النص المفهرس

Every skin which is tanned is pure.
قوله كل إباب يتناول كل جلد يحتمل الدباغة. (البحر الرائق: ٩٩/١، كوئته)
فتح القدير:
وكل إياب دبغ فقد طهر يتناول كل جلد يحتمل الدباغة لا ما لا يحتمله. (فتح
القدير: ٩٢/١، دار الفكر)
Maulānā Khalid Sayfullāh Sāhib writes in Qāmūs al-Fiqh:
The Hanafi jurists generally state that the skins of snakes, rats, etc. are
not usable because it is not possible to tan them. However, in today's
times, it has become possible to tan small creatures, and they are
usable once they are tanned. Imam Muhammad rahimahullah said that
if the testicles of a dead goat are tanned and made usable, they will
become pure.1
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Dealings with a non-Muslim who engages in unlawful business
transactions
Question
A person does business with a non-Muslim, accepts gifts from him, or
occasionally accepts an invitation to a meal from him. The non-Muslim
does things which are unlawful to a Muslim. For example:
1. Invalid transactions - he imports goods from overseas and
sells them before taking possession of them.
2. He sells alcohol. This is the major portion of his income.
3.
He sells garments containing images of animate objects.
4. He is a barber. He cuts hair in a manner which is not in line
with the Shari' ah. He shaves the beards of his customers.
5. He is involved in gambling.
6. He sells musical instruments and musical recordings.
1 Qāmūs al-Fiqh, vol. 3, p. 405.
259

If a Muslim sells an item to such a non-Muslim and accepts his money
or accepts a gift from him, will this be permissible? This happens most
of the time in non-Muslim countries.
Answer
If a Muslim does business with a non-Muslim as described above, and
the transactions are correctly done, then it is permissible.
Maulānā Zafar Ahmad 'Uthmanī writes with reference to selling an
item before taking possession of it:
If the buyer is a non-Muslim, there is no harm in doing business with
him in this way.1
He writes in another place:
There is no objection to selling musical instruments to non-Muslims.
وفي بيعه أى المزمار مع الكفار لم تقم الحرمة بالعين ولا بالفعل فإن الكفار
ليسوا مخاطبين بحرمة الغناء ولا بو حرام فى الأديان كلها. (امداد الاحكام:
٣٨٤/٣)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Bearing the cost of returning a defective item
Question
Zayd bought a heavy machine from 'Umar. After buying it, Zayd found
a defect in it which necessitated him to return the machine. Who will
bear the cost of returning the machine, Zayd or 'Umar?
Answer
If the buyer came to know of an old defect and wants to return the
machine, the buyer ['Umar] will have to bear the cost of transport.
البحر الرائق:
تنبيهات مهمة: الأول: وجد بالمبيع الذي لم حمل ومؤنة عيباً ورده فمؤنة الرد
على المشترى. (البحر الرائق: ٣٧/٦، كوئته)
1 Imdād al-Ahkām, vol. 3, p. 410.
260

الفتاوى البزازية:
وجد بالمبيع الذي لم حمل ومؤنة عيباً ورده فمؤنة الرد على المشترى. (الفتاوى
البزازية على بامش الهندية: ٤٤٧/٤)
المحيط البرہانى:
وفى المحيط البرباني: وفى المنتقى: اشترى من آخر تمراً بالري وحمله إلى الكوفة
ثم اطلع على عیب بناک فإن أراد أن يرده قال محمد: لیس لم ذلک حتی یرده
إلى ذلك الموضع علل فقال: لأن لحمله مؤنة. (المحيط البربانى: ٣٠/٨، فصل فى
العيوب، رشیدیة)
We learn from the above text that since it is the responsibility of the
buyer to convey the item to the seller, the cost of transporting it will
also have to borne by the buyer.
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
When the second buyer is asked to pay the full amount
Question
Two persons bought a machine whose payment is due after one
month. One of the buyers disappeared. At the end of the specified
period, the seller is demanding payment. How can the second buyer
acquire the machine?
Answer
Since the seller is not prepared to hand over the machine until he
receives the full amount, the second buyer must pay the full amount
and take possession of the machine. When the first buyer returns, he
must collect half the money which was paid for the machine, and then
give over his share to him.
261

