Hizb ut Tahrir / Ukraine organized in the capital of Crimea (Simferopol) under the title "One Ummah... One Banner" for the 92nd Hijri Anniversary of the Demolition of the Islamic Khilafah "Caliphate". Ukrainian authorities tried to prevent the Muslims from organizing the rally, but failed to do so. The rally went forth Praise be to Allah.
Hizb ut Tahrir has condemned the evil alliance against Al-Qusair, Syria. The alliance of Bashar, the Iranian government and its Hizb in Lebanon has violated Islam in its aggression against the Muslims of Syria to prevent their blessed revolution from restoring Islam as a rule and state. In order to condemn their role Hizb ut Tahrir has issued a leaflet with the title:
US Spy Leak 'Most Important Ever':
The Daily Mail describes him as one of a new breed of whistle blower. Traditionally, spies who have leaked government secrets have remained in the shadows, the paper says. But "not this 29-year-old geek," it says. Far from waiting for the dust to settle on his stunning revelations, he jumped into the limelight. Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, writes in the Guardian that there has not been in US history a more important leak than Snowden's - and that, Ellsberg adds, certainly includes his own. The Daily Telegraph reports that the United States is bracing itself for a drawn-out effort to extradite Mr Snowden. According to the Times, the US has an extradition treaty with Hong Kong - where he has taken refuge - but Beijing has the power of veto. Rupert Cornwell in the Independent asks whether China, which has been accused of stealing US electronic secrets, has the ultimate say in whether the leaker is extradited to face the justice of the US cyber-intruder.
Egyptian Warning Over Ethiopia Nile Dam:
Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has said "all options are open" to deal with any threat to his country's water supply posed by an Ethiopian dam. Mr Morsi said he was not "calling for war", but that he would not allow Egypt's water supply to be endangered. Egypt was apparently caught by surprise when Ethiopia started diverting the Blue Nile last month, amid works to construct a hydroelectric dam. The river is a tributary of the Nile, on which Egypt is heavily dependent. The Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is a $4.7bn (£3.1bn) project that Ethiopia says will eventually provide 6,000 megawatts of power. It says the Blue Nile will be slightly diverted but will then be able to follow its natural course. "Egypt's water security cannot be violated at all," Mr Morsi said on Monday. "As president of the state, I confirm to you that all options are open. If Egypt is the Nile's gift, then the Nile is a gift to Egypt,'' he said, quoting popular sayings about the river in an emotive televised speech. "The lives of the Egyptians are connected around it... as one great people. If it diminishes by one drop then our blood is the alternative." Analysts say Mr Morsi could be using the issue to distract attention from severe domestic political and economic challenges. Egypt is particularly dependant on water supply from the Nile, and its growing population has been placing that supply under increasing strain. Sudan is also reliant on Nile waters.
Jordan War Games: Patriot Batteries, F-16s and 4,500 US Troops Near Syrian Border:
Multinational military exercise ‘Eager Lion' has been launched in Jordan amid condemnation from neighbouring Syria and its ally Russia. The US brings Patriot missile batteries to the Syrian border, which could remain deployed afterwards. The exercises will last for 12 days, bringing together about 8,000 personnel from 19 countries, mostly Arabic, but also including the US and Europe. The manoeuvres will also involve some 3,000 Jordanian and 500 British troops. ‘Eager Lion' - which is being conducted only 120km from the Jordan-Syria border - is aimed at training personnel for the possibility of the Syrian civil war spilling into neighboring countries. Russia has raised concerns over the deployment of US Patriot missile batteries and F-16 fighter jets to Jordan: "We have more than once stated our opinion on this - foreign weapons are being pumped into an explosive region," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Aleksandr Lukashevich said last week. "This is happening very close to Syria, where for more than two years the flames of a devastating conflict are burning that Russia and its American partners are trying to stop by proposing to hold an international peace conference as soon as possible," Lukashevich said. The organizers of ‘Eager Lion' say that the troops involved will also train for the possibility of a chemical attack, as Syria's neighbours fear that Damascus may lose control of its chemical weapons arsenal, which could then fall into the wrong hands. "We all have chemical training from any activity, so we continue to build those objectives into any exercise that we do," said US Major General Robert Catalanotti, the Director of Exercises and Training. Last week the US military revealed it may indefinitely leave behind the Patriot batteries and F-16s deployed in Jordan due to the threat of the violence in Syria crossing into Jordanian territory. Jordanian Army Major General Awni el-Edwan, Operation Chief of Staff, told reporters on Sunday that no US troops, Patriot missile complexes or F-16s would remain in Jordan after the exercises conclude: "The drills have nothing to do with any objective related to what is happening in Syria."
