On the authority of Abu Saeed Saad ibn Maalik ibn Sinaan al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “There is not to be any causing of harm nor is there to be any reciprocating of harm.“
This is a hasan hadith. It is recorded by ibn Maajah, alDaaraqutni.
General Comments About the Hadith: This hadith mentions one of the most important principles in Islamic law. Its lesson or ruling virtually touches upon every aspect of fiqh. Abu Dawood stated that this is one of the hadith around which all of fiqh revolves, as was quoted earlier.
1. “There is not to be any causing of harm nor is there to be any reciprocating of harm.”
One could literally translate the Prophet’s statement as, “[There is] no dharar and no dharaar.” From the Arabic structure, the Prophet (peace be upon him) stated a fact. However, as al-Zarqaani points out, this statement of a fact is understood to mean prohibition. In other words, its meaning is, “There is not to be dharar or dharaar.” This manner of speech, using a statement of a fact to imply a prohibition, is not uncommon in the Arabic language.
Ahmad al-Zarqaa also points out that in this statement the Prophet (peace be upon him) has denied or ruled out the existence of any form or type of dharar. This manner of speech is stronger or further reaching than simply saying that something is prohibited or warning people about performing an act. Furthermore, as al-Zarqaani pointed out, dharar and dharaar are in the indefinite forms. When something is both in the negative and in the indefinite, as is the case here, then the term is taken in its most general meaning, applying to all forms of dharar and dharaar. So, unless proven by other evidences of the Quran or sunnah, all forms of dharar or dharaar are absolutely prohibited.
This brief statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him) has been understood in many different ways. Again, the hadith basically says, “No dharar and no dharaar.” The meaning of dharar and the dharaar as well as the difference between them needs to be established first before the hadith can be commented upon in more detail.
Al-Baaji seems to favor a interpretation. He says that dharar is in reference to one person harming, for example, his neighbor. On the other hand, dharaar is where each one of the two parties is harming the other, perhaps one in response to the harm from the other. This is much closer to the linguistic look of the word dharaar. It seems to be in the reciprocal form which implies that two parties are involved in the act.
Yet another interpretation is given by ibn Abdul Barr. He says that dharar means to harm someone else. Dharaar refers to harming someone in response to some harm that was received from the other person but not in the manner that is correct or just according to the law. Hence, dharaar refers to responding to someone’s harm in an improper way that goes beyond the limits of what is right and just.
They all imply that all forms of harming others and all forms of wrongfully reciprocating harm are illegal and prohibited in Islam. In a previous hadith, it was stated that all forms of dhulm are forbidden. In reality, dharar is simply a subset of the acts of dhulm.
However, the best or strongest interpretation seems to be that of ibn Abdul Barr. Hence, the translation here, “There is not to be any causing of harm nor is there to be any reciprocating of harm.” Ibn Rajah breaks down “harm” into two categories. The first category is an act whose only result is the harming of others. The second category is where the act brings about some benefit to the person but harms another person. These two categories will be discussed in detail below.
1.1 Acts that Are Only Meant to Bring About Harm to Others
This type of act is an evil and is prohibited in Islam. Indeed, one cannot imagine a true believer doing such a deed to his brother in Islam. It strikes at the very root of the brotherhood and love that each Muslim should have for each other. The Quran has specifically mentioned and forbidden actions of this nature. For example, Allah says about retaining one’s wife after the pronouncement of divorce, “Either take them back on a reasonable basis or let them free on a reasonable basis. But do not take them back just to hurt them. And whoever does that has wronged his soul” (al-Baqara 231). Allah also says about retaining one’s divorced wife, “And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish reconciliation” (al-Baqara 228).
These verses prove that if a man returns to his divorced wife during her waiting period and he does that simply with the intention of causing her harm, by not letting her out of the marriage or not letting her free to marry someone other than him, then he is committing a sin. In pre-Islamic times, there was no limit to the number of times that one could make a pronouncement of divorce for his wife. Hence, a person could divorce his wife and then retain her just before the end· of the waiting period and continue to do that for as long as he was alive. Islam put an end to such harm and oppression by limiting the right to divorce to three pronouncements. After the third pronouncement, the man cannot return to his wife during the waiting period.
In fact, according to Imam Malik, if a man divorces his wife and then, just before her waiting period is over, makes a verbal pronouncement of returning to her but then again announces a new divorce without having had intercourse with her in the meanwhile, her waiting period does not begin anew if it is determined that he did that simply to harm her. If he did not do that simply to harm her, her waiting period begins anew. According to Ataa, Qataada, al-Shafi’ee’s old opinion and one narration from Ahmad, in all such cases, her waiting period does not begin anew but continues from when he took her back as his wife. According to the majority of the scholars, though, her waiting period will always begin anew in such cases.