الدر المختار:
وإن اشترى اثنان شيئاً وغاب واحد منهما فللحاضر دفع كل ثمنه ويجبر البائع
على قبول الكل ودفع الكل للحاضر ولم قبض وحبس عن شريك إذا حضر
حتى ينقد شريكه الثمن بخلاف المستاجرين. (الدر المختار: ٢٣١/٥، سعيد)
تبيين الحقائق:
ولو غاب أحد الشريكين للحاضر دفع كل الثمن وقبضه وحبسه حتى ينقد
شريكه يعني إذا اشترى رجلان فغاب أحدبما قبل القبض يكون للحاضر
دفع كل الثمن وقبض كله ثم إذا حضر شريكه فله أن يحبس عنه حتى
ينقده. (تبيين الحقائق: ١٢٩/٤، ملتان)
(شرح العناية: ١٢٧/٧، والبحر الرائق: ١٧٠/٦، وفتح القدير: ١٢٧/٧، والبناية:
٢١١/٣)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Laying down an invalid condition with a non-Muslim
Question
A person bought a church which would be used as a madrasah for
children. Some conditions were laid down, e.g. changes and alterations
to the church may be made inside only. No changes can be made to it
on the outside. It is an ancient church and its old appearance has to be
maintained. The grave of the founder of this church is within the
boundaries of the church. A high wall may be constructed around it so
that no one can see the grave. Bearing in mind the importance of the
church, the buyer accepted these conditions with the intention that at
least a building which was inviting towards falsehood will now be used
for the sake of Islam. The importance of this church and the objections
made by some Christians caused this entire affair to be reported in the
newspapers. A muftī issued a fatwa that because of the invalid
conditions, the entire transaction is invalid. It is obligatory to return
it. We request a fatwa from your Dar al-Ifta'.
262

Answer
The rule of the Shari'ah is that when invalid conditions are made, the
transaction becomes invalid. However, this applies to the mutual
dealings among Muslims. If such a transaction is entered into with a
non-Muslim, it will not be invalid. Hadrat Maulana Zafar Ahmad
'Uthmānī rahimahullāh writes in Imdād al-Ahkām in response to a
question on selling an item before taking possession of it. He says that
this is impermissible because it entails the sale of something which is
non-existent or before taking possession of it. And both are invalid.
Yes, if the buyer is a non-Muslim, there is no objection to such a
transaction with him.1
He writes in another place:
There is no objection to selling musical instruments to non-Muslims.
وفي بيعه أى المزمار مع الكفار لم تقم الحرمة بالعين ولا بالفعل فإن الكفار
ليسوا مخاطبين بحرمة الغناء ولا بو حرام فى الأديان كلها. (امداد الاحكام:
٣٨٤/٣)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
A motorcycle and 'umrah welfare scheme
Question
A motorcycle retailer has a scheme wherein the buyer will purchase a
motorcycle on instalments. A lot will be drawn, and the person whose
name comes out will receive the motorcycle in return for the
instalments which he already paid, and the remaining instalments will
fall away. When the lot is drawn, some participants will also receive an
'umrah ticket. Certain muftīs say that this deal is impermissible. Some
of the reasons which they furnish are as follows:
1. If it is bay' as-salam, the buyer ought to have paid the entire amount
in the beginning. Here he paid the amount in instalments.
2. The price is unspecified; it is one price for one person and a different
price for another.
3. If the amount which he paid is not the price, and is instead a trust
(amanah), and the company has the permission to use it; then this will
1 Imdād al-Ahkām, vol. 3, p. 410.
263

become a debt. Based on this, where a lot is drawn, the buyer who is a
debtor in this case, has received a discount. It will then fall under the
principle: كل قرض جر نفعا فهو ربا (a debt which draws profits is usury).
What is your verdict in this regard?
Answer
I am of the view that this scheme is permissible. There are two ways of
making it valid.
(1)
The instalments must be given as a trust (amanah) and the seller must
be given permission to use it as he wants. This will become a loan. In
the case where a lot is drawn, the same instalments will become the
price. As for the principle: كل قرض جر نفعا فهو ربا (a loan which draws
profits is usury), this applies to where the profit is preconditioned and
known to both parties. It is unlawful. Where the profit is envisaged, it
is not unlawful. In this case, the profit is envisaged, it is not known to
either party.
The chief muftī of Dar al-'Ulum Deoband, Hadrat Muftī Nizam ad-Din
Sāhib rahimahullāh writes in Nizām al-Fatāwā:
Question: What do the 'ulama' say about the following. The post office
has a scheme where a person deposits one pound, five pounds, or
whatever amount; and receives a receipt for the deposit. He can
withdraw the money whenever he wants when he produces the
receipt. Every month, the newspapers publish certain numbers, where
a person who deposited one pound, receives one hundred pounds. Is it
permissible for a person to accept the amount which is more than
what he deposited?
Answer: ... Hadrat Muftī Sahib rahimahullah said that it is permissible.
We are quoting one portion of his answer: There is no certainty in
receiving the extra amount, the person cannot demand the extra
amount, and everyone does not receive the extra amount. Rather, the
post office merely announces the distribution of the extra amount
according to whatever rules it has laid down, and as per the numbers
[of the receipts] which are announced. One of the persons whose name
appears receives the extra amount. No one else has the right to
demand it.
Hadrat Muftī Sahib rahimahullah writes further on: Someone may say
that the extra amount is only given to the one who gave the loan,
therefore the profit was drawn by the loan, and it be classified as: K
264