Saudi Prince Sues Forbes for Undervaluing His Wealth by $9.6 Billion:
Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is suing Forbes Magazine for undervaluing his wealth by $9.6 billion. Forbes annual "Rich List" gave bin Talal a net worth of $20 billion, listing him as No. 26th in terms of the world's wealthiest men. The prince, however, insists that he is worth as much as $30 million and Forbes' mistake can only be due to a bias towards Saudis. If Forbes is actually wrong about his worth (which they rarely are), it's not because of the prince's race. It's because the majority of his wealthy is spread through a plethora of investments all over the world, which of course means that exchange rates and fluctuating stock markets and other capitalist B.S. must be factored into the equation. Unable to obtain all the necessary information to figure out an exact net worth, Forbes probably just made an estimation based on all they knew about the prince's business endeavors. He owns large stakes in Apple, Twitter and News Corporation, not to mention huge and luxurious properties like the Savoy Hotel in London. He's also got a gold throne in the center of his private Boeing 747 jet. Even worse for Forbes is the fact that Alwaleed is suing in England, one of the several countries that publishes an edition of the magazine. There is no first amendment in England so it's incredibly easy to win a defamation or libel case there. Forbes is claiming that it has been the target of "intermittent lobbying, cajoling and threatening" by advisers to Alwaleed who want the prince's ranking changed either in a statement or a new version of the issue. Alwaleed believes he is being discriminated against because of his race.
America's Agent Zardari: Militancy and Terrorism are Greatest Threat to Pakistan:
Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari reiterated Monday that militancy and terrorism pose "the greatest threat" to his country. Addressing a joint session of Pakistan's parliament at the beginning of its first year, President Asif Ali Zardari urged the newly elected government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to work toward finding solutions to economic challenges, a nation-wide deepening energy crisis and a Taliban militancy threatening the stability of Pakistan. "Militancy, extremism and terrorism pose the greatest threat to our national security. The nation is united against militants. We need strong leadership to overcome the threat," said Zardari. After elections last month, and becoming the country's chief executive for a third time, Prime Minister Sharif promised to seek an end to the militancy through peaceful talks, rather than relying on military force. But President Zardari cautioned Monday against such attempts. "We are ready to make peace with those willing to give up violence. But we should also be ready to use force against those who challenge the writ of the state," he said.
Abu Hashim
Question:
It is stated in the book Funds in the Khilafah "Caliphate" State on page 79 (Arabic ed.), starting from the seventh line from the bottom of the page to the third line from the bottom, the following: "If the allocated land was uncultivated from the beginning of time, or it was cultivated and tilled then became neglected and uncultivated before Kharaj was imposed upon it, and the state had obtained the land in a legal manner and allotted it to a citizen, then its rule is like the rule of reviving uncultivated Kharaji land, it belongs to whoever revives it and secludes it, it's neck and its benefit if he is a Muslim and 'Ushr or half of the 'Ushr is due on him for it." End.
And the question is: Is it not the correct word 'Ushri instead of Kharaji that is underlined?
Answer:
1. It seems that the confusion arose because you thought that the revival of dead (barren) Kharaji land that had not been subject to Kharaj became 'Ushri. However the matter is not so, since it becomes 'Ushri for the Muslim, but it remains Kharaji to the Kafir.
However, the revival of dead (barren) land that has had Kharaj imposed on it does not take away its attribute of Kharaji, whether the ‘reviver' (cultivator) be Muslim or Kafir.
