自从商品交易由以物易物转向以货币作为交换媒介之后，个人之间的商业往来便繁荣起来并不断发展。工作在个人层面、国家层面以及国际层面都变得更加专业化。这标志着个人独自生活的时代的终结，也标志着各民族世代在各自国家之内、与其他国家和民族隔绝而居的时代的终结。因此，国内贸易与对外贸易已成为全世界生活的必需。

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.

国内贸易与对外贸易是有区别的。国内贸易指同属一个国家的个人之间所进行的贸易交易。这类交易应遵循法学家所阐明的贸易规则。它不需要国家发起，也不需要直接监督，而只需要一般性的监管，其目的在于使人们遵守伊斯兰的贸易规则，并惩处违反这些规则者，与雇佣、婚姻等其他交易并无二致。对外贸易则指各民族、各国家之间所进行的贸易交易，而非同一国家内个人之间的交易，无论这是两国之间的交易，还是分属不同国家的两个人之间的交易，其中每一方购买商品都是为了将其运回自己的国家。所有此类交易都属于规范一国与另一国之间关系的规则的组成部分。

There is a difference between domestic and foreign trade. Domestic trade represents the trade transactions which are undertaken by individuals belonging to a particular nation. This type of transaction should follow the rules of trade mentioned by the jurists. It does not require any initiation from the State, nor does it require direct supervision, but rather a general supervision aimed at enjoining the trade rules of Islam upon people and punishing those who violate these rules, just like any other transaction, such as hiring, marriage etc. Foreign trade reflects the trade transactions undertaken between peoples and nations, not between individuals of the same State, whether this was between two states or between two individuals who each belong to different states and where each is buying commodities with the aim of transferring them to his own country. All such transactions form part of the rules governing the relationship of one country with another.

因此，国家应当对某些国内商品实施出口制裁，同时允许其他商品出口，并且对所有交战方或受盟约保护的商人颁发许可。由此，国家控制贸易的各个方面以及所有外国商人的准入。至于其本国公民，只需像监管其国内贸易那样监管他们的对外贸易即可，因为规范他们行为的规则属于国内关系的规则范畴。

Therefore, the State would undertake export sanctions on certain domestic goods and allow others, and would also licence all traders whether belligerent or under covenant. So, the State controls all aspects of trade and the issue of all foreign traders. As for her citizens, it would be sufficient to supervise them in their foreign trading just like she would do in their domestic trading, for the rules governing their actions fall under those of the domestic relations.

国家之间的对外贸易过去是通过个体商人进行的。商人会前往另一个国家购买商品,再将其运回本国;或者他会把商品带到另一个国家出售,然后把所得的钱款或另一种商品带回本国。在所有这些情况下,都是由国家来组织这种贸易的各个方面并直接对其进行监管。国家会在边境设立控制中心,法学家称之为"Masalih"(马萨利哈)。哈里发应当在所有通往非穆斯林国家的道路上设立这些控制中心(Masalih)。驻守这些中心的人员会检查所有商人。因此,这些中心将直接控制进出口,即同时控制所有商人、买家和卖家。这些边境控制中心组织贸易,即直接控制商人的往来流动,以及经由国境进入或带出国家的货币。

Foreign trade between states used to be conducted through individual traders. A trader would travel to another country, buy a commodity and transfer it back to his country, or He might take a commodity to another country to sell it and bring the money or another commodity back to his country. In all such cases, it is the State who would organise the aspects of this trade and directly monitor it. She would have control centres at the frontiers, these centres are referred to by the jurists as Masalih. The Khalifah should have these control centres (Masalih) on all the routes which give access to non-Muslim countries. People manning these centres would check all the traders. The centres would therefore directly control the imports and exports i.e. control all the traders, buyers and sellers alike. These control centres at the frontiers organise trade i.e. control directly the movements of traders and the currencies being brought into the State or taken out via her frontiers.