a loan which draws profits is usury). The answer to) قرض جر نفعا فهو ربا
this objection is that the extra amount is not given to every person
who gives the loan (makes the deposit); the post office only gives to
whomever it wants. If the name of a person who had made a deposit
does not come out, and he demands the extra amount, he will have no
right to demand it as per the original agreement. This profit can
therefore not be classified as "a loan which draws profits". 'Allamah
Shāmī rahimahullāh says in this regard:
إذا كان مشروطاً كما علم مما نقله عن البحر ومن الخلاصة وفى الذخيرة: إن
لم يكن النفع مشروطاً فى القرض فعلى قول الكرخى لا بأس به.
Further on he explains the difference between ; and 21.1
Muftī Rashīd Ahmad Ludhyānwī rahimahullāh writes:
In order to increase its sales, a motorcycle company has initiated a
scheme where it sells a motorcycle on instalments. It has laid down
twenty-one instalments with a monthly instalment of 550 rupees. If,
before completing the instalments, a person's name comes out in a
draw, the motorcycle is given to him and the remaining instalments
fall away. The draw is held monthly. If a person's name does not come
out in the draw for twenty months, he is given the motorcycle in the
twenty-first month. The amount of the twenty-one instalments is the
same as what a motorcycle sells for in the market. It is not priced
higher than normal. Is this transaction permissible?
Answer: This is a discount from the company's side. It can give a
discount to a buyer through drawing a lot. It does not entail a loss to
anyone. This transaction is therefore permissible. Allah ta'ālā knows
best.2
We learn from the above that the entire amount is not unknown; it is
known. Yes, by drawing a lot, some peoples' remaining instalments are
pardoned. The full amount must be shown in the advertisement. And
that the remaining instalments of some people are pardoned.
Hadrat Muftī Nizām ad-Din Sahib rahimahullah was asked the
following question:
1 Nizām al-Fatāwā, vol. 1, pp. 194-195.
2 Ahsan al-Fatāwā, vol. 6, p. 518.
265

A person wants to advertise his business so he adopts the following
scheme. A watch is normally valued at one hundred rupees. He gets
fifty members who will contribute ten rupees every month for ten
months. In the first month, the person whose name is drawn from the
lot will receive the watch for ten rupees. This will continue for the
next nine months. Whichever person's name is drawn will receive a
watch. In the tenth month, there are forty-one persons remaining.
Each one will receive a watch and the scheme will terminate in this
way. Is this permissible?
Hadrat Muftī Sahib rahimahullah replied that this scheme is
permissible on the condition that if any of the participants passes
away before he can receive his watch, the instalments which he paid
are returned. This is the gist of the question and answer.1
Muftī Khalid Sayfullah Sahib had initially stated that this scheme is
invalid, but he retracted and said that it is permissible. (Jadid Fiqhī
Masā'il, vol. 4, p. 166) He initially said that it is invalid because the price
was unknown, whereas here, the original price is not unknown. Yes,
later on, the remaining amount is pardoned through the drawing of
lots.
To sum up, the profit is not preconditioned for every person who is
party to the transaction. Rather, it is dependent on the drawing of lots.
This is referred to as tabarru'-e-mashrūt (a preconditioned donation). In
other words, if the person's name comes out in the draw, the
remaining instalments will be pardoned. And tabarru'-e-mashrūt is
permissible. There are many examples for it in the Shari'ah. Hadrat
Abu Bakr radiyallahu 'anhu bought a palanquin for a camel from
Hadrat 'Āzib radiyallahu 'anhu and said to him: "Tell your son, Barra',
to take this palanquin with me." Hadrat 'Āzib radiyallahu 'anhu said:
"He will take it on condition that you relate the story of the Hijrah."
Hadrat 'Āzib radiyallahu 'anhu preconditioned the favour of carrying
the palanquin with relating the story of the Hijrah, and Hadrat Abū
Bakr radiyallahu 'anhu accepted the condition of relating the story.
Imdad al-Ahkām states: The admission fees and monthly fees which are
charged by madaris are not rental payments; they are donations. And
it is permissible to make a condition in donations.2
Observe details about this issue in Kitab al-Hibah, under the heading
tabarru' mashrūt:
1 Nizām al-Fatāwā, vol. 2, p. 319.
2 Imdād al-Ahkām, vol. 3, p. 623.
266

