Bukhari

Chapter of Sahih Bukhari Hadith Number: 3059: «بَابُ إِذَا أَسْلَمَ قَوْمٌ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ، وَلَهُمْ مَالٌ وَأَرَضُونَ، فَهْيَ لَهُمْ:»
Relevance between the Chapter and the Hadith:
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has presented a marfu’ (attributed to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) hadith before the athar (statement) of Sayyiduna Umar radi Allahu anhu, and this hadith is also in accordance with that athar. In reality, the noble Imam Bukhari rahimahullah’s objective is to refute the Hanafis. They say: If a harbi (enemy combatant) disbeliever becomes Muslim while residing in dar al-harb (the land of war), and then the Muslims conquer that land, then all his property and possessions will go to the Muslims, and he will be deprived of them.
The marfu’ hadith that Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has narrated from Sayyiduna Usamah bin Zayd radi Allahu anhu clearly indicates:
«قلت: يا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اين تنزل غدا فى حجته؟ قال: ”وهل ترك لنا عقيل منزلا . . .“.» [صحيح البخاري، كتاب الجهاد، رقم الحديث: 3058]
Sayyiduna Usamah radi Allahu anhu, on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage (Hajjat al-Wada’), asked: “O Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, where will you stay (in Makkah) tomorrow?” The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam replied: “Aqil has not left any house for us...”
When the Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam migrated from Makkah to Madinah, Aqil had not yet embraced Islam; he remained in Makkah and sold all his property and houses. Now, the relevance between the chapter heading and the hadith is as follows: The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, even after the conquest of Makkah, upheld the sales of those houses and properties and acknowledged Aqil’s ownership. Therefore, when Aqil’s transactions before Islam were validated, then after Islam, they are even more so.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah states:
«أشار بذالك إلى الرد على من قال من الحنفية أن الحربي إذا أسلم فى دار الحرب و أقام بها غلب المسلمون عليها فهو أحق بجميع ماله إلا أرضه و عقاره فما تكون فينا للمسلمين، وقد خالفهم أبويوسف فى ذالك وافق الجمهور، و يوافق الترجمة حديث أخرجه أحمد عن صخر بن العيلة البجلي قال: فرقوم من بني سليم عن أرضهم فأخذتها، فأسلموا فارسلوني إلى النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم فردها عليهم و قال: إذا أسلم الرجل فهو أحق بأرضه وماله.» [فتح الباري، ج 6، ص: 316]
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah has indicated that he is refuting those among the Hanafis who say that when a harbi embraces Islam in dar al-harb and resides there, and then the Muslims become dominant there, then the Muslims have a right to all his wealth except for land and immovable property (i.e., houses, gardens, etc.). Indeed, those things become spoils of war (mal al-ghanima) for the Muslims. Abu Yusuf opposed them and agreed with the majority, and Ahmad narrated this hadith through Sakhr bin al-‘Aylah al-Bajali, who said: A people from Banu Sulaym fled, leaving their land, and a man took their land. When they became Muslim, they came to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam with the issue of their land. The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam returned their land to them and said: “When a man becomes Muslim, he is more entitled to his wealth and land (that it be returned to him).” Thus, from here, the reason for the relevance between the hadith and the chapter heading is established. The athar of Sayyiduna Umar radi Allahu anhu is also connected to this issue.
What is established from the athar of Sayyiduna Umar radi Allahu anhu is that he showed kindness to the people of Madinah; when they embraced Islam, he maintained their ownership of their lands.
Imam al-Zurqani rahimahullah states:
«قال مهلب: انما قال عمر رضي الله عنه ذالك لأن أهل المدينة أسلموا عفوا فكانت أموالهم لهم ولذا ساوم صلى الله عليه وسلم بني النجار بمكان مسجده . . .» [شرح الزرقاني، ج 4، ص: 555]
That is, Sayyiduna Umar radi Allahu anhu said this because the people of Madinah became Muslim through pardon, and their wealth remained theirs. For this reason, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam paid a price to Banu Najjar for the house and mosque for himself, and whoever among the people of the grave became Muslim, their lands became the property of the Muslims, because the Muslims became dominant over their cities just as they became dominant over their wealth, unlike the people of treaty (ahl al-sulh).
Therefore, it is clear from the athar of Sayyiduna Umar radi Allahu anhu that he let their wealth remain in their ownership. Thus, from here, the relevance between the chapter heading and the hadith is established.
Benefit:
Regarding the athar of Sayyiduna Umar radi Allahu anhu, Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah states:
«وهذا الحديث ليس فى المؤطأ.» [فتح الباري، ج 6، ص: 218]
“This hadith is not in the Muwatta.” But this hadith is present in the Muwatta:
«قال الاستاذ محمد فؤاد عبدالباقي: هذا الحديث فى الموطأ، كتاب الدعوة المظلوم 1، باب ما يتقى من دعوة المظلوم.»
Now the question arises: Why did Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah say that this hadith is not in the Muwatta? The answer is that the copy he had did not contain this hadith.
The author of Awjaz al-Masalik writes:
«و يمكن الاعتذار عن الحافظ انه يمكن أن لا يكون فى نسخته من ”الموطأ“» [أوجز الماللك، ج 15، ص: 371]
That is, an excuse can be made for Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah that the copy of the Muwatta he had before him may not have contained this athar. In the present era, several copies of the Muwatta of Imam Malik are available, for example:
① «رواية يحيي بن يحيي.»
② «رواية عبدالرحمن بن القاسم.»
③ «رواية أبى مصعب الظاهري.»
④ «رواية عبدالله بن مسلمة القعنبي وغيره.»

Hadith Commentary: Both Abdur Rahman ibn Awf (radi Allahu anhu) and Uthman al-Ghani (radi Allahu anhu) were wealthy. The intention of Umar (radi Allahu anhu) was that their wealth should not overawe anyone such that their animals are given precedence; rather, the rights of the poor people's animals come first.

If the animals of the poor were to die of hunger, then it would become necessary to give them a cash stipend from the Bayt al-Mal (public treasury).

At the end of the hadith, the statement of Umar (radi Allahu anhu) that is narrated is the very basis for the chapter heading: Umar (radi Allahu anhu) said regarding the land that it remained theirs even in the state of Islam. Thus, it is understood that the immovable property of a disbeliever also remains in his ownership after he embraces Islam, even if that disbeliever had been living in Dar al-Harb (the abode of war).

(Wahidi)

Hadith Commentary:
➊
Hima refers to that pasture which the ruler allocates specifically for the animals of charity (sadaqah). In such a pasture, the animals of the poor have the first right, because if their animals die of hunger, they will have to be given a cash stipend from the public treasury (bayt al-mal). In contrast, if the animals of the wealthy perish, they will turn to their orchards and agriculture, and will not demand a cash stipend from the bayt al-mal. From this hadith, it is understood that the communal lands (shamilat) of a village, where people graze their livestock, are the right of the villagers; the ruler of the time cannot sell them.

➋
Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah established the aforementioned heading from the statement of Umar radi Allahu anhu: “That land belonged to them in the time of ignorance (jahiliyyah); they fought battles for it, and after embracing Islam, it remained in their ownership.” From this, it is understood that the movable and immovable property of a disbeliever remains his after embracing Islam, even if he remains in the land of war (dar al-harb). However, some scholars say that such people are only entitled to movable property, while immovable property becomes the property of the government. In light of the aforementioned hadith, this position is questionable. And Allah knows best.