既然伊斯兰律例被定义为与人类行为相关的立法者的言语，那么与对外贸易相关的伊斯兰律例就是针对个人而降示的；关于财富的伊斯兰律例则是就财富与其个体所有者的关系而言的。因此，贸易的律例与交易者相关，而非与财富的种类相关。据此，与对外贸易相关的律例实际上是从伊斯兰教法的角度涉及个人及其财富的律例，即安拉（SWT）对他们的裁定，以及安拉（SWT）对他们所拥有之财富的裁定。

Since the Shari’ah rules are defined as being the speech of the Lawgiver related to the actions of the humans, the Shari’ah rules related to foreign trade have been revealed with regard to individuals, and the Shari’ah rules on wealth are related to wealth as far as its individual owners are concerned. Therefore, the rules of trade are connected to the traders not to the type of wealth. Accordingly, the rules related to foreign trade are in fact rules related to individuals from a Shar’a viewpoint concerning them and their wealth i.e. concerning the rule of Allah (swt) on them and the rule of Allah (swt) on the wealth they own.

因此,伊斯兰教法有关对外贸易的规定,既不与所交易的商品相关,也不与其原产地相关,而是与商人相关,因为有关财富的规定随财富的所有者而定,因此两者都适用。所以,凡与所有者相关的规定,自动也与他所拥有的财富相关。这与资本主义制度形成对比:在资本主义制度中,对外贸易的规定针对的是财富而非所有者,因此决定性的是财富的原产地,而非商人本人。

Therefore, the Shar’a rules concerning foreign trade are not related to the traded material nor to its place of origin, but to the trader, because the rules concerning wealth follow the owner of wealth, accordingly they apply to both. Therefore, any rule which relates to the owner would automatically relate to the wealth He owns. This would be in contrast to the capitalist system, where the rules of foreign trade pertain to the wealth and not to the owner, so, it is the place of origin of the wealth that matters rather than the trader himself.

这就是资本主义观点与伊斯兰观点之间的区别。由于资本主义体系依据财富的来源地来看待财富，它便据此对其来源作出裁定。而伊斯兰则着眼于财富的所有者，即商人，而不论财富的来源如何。资本主义考察的是财富，伊斯兰考察的是个人。诚然，在判断一项交易是被允许还是被禁止时，人们所用来经营的财富会产生影响，但这与财富的性质相关，即其是有害还是有益，而非与财富的来源相关。因此，裁定与拥有该交易或生意的个人，即商人相关，而不与交易本身相关。进入或离开伊斯兰国家的商人分为三类：他们或是国家的公民，无论是穆斯林还是迪米人（dhimmi），或是有条约关系者，或是交战者（即哈尔比）。

This is the difference between the capitalist viewpoint and the Islamic viewpoint. Since the capitalist system considers the wealth according to its place of origin, it gives a verdict on the origin. Islam, considers the owner of the wealth i.e. the trader, regardless of the origin of the wealth. Capitalism considers the wealth, whereas Islam considers the individual. It is true that the wealth with which one trades would have an effect when judging whether the trade is permitted or forbidden, but this is connected to the description of the wealth, insofar as to whether it is harmful or beneficial, not regarding the origin of the wealth. Therefore, the rule is connected to the individuals who own the trade or the business i.e. the trader, and not the trade. The traders who enter or leave the Islamic State are of three types. They are either citizens of the State, whether Muslims or Dhimmies, those under treaty or belligerent (i.e. Harbi).

至于伊斯兰国的商人，他们被禁止向交战国出口任何可能协助或帮助敌人作战的商品，例如武器。换言之，他们被禁止从伊斯兰国出口任何在战争中被有效使用的战略物资，因为这等同于向敌人供应物资，协助他们对抗穆斯林。这将被视为一种对罪恶的协助，因为这是与交战方一道对抗穆斯林的合作。安拉(SWT)说：

As for the traders who are citizens of the Islamic State, they would be forbidden from exporting to the belligerent countries any commodity which may assist or aid the enemy’s war effort, such as weapons. In other words, they would be forbidden from exporting any strategic materials, which are effectively used in war, from the Islamic State, for this would mean supplying the enemies and helping them in their fight against the Muslims. This would be considered a co-operation on sin, because it would be a co-operation with the belligerent against the Muslims. Allah (swt) says:

"并且不要互相协助犯罪。" [Al-Ma’idah: 2]

“And do not cooperate in sin” [Al-Ma’idah: 2]

