النص المفهرس

Further reading: Imdad al-Ahkām, vol. 4, pp. 386-390; Muntakhabāt
Nizām al-Fatāwā, p. 467.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Transacting with a company involved in usurious transactions
Question
A person buys a machine through a certain company. As long as he
does not pay the money to it, the company collects a rental from him
for the machine. However, the company engages in a usurious
transaction with a bank. It takes interest-bearing loans from the bank
and buys the machines. It then pays interest on the borrowed amount.
Is it permissible to buy the machine from this company? The buyer
does not pay any interest; it is an independent transaction between
himself and the company.
Answer
If Zayd bought a machine for R100 000 through a company, and the
company will now collect R120 000 in instalments from him, then this
will be interest even if the company refers to it as rental. If the
company bought the machine for R100 000 and sold it to Zayd for
R120 000 as a deferred payment, it will be classified as murabahah and
this transaction will be permissible.
If the machine will remain in the ownership of the company and Zayd
is to pay a specified monthly rental for it, and he will return the
machine after a specified time, or the company sells it to him at a
lesser amount, or gives it to him for free; then this will also be
permissible.
As for the usurious transactions of the company [with the bank], that
is its own actions; it will not affect the buyer's transaction. Non-
Muslim companies in non-Muslim countries purchase machines on
interest. We cannot impose Islamic injunctions on them because there
is no Islamic government there. Furthermore, a Muslim is not directly
linked to the usurious transactions and he has nothing to do with
them. It will therefore be permissible to transact with such a company.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Transacting with a bank
Question
A man conducted certain capital transactions with a bank. As per its
rules, the bank then charged him interest. Will this interest be
419

classified as a debt? When the issue of paying zakah comes up, will the
interest be deducted from the amount?
Answer
The Shari'ah prohibits usurious transactions. In the same way,
usurious transactions with a bank are also prohibited and harām. It is
essential for every Muslim male and female to abstain from them. The
Qur'an and Ahadith contain severe warnings against those who
involve themselves in usurious transactions. A person should repent
from the depths of his heart over such a transaction.
Nonetheless, if, due to necessity; compulsion; error or flagrant sinning,
a person becomes liable to pay interest on account of a transaction
with a bank, then the jurists say that interest which is unjustly
collected from a person is included as a debt. Therefore, the above-
mentioned interest-bearing loans can be included as debts. However,
since most bank loans are paid in instalments, the entire amount will
not be deducted from the zakatable amount. Rather, only the
instalments for that year will be deducted, and zakah will be paid on
the balance. Further details in this regard can be found in volume
three in the chapter on zakāh.
فتاوى الشامى:
وكذا النوائب ولو بغير حق كجنايات زماننا فإنها فى المطالبة كالديون بل
فوقها، حتى لو أخذت من الأكار فله الرجوع على مالك الأرض وعليه
الفتوى. وفى الشامية: وإن أريد بها ما ليس بحق كالجنايات المؤظفة على الناس
في زماننا ببلاد فارس على الخياط والصباغ وغيربم للسلطان في كل يوم أو
شهر فإنها ظلم فاختلف المشايخ في صحة الكفالة بها فقيل تصح إذ العبرة في
صحة الكفالة وجود المطالبة إما بحق أو باطل. (فتاوى الشامى: ٣٣٠/٥، سعيد)
الفتاوى الهندية:
وأما النوائب فإن أريد بها ما ليس بحق ... فإنها ظلم اختلف المشايخ في صحة
الكفالة بها كذا في فتح القدير، والفتوى على الصحة كذا في شرح الوقاية
وممن يميل إلى الصحة الشيخ الإمام البزدوي كذا فى الهداية وقال النسفي
420