A second example is that of a man not having sexual intercourse with his wife. One case is that of al-eelaa. This is where a man makes an oath that he will not approach his wife. The Quran has set a limit of four months for such an oath. After the four months, his repentance is to have intercourse with her. If he does not approach her at that time, then, according to some, she is divorced because of the passing of that time. According to others, he must have intercourse with her and if he does not, he is ordered to divorce her.
The scholars also discuss the case of a man who does not have intercourse with his wife for four months, without previously making an oath, but with the intention of harming his wife. Some Hanbali scholars say that he has the same ruling as the one who made an oath, as discussed in the previous paragraph. Other Hanbalis say that if a man does not have intercourse with his wife for a period of four months and then she requests a separation, that separation is to be given to her because the act of sexual intercourse is obligatory upon him during that period. Ibn Rajah points out that these scholars differ as to whether the separation is only to be granted if the husband intended by that the harming of his wife.
Malik and his companions say that if a husband avoids intercourse with his wife for no valid excuse, then their marriage can be dissolved. However, they differ as to the length of the period of time. Some say six months while others say two years. The important point is that all of these rulings and similar ones are based on the principle mentioned in this hadith. There is nothing beneficial in the deeds described above. They just bring about harm and no benefit. It is not permissible for anyone to harm anyone else. If such harm is present, it must be put to an end. That is the basis for the above rulings and many other rulings in the Islamic fiqh.
1.2 Acts that are Beneficial to One and Harmful to Another
A much more problematic area is where a person performs an act that is permissible and beneficial for him but that, unfortunately, has negative consequences for others. An example is when a person uses his property in a way that is permissible but while doing so he has damaged his neighbor’s property. How are cases like this to be handled in the light of this hadith?
If a person performs an act that is customarily considered improper because it is known to lead to harmful results, he would be held responsible for that act and should be prevented from it. The example that the scholars give is a person starting a bonfire on his property on a very windy day. If the fire spreads to his neighbor, he is to be held responsible for the damage that he caused. There is agreement among the scholars on that point.
If the act is a normally acceptable and proper act, what then should be the ruling? Suppose, for example, a person adds a second floor to his house and now has windows overlooking his neighbor’s property by which he can see the womenfolk who live next door. Is he allowed to do such a thing which obviously brings about harm to his neighbor? There is a difference of opinion among the scholars concerning the extent to which this hadith, “There is not to be any causing of harm nor is there to be any reciprocating of harm,” is to be applied when it comes to one’s sole personal belongings, shared or co-joining properties and the public interest. Why this question is difficult to answer is because it involves to conflicting harmful results: The owner of his property will be harmed if he is not allowed to use his property in a manner that benefits or pleases him; and the other party will be harmed if the owner is allowed to use his property in the manner he so desires.
The different schools of fiqh have taken different approaches to this question, going from one extreme in applying this hadith with respect to personal property to the opposite extreme.
The Author’s Conclusions: Virtually any act that a person does with his personal private property can be seen as an infringement or harm upon others. Even the simple act of driving onto a highway is actually harmful to others as it causes the highway to be more congested, causes drivers to drive slower and causes more accidents. Hence, it is clear that this hadith does not imply the prohibition of any type of “harm,” especially if harm is thought of in a wide context. Like the rulings of the shareeah with respect to the laws of necessity, there are some forms of hardship or harm that must be considered customarily and within the means of humans to bear. Those types of harm are not given any special rulings in the shareeah and it is expected that humans must bear them.
The shareeah did not give a strict definition of “harm”. Hence, it must be something that is left up to the cultural environment and may change over time. In other words, what may be considered harm at one time or place may no longer be considered harm as another time or place.
Taking these facts into consideration, it seems that the strongest interpretation or implementation of this hadith is something close to the Shafi’ee approach. If there is an act that causes a normally accepted and expected harm and the person performs that act in the normal manner, then he is not to be prevented from doing that act, even if it may cause some slight harm to others. However, if he performs that act in an improper fashion or if that act is originally considered one that causes an unacceptable level of harm, then he is not allowed to perform that act. If, in that case, he goes ahead and does the act, he will be liable for any damage or harm that he causes to others. Also, if the act causes a general harm, then the interest of the general public takes precedence over the interest of the individual. Finally, if the act rarely or usually does not lead to any expected harm, he should be free to perform the act.
This seems to be the best way to balance the following considerations that must be taken into account:
(a) Islam respects personal property and the freedom to use one’s property in any permissible manner.
(b) Islamic law has as one of its main goals the bringing about of utility and the prevention of harm.
(c) In the optimal case, neither the owner of the property should be harmed by being restricted in his actions nor should anyone else be harmed.
(d) The rights of society as a whole or the general public, in general, take precedence over individual rights.
