.

...he who brings to you charity (Sadaqah), accept it from him; and He who does not, Allah would then adequately account him. Kariz Ibn Sulayman said: “Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz wrote to ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Awf Al- Qarri the following: “Ride to the house which is in Refah called the house of Maks, demolish it, then take it to the sea and throw it in, leaving no trace of it.” Abu ‘Ubayd reported these five narrations in the book of Al- Amwal. Abu Ubayd said: “The meaning of these reports in which we mentioned the ushr, the dislike of customs duty and the harsh warning against it, has its roots in the days of ignorance (Jahiliyya), when it was the practice of Arab and non-Arab kings to impose upon the traders ‘a tithe’ of their properties if they happened to pass by their lands. This is illustrated in the letters dispatched by the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) to other provinces such as Thaqeef, Bahrain, Doomat al-Jandal and others among those who embraced Islam, in which He (pbuh) wrote: “That they should not be pressed nor should they be levied on.” Therefore, we gathered from this that it was a customary practice of the days of ignorance (with many tales about it reaching us) until Allah (swt) abolished this practice when He (swt) sent His Messenger (pbuh) with Islam” i.e. it was the customary practice of the days of ignorance to impose the tithes i.e. customs duties (Mukus), so Allah (swt) abolished this by Islam.

Hadithi hii iliyopokewa ya Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ, pamoja na riwaya kutoka kwa ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab na ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul-‘Aziz, zinaonyesha kwamba hakuna ushuru wa forodha unaopaswa kuchukuliwa kutoka kwa Mwislamu au Dhimmi juu ya bidhaa zao za biashara, iwe ni bidhaa zinazoingizwa katika ardhi ya Kiislamu au bidhaa zinazopelekwa nje kwa nyumba ya maadui. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab alifuata hili na hakuwahi kuchukua ushuru wa forodha kutoka kwa wafanyabiashara Waislamu na Dhimmi, na Maswahaba waliliidhinisha, kwa hiyo linaonyesha makubaliano ya kimya, yaani ni dalili ya Shari‘ah. Ushuru wa forodha ni fedha inayochukuliwa juu ya bidhaa za biashara zinazopita mipaka ya Dola, ama zinazoingia nchini au zinazotoka nje ya nchi. Nyumba iliyojengwa mipakani kwa kusudi hili inaitwa Bait ul-Maks. Ushuru wa forodha juu ya bidhaa ni either fedha zilizokuwa zikichukuliwa zama za ujahiliya kutoka kwa wauzaji sokoni, au vitu maalum vinavyochukuliwa na maafisa wa Dola wakati wa kuuzwa kwa bidhaa, au wakati zinapoingia katika miji. Wingi wa ushuru wa forodha ni Mukus. Inasemwa: Makasa, yaani alikusanya fedha ya ushuru wa forodha. Kwa hiyo, neno hili linatumika hasa kwa kodi inayochukuliwa juu ya biashara. Katazo la kuchukua ushuru wa forodha ni la jumla, likiwahusu Waislamu na Dhimmi.

This reported Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), as well as the reports from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab and ‘Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, indicate that no customs duty should be taken from the Muslim or the Dhimmi on their trading commodities, be they imports into the Islamic land or exports to the belligerent household. Umar ibn al-Khattab adhered to this and never took customs duty from the Muslim and Dhimmi traders, and the Sahabah approved of this, therefore it indicates silent consensus i.e. a Shari’ah evidence. The customs duty is the money taken on the trading commodities which pass through the State’s frontiers either in or out of the country. The house erected on the frontiers for this purpose is called Bait ul-Maks. The customs duty on goods is either money that was taken in the days of ignorance from the salesmen in the markets, or specific items taken by the State’s officials upon the sale of commodities, or upon their entry into the cities. The plural of customs duty is Mukus. It is said: Makasa i.e. He collected the money of customs duty. Therefore, it is specifically applied to the levy taken on trade. The prohibition of taking the customs duty is general, comprising the Muslim and the Dhimmi.