وشمس الأئمة وقاضيخان مثل قول فخر الإسلام لأنها في حق توجه المطالبة
فوق سائر الديون. (الفتاوى الهندية: ٢٩١/٣)
وللاستزادة انظر: (شرح العناية على بامش فتح القدير: ٢٢٢/٧. وفتح القدير:
٢٢٣/٧، دار الفكر)
وفي رد المحتار: الدين ما وجب فی الذمة بعقد أو استهلاک وما صار في ذمته
ديناً باستقراض فهو أعم من القرض كذا فى الكفاية. (رد المحتار: ١٥٧/٥،
سعيد)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Exchanging steel utensils
Question
Some people take their old steel utensils to a shopkeeper and
exchange them for new ones. The shopkeeper does not weigh the old
utensils. Instead, he asks the person to give over the old utensils
together with a certain amount of money. The person may then take
the new utensils. Is this permissible?
Answer
Steels is included among weighed items in which usury takes place.
Therefore, when buying or selling it, there has to be equality on both
sides. If both are the same in weight, it will not be permissible to
demand an additional amount of money from the other side. Yes, the
person may sell his old utensils for cash money. He may then use that
money together with an additional amount of money to buy the new
utensils. This transaction will be permissible.
عن عبادة بن الصامت رضي الله عنه، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال:
الذيب بالذب مثلاً بمثل والفضة بالفضة مثلاً بمثل والتمر بالتمر مثلاً
بمثل والبر بالبر مثلاً بمثل والملح بالملح مثلاً بمثل والشعير بالشعير مثلاً
بمثل فمن زاد أو ازداد فقد أربى بيعوا الذبب بالفضة كيف شئتم يداً بيدٍ.
(رواه الترمذى: ٢٣٥/١، ابواب البيوع)
421

الهداية:
ولا يجوز بيع الجيد بالردي مما فيه الربا إلا مثلاً بمثل لإبدار التفاوت فى
الوصف ... وإذا عدم الوصفان الجنس والمعنى المضموم إليه حل التفاضل
والنسا لعدم العلة المحرمة والأصل في الإباحة. (الهداية: ٧٩/٣، باب الربا)
نصب الراية:
عن سعيد بن المسيب أن أبا سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه وأبا بريرة رضي الله
عنه حدثاه: أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث سواد بن غزية رضي الله
عنه وأمره على خيبر، فقدم عليه بتمر جنيب يعني الطيب، فقال رسول الله
صلى الله عليه وسلم: أكل تمر خيبربكذا؟ قال: لا، والله يارسول الله! إنا
نشترى الصاع بالصاعين والصاعين بالثلاثة من الجمع، فقال رسول الله صلى
الله عليه وسلم: لا تفعل، ولكن بع بذا واشتر بثمنه بذا، وکذلک الميزان.
أخرجه الشيخان. (نصب الراية: ٣٦/٤، باب الربا. رواه البخاری فی باب اذا
أراد بيع تمر بتمر خير منه، ٢٩٣/١. ومسلم: ٢٦/٢، باب الربا)
التعليق الممجد:
قوله عليه السلام: لا تفعل بع تمرك بالدرابم ثم اشتر بالدرابم جنيباً، وقال:
فى الميزان مثل ذلك، أى قال: ما يوزن إذا احتيج إلى بيع بعضه ببعض مثل
ذلك القول الذي قال فى التمر المكيل أى يباع غير الجيد الموزون بثمن ثم
يشتري به موزون جيد ... قوله بع تمرک الخ أشار إليه بما يجتنب به عن الربا
مع حصول المقصود، وبه احتج جماعة من فقهائنا وغيربم على جواز الحيلة فى
الربا وبنوا عليها فروعاً. (التعليق الممجد: على بامش المؤطا للامام محمد، ص
٣٥٤، قدیمی کتب خانه)
422

المبسوط:
فالحاصل أن ما يتخلص به الرجل من الحرام أو يتوصل به إلى الحلال من
الحيل فهو حسن، وإنما يكره ذلك أن يحتال في حق الرجل حتى يبطل أو في
باطل حتى يموبه أو في حق الرجل حتى يدخل فيه شبهة، فما كان على بذا
السبيل فهو مكروه، وما كان على السبيل الذي قلنا أولاً فلا بأس به. (المبسوط
للامام السرخسي: ٢٠٩/٣٠)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Depositing money in a bank
Question
Some people are occupied in welfare and charitable works. Because
they do not have sufficient money, they deposit their money in a bank
and receive interest on it. They do this so that the money may
increase. Sometimes, they transfer monies from one bank to another
to acquire additional interest. Is it permissible to do this?
Answer
Carrying out welfare and charitable works is commendable. We must
do as much as possible in benefiting Allah's creation. However, it is
harām to deposit money in a bank with the intention of receiving
interest. How can it be correct to commit a haram action for the sake
of a mustahab action ?! It is even worse to transfer money from one
bank to another with the express intention of receiving more interest.
Whatever interest has been received must be given to the poor
without the intention of rewards. The person must abstain from doing
this in the future and repent. Yes, it is permissible to deposit money in
a bank with the intention of safe-keeping. Even then, one has to be
cautious.
Nizām al-Fatāwā:
It is permissible to deposit money in a bank with the intention of safe-
keeping. Interest which is received should then be spent on those who
are deserving, those immersed in debt and Muslims who are in dire
situations.1
1 Muntakhabāt Nizām al-Fatāwā, vol. 1, p. 188.
423