The book The Economic System on p. 133-4 Arabic ed. (corresponding to p.137-8 English ed.) states the following:
"Whoever cultivates a dead land of the 'Ushri land, he owned its neck and its benefit, whether he is Muslim or non-Muslim. For such land, the Muslim landlord is obliged to pay the Zakat ('Ushr) of the plants and fruits, which are entitled for Zakat once the amount of the harvest reached the Nisab. As for the non-Muslim landlord of such land, he pays the Kharaj, not the ‘ushr. This is because he is not one of those who are subject to pay Zakat and because the land cannot be left devoid of a payment, either Kharaj or ‘Ushr.
Whoever cultivates a dead land in Kharaji area where no Kharaj has been put over it before the he owns its neck and its benefit if he is Muslim. If he is non-Muslim he owns its benefit only. The Muslim landlord of such land is obliged to pay the 'Ushr with no Kharaj on him. While the non-Muslim landlord has to pay the Kharaj, similar to that put on its kuffar inhabitants at the time of its conquest.
Whoever cultivates a dead land in Kharaji area where Kharaj has been levied before it became dead, he owns its benefit only without owning its neck, whether the landlord is Muslim or non-Muslim. Such a landlord is obliged to pay the Kharaj because it is a conquered land. Therefore, the Kharaj remains on it at all times, whether owned by a Muslim or non-Muslim." End.
In The Introduction to the Draft Constitution in the explanation of Article 133 states the following:
"And whoever revives dead (barren) land in the Kharaij land that has not had Kharaj imposed on it, it becomes 'Ushri land (and has Zakat) if the reviver is Muslim, and the land is Kharaji (and Kharaj is imposed) if a Dhimmi revives it." End
The book Funds in the Islamic State on p. 42 Arabic ed. (p. 44-5 English edition) at the statement about 'Ushri lands states the following:
"Every barren (dead) land that a Muslim has revived. He said:
«من أحيا أرضاً ليست لأحد فهو أحقُّ بها»، ورواه البخاري بلفظ: «من أَعْمَر أرضاً ليست لأحدٍ فهو أحق»
‘Whosoever revives a land that belongs to nobody then he is more deserving of it'. Bukhari reported the same Hadith with the words: ‘Whosoever inhabits a land that belongs to nobody, he is more deserving of it'.
And this 'Ushri land remains 'Ushri, and does not change in to Kharaji except if a Kafir purchases 'Ushri land from a Muslim. Then he must pay Kharaj, and he does not pay the 'Ushr, because the 'Ushr is Zakat, and the Kafir is not from the people of Zakat, because it is a charity and purity for the Muslim, and the land must not be devoid of a function, either 'Ushr or Kharaj." End.
Accordingly, pertaining to your question "Is it not the correct word 'Ushri instead of Kharaji that is underlined?", rather it is correct that it should remain "Kharaji" because the issue is about allotting in the Kharaji lands if the land was barren and without previously imposed Kharaj.
And it is mentioned in the paragraph that you asked about in this chapter, and a few lines before it is the following: "But if the allotment was in Kharaji land - which is all the lands conquered by force such as Iraq and ash-Sham and Egypt - it is viewed...), and then begins with the details, so the subject is pertaining to the allotting in the Kharaji lands.
This is with the knowledge that reviving barren land in the Kharaji land and in the 'Ushri land makes the land 'Ushri if the reviver was a Muslim. And if the reviver is a Kafir then the Kharaji land remains Kharaji and the 'Ushri land remains 'Ushri, but he pays Kharaj in both cases because 'Ushr is Zakat and it is not taken from the Kafir, and the land does not lose its function, so Kharaj is taken for it from the Kafir.
A brief interview with Brother Engineer Sami Adel Tabara of the first generation, which was done on the sidelines of the annual Khilafah "Caliphate" conference organized by Hizb ut Tahrir / Europe in Amsterdam on Sunday, 30 Rajab 1434 AH, corresponding to 09 June 2013.
Question:
If a man buys a commodity for 10 thousand, he pays a portion of its price upfront and the rest through installments over a year for example. If the seller came to the buyer after the third month, for example, and told him: If you pay me the remaining money, which is five thousand for example, I will deduct one thousand, so I will collect from you four thousand only. Is this considered sale of debt with less than its cost for the sake of expediting payment or is it considered forgiveness only and not selling in debt?