Kuhusu Hadith iliyopokelewa na Abu ‘Ubayd katika Al-Amwal, kwa mnyororo wa wapokezi kutoka kwa Harb Al-Thaqafi, kutoka kwa babu yake wa upande wa mama, kwamba Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alisema: “Asitozwe Waislamu ushuru wa ‘ushr, lakini watozwe Mayahudi na Wakristo.” Hadith hii imepokelewa kwa minyororo mitatu, miwili kati yake ikiwa na wapokezi wasiojulikana, na simulizi ya Harb Ibn ‘Ubaydullah Al-Thaqafi aliyeipokea kutoka kwa babu yake wa upande wa mama. Wataalamu wa Hadith hawakutoa maoni juu yake wala hawakusema lolote kuhusu hilo. Zaidi ya hayo, hakuna mmoja wa wanazuoni wa ijtihadi aliyeikubali, wala hakuna taarifa yoyote iliyotufikia kwamba mtu yeyote ameitumia kama dalili, awe miongoni mwa wale wanaosema kwamba hakuna chochote kinachopaswa kutozwa kwenye biashara, au miongoni mwa wale wanaosema kwamba robo ya ushuru itozwe kwenye biashara ya Muislamu kama Zakah, na nusu ya ushuru itozwe kwa Dhimmi kama wajibu wa kisiasa. Lau hadith hii ingethibitishwa kuwa sahihi, bila shaka ingekubaliwa na kutumiwa kama dalili. Kwa hiyo, hadith hii haijahukumiwa kuwa sahihi na mtu yeyote, na hivyo haipaswi kutumiwa.

As for the Hadith reported by Abu ‘Ubayd in Al-Amwal, on the authority of Harb Al-Thaqafi on that of his maternal grand-father that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “No tithe (ushr) should be imposed upon the Muslims, but they should be imposed upon the Jews and the Christians.” This Hadith has been reported through three chains, two of which narration was made from an unknown, and the narration of Harb Ibn ‘Ubaydullah Al-Thaqafi, which He reported on the authority of his maternal grandfather, on which the Hadith narrators did not comment on and remained silent about. Besides, none of the scholars (Mujtahideen) adopted it, and no reports whatsoever reached us stating that someone has used it as evidence, whether from among those who say that nothing should be taken on the trade, or from those who say that a quarter of the tithe should be imposed upon the Muslim’s trade as Zakat and half of the tithe on the Dhimmi as a political responsibility. If the report had been confirmed as being sound, it would have surely been adopted and used as evidence. So the Hadith has not been judged to be sound by anyone, and thus must not be used.

Kuhusu lililopokelewa kwamba ‘Umar alikuwa akichukua robo ya ‘Ushr (zaka ya kumi) kutoka kwa Waislamu, na nusu ya ‘Ushr kutoka kwa Dhimmi, na ‘Ushr kamili kutoka kwa wapiganaji wa kigeni, hili linapaswa kuhusishwa na kanuni inayohusu miamala ya kununua na kuuza inayofanywa na Muislamu, Dhimmi na mpiganaji. Kwa Muislamu na Dhimmi, Hadithi zimeeleza wazi katazo la kuwawekea chochote, zilipotaja kwa ujumla katazo la Maks, yaani kuchukua ‘Ushr kwenye biashara. Basi, kile ‘Umar alichokichukua kutoka kwa Muislamu kingekuwa Zakat, na kile alichokichukua kutoka kwa mpiganaji kingekuwa kwa msingi wa kulipizana, kwani wao walikuwa wakiwatoza wafanyabiashara wetu ‘Ushr, na kile alichokichukua kutoka kwa Dhimmi kingekuwa kulingana na kile alichokubaliana nao kama makubaliano ya amani. Kile alichokichukua kutoka kwa Dhimmi basi kingekuwa ndani ya mipaka ya mkataba wa amani, si Maks, kwa sababu Allah (swt) amewawekea makafiri Jizya pekee. Hivyo, ikiwa nusu ya ‘Ushr ingechukuliwa kutoka kwao, ndani ya masharti ya mkataba wa amani, pamoja na Jizya, basi ingekuwa mkataba sahihi na halali. Vinginevyo, itakuwa haramu kuchukua chochote kutoka mali zao mara tu mkataba wa Dhimma utakapokuwa umehitimishwa kwa usahihi kwa Jizya na utiifu, mradi wasiukiuke mkataba. Abu ‘Ubayd alisema: “Lililonishinda kuelewa ni kwamba yeye (yaani ‘Umar) alichukua kutoka kwa watu wa Dhimma (nusu ya zaka ya kumi), kwa hiyo nilikuwa nasema: Wao si Waislamu hata tuchukue kutoka kwao Sadaqah (Zakat), wala si wapiganaji hata tuwatendee kwa kulipiza. Sikuelewa hadi nilipojifunza moja ya taarifa zake, nikakuta kwamba alifanya nao mkataba wa amani juu ya msingi huu (yaani kulipa nusu ya ‘Ushr, pamoja na Jizya na Kharaj ya ardhi mbili).” Kwa upande wa wafanyabiashara Waislamu na Dhimmi, hili ndilo lililo. Kwa mfanyabiashara aliye chini ya mkataba, atatozwa kulingana na maandishi ya mkataba uliofikiwa kati yao na sisi. Ikiwa mkataba ulisema ahamishwe kutoka kwenye kodi, basi atasamehewa, na ikiwa ulisema kiasi fulani lazima kitozwe, basi kitakusanywa kutoka kwake, hivyo kutekeleza juu yake kile ambacho mkataba ulikiwekea sharti.