(e) There are some levels of harm and hardship that Islamic Law recognizes will exist and that the people must ordinarily bear.
(f) Things that rarely or seldom occur are overlooked by the shareeah. Therefore, the meaning of this hadith is, “There is not to be any causing of harm”- except that which is commonplace, normal and acceptable to all, as such is, in reality, unavoidable– “nor is there to be any reciprocating of harm”- except what is the result of the due process of the law.
It must be clearly understood that no Muslim should ever intentionally cause harm to another Muslim. If he does so, even if his act is considered legal in this world, he may be held sinful and accountable for that act on the Day of Judgment. Finally, if a person is willing to sacrifice his right to use his property in a beneficial manner for himself because he fears that it may cause harm to others, then he has done a good deed by giving preference to his brother and, Allah willing, Allah will be pleased with that act and will reward him handsomely on the Day of Judgment.
1.3 Allah Does not Command Anything Harmful
One of the conclusions that one can reach from this hadith and other hadith or verses of the Quran is that Allah has not ordered anything harmful in the religion of Islam. The Prophet (peace be upon him) stated that there should be no harming or reciprocating of harm and, therefore, this means that the obligations or prohibitions of the religion itself must, by definition, not be considered harmful. Indeed, the opposite conclusion can then be made: Everything that the religion commands is beneficial for human beings. It is what is best for them in both this life and the Hereafter. Everything that the religion forbids is harmful for human beings both in this life and the Hereafter.
This religion comes from Allah, the Creator of mankind. Allah knows best the abilities and limitations of mankind. The laws of Islam take into consideration those aspects. That is why, for example, special laws are given for those who are ill, traveling and so forth. This is all in accord with what Allah has stated in the Quran, “[He] has not laid upon you any hardship in the religion” (al-Hajj 78).
Other Points Derived from This Hadith:
• The implementation of the legal penalties for crimes such as adultery, theft, murder and so forth does not fall under this prohibition of dharar. Although obvious harm comes to the one whose hand is cut off, for example, such harm is sanctioned by the shareeah. It is sanctioned because it is a way of repelling evil and repelling evil takes precedence over bringing about benefits. Furthermore, in reality, such laws have been enacted in order to prevent dharar or harm from occurring.
• Harming someone else in response to the harm that another has done is never to be a goal in itself. Justice and equity is a goal but not simply the harming of another. Therefore, for example, if A destroys B’s property, then B does not have the right to go and destroy A’s property. There is no benefit in that. There is only harm and waste of wealth in such an action. In that kind of case, then, A is required to pay B for his losses. The ruling, though, is different in the case of bodily retribution or the law of retaliation. This is because, in general, no price can be put on such losses and one has the right to enact the same act upon the guilty party.
• The Islamic society should be such that no member tries to wrong or harm any other member of the society. If a person intentionally does so, he is committing a sin and he is harming the intended goal of Muslim brotherhood. For this reason, laws have been put into effect to either eradicate or deter such behavior of any individual. This overall goal for society, therefore, takes precedence over individual rights, as opposed to modern-day Western societies which have overturned that understanding.
• Since wrongdoing and harm are to be completely avoided, this automatically implies that their opposites are to be acted upon. In other words, causing harm is not an option for a true believer. The option then open to him is to bring about benefit or, at the very least, perform a neutral act. Hence, a believer’s every deed should either be positively beneficial or, at the very least, not causing any harm to anyone.
• If someone is harming someone else, such as physically attacking him, the person has the right to defend himself and repel that harm, even if he harms the perpetrator in the process. Such does not violate the principle of this hadith. But a person does not have the right to “take the law into his own hands.” If someone has already harmed another person, then he must go through the proper legal means to rectify or remove that harm that has been done. The harmed person bas two choices: either forgive the perpetrator or take his matter to the proper authorities. Al-Nawawi gives two particular examples. He states that if a person is struck by another or verbally abused by another, he should not strike him back or abuse him back but he should take his case to the proper authorities.
• In Islam, there is no room for harming others simply out of spite in reaction to some harm that the other person did. If A harms B, it is not acceptable for B to do something simply for the sake of harming A in return. As stated above, he can either forgive A and put the matter behind him or he can go through proper steps to have his rights fulfilled.
• In the same way that one cannot harm others, he also does not have the right to harm himself, his body or those he is responsible for. In fact, alSindi explicitly states, a Muslim does not have the right to harm anything of Allah’s creation. This principle, then, should also extend to the animal kingdom and environment. A Muslim should not perform any act that is harmful to these two unless it is necessary for some overriding need.
Summary of the Hadith:
• In Islam, one should never cause any unjustifiable harm to others.
• Similarly, one should not respond to another’s harm by causing him harm. He can demand his shareeah rights but he cannot go beyond that to harm the other person further.
Books of Muslims 