And if this was permissible, how is it different from having two prices for the commodity in one contract?
Answer:
Expediting paying the postponed debt on condition of deducting part of it is not selling debt by debt, but it is in Fiqh under the category of "place and hasten" (ضعْ وتعجَّل), which means: pay some of the postponed debt, in return of expediting paying the debt.
As for debt for debt, an example is when a man lends from you one thousand dinars, and with it, you buy one hundred kilos of lentils from him, which he gives you after one month. In this case, you have sold the debt of 1000 dinars with the postponed lentils i.e. debt. This is forbidden because it is selling debt by debt; moreover, he gave the capital debt which is haram because he sold debt for debt. Furthermore, he gave the capital debt which is haram since the capital needs to be received at the beginning of the transaction.
Another example for debt by debt is when Amr has a debt of 1000 dinars from you, and Zaid has a debt from me of 100 dresses, so I tell you that I will sell you the 100 dresses with Zaid for the 1000 dinars that you have with Amr... This is selling debt by debt....
And there are other examples of selling debt by debt also called: (بيع الكالئ بالكالئ) "al-Kal'ibi al-Kal'I" or the "an-Nasee'ah by an-Nasee'ah"...(النَّسِيئَةُ بِالنَّسِيئَةِ)
Selling for other than the debtor is Haram certainly, as the Hadith of al-Hakem in his Mustadrak 'ala al-Saheehayn. Ibn Umar (raa) narrated that the Prophet (saw) "نَهَى عَنْ بَيْعِ الْكَالِئِ بِالْكَالِئِ" "forbade the selling of something to be collected later by something to be collected later". In another narration, the following is added: "هُوَ النَّسِيئَةُ بِالنَّسِيئَةِ" "it is credit (when payment is done at a later time) by credit."
As to selling of debt by debt to the debtor, there is a difference in opinion, as some say it is permissible, while others say it is forbidden.
As for your question, it is for jurists (fuqaha') as we have said under the section "place and hasten" "ضعْ وتعجَّل" that means pay some of the postponed debt as to pay all the debt or part of it quicker... And there is a difference in opinion about this question:
- Some do not permit it, and some of the evidences they refer to are:
ما أخرجه البيهقي في سننه الكبرى عَنِ الْمِقْدَادِ بْنِ الْأَسْوَدِ قَالَ: أَسْلَفْتُ رَجُلًا مِائَةَ دِينَارٍ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ سَهْمِي فِي بَعَثٍ بَعَثَهُ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَقُلْتُ لَهُ: عَجِّلْ لِي تِسْعِينَ دِينَارًا وَأَحُطُّ عَشَرَةَ دَنَانِيرَ، فَقَالَ: نَعَمْ، فَذَكَرَ ذَلِكَ لِرَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَقَالَ: «أَكَلْتَ رِبًا يَا مِقْدَادُ، وَأَطْعَمْتَهُ
1- It is narrated by al-Baihaqi in his Sunnan Qubra on authority of al-Miqdad bin al-Aswad that he said: I lent a man 100 dinars, and then my arrow came from the convoy that Prophet Mohammad sallalahu alaihi wassalam has sent, so I told him: ‘Hurry and give me 90 dinars, and I will put 10 dinars. The man said: ‘Yes, and he mentioned that to Prophet Mohammad sallalahu alaihi wassalam so he said: "You've eaten from usury oh Miqdad, and fed from it".
(Note: Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said in Ighathat al-Lahfan: "there is weakness in the sanad (chain of narration) of the Hadith of al-Baihaqi").
2. They said that it is known that the riba (usury) of al-Jahiliyya was nothing but a postponed debt with a conditional increase, so the increase was instead of increasing the time, then Allah (swt) annulled it and made it forbidden (haram) and He (swt) said:
((وإن تبتم فلكم رءوس أموالكم))
"But if you repent, you may have your principal." They added that deducting some of the debt instead of rounded-term is also forbidden because of the impact compensation on the term, whether an increase or a decrease.