因此，无论穆斯林还是迪米人，都不允许从伊斯兰国出口此类商品，因为出口这些商品将帮助交战中的不信道者进行对穆斯林的战争。然而，如果这不会帮助他们对抗穆斯林，则可以向他们出口。至于服装、食品或任何此类商品等其他商品的出口，这是被允许的，因为真主的使者（愿主福安之）曾命令塞玛玛向麦加人供应食物，尽管他们是他的交战敌人；而且，在这类地区，援助敌人的战争努力并不适用。此外，在圣门弟子时代，穆斯林商人曾前往交战国与其贸易，且是在圣门弟子面前并为其所知的情况下进行的。圣门弟子并未反对，也未谴责此类行为，尽管如果此事是非法的，他们本不会对此保持沉默。因此，在他们完全知情的情况下对此保持沉默，只能被视为一种默许的共识。因此，穆斯林商人和迪米商人被允许出口食品和货物，除非社群因短缺而需要这些物品，在这种情况下则不允许出口。

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.

就与那个并未实际与伊斯兰国交战的交战国之间的贸易而言，情况到此为止。然而，如果该交战国是真正的敌对交战方，例如以色列，那么与这样的国家进行贸易在任何情况下都是绝对禁止的，无论是武器、食品还是其他任何商品，因为这将帮助敌人抵抗穆斯林，并构成与他们在罪恶和侵略中的合作，因此是被禁止的。

This is as far as the trade with the belligerent country who is not effectively at war with the Islamic State, is concerned. However, if the belligerent country were that of an actual belligerent enemy, such as Israel for instance, trade with such a country is categorically forbidden, whether in weapons, food or any other commodity, because this would help the enemy to resist against the Muslims and it would become a cooperation with them in sin and in aggression, and is thus prohibited.

就出口到伊斯兰国以外而言,情况如此。至于进口,安拉(SWT)说:

This would be as far as exports outside the Islamic State were concerned. As for the imports, Allah (swt) says:

“真主允许买卖” [Al-Baqarah: 275]

“And Allah has permitted trade” [Al-Baqarah: 275]

这节经文具有普遍性，涵盖国内贸易和对外贸易。没有其他沙里亚经文禁止穆斯林或迪米人（dhimmi）将财富输入国内。因此，这节经文仍保持其普遍性，据此，穆斯林可以将任何种类的商品输入国内，也不会因此被禁止输入任何穆斯林或任何人可以合法拥有的商品，不受任何限制。

This verse is general comprising domestic trade and foreign trade. There is no other Shari’ah text preventing the Muslim or the Dhimmi from importing wealth into the country. Therefore, the verse would remain in its generality, and accordingly it would be permitted for the Muslim to import into the country any type of commodity, and He would not be forbidden from importing any commodity which the Muslim or any person is allowed to possess, without restrictions.

至于签订了契约的商人（与国家的契约），他们将按照国家与其所签条约中关于对外贸易的条款接受对待，无论是进口还是出口。然而，他们不得购买任何武器或任何可能用于战争的其他军事装备。如果他们购买了此类商品，将被禁止将其出口到国外，因为这会对他们提供帮助；尽管他们是签约商人，这并不改变他们有朝一日可能成为交战敌人的事实。任何其他不被视为对其战争有所助益的商品，都允许出口。此外，如果向他们供应某些武器对穆斯林有利，即那些被认为无效、未达到军事援助程度的武器，也允许出口。这是因为伊斯兰教法禁止出售武器或任何其他用作战争援助的军事装备的教法理由（伊莱）在于防止向敌人供应和帮助。因此，如果该理由消失，该规定便不适用。

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.

至于交战的敌对者，他们是与伊斯兰国没有条约关系、也不是伊斯兰国公民的人，无论他们与国家之间是否发生战斗。在穆斯林看来，他们应被视为交战的敌对者。如果我们与他们之间确实存在战争状态，他们就与我们在战场上遇到的任何敌人一样对待：我们可以俘虏他们，杀死我们所制服的任何人，除非此人已获得庇护，并没收他们的财产。如果战争状态并未实际存在，那么除了那些未经庇护而进入我们领土的人之外，这些都不可侵犯——无论是此人还是其财产进入，此人都将被视为交战的敌对者，其财富也同样如此。交战的敌对商人，无论是买方还是卖方，都将依此原则对待。关于此事的伊斯兰教法规定，可概括如下：