A simple definition of tabarru'-e-mashrūt: To make a condition in a
favour which is done to another. For example, laying down the
condition of drawing lots for instalment-payments.
(2)
The second way in which this transaction can be validated is to
consider it as istisna' and not salam. This must be clearly stated in the
advertisement. The fundamental reason for not classifying it as salam
is that in salam, it is necessary to give the capital amount and to
specify the time period. And here the capital amount is given in
instalments.
بدائع الصنائع:
أما الذي يرجع إلى رأس المال ... ومنها: أن يكون مقبوضاً في مجلس السلم
لأن المسلم فيه دين والافتراق لا عن قبض رأس المال يكون افتراقاً عن دين
بدين ... ولأن مأخذ بذا العقد دليل على بذا الشرط فإنه يسمى سلماً وسلفاً ..
والسلف ينبئى عن التقدم فيقتضي لزوم تسليم رأس المال. (بدائع الصنائع:
٢٠٢/٥، سعيد)
تبيين الحقائق:
فإن أسلم في مائتي دريم في كر بر مائة دين عليه ومائة نقد فالسلم فى الدين
باطل أى في حصة الدين لأنه دين بدين. (تبيين الحقائق: ١١٨/٤، امداديه)
However, in the case of istisna', it is not necessary to give the entire
amount immediately. The following is stated in al-Majallah:
لا يلزم فى الاستصناع دفع الثمن حالاً لأن بذا بيع والمستصنع مشترٍ
والمشترى لا يلزم دفع الثمن قبل إحضار المبيع. (مجلة وشرح المجلة لمحمد
خالد الاتاسى: ٤٠٥/٢، باب الاستصناع)
A simple translation of istisna' is: to order an item or book an item. It is
not necessary for the item to be manufactured later on. Rather, even
an item which was manufactured before hand can be given to the
person who placed the order. As stated in the books of jurisprudence.
267

Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
268

PROFIT-SHARING AND BANKS
An objection to a profit-sharing contract of a banking institution
Question
We have some non-interest banks which operate on a profit-sharing
basis. This is how they work: Zayd needs to buy some goods but he
requests a bank to pay for them by entering into a murabahah (profit-
sharing) contract with him. After making its investigations, the bank
gives him the agreement papers. Zayd goes to a business or factory.
The required goods are purchased for R100 000.00 by the bank's
representative or Zayd buys them on behalf of the bank. He then buys
the same goods from the bank for R130 000.00 as a deferred price. Is
this contract permissible? Some 'ulama' raise objections to it. Two
objections need attention:
1. If a representative of the bank made the purchase, then there seems
to be no major objection to it. However, if Zayd made the purchase on
behalf of the bank and then becomes the buyer of the goods himself,
then his first qabdah is qabd amanat as a representative and trustee,
and the qabdah with respect to himself is qabd daman or qabd
mu'awadah. In such a case, a qabd amanat cannot take the place of a
qabd mu'āwadah.
2. The second objection is that if Zayd is a representative for the
purchase and also becomes the buyer by becoming the representative
for the sale, it would mean that one person will become the seller and
the buyer. And this is prohibited according to the jurists. To put it in
another way, Zayd is the asil (buyer) and the wakil (representative for
the sale). To put it in yet another way, Zayd is matalib-e-thaman and
matlub bi ath-thaman. How can the two be combined?
*Allāmah Shāmī rahimahullāh says:
الوكيل بالبيع لا يملك شراءه لنفسه لأن الواحد لا يكون مشترياً وبائعاً
فيبيع من غيره ثم يشتريه منه. (فتاوى الشامى: ٥٢١/٥، سعيد)
Answer
1. A qabdah amanat cannot take the place of a qabdah daman because
the first one is classified as weak while the second is classified as
strong. And something which is weak cannot take the place of
something which is strong. Yes, if a person exercises his will over a
qabdah amanat, then it automatically becomes a qabdah daman. In the
269