As for what has been reported that ‘Umar used to take a quarter of the ‘Ushr (tithe) from the Muslims and, the from Dhimmies half of the ‘Ushr (tithe) and from the belligerent the ‘Ushr (tithe), this should be linked to the rule concerning purchase and sale transactions undertaken by the Muslim, the Dhimmi and the belligerent. As for the Muslim and the Dhimmi, the Ahadith have been explicit about the prohibition of imposing anything upon them when they stated in general terms, the prohibition of Maks, which is the taking of ‘Ushr on trade. Therefore, what ‘Umar had taken from the Muslim would have been Zakat, and what He had taken from the belligerent would have been based on reciprocity, for they used to impose the ‘Ushr (tithe) on our traders, and what He had taken from the Dhimmi would have been in accordance to what He had agreed with them as a peace settlement. What He had therefore taken from the Dhimmies would have been within the remit of the peace treaty, and not a Maks, because Allah (swt) has only imposed the Jizya on the disbelievers. Therefore, if half of the ‘Ushr (tithe) were taken from them, within the terms of the peace treaty, together with the Jizya, it would then be a correct and sound treaty. Otherwise, it would be unlawful to take anything from their wealth once the treaty of the Dhimma has been soundly concluded with the Jizya and the submission, and as long as they did not violate the treaty. Abu ‘Ubayd said: “What I found difficult to perceive was his taking (meaning ‘Umar) from the people of the Dhimma (halftithe), so I kept saying: They are not Muslims in order to take from them Sadaqah (Zakat), nor are they belligerent in order for us to treat them with reciprocation. So I did not realise what it was until I studied one of his reports, so I found that He had struck a peace deal with them on this basis (i.e. to pay half an ‘Ushr (tithe), in addition to the Jizya (poll tax) and the Kharaj (land tax) of the two lands.” This is as far as the Muslim and the Dhimmi traders are concerned. As for the trader under treaty, He would be levied according to the text of the treaty concluded between them and us. If the treaty had stated that He should be exempted, He would then be exempted, and if it stated that a certain sum must be imposed, it would then be collected from him, thus implementing upon Him what the treaty had stipulated.