Most of the jurists from al-Hanafiyya, al-Malikiyya, al-Shafi'iyya, and al-Hanabilah said that "place and hasten" is forbidden, and Zaid bin Thabet, Ibn Umar detested it as well as others from the Tabi'in (followers).
- Some permit it, and some of the evidences they refer to are:
1. It is narrated by Ibn Abbas (raa) that he said: When the Messenger of Allah sallalahu alaihi wassalam wanted to banish Bani an-Nadheer, they said: O Messenger of Allah, you ordered our banishment and we have unresolved debts, so he said: "Place and hasten" narrated by al-Hakem in his Mustadrak 'ala as-Saheehayn and said this is a Hadith with Isnad Sahih.
عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قَالَ: لَمَّا أَرَادَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنْ يُخْرِجَ بَنِي النَّضِيرِ قَالُوا: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، إِنَّكَ أَمَرْتَ بِإِخْرَاجِنَا وَلَنَا عَلَى النَّاسِ دُيُونٌ لَمْ تَحِلَّ، قَالَ: «ضَعُوا وَتَعَجَّلُوا» رواه الحاكم في مستدركه على الصحيحين وقال هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحُ الْإِسْنَادِ وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ
(Note: a-Thahabi said in his Tal'khees that al-Zinji is weak, and Abdul-Aziz is not trustworthy. Ibn al-Qayyem said in Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma "Its Isnad is Hasan and no one is in it except Muslim bin Khaled al-Zinji, and his Hadith does not degenerate from the rank of Hasan").
2. The saying of Abdullah Ibn Abbas (ra): "Usury is nothing but postponement for me, and I will increase for you" and not "Hasten to me, and I will put for you."
قول عبد الله بن عباس رضي الله عنهما: "إنما الربا أَخِّرْ لي وأنا أزيدك" وليس "عَجِّلْ لي وأنا أضع عنك
The permissibility of this was narrated by Ibn Abbas, an-Nakh'i, al-Hasan, and Ibn Seereen, and this narration is from Imam Ahmad and another from al-Shafi'iyyah. This is the choice of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn taymiyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyem, and Ibn 'Abdeen, from the jurists of al-Hanafiyyah, has authorized it as in his footnotes of Ad-Dhor al-Mokhtar.
We do not like to adopt an opinion in this issue, thus the person with this question can follow (fa yuqalid) the opinion of the jurists (fuqaha') which s/he finds reassuring...
And as you can see this issue differs from the other issue about selling for cash or with installments. If the seller said that the price of this commodity is 1000 cash or 1,300 with installments, and it was left as a variable then it is not permissible because the price is unknown. However, if the price was specified, and the buyer said: I will buy it with a certain amount of cash money, or he said I will buy it with a certain number of installments, then this is permissible as the price is specified, and the commodity has one cost.
Question:
We have adopted that "the army, internal security, industry, and international relations" are independent departments and not sectors, so why do we use the word ‘sector' and not ‘department'? May Allah reward you.
Answer:
Yes, each one of them is an independent department, but it is an administrative department that may be named as such, however it is not related to the department of people's affairs rather it is an independent department.
Refer to the chapter: "Bayt al-Mal" State Treasury (p. 135 Arabic ed. / p. 129 English ed. The Institutions of State in the Khilafah "Caliphate"), it states the following:
"We have already adopted that the wali is given a special authority that excludes the army, judiciary and funds. Thus, the whole army will be a central department (presided over by Amir al-Jihad). The judiciary will be a central department (known as judiciary), and the entire funds form a central department (known as bayt al-mal), which is separate from any other organisation in the State, and follows the Khalifah as do the other organisations."
As you can see, it is called department even though it is an administrative section. However it is a centralized department i.e. not affiliated with the Administration department (people's affairs). Likewise, "the whole army will be a central department (presided over by Amir al-Jihad)," "The judiciary will be a central department," and "funds form a central department (known as bayt al-mal)."
Therefore each department whose work includes administration is called a department, and if there is the fear of confusion which department is considered from the departments, it is possible to add the word ‘central'. If there is no fear of confusion, then department is appropriate, and it is clear that the army, internal security, industry, and international relations are not confused with the administrative department (People's Affairs) in which each department is called a department.