The first point to bear in mind is that if a person deposits money in a
bank for safe-keeping or for any other compelling reason, he must try
to deposit it in an account which does not earn interest.1
Fatāwā Rahīmīyyah:
Question: There is a committee which is in the service of Muslims in
general. It has deposited some money in the current account of a bank.
It does not receive interest from it. However, the committee members
want to deposit it in a savings account so that it may receive interest
which it will then spend on afflicted Muslims. Is this proposal of the
committee members permitted by the Shari'ah? Is it permissible to
spend the interest-money which it receives on Muslims?
Answer: Money can be deposited in a bank for safe-keeping or because
of legal requirements. It is not permissible to deposit it with the
intention of receiving interest even if the intention is to give the
interest money to the poor ... It is not permissible to deposit money in a
bank with the intention of receiving interest and spending it on the
poor.2
Further reading: Kitab al-Fatāwā, vol. 5, p. 330.
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
Taking possession of usurious items in an assembly
Question
Zayd went to a shopkeeper who gave him one kilo of wheat in
exchange for one kilo of rice. The shopkeeper weighed the rice, but
before he could weigh the wheat, someone called Zayd. He left and
returned after ten minutes. In other words, the assembly changed. Is
this transaction permissible?
Answer
If the shopkeeper weighed the rice in Zayd's presence, and then Zayd
left and came back and took possession of the rice, the transaction is
valid. If the shopkeeper did not weigh the rice as yet, then Zayd's
departure caused the first transaction to be terminated. They will have
to restart the entire transaction.
1 Ibid. p. 190.
2 Fatāwā Rahīmīyyah, vol. 9, p. 270.
424

الهداية:
وما سواه أى ما سوى عقد الصرف مما فيه الربا من بيع الأموال الربوية
بجنسها أو بخلاف الجنس يعتبر فيه التعيين ولا يعتبر فيه التقابض، فلو افترقا
بعد تعيين البدلين عن غير قبض جاز عندنا. (الهداية، مع فتح القدير: ١٨/٧،
باب الربا، دار الفكر)
رد المحتار:
والمعتبر تعيين الربوى في غير الصرف لأن غير الصرف يتعين بالتعيين
ويتمكن من التصرف فيه، فلا يشترط قبض كالثياب أى إذا بيع ثوب بثوب
بخلاف الصرف، لأن القبض شرط فيه للتعيين، فإنه لا يتعين بدون القبض
كذا فى الاختيار. (رد المحتار: ١٧٨/٥، باب الربا، سعيد)
Ahsan al-Fatāwā:
When transacting in measured and weighed items, if the species is the
same or the amount is the same, then it is haram to defer it. However,
it is not a prerequisite to take possession in that assembly; specifying it
in the assembly will suffice.1
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Usury which is less than the minimum Shari'ah-approved amount
Question
The books of jurisprudence state that if a person engages in a usurious
transaction which amounts to less than half sa', then it is permissible.
For example, a person gives a handful of wheat-flour and takes two
handfuls in return; then this is permissible. Is this the verdict? Is it
permissible to do this?
1 Ahsan al-Fatāwā, vol. 7, p. 13.
425

Answer
The Imams differ on the issue of usury being realized when there is a
mutual exchange of items of the same genus when they are less than
half sāʼ.
1. Imām Abū Hanīfah and Imam Abu Yusuf rahimahumallah are of the
view that usury will not be realized in the above scenario. The reason
is that for usury to be realized, there has to be an amount -
measurement or weight; and the minimum weight specified by the
Sharī ah is half a sa'; and this is not found here.
2. Imām Mālik, Imam Shafi'ī, Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal and Imām
Muhammad rahimahumullah are of the view that usury is realized
here as well; so this transaction will be unlawful.
In the Hanafi madh-hab, the fatwa is issued on the verdict of Imam
Muhammad rahimahullah. The latter day jurists give preference to the
view of Imam Muhammad rahimahullah for the following reasons:
a) Ibn Humām rahimahullah states that the view of Imam
Muhammad rahimahullah is the preferred view. 'Allamah
Shāmī rahimahullah gives preference to it. Other scholars such
as the author of al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq, the author of an-Nahr al-Fa'iq,
'Allāmah Sharanbulalī and Maqdisī issued their verdicts on the
view of Imam Muhammad rahimahullāh.
b) The amounts which are less than half sa' are well-known and
they are in use in many regions. To say that it is permissible
for differences in the amounts could certainly lead to harm
and corruption. This is especially so in our times when there
are instruments and scales for weighing.
c)
Monetary responsibilities (e.g. kaffärah, sadaqah al-fitr, etc.)
where less than half sa' is specified does not mean that
absolute differences in usurious items be classified as useless
and futile. This is especially since the prohibition of it is
known with certainty.
d) If the buying of one handful in exchange for two handfuls is
not classified as usury, people - due to the moral degeneration
of the times - will make this a means for making usury lawful
in large amounts of wealth.
426

