the Islamic law is forbidden, and the texts are general. Thus, riba is forbidden between a Muslim and a belligerent non-Muslim. If a person finds a belligerent non-Muslim who has money, but he is unable to take it from him by force, and says, “I want to buy one hundred dinars from you for fifty dinars,” this is not permissible. Likewise, if he buys one hundred measures of good-quality wheat for fifty measures of inferior wheat, for example—or vice versa—it is forbidden. For whenever a transaction is conducted in the form of a contract, it must conform to what the Islamic law requires.

Some scholars have said that riba is not forbidden between a Muslim and a belligerent non-Muslim, and that it is permissible to deal with a belligerent non-Muslim through riba, because his property is lawful just as his blood is lawful. But this is an analogy made in opposition to an explicit text and is therefore invalid.

Between a Muslim and a dhimmi, riba is forbidden all the more so, because the property of a dhimmi is inviolable.

His statement, “and between Muslims without exception,” means that riba is likewise forbidden between Muslims without exception. This unrestricted statement is explained by his words:

“Whether in Muslim lands or lands of war”: in a Muslim land, such as the Islamic countries, or in a land of war, such as hostile territory, if a Muslim enters it under a guarantee of security and engages in a sale with a belligerent non-Muslim or with another Muslim, riba is forbidden, due to the generality of the evidences.

Some scholars take the land itself into consideration and say that if it is a land of war, then there is no riba there between Muslims and the people of war. This view is even more remote than the first opinion, because a land of war does not alter the ruling. The texts are general, and contracts must be conducted in accordance with what the Islamic law requires.