Question:
Is it permissible to accept a gift from someone who earns his money through haram means (for example through gambling, riba (usury), insurance contracts, or selling wine)? And is it permissible for his family to accept his expenses from this money that is haram? Thank you very much.
Answer:
There are types of haram:
- Haram in and of itself such as wine... It is haram to gift with it, so it is forbidden (haram) for the owner of the wine and for the one whom the gift is for. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: «حُرِّمَتِ الْخَمْرُ بِعَيْنِهَا» "Khamr was forbidden in and of itself." (Extracted by an-Nasa'i)
- Haram for it is a human being's right (Haq) that is stolen or taken forcefully... This is forbidden (haram) for the thief and the usurper, in which it is not permissible to gift as it is haram for the one who took the money from it and for the recipient of the gift. This money is the right of its possessor, and wherever he is, the money must be returned to the rightful owner. Some of the evidences for this are:
أخرج أحمد عَنْ سَمُرَةَ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: إِذَا سُرِقَ مِنَ الرَّجُلِ مَتَاعٌ، أَوْ ضَاعَ لَهُ مَتَاعٌ، فَوَجَدَهُ بِيَدِ رَجُلٍ بِعَيْنِهِ، فَهُوَ أَحَقُّ بِهِ، وَيَرْجِعُ الْمُشْتَرِي عَلَى الْبَائِعِ بِالثَّمَنِ
Ahmad has narrated on authority of Samurah that he said: The Messenger of Allah sallalahu alaihi wassalam said: "If a man has something stolen from him, or loses something, and he finds it in the possession of a man who bought it, then he has more right to it, and the one who bought it should ask for his money back from the one who sold it to him."
This is a text that shows that stolen money must be returned to its owner.
Money by force is also guaranteed to the one from whom it was forced, so the usurper must return whatever taken by force to its possessor.
عَنْ سَمُرَةَ، عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: «عَلَى اليَدِ مَا أَخَذَتْ حَتَّى تُؤَدِّيَ»، أخرجه الترمذي وقال هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ
It was narrated from Samurah that the Prophet (saw) said: "The hand which takes is responsible till it pays," narrated by at-Tirmidhi and he said it is a Hasan Hadith.
- Haram for batil (invalid) transactions such as the money of usury and gambling... This is forbidden only for the one who received it, but the haram does not extend to the one who received the money through a permissible manner from the one who commits riba or gambles. For example, selling the one who deals with riba goods and receiving their cost, the wife receiving her expenses from her husband who deals with usury, the one who deals with riba brings a gift to one of his relatives, or any other permissible transactions. The sin for this haram money applies on the who dealt with usury and neither on the one who attains the price of his goods, nor on the wife receiving her expenses, or the one receiving a gift, and that is because the haram does not regard two people in this state. Some evidences on that are:
1. Allah (swt) said: ((وَلَا تَكْسِبُ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ إِلَّا عَلَيْهَا وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَى)) "And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another."
2. The Prophet (saw) used to deal with the Jews in Madinah, with the knowledge that most of their money was from riba. Allah (swt) said:
فَبِظُلْمٍ مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا حَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ طَيِّبَاتٍ أُحِلَّتْ لَهُمْ وَبِصَدِّهِمْ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا* وَأَخْذِهِمُ الرِّبَا وَقَدْ نُهُوا عَنْهُ وَأَكْلِهِمْ أَمْوَالَ النَّاسِ بِالْبَاطِلِ
"For wrongdoing on the part of the Jews, We made unlawful for them [certain] good foods which had been lawful to them, and for their averting from the way of Allah many [people]* And [for] their taking of usury while they had been forbidden from it, and their consuming of the people's wealth unjustly." The Prophet (saw) used to accept gifts from them.
