In the Arabic language, this principle is expressed as: La Darar wa la Dirar fi al-Islam, there is no harm in Islam.

Within the references of Islamic law, we find this principle expressed in the following ways.

1. Harm must be removed.

2. Wherever necessary, decisions that occasion the least harm are to be given priority over decisions that occasion greater harm.

3. Wherever necessary, decisions that harm a few individuals are to be given priority over decisions that harm the whole of society.

4. No one is permitted to deflect harm from themselves by endangering others.

All the above expressions reflect that Islamic law does not occasion any harm.

The Basis Of This Principle

All jurists agree that this principle is based upon a hadith narrated by an uninterrupted chain of narrators - mutawater. When we trace this hadith in both Ahl al-Bayt and Sunni sources we find:

From Ahl Al-Bayt

Al-Kulayni, in Al-Kafi Vol. 5, p. 292; Al-Saduq in Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Vol. 3, p.147; and Shaykh Al-Tusi in Al-Tahdhib Vol. 7, p. 147 include ahadith that support this principle. These were narrated by many students and companions of Imam al-Baqir (‘a) and Imam al-Sadiq (‘a) such as Zurarah, Abu Obeida, Al-Hajaj Ibn Urtat, Harun Ibn Hamza and Uqbah Ibn Khalid.

From Ahl Al-Sunnah

In sources narrated by many of the companions of the Prophet (S) such as Abdullah Ibn Abbas, Jabir Ibn Abdullah, Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri, Abadah Ibn al-Samit, Abu Hurrairah, Abu Lubabah and Ayesha, we find ahadith that support this principle.1

It is evident that a hadith that is unanimously reported is recognized as mutawater.

The incident in which the Prophet (S) said, 'Islam occasions no harm', is as follows:

Samurah Ibn Jundub owned a palm tree growing in a garden that belonged to an Ansari in Madinah. This Ansari's house was sited at the garden's entrance.

Samurah, who liked to care for his tree, did not seek the permission of the garden's owner. He was asked to request permission before coming, but insisted that it was not necessary for him to do so as he owned the tree. The garden's owner complained to the Prophet (S), who summoned Samurah and ordered him to seek permission before he entered the garden. When Samurah declined to comply, the Prophet (S) recommended him to offer the tree for sale and make a large profit.

However, this too Samurah rejected. The Prophet (S) then asked if he would be prepared to exchange the tree for a palm tree in paradise. However, Samurah eschewed this with contempt. At this stage Allah's Messenger (S) turned to the owner of the garden and said, 'Uproot it and throw it before him because Islam does not tolerate harm being occasioned.'

The Use Of The Word La In The Arabic Language

In Arabic there are two basic uses of the word La.

• To negate – nafy

• To prohibit – nahy

The difference between the two is that while the first reflects the negation of a statement, the second indicates prohibition being addressed by one person to another - even if that prohibition lacks authority.

Examples of La in its negating form:

1. La shak le kathir al shak - there is no value in frequent doubts.

2. La talaq illa be ishhad - divorce is not valid unless it is witnessed.

3. La Salat illa be tahur - without ablution, prayers are not accepted.

4. Rufi’a an ummati ma la ya’lamun - my nation is not accountable for what it has not been informed of.

5. La haraj fi al Din - there is no unbearable hardship in Islam.

6. La Salat le jar al-masjid illa fi al-masjid - the prayers of residents neighbouring a mosque are not perfect if not offered in the mosque.

In all of the above examples, the word la is used to express negation, even when the negated subjects are different. In the first, the statement indicates that unreasonable doubts should be ignored, in the second and third that validity is negated. In the fourth, as discussed in the principle of permissibility (chapter 2), accountability is negated. In the fifth, the existence of the legislative order in Islamic law is negated and in the sixth, it is neither validity nor acceptance but perfection that is negated.

Examples of La in its prohibiting form:

1. La taqtulu al-nafs al-lati harrama Allahu illa bil haq - Do not take life, (which Allah has decreed sacred) other than in the legitimate pursuit of justice (Qur'an 17:33).

2. La taqrabu mal alyatim illa bil lati heya ahsan - Do not touch the property of orphans who have not attained maturity (Qur'an 17:34).

3. La tamshe fi al-ard marahan - Do not strut the earth in triumph and arrogance (Qur'an 17:37).

4. La taqrabu al-zina - Do not have sexual relationships outside marriage (Qur'an 17:32).

5. La taj’al yadaka maghlulatan ila unuqeka - Do not be miserly and worthy of reproach (Qur'an 17:29).

6. La tubathir - Do not fritter your wealth away (Qur'an 17:26).

It is evident from the above examples that Allah Almighty prohibits certain acts with a definitive authority that is binding upon all Muslims.