case where the item is destroyed or damaged, the buyer will be liable
to pay compensation.
In short, where the person exercises his will, the qabdah amanat
automatically becomes a qabdah daman. Yes, had the qabdah amanat
not become a qabdah daman, then where it is damaged or destroyed,
the bank which is the seller would have to pay compensation. But in
the case where the person exercises his will over the item or moves it
around, the buyer will have to pay compensation. In other words, the
issue of a qabdah amanat not taking the place of a qabdah daman is
connected to daman - that is, who will pay compensation if the item is
damaged or destroyed. This is not an issue of halal and haram. Yes, the
buyer can make an agreement with the bank or makes a verbal
statement: "If the item is destroyed or damaged before I exercise my
will over it, the bank will be responsible."
بخلاف ما لو باع الأمانة ممن بي عنده فإنه لا ينوب قبض الأمانة عن قبض
البيع لأن قبض البيع قبض الضمان وقبض الأمانة دون فلا ينوب عنه بل لا
بد من تجديد القبض بأن يخلى بين نفسه وبين الأمانة المبيعة بعد العقد.
(شرح القواعد الفقهية للشيخ احمد بن الشيخ محمد الزرقا، ص ٣٠١)
الهداية:
وإن كان له مال في يد أجنبي فأنفق عليهما بغير إذن القاضي ضمن لأنه
تصرف في مال الغير بغير ولاية لأنه نائب فى الحفظ لا غير، بخلاف ما إذا
أمره القاضي لأن أمره ملزم لعموم ولايته، وإذا ضمن لا يرجع على القابض
لأن ملكه بالضمان فظهر أنه كان متبرعاً به. (الهداية، باب النفقة، ٤٤٨/٢)
Jadīd Fiqhī Mabāhith:
The first qabdah which is as a representative has the status of an
amanat (trust). The second qabdah with respect to himself is a qabdah
daman. A second qabdah is only valid when the first one is of the same
category. For example, if a person seizes the wealth of another, it is a
qabdah daman. However, there are clear texts stating that if a
transaction is concluded in the case of the qabdah amanat, the person
reaches the goods or exercises his right of ownership over them, he
would have taken qabdah of the goods with respect to himself. As for
the issue which is causing objections, it stems from: If the first qabdah
270

is one of amanat, then it will not change to a qabdah daman on
account of the sale itself. And if the first qabdah is also one of daman,
it will become one's own qabdah on account of the sale.1
When a person exercises his will over a qabdah amanat, it changes into
a qabdah damān:
ثم الخلط أنواع ثلاثة خلط يتعذر التمييز بعده كخلط الشيء بجنسه فهذا
موجب للضمان لأنه يتعذر به على المالك الوصول إلى عين ملكه ... وخلط
يتعسر معر التمييز كخلط الحنطة بالشعير فهو موجب للضمان لأنه يتعذر
على المالك الوصول إلى عين ملكه إلا بحرج ... وإذا كان عند الرجل وديعة
درايم أو دنانير أو شيء من المكيل أو الموزون فأنفق طائفة منهما في حاجته
كان ضامناً لما أنفق ... فإن جاء بمثل ما أنفق فخلطه بالباقي صار ضامناً
لجميعها لأن ما أنفق صار ديناً في ذمته وہو لا ينفرد بقضاء الدين بغير محضر
من صاحبه فيكون فعلم يذا خلطاً لما بقي بملك نفسه وذلك موجب للضمان
عليه. (المبسوط للامام السرخسى، ١١١،١١٠/١١، كتاب الوديعة، ادارة القرآن)
Ta'līfāt Rashīdīyyah:
It is not permissible for a trustee to exercise his will ... if he does, he will
become liable.2
If an animal was given for safe-keeping to a person and it dies while he
was riding it, he will have to pay compensation.
'Allāmah 'Aynī rahimahullāh writes:
لأن الضمان وجب عليه بنفس الركوب حتى لو بلك في حالة الاستعمال
يضمن بلا خلاف. (حاشية بداية: ٢٧٢/٣)
We learn that riding an animal which was given for safe-keeping or
wearing clothes which were given for the same purpose causes the
qabd amanat to change into a qabd daman. This is why the jurists
1 Jadīd Fiqhī Mabāhith, vol. 3, pp. 427-428 as quoted from al-Bahr ar-Rā'iq, vol. 6,
p. 86 and Radd al-Muhtar, vol. 4, p. 112.
2 Ta'līfāt Rashīdīyyah, p. 431.
271