As for the warring belligerent, they are those with whom the State has no treaty and they are not citizens of the Islamic State, regardless of whether there is combat between them and the State or not. In the view of Muslims they would be considered as warring belligerent. If the state of war between us and them effectively existed, they would be considered just like any enemy we happen to meet on the battlefield. We would take their prisoners, slay anyone we overpower unless He had been given protection, and seize their properties. If the war did not effectively exist, none of this would be violable except for the one who enters our land without protection, whether He or his property entered; He would be treated as a warring belligerent, as would his wealth. It would be on this basis that the warring belligerent traders, buyers and sellers alike, would be treated. The Shari’ah rule on this could be summarised as follows:

一名正在交战的敌对者不得进入伊斯兰之家,除非他被授予保护,即一种特别的入境许可。授予保护即是允许其进入。若他未经保护而进入,则须加以审查。若他携带货物前来伊斯兰之地出售,而国家的惯例恰好允许商人无需保护即可入境,他们不会受到伤害,但其货物将与所有外国货物受到同样的限制和税费,这些税费依据对方施加于我方商人的标准而定;换言之,他们将受到与其对待我方商人相同的对待。进入者将依照惯例获准经商,例如居住在国家边境附近的人便是如此。这些商人可以无需入境许可,即无需保护而入境。然而,若此前并无允许他们以商人身份入境的惯例,或虽有此类惯例但某人进入时并无经商之意,则他将被视同不经商的交战敌对者,其血命与财产在国家境内将不受保护。若他声称自己是来寻求保护的,此说法不予接受。这是因为,授予敌对者保护是他在我方领土内获得其血命与财产安全保障的前提条件,因此若他未被授予保护,国家便不对其安全负责。保护的授予依据现行的惯例进行,且专门针对商人,前提是他们携带有意用于交易的货物。授予敌对者保护,也就意味着保护其财产。 如果他决定在伊斯兰国定居并被授予居住权,之后又决定前往交战国,并将其财产留给一位穆斯林或一位齐米人照管,或将财产借给其中一人,那么在这种情况下,必须考察他离开的原因。如果他是出于私人原因,或作为商人、使者、游客,或因紧急事务而离开,并返回伊斯兰土地,那么给予他本人及其财产的保护仍然有效。这是因为,如果他前往交战国,但意图仍是作为伊斯兰国的居民,那么他就会被视同前往交战国的齐米人,两者适用相同的规定。只要他意图居住在伊斯兰土地上,他前往交战国的行为就不会使他的保护失效。然而,如果他以居民的身份前往交战国,他本人所获得的保护就会失效;若他之后想回到伊斯兰土地,则需要重新申请保护。至于给予其财产的保护,则需要考察。如果他将财产留在伊斯兰土地上,交由一位穆斯林或齐米人照管,那么他的财产仍受保护。这是因为,他一旦到达伊斯兰土地并获得保护,这一保护便同时涵盖他本人及其财产。如果他留下了财产,自己却返回交战国,那么他抵达交战国后,给予他本人的保护便会失效,但留在伊斯兰土地上的财产所享有的保护仍然有效,因为使保护失效的因素仅限于他本人。因此,如果他死亡,他的财产将转移给其继承人,因为保护是与财产相关的一项约束性责任。 因此，如果这些财产被转移给他的继承人，那么对其的保护权也应当转给他的继承人。然而，如果他把自己的财产带走了，他就会失去对他自身及其财产所给予的保护。

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.

