believers.” Thus, He commanded them to give up what remained. If they embrace Islam or seek adjudication before taking possession, the contract is annulled, and the property must be returned if it still exists, or its equivalent if it no longer does. The basis for this is the saying of Allah Most High:

“O you who believe, fear Allah and give up what remains of usury, if you are believers,”

through to His words:

“But if you repent, you may have your principal.”

Allah Most High commanded them to relinquish the usury still owed, but did not command them to return what they had received before embracing Islam. He entitled them to their principal in addition to what they had received before embracing Islam. It is therefore clear that whatever a person received under such a contract before embracing Islam becomes his property.

If, however, they embrace Islam while a usurious contract remains in force between them, it is annulled. Once it is annulled upon their embracing Islam, the creditor becomes entitled to the principal he advanced, but not to the usurious increment that he has not yet received. Nor must what he received before embracing Islam be charged against his principal, because he acquired ownership of it by taking possession under a contract he believed to be valid, and that contract entitled him to receive it. Were we to make him liable for it, we would effectively require him to return it and deduct it from the principal he is entitled to claim. That would contradict what has already been established.

The same applies to every contract that a Muslim believed valid on an interpretive basis arising from juristic reasoning or approval. Examples include usurious transactions permitted by those who allow legal stratagems; the sale of the disputed kind of nabīdh (an infused drink) by those who consider such sales valid; and prohibited sales involving uncertainty by those who permit some of them. For when both parties have taken possession under these contracts in the belief that they are valid,