classify the lending of dirhams for the sake of spending as a loan. (al-
Hidāyah, vol. 3, p. 279) Spending borrowed dirhams automatically
causes them to become a loan which has to be paid back.
Hadrat Thanwī rahimahullah writes:
When an amanat is given while permitting the trustee to spend it, it
becomes a loan even if the person did not will it so.1
When money is deposited in a bank for safe-keeping, then although it
is called a deposit, it is a well-known fact that the same money is not
kept aside. Rather, the bank does business with it. Thus, based on the
principle - al-ma'rūf ka al-mashrūt (an accepted norm is like a
precondition), the bank exercising its will over the deposit will be
classified as a permission granted to it by the depositor. And giving
permission to exercise one's will turns it into a loan.2
وللاستزادة انظر: فتاوى الشامى: ٦٦٨/٥-٦٧٠، كتاب الايداع، سعيد. وحاشية
الطحطاوى على الدر المختار: ٣٧٩/٣، كوئتة)
Objection: There is one objection to this issue. A person becomes a
sinner when he exercises his will over an item which was entrusted to
him. Why, then, has he been given the permission to exercise his will
over it?
Answer: The owner has agreed to the trustee exercising his will, so he
will not be sinning.
2. The answer to the second objection [mentioned at the beginning of
the question] is that 'Allamah Shamī rahimahullah mentions a view
which states that the representative may buy the item for himself
under the instruction of the one who appointed him. In other words, it
will also be permissible for him to become the seller and buyer at one
and the same time.
وإن أمره المؤكل أن يبيعه من نفسه وأولاده الصغار أو ممن لا يقبل شهادته
فباع منهم جاز بزازية كذا فى البحر، ولا يخفى ما بينهما من المخالفة، وذكر
مثل ما فى السراج فى النهاية عن المبسوط، ومثل ما فى البزازية فى الذخيرة عن
1 Imdād al-Fatāwā, vol. 3, p. 145.
2 Imdād al-Fatāwā, vol. 2, p. 571.
272

الطحاوى، وكأن فى المسألة قولين خلافاً لمن ادعى أنه لا مخالفة بينهما. (فتاوى
الشامى: ٥٢٢/٥، سعيد. وكذا فى البحر الرائق: ١٦٧/٧، كوئته)
A fatwa can be issued on this statement of 'Allamah Shāmī
rahimahullah to save people from the curse of usury. Obviously, it will
be best if the bank appoints someone else as its representative for the
sale.
To summarize the above: If the item is destroyed before the buyer can
exercise his will over it, the bank will be responsible. If it is destroyed
after the buyer exercises his will over it, the buyer will have to pay
compensation.
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
A second objection to profit-sharing agreements with banks and the
reality of legal stratagems
Question
The fundamental objective and essence of a profit-sharing contract
with a bank is this: The bank gives R100 000.00 to Zayd and will collect
R150 000.00 from him. This is clearly interest. How can it be correct to
resort to a profit-sharing contract to make this permissible?
Answer
The objective of Zayd (the buyer) is not to procure a loan. Rather, he
needs to buy a machine for which he does not have the money. There
are two ways he can acquire the machine: (1) He takes a loan and pays
an additional amount. He can then take the money and buy the
machine. This is certainly interest. (2) He buys the machine through
the bank on the basis of murabahah. This second option is not interest
but a way to avoid interest. When it comes to transactions and
dealings, Rasūlullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam himself taught
measures of this nature. There is a well-known incident of a Sahabī
who bought one kilo [the weight was actually called a sa', but we are
naming it a kilo to make it easy for us to understand] of superior
quality dates in exchange for two kilos of inferior quality dates.
Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam referred to it as interest and
showed him how to save himself from this sin. He asked him to sell the
two kilos of dates for dirhams. In exchange for the dirhams which the
buyer is duty-bound to pay, he must purchase a kilo of superior quality
dates. The essence of both transactions is the same, but when this
measure was adopted, the transaction became permissible.
273