Having discussed the difference between the above groups, we are now in a position to consider to which group the word la in La Darar belongs. There is a variety of opinion amongst the fuqaha.

1. In shari’ah, any harm caused has to be redressed. By demanding harm be redressed, 'The Lawmaker' clarifies that He does not approve of, or permit, damage being inflicted by one human being on another. Shaykh Murtada Ansari and Al-Fadhel al-Touni support this view.

2. The negation of harm implies negation of all that causes it. This opinion was espoused by Muhammad Kazem al-Khorasani.

3. It is merely prohibition, i.e. 'Do not harm any other'. The view is supported by Shaykh al-Shari’ah lsphahani.

4. This applies to any rulings or acts that occasion harm. The opinion is held by Al-Mirza al-Nayeni.

5. From the above examples of the word La, it is evident that while the structure of this hadith is not compatible with its implication of prohibition, it matches perfectly its implication of negation. From the incident of Samurah and the palm tree it is clear that the Prophet (S) employed his authority to declare that harm does not exist in the body of shari’ah law.

Consequently, when jurists are faced with references that have the possibility of causing harm, they ignore them or, in other words, negate them.

To me, the fifth opinion appears to have the greatest validity. When Samurah insisted on access that harmed the Ansari, the Prophet (S) negated his right to see his tree by stating, 'Islamic law does not occasion harm'.

A few applications of this principle are given below - examples of the many cases in which jurists apply the above principle:

• Forcing traders who hoard essential foodstuffs to offer them to the market at fair prices.

• Affording legal redress to those who have been outrageously over­charged.

• Stopping traders from restricting public access to walkways or pavements by their displays of goods.

• Permitting trustees to discharge their trusts to court administration when they find their obligations too onerous.

• Preventing partners from dispersing assets when the market is unfavourable, when doing so imperils their joint investment with other shareholders.

Individual Or Public Harm?

Do claims that 'Islamic law does not occasion harm' refer to individual or societal harm? For example, as the exclusive provision of cold-water ghusl facilities during winter months might harm the majority of people, shari’ah permits tayamum in its place. This applies despite the possibility that some members of society would indeed be able to survive cold showers in freezing conditions.

Should we favour the good of one individual above that of society by leaving each to make their own choice, or give preference to all the members of society being covered by one ruling?

Another example might concern the midsummer fasting of those who suffer renal problems, when daylight hours can be extremely long. As the majority of such people need to drink water frequently, what ruling should apply to exceptional individuals who are able to fast for long periods despite such problems?

It is obvious that each person must respond to their own circumstances to avoid harm being occasioned to them.

Does This Principle Apply To Prohibited Acts?

We may gather from the above discussions that, when acts or commitments occasion harm, the Principles of Jurisprudence indicate those acts or commitment are NOT binding.

In the same manner, rights can be circumscribed when acts are liable to harm others. No one is permitted to play loud music or continue noisy partying into the early hours if that disturbs their neighbours. Similarly, a neighbour's right, privacy or well-being may not be restricted by the exercise of one's own rights, as when the Prophet (S), circumscribed Samurah's right to visit his tree.

To discuss if the above principle applies to prohibited acts, or not, we first need to carefully consider the following criteria:

1. If the jurist counsels a shopkeeper not to sell wine it may seriously reduce his income and eventually drive him out of business. In such circumstances may a Muslim shopkeeper argue that, as this will occasion him harm, he is entitled to continue such sales?

2. When a Muslim buys a pizza shop at a purchase price determined by the revenue it has yielded, it is obvious that if items are thereafter discontinued these may, or may not, affect the shop's earning potential.

3. Families in some Islamic countries earn their living by farming opium poppies and cannabis. If the jurist counsels them to discontinue doing this their 'living' may be jeopardized.

To permit any of the above acts would be to destroy the structure of all Islamic rulings and teaching. People frequently twist legal understandings to further their own egotism, selfishness and ill desires. The entire corpus of guidance of all of Allah's prophets (S) is focused at civilizing people and encouraging control of their ego's desires. If there was no such teaching, all would be free to do whatever they willed regardless of its effect.

Furthermore, this principle the 'favour' of the All Mighty to His obedient servants - is to remove burdens from them. How may disobedient people take advantage of that 'favour' in the knowledge that the examples above are considered sinful by Islam.

The only matter open for discussion is if restraint from a particular sin will lead to unbearable hardship, and this is dealt with by the next principle.

• 1. Musnad of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal - Hadith number 2867, Al-Muwatta' - Vol. 2, p. 171, Al Mustradak ala al-Sahihain - Vol. 2, p. 58, Sunan al-Bayhaqi - Vol. 6, p. 157, Sunan Al-Darqutni - Vol. 4, p. 227.