因此,交战国的贸易商品不得在未经允许的情况下进入我们的领土,而物主所获得的保护延伸至其贸易商品的保护。如果交战国人士想要将其贸易商品带入而自己不进入,则可以给予或不给予该商品保护,因为在这种情况下,给予商品的保护可以与给予其本人的保护分开。若交战国人士进入我们的领土并获得了本人的保护,这一保护将自动延伸至他随身携带进入的商品,但不延伸至他未带入伊斯兰领土的财产。若他离开伊斯兰领土,并将商品留在伊斯兰领土内,则给予其商品的保护仍在伊斯兰领土内有效,而给予他本人的保护则终止。因此,如果这些财产在其主人不在场的情况下进入伊斯兰家园,哈里发可以给予交战国贸易商品即其商品以保护,这是允许的。如果给予了其财产即贸易商品的保护,他可以通过代理人、雇员或其他方式运输这些货物。这表明,交战国的财产要进入伊斯兰领土,同样需要保护,正如交战国人士的入境需要保护一样。因此,外国贸易商品要进入伊斯兰领土,需要保护,即需要国家颁发的许可。若已颁发许可,国家则必须像保护其公民的其他财产一样保护这些财产。如果财产在没有保护即没有许可的情况下进入,它就是可以被侵犯的财产,国家可以没收。然而,这种情况只在商品属于交战国商人的财产时才会发生。 鉴于此,如果这些商品是由伊斯兰国的一名公民购得——无论他是穆斯林还是异教徒(Dhimmi)——并且他想将这些货物进口到伊斯兰国,那么在这种情况下他无需许可证。但前提是这些商品确属他的财产,且所有权的转移已在各方面完成。因为如果所有权尚未转移,即买卖合同尚未完成,而只是正在进行之中——正如当今大多数商业交易的情形那样,例如买方要等到收到装运单据才承诺购买,或者货物已经购买但尚未收到——那么这些货物在此情况下将被视为交战方的贸易商品,其进入伊斯兰领土需要保护,即需要许可证。如果货物一离开工厂或仓库,或一经装运,所有权便已生效,那么这些货物将被视为穆斯林或异教徒的贸易财产。然而,如果直到货物抵达目的地所有权才生效,那么在这种情况下它们将被视为交战方的财产。

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.

这就是交战方的贸易以及交战方的入境而言的情况。至于交战方的贸易从我们的土地上出去，即交战方购买我们本地的商品，这需要加以考察：如果这些商品具有战略性质，例如武器或任何可用于对敌作战的其他战争物资，那么该交战方将被禁止购买此类商品；如果他已经购买了，则将被禁止将其出口。至于其他类别的商品，例如食品、消耗品及其他物品，获得保护的交战方可以购买、运输并从我们的土地上出口此类商品，但前提是这些商品不属于因稀缺而为公民所必需的物品；若属于此类，则因公民对其有需要而适用出口禁令。穆斯林商人和迪米商人同样将被禁止出口此类商品，其伊斯兰教法依据（Illah）在于公民对这些商品的需要。

This is as far as the trade of the belligerent and the entry of the belligerent are concerned. As for the exit of the belligerent’s trade out of our land i.e. the purchase by the belligerent of our local goods, this has to be examined: if the goods were of a strategic nature, such as weaponry or any other war aid that may be used in the war against the enemy, He would be prevented from purchasing such commodities, and if He had already purchased them, He would be prevented from exporting them. As for other types of commodities such as foodstuffs, consumables and others, the belligerent who had been given protection would be allowed to purchase, transport and export such commodities from our land, as long as these are not among the necessities of the citizens because of their scarcity, in which case an export ban would apply due to the citizens’ need for them. The Muslim and the Dhimmi traders would also be prevented from exporting such commodities, the Shari’ah reason (Illah) being the need of the citizens for such commodities.

就商人和贸易商品在伊斯兰土地上的流动而言,情况大致如此。至于对这些商品所征收的税费,伊斯兰教法的裁定是依商人而定,而非依商品的种类而定。因为伊斯兰并不把贸易商品仅仅视为财产,也不以商品的来源来看待它们,而是着眼于贸易商品归个人所有这一事实。因此,对贸易商品所征收的税费取决于商人本人,而与货物的来源和种类无关。所以,如果商人是伊斯兰国家的公民,无论穆斯林还是迪米(受保护的非穆斯林),都不应对其经营征收任何“什一税”式的关税。这是因为,阿德-达里米、艾哈迈德和艾布·欧拜德以乌克巴·本·阿米尔为传述人转述说,他听安拉的使者ﷺ说:“征收马克斯(关税)的人不会进入乐园。”艾布·穆罕默德说:“他ﷺ指的是‘什一税’式的关税,以及向进口商品征收什一税的人。”穆斯林·本·穆斯比哈传述说,他曾问伊本·欧麦尔:“你知道欧麦尔向穆斯林征收过什一税吗?”他说:“不,我不知道。”易卜拉欣·本·穆哈吉尔传述:“我听齐亚德·本·哈迪尔说:‘我是伊斯兰中第一个征收什一税的人。’”我问:“你向谁征收什一税?”他回答:“我们从不向穆斯林或盟约者(迪米)征收,我们是向拜尼·塔赫里卜的基督徒征收的。”阿卜杜勒-拉赫曼·本·马格勒传述:“我问齐亚德·本·哈迪尔:你向谁征收?他回答:‘我们从不向穆斯林或盟约者征收。’于是我说:‘那么你向谁征收?’他回答:‘向敌对的商人征收,因为我们前往他们那里经商时,他们曾向我们征收。’” 雅古卜·伊本·阿卜杜勒-拉赫曼·阿勒-卡里伊传述，他的父亲说：欧麦尔·伊本·阿卜杜勒-阿齐兹致信给欧代·伊本·阿尔塔阿，内容如下："请免除民众的赎罪费（菲德耶）负担，免除以供养穷人作为赎罪的负担，也免除马克斯（即关税）的负担。关税其实并非正当，而是对人们应得之物的克扣，真主（SWT）曾说："