Types of legal stratagems
Every hīlah (legal stratagem) is not impermissible. A hīlah whose
objective it is to invalidate a Shari'ah injunction or trample on
someone's rights is impermissible according to the Shariah. For
example, a person tries to invalidate the order of zakah on himself by
handing over all his wealth to his wife before the expiry of one lunar
year. Then before the expiry of the next lunar year, the wife gives over
all the wealth to her husband. The objective of this stratagem is to
invalidate an injunction of the Shari'ah and to deny the poor their
dues. This hilah is therefore unlawful.
Take the example of the fishing which was prohibited to the Banī
Isra'il on Saturdays. The purpose of this order was to prohibit them
from making Saturdays a means of acquiring fish. However, they used
to gather the fish in various ponds by causing them to swim into them
on Saturdays, and sealing off the exits so they could not swim out.
They would then catch the fish on Sundays. This was a stratagem to
legalize fishing, but it was synonymous to invalidating an injunction of
the Shari'ah because Saturday had become a means for fishing.
(According to some scholars, they were even prohibited from sealing
off the exit points).
Take another example: A person is prohibited from raising his hand
against another, so he resorts to kicking him. The objective is
obviously lost.
Fat was made unlawful to the Jews, as related in Sahih Bukhārī. So they
began selling it after melting it. Since melting an item does not alter
its fundamental nature and it is still fat, this stratagem was prohibited
and unlawful.
There is no harm in a stratagem whose objective it is to save someone
from what is unlawful.
فالحاصل أن ما يتخلص به الرجل من الحرام أو يتوصل به إلى الحلال من
الحيل فهو حسن. (المبسوط للامام السرخسى: ٢٠٩/٣٠)
Similarly, the stratagem related to the above-mentioned incident of
the dates of a Sahabi has been taught in the Hadith. This is related by
Imām Bukhārī and Imām Muslim rahimahumallāh.
A stratagem whose objective it is to save an innocent person is not
prohibited. According to the exegists, when Hadrat Ayyub 'alayhis
salām had taken an oath of lashing his wife, he was taught to strike her
with the bristles of a broom so that his oath is fulfilled.
274

If the objective of a stratagem is to save a person's life, then it too is
not impermissible. There was a physically weak person who had
committed fornication. He could not have borne the lashing, so he was
punished with a bundle of twigs and his life was saved.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Specifying a monthly profit in a profit-sharing contract
Question
Zayd bought a machine from 'Umar for R1 000. This is how 'Umar sold
it: The actual price is R1 000, but Zayd will pay the price in
instalments. 'Umar will therefore take a profit of R200 per month. If he
paid the five instalments from January to May, the price of the
machine would have become R2 000. He therefore sold the machine at
a deferred price of R2 000. He also said that if the buyer pays the full
amount within two months, the price of the machine will be R1 400. Is
such a transaction permissible?
Answer
This contract is essentially a murabahah contract and in such a
contract, it is permissible to collect a monthly profit of R200. If Zayd
pays it over five months, the price will become R2000. If it is paid
within two months or the buyer passes away, the price will be R1400.
Islām Aur Jadīd Ma āshī Masā'il:
A murabahah transaction entails the buyer paying an additional price
in relation to the period over which he makes the payments. If this is
mentioned clearly at the time of the transaction, then the verdict of
latter-day Hanafi jurists is that if the debtor pays off his debt before
the appointed time or passes away before that time, the seller will
collect only that amount which will be in relation to the past days. He
will have to leave out the price which was due in relation to the
remaining days ... The probable reason for the jurists saying this is that
although a time-period does not have the capability of being an
exchange, it is permissible to supplementarily and inclusively specify
an amount in relation to the period. For example, it is not primarily
permissible to sell the calf which is still in the womb of a cow, but
there are occasions when it is permissible to collect something in
exchange for it if it is done supplementarily.1
1 Islām Aur Jadīd Ma āshī Masā'il, vol. 3, p. 118-120.
275

الدر المختار:
قضى المديون الدين المؤجل قبل حلول الأجل أو مات فحل بموته فأخذ من
تركته لا يأخذ من المرابحة التي جرت بينهما إلا بقدر ما مضى من الأيام، وہو
جواب المتأخرين، قنية، وبه أفتى المرحوم أبو السعود آفندي مفتى الروم، وعلله
بالرفق للجانبين. وفى الشامية: قوله لا يأخذ من المرابحة، صورته اشترى شيئاً
بعشرة نقداً وباعه لآخر بعشرين إلى أجل بو عشرة أشهر، فإذا قضاه بعد تمام
خمسة أو مات بعدبا يأخذ خمسة ويترك خمسة، أقول: والظابر أن مثله ما لو
أقرضه وباعه سلعة بثمن معلوم وأجل ذلك، فيحسب له من ثمن السلعة
بقدر ما مضى فقط تأمل. (الدر المختار مع فتاوى الشامى: ٧٥٧/٦، قبيل كتاب
الفرائض، سعيد)
فتح القدير:
(قوله وعلله) أى علله الحانوتي بالتباعد عن شبهة الربا لأنها في باب الربا
ملحقة بالحقيقة، ووجهم أن الربح في مقابلة الأجل، لأن الأجل وإن لم يكن
مالاً، ولا يقابله شيء من الثمن لكن اعتبروه مالاً فى المرابحة إذا ذكر الأجل
بمقابلة زيادة الثمن، فلو أخذ كل الثمن قبل الحلول كان أخذه بلا عوض.
(فتاوى الشامى: ٧٥٧/٦، قبيل كتاب الفرائض، سعيد)
وللاستزادة انظر: (فتح القدير: ١٣٣/٦، باب المرابحة والتولية، دار الفكر.
والبحر الرائق: ١٤٤/٦، باب المرابحة والتولية، كوئته. والطحطاوى على الدر
المختار: ٣٦٣/٤، كوئته)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
An objection to contemporary Islamic banking
Question
Certain people object to the following dealings of banks:
276