Kuhusu mfanyabiashara wa kigeni anayehusika na vita, hukumu ya Shari'ah ni kumtoza kodi sawa na ile ambayo nchi yake inawatoza wafanyabiashara wa Dola. Hivyo, ikiwa mfanyabiashara wa kigeni anayehusika na vita ataingia katika ardhi ya Dola akiwa na ulinzi, Dola itamtoza kile kinachowatozwa wafanyabiashara wa Dola ya Kiislamu, iwe ni Waislamu au Dhimmi. Abu Qudamah ametaja katika kitabu chake "Al-Mughni" kwamba Abu Majlaz Laahiq Ibn Hameed alisema: "Walimwambia 'Umar: 'Tuchukue kiasi gani kutoka kwa watu wanaohusika na vita iwapo wataingia katika ardhi yetu?' Akauliza: 'Wao wanachukua kiasi gani kutoka kwenu?' Wakasema: 'Ushuru wa 'Ushr (zaka ya kumi).' Akasema: 'Basi chukueni vivyo hivyo kutoka kwao.'" Abu 'Ubayd ameripoti katika "Al-Amwal" kwamba Ziyad Ibn Hadeer alisema: "Hatukuwahi kutoza 'Ushr (zaka ya kumi) kwa Muislamu wala kwa aliye chini ya mkataba. Niliuliza: 'Basi ni kwa nani mlikuwa mkitoza 'Ushr?' Akasema: 'Kwa wafanyabiashara kutoka kwa watu wanaohusika na vita, kama vile nao walivyokuwa wakitutoza tulipokwenda kwao kufanya biashara.' 'Umar ibn al-Khattab alifanya hivyo mbele ya Maswahaba, na hakuna Sahaba aliyemkemea kwa hilo"; wote walinyamaza kimya, na hivyo ilikuwa ni makubaliano ya jumla (Ijma'a). Hata hivyo, kuwatoza wafanyabiashara wanaohusika na vita kodi sawa na ile wanayowatoza wafanyabiashara wa Dola kunaruhusiwa, lakini si lazima; yaani ni hiari ya Dola, wala si wajibu kwake kutoza kodi. Itaruhusiwa kwa Dola kumsamehe mfanyabiashara wa kigeni Maks (ushuru wa forodha), au kumtoza Maks ndogo kuliko ile inayotozwa kwake. Lakini Dola haruhusiwi kumtoza Maks kubwa kuliko ile inayotozwa kwake. Hii ni kwa sababu Maks haikusudiwi kukusanya mapato, bali inategemea kanuni ya kulipiza sawa kwa sawa. Khalifah anapopitisha sera kama hiyo, atazingatia maslahi ya Waislamu. Abu 'Ubayd ameripoti katika "Al-Amwal" kwamba Salim b. “Abdullah bin Umar alipokea kutoka kwa baba yake aliyesema: “‘Umar alikuwa akiwatoza nusu ya ushuru wa zaka kwa mafuta au ngano zilizoletwa na wafanyabiashara wa Wanabati, ili kuwahimiza kuleta bidhaa Madinah, na alikuwa akiwatoza ushuru wa zaka kwenye nguo.” Ushuru wa zaka ndio ule ambao wakati huo walikuwa wakiwatoza wafanyabiashara wetu. Kwa hiyo, kodi ya forodha itakayochukuliwa kutoka kwa wapiganaji wa nchi nyingine itategemea kile ambacho maslahi ya Dola yanahitaji. Kodi ya forodha inaweza kwa hiyo kuwekwa au kuondolewa; inaweza pia kuwa kubwa au ndogo, mradi isizidi kile ambacho nchi hizo za wapiganaji zinawatoza wafanyabiashara wa Dola.

As for the belligerent trader, the Shari’ah rule is to impose upon Him the same levy imposed by his country upon the State’s traders. So if a belligerent trader entered the State’s land with protection, the State would impose upon Him what is imposed upon the traders of the Islamic State, whether they were Muslims or Dhimmi, for Abu Qudamah mentioned in his book “Al-Mughni” that Abu Majlaz Laahiq Ibn Hameed said: “They said to ‘Umar: ‘How much should we take from the belligerent people if they came to our land?’ He asked: ‘How much do they take from you?’ They said: ‘The ‘Ushr (tithe).’ He said: ‘So take the same from them.” ‘Abu Ubayd reported in “Al-Amwal” that Ziyad Ibn Hadeer said: “We never used to levy ‘Ushr (tithe) on a Muslim or one under treaty. I asked: ‘On whom did you use to levy ‘Ushr (tithe) on then?’ He said: ‘The traders from the belligerent people, just as they used to levy (the tithe) on us when we went to them with our trade.’ ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab did so in the presence of the Sahaba, and no Sahabi rebuked Him for this”; they all kept silent and therefore it was a general consensus (Ijma’a). However, to impose on the belligerent traders a levy equal to that they impose on the State’s traders is permitted, and not compulsory i.e. it would be at the State’s prerogative, and not an obligation upon her to impose a levy. It would be permitted for the State to exempt the belligerent of the Maks (custom duty), or to impose a lower Maks than that imposed on it. However, the State is not allowed to impose a higher Maks than that imposed upon it. This is because imposing Maks is not designed for the collection of revenue, but is based on the principle of reciprocity. When adopting such a policy, the Khalifah would consider the interests of the Muslims. Abu ‘Ubayd reported in “Al-Amwal” that Salim b. ‘Abdullah ibn Umar reported on the authority of his father who said: “ ’Umar used to impose half-tithe on oil or wheat brought in by the Nabatean traders, in order to encourage imports into Madinah, and He used to impose the tithe on textiles.” The tithe was what they used to levy on our traders at the time. Therefore, the customs duty taken from the belligerent would depend on what the interests of the State entail. The customs duty could therefore either be imposed or waived; it could also be either high or low, provided that it does not exceed what the belligerents impose upon the State’s traders.