ورد عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: أَنَّ امْرَأَةً مِنَ الْيَهُودِ أَهْدَتْ لِرَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ شَاةً مَسْمُومَةً، فَأَرْسَلَ إِلَيْهَا، فَقَالَ: «مَا حَمَلَكِ عَلَى مَا صَنَعْتِ؟» قَالَتْ: أَحْبَبْتُ - أَوْ أرَدْتُ - إِنْ كُنْتَ نَبِيًّا فَإِنَّ اللهَ سَيُطْلِعُكَ عَلَيْهِ، وَإِنْ لَمْ تَكُنْ نَبِيًّا أُرِيحُ النَّاسَ مِنْكَ.
It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that a woman from the Jews gave the Messenger of Allah sallalahu alaihi wassalam a poisoned sheep, so he sent to her and said: "What induced you to do what you have done?" She said: "I liked - or I wanted- if you were a prophet, Allah will tell you, but if you were not a prophet, I should rid the people of you."
3. Some of the Sahaba and Tabi'een made it permissible to receive gifts from the one who takes riba:
جاء رجل إلى ابن مسعود فَقَالَ: إِنَّ لِي جَارًا يَأْكُلُ الرِّبَا، وَإِنَّهُ لَا يَزَالُ يَدْعُونِي، فَقَالَ: "مَهْنَؤُهُ لَكَ وَإِثْمُهُ عَلَيْهِ" أخرجه عبد الرزاق الصنعاني في مصنفه
A) A man came to Ibn Masoud and said: I have a neighbor who eats from usury, and he still invites me, so Ibn Masoud said: "the good deed is for you, and the sin is for him" narrated by Abdul-Razzaq as-San'ani in his Musannaf.
B) Al-Hassan was asked: Can the food of moneychangers be eaten? He said: "Allah (swt) has told you about the Jews and an-Nasara, they used to eat from usury, and He made their food permissible for you" narrated by Abdul-Razzaq as-San'ani in his Musannaf (workbook) on authority of Ma'mar.
وسُئِلَ الْحَسَنُ أَيُؤْكَلُ طَعَامُ الصَّيَارِفَةِ؟ فَقَالَ: "قَدْ أَخبرَكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى، إِنَّهُمْ يَأْكُلُونَ الرِّبَا، وَأَحَلَّ لَكُمْ طَعَامَهُمْ" أخرجه عبد الرزاق الصنعاني في مصنفه عن معمر
C) It was narrated by Mansour that he said: I told Ibrahim: I went to a worker's place, so he hosted me and offered me money. Ibrahim said: "Accept", so Mansour said: the worker takes usury. Ibrahim said: "Accept as long as you did not command him or help in his usury" narrated by Abdul-Razzaq as-San'ani in his Musannaf (workbook) on authority of Ma'mar.
عَنْ مَنْصُورٍ قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِإِبْرَاهِيمَ: نَزَلْتُ بِعَامِلٍ، فَنَزَلَنِي وَأَجَازَنِي قَالَ: "اقْبَلْ" ، قُلْتُ: فَصَاحِبُ رِبًا قَالَ: "اقْبَلْ مَا لَمْ تَأْمُرْهُ أَوْ تُعِنْهُ" أخرجه عبد الرزاق الصنعاني في مصنفه عن معمر
4. However, it is better not to deal with possessors of forbidden (haram) money that stemmed from usury, so you neither sell them nor accept a gift from them motivated by piety; so the seller will not receive profit from his riba-contaminated merchandise, and do not accept their gift so that it won't be from the money of usury. In this way, Muslims distance themselves from everything that is impure, and the Companions of the Messenger (saw) used to refrain from several permissible domains (Mubahat) for fear of approaching the haram.
أنه قال لَا يَبْلُغُ العَبْدُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مِنَ المُتَّقِينَ حَتَّى يَدَعَ مَا لَا بَأْسَ بِهِ حَذَرًا لِمَا بِهِ البَأْسُ
It was narrated from the Messenger of Allah (saw) that he said: "No one will attain complete righteousness until he abandons (certain) unobjectionable (but doubtful) things so as to remain on his guard against something objectionable."
Narrated by at-Tirmidhi, and he said it is a Hasan Hadith.
In conclusion, it is permissible to sell the one who takes usury from the banks or other places, and it is permissible to accept his gift, but it is better neither to sell him nor to accept his gift.