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:

“不要克扣人们应得的东西，也不要在大地上故意作恶、制造祸害。” [Hud: 85]

“And withhold not the things which are people’s due and commit no evil on earth with intent of being mischievous” [Hud: 85]

…凡带来施舍（Sadaqah）的人，你们就接受他的；至于不带来的人，安拉自会充分清算他。 卡里兹·伊本·苏莱曼说：“欧麦尔·伊本·阿卜杜勒-阿齐兹写信给阿卜杜拉·伊本·奥夫·阿勒-古里说：‘你骑马前往位于勒法的那所名为马克斯之家的房子，把它拆毁，然后把它运到海里扔掉，不留任何痕迹。’” 艾布·乌拜德在《财产》一书中记述了这五段传述。艾布·乌拜德说：“我们在这些传述中提到了十一税（Ushr）、对关税的厌恶以及对此的严厉警告，其根源在于蒙昧时代。当时，阿拉伯和非阿拉伯的君王有一种惯例：凡商人经过他们的土地，便向其财产征收‘一成’。这在安拉的使者（愿主福安之）写给其他地区的信件中也有所体现，如赛给夫、巴林、杜马图·朱伦得以及其他皈依伊斯兰的人们，信中写道：‘不得对他们施加压迫，也不得向他们征收。’因此，我们由此得知，这是蒙昧时代的一种习惯做法（关于它的许多故事流传至今），直到安拉（SWT）派遣他的使者（愿主福安之）携带伊斯兰降临时，才废除了这一做法。”即，蒙昧时代的习惯做法是征收什一税，即关税（Mukus），而安拉（SWT）通过伊斯兰废除了这一做法。

...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.

这段来自先知穆罕默德ﷺ的圣训，以及欧麦尔·本·哈塔卜和欧麦尔·本·阿卜杜勒-阿齐兹的传述，都表明：无论是输入伊斯兰土地的商品，还是输往交战之家的商品，都不应从穆斯林或齐米人（Dhimmi）的贸易商品上征收关税。欧麦尔·本·哈塔卜坚持这一做法，从不向穆斯林和齐米商人征收关税，而圣门弟子们也都认可此事，因此这表明存在默契的共识（ijma' sukūtī），即一项沙里亚证据。关税是对经过国家边境进出国境的贸易商品所征收的钱款。为此在边境设立的房屋称为Bait ul-Maks。商品上的关税，要么是蒙昧时代从市场上的商贩那里收取的钱款，要么是国家官员在商品售卖时或商品进入城市时所征收的特定项目。关税的复数为Mukus。有人说：Makasa，即他征收了关税的钱款。因此，该词特指对贸易所征收的捐税。禁止征收关税的规定是普遍的，涵盖穆斯林和齐米人。

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.

至于阿布·欧拜德在《财产》(Al-Amwal)中所引的圣训，其传述链经哈尔卜·萨科斐（Harb Al-Thaqafi）转述其外祖父，内容为：安拉的使者（愿主福安之）说："不得向穆斯林征收什一税（ushr），而应向犹太教徒和基督教徒征收。"此圣训经三条传述链流传，其中两条的传述人是不知名的，另一条是哈尔卜·伊本·欧拜杜拉·萨科斐经其外祖父转述的。圣训学家对此均未加评论，保持沉默。此外，没有任何一位mujtahid（穆贾泰希德，即独立思考的法学家）采纳它，也没有任何记载表明有人以它为证据，无论是那些主张商业不应征收任何费用的人，还是那些主张穆斯林商业应按四分之一的什一税缴纳天课、而迪米（dhimmi，受保护的非穆斯林臣民）应缴纳一半什一税作为政治义务的人。如果该圣训被确认为可靠，它必定会被采纳并作为证据使用。因此，这条圣训未被任何人判定为可靠，故不可采用。

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.