فتح القدير:
وفي جمع التفاريق، قيل: لا رواية فى الحفنة بفقيز واللب بالجوز، والصحيح
ثبوت الربا، ولا يسكن الخاطر إلى بذا بل يجب بعد التعليل بالقصد إلى
صيانة أموال الناس تحريم التفاحة بالتفاحتين والحفنة بالحفنتين، أما إن
كانت مكاييل أصغر منها كما في ديارنا من وضع ربع القدح وثمن القدح
المصري فلا شك، وكون الشرع لم يقدر بعض المقدرات الشرعية فى الواجبات
المالية كالكفارات وصدقة الفطر بأقل من لا يستلزم إبدار التفاوت المتيقن،
بل لا يحل بعد تيقن التفاضل مع تيقن تحريم إبداره، ولقد أعجب غاية
العجب من كلامهم بذا، وروى المعلى عن محمد أن كره التمرة بالتمرتين،
وقال: كل شيء حرم فى الكثير فالقليل من حرام. (فتح القدير: ٩/٧، دار
الفكر)
وبكذا فى البحر الرائق: ١٣٠/٦، كوئته. ورد المحتار: ١٧٦/٥، سعيد.
والنهر الفائق: ٤٧٥/٣. والشرنبلالية: ١٨٧/٢. وحاشية الشلبى على التبيين: ٩٠/٤،
ملتان. وحاشية الطحطاوى على الدر المختار: ١٠٩/٣، كوئته)
فتح المعين:
تتمة: ما سبق من أن أدنى ما يكون مال الربا نصف صاع ليس متفقاً
عليه ... ثم قال: ويجوز بيع الحفنة بالحفنتين خلافاً للشافعي ومحمد .فعلى ما
ذكره الكمال من أن الفضل المتيقن حرام وإن لم يدخل تحت أدنى الكيل الذي
ورد الشرع به وبو نصف صاع .ومن بنا يعلم ثبوت الحرمة بالطريق الأولى
فيما إذا اتخذ بيع الحفنة بالحفنتين وسيلة إلى بيع نحو الكر بالكرين. (فتح
المعین لابى السعود على شرح الكنز لملا مسكين: ٦٠٢/٢)
427

فتح باب العناية فى شرح النقاية:
(وجاز بيع حفنة بحفنتين) وعند مالك والشافعي وأحمد لا يجوز ذلك إلا في
رواية عن مالك، ورواية عن أحمد وروى المعلى عن محمد أنه كره التمرة
بالتمرتين وقال: كل شيء حرم فى الكثير فالقليل من حرام، وإلى بذه الرواية
مال بعض المحققين. (فتح باب العناية فى شرح النقاية: ٢٦٢/٣)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Selling one apple in exchange for two
Question
In the area where we live, apples are sold by count [and not by
weight]. Is it permissible to exchange two apples for one apple -
because the quality of the one is superior? Bear in mind that apples in
this region are sold by count.
Answer
It ought to be permissible as per juristical law because an apple is
neither measured nor weighed. However, we learn that this is
impermissible as per the text of Ibn Humam rahimahullah. One should
therefore abstain, especially in our times where apples are mostly sold
by weight.
ولا يسكن الخاطر إلى بذا بل يجب بعد التعليل بالقصد إلى صيانة أموال
الناس تحريم التفاحة بالتفاحتين. (فتح القدير: ٩/٧، دار الفكر)
وبكذا فى البحر الرائق: ١٣٠/٦، كوئته. ورد المحتار: ١٧٦/٥، سعيد. والنهر
الفائق: ٤٧٥/٣. والشرنبلالية: ١٨٧/٢. وحاشية الشلبى على التبيين: ٩٠/٤،
ملتان)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Selling dry dates in exchange for fresh dates