A person wants to purchase a vehicle but does not have the full
amount. A non-interest bank buys the vehicle and rents it out to the
customer over a long period - three to five years. When the bank
specifies the monthly rental amount, it has in its mind that it will
collect its money with some profit over the three-year period. After
that, it sells the car to the rentee either for a paltry amount or gives it
to him for free.
Some people object to this agreement by saying that because the
vehicle is either sold or given to the rentee after the rental period, it is
classified as safqah fi safqah which is prohibited in the Hadith. This
transaction is therefore impermissible.
Answer
Because this type of agreement is quite common nowadays, there can
be a leeway for it. The agreement will not be invalid on the basis of
common practices of people and societal norms. This is because a
common practice is attached to ijma' (consensus).
The other answer is that separate agreements are recorded on
separate documents. It will therefore be permissible.
Various definitions of safqah fi safqah:
قال الإمام الترمذي: وقد فسر بعض أبل العلم قالوا: بيعتين في بيعة:
(١) أن يقول: أبيعك بذا الثوب بنقد بعشرة وبنسيئة بعشرين، ولا يفارق على
أحد البيعين، فإذا فارقه على أحدبما، فلابأس، إذا كانت العقدة على واحد
منهما، قال الشافعي: ومن معنى ما نهى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن بيعتين
في بيعة:
(٢) أن يقول: أبيعك داري بذه بكذا، على أن تبيعني غلامك بكذا، فإذا
وجب لي غلامک وجبت لک داري، وبذا تفارق عن بيع بغير ثمن معلوم، ولا
يدري كل واحد منهما على ما وقعت عليه صفقته. (ترمذى شريف:٢٣٣/١،
باب ما جاء فى النهى عن بيعتين فى بيعة)
(٣) أن يسلف ديناراً في قفيز حنطة إلى شهر فلما حل الآجل وطالبه بالحنطة
قال: بعنى القفيز الذي لك علي إلى شهرين بقفيزين فصار ذلك بيعتين في
277

بيعة، لأن البيع الثاني قد دخل على الأول فيرد إليه أوكسهما وبو الأول، كذا
في شرح السنن لابن رسلان، فقد فسر حديث أبي بريرة رضي الله عنه
المذكور، بلفظ: نهى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن بيعتين في بيعة،
بثلاثة تفاسير فاحفظها. (تحفة الاحوذى: ٣٢٦/٣)
وللاستزادة انظر: (بذل المجهود فى حل ابى داود: ١٣٥/١٥، باب فيمن باع بيعتين
فى بيعة. وبداية المجتهد فى نهاية المقتصد: ١١٥/٢، الفصل الثالث، فى الفرق بين
ما يباع من الطعام مكيلاً وجزافاً)
Maulānā I'jāz Ahmad Samdānī Sahib explained bay'atān fī bay'atin and
safqatān fi safqatin as two separate issues and stated that there is a
general and specific relationship between the two. Refer to Gharar Ki
Sūratei, pp. 65-129, for details.
Hakīmul Ummat Hadrat Thanwī rahimahullāh writes:
قال في نور الأنوار: وتعامل الناس ملحق بالإجماع وفيه ثم إجماع من بعدبم
أى بعد الصحابة رضي الله عنهم من آبل كل عصر.
We learn from this that like ijma', ta'amul (common practice of
people) is not confined to any specific era. However, it is necessary to
apply the same principles in ta'amul as applied in ijma'. In other
words, the 'ulama' of the present era do not express their disapproval
of it. Similarly, the jurists have furnished ta'amul as a basis for
permitting many new issues.
كما فى الهداية: فى البيع الفاسد: ومن اشترى نعلاً على أن يحذوه البائع قوله
يجوز للتعامل فيه فصار كصبغ الثوب للتعامل جوزنا الاستصناع وفيها فى
السلم أن استصنع الى قوله للإجماع الثابت بالتعامل.
1 Figh Hanafi Ke Usul Wa Dawābit, p. 161 as quoted from Imdād al-Fatāwā, vol. 4,
p. 265.
278