至于有关报道称，欧麦尔曾向穆斯林收取十分之一税（ʿUshr）的四分之一，向齐米人（Dhimmī）收取一半，向交战方收取全部十分之一税，这应当与穆斯林、齐米人和交战方之间的买卖交易规则联系起来看。就穆斯林和齐米人而言，圣训已明确禁止向他们强加任何负担，并以一般性的措辞禁止征收马克斯（Maks），即对贸易征收十分之一税。因此，欧麦尔从穆斯林那里收取的应是天课（Zakat），而从交战方那里收取的，是基于对等原则，因为他们曾向我们的商人征收十分之一税；欧麦尔从齐米人那里收取的，则是依照他与他们所达成的和约而定。所以，欧麦尔从齐米人那里收取的，属于和约条款范围之内，而非马克斯，因为安拉（SWT）只向不信道者征收吉兹亚。因此，如果依照和约条款，连同吉兹亚一起，从他们那里收取一半十分之一税，那么这就是正确而有效的和约。否则，一旦齐米契约依吉兹亚和顺服而有效缔结，只要他们不违约，从他们的财产中收取任何东西都是非法的。 艾布·乌拜德说：“我难以理解的是他（即欧麦尔）向齐米人收取（一半十分之一税）的做法，所以我一直说：他们不是穆斯林，不能向他们收取天课（Sadaqah/Zakat）；他们也不是交战方，不能对他们实行对等回报。直到我研读了他的一则传述，才明白其中的道理，我发现他是基于这一点与他们缔结了和约，即支付半个十分之一税，此外还有吉兹亚（人头税）和两块土地的哈拉只（土地税）。” 至于穆斯林商人和齐米商人，情况就是如此。至于有条约的商人，则按照双方所订条约的文本向其征收。若条约规定他应当免除，则予以免除；若条约规定必须征收某一数额，则向他征收，从而履行条约对他所作的规定。

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.

至于交战国的商人,伊斯兰教法的规定是:对其征收与该国对伊斯兰国家商人所征收的相同税款。因此,如果一名交战国商人在获得保护的情况下进入国家领土,国家应对其征收与伊斯兰国家商人所缴纳的相同税款,无论这些商人是穆斯林还是齐米人(Dhimmi)。 阿布·库达玛在其著作《穆格尼》中记载,阿布·马拉兹·拉希格·伊本·哈米德说:"他们问欧麦尔:'如果交战国的人来到我们的土地,我们应该向他们征收多少?'他反问:'他们向你们征收多少?'他们说:'十分之一税(Ushr)。'他说:'那就向他们征收同样的税。'" 阿布·欧拜德在《财富》(Al-Amwal)中记载,齐亚德·伊本·哈迪尔说:"我们从不向穆斯林或受盟约保护的人征收十分之一税。"我问:"那你们向谁征收十分之一税呢?"他说:"向交战国的商人征收,正如他们过去向我们征收那样——当我们带着货物去他们那里时。"欧麦尔·伊本·哈塔卜在众圣门弟子面前这样做,没有一位圣门弟子非议他,他们都保持沉默,因此这构成了一致的共识(Ijma')。 然而,对交战国商人征收与其国家向国家商人所征收相等的税款是被允许的,而非强制性的,即这属于国家的权力范围,国家没有义务必须征收。国家可以对交战国商人免征关税(Maks),也可以征收低于其国家所征收的关税,但国家不得征收高于对方所征收的关税。这是因为征收关税的目的不在于敛财,而是基于对等互惠的原则。采取此类政策时,哈里发应当考虑穆斯林的利益。阿布·欧拜德在《财富》中记载,萨利姆·伊本…… “阿卜杜拉·伊本·欧麦尔传述，他从其父听闻，其父说：‘欧麦尔曾对纳巴泰商人运来的油或小麦征收半什一税，以鼓励向麦地那输入货物；他也对纺织品征收什一税。’这项什一税是当时他们对我们商人所征收的。因此，从交战方征收的关税应取决于国家利益所需。关税可以征收，也可以免除；可以高，也可以低，只要不超过交战方对国家商人所征收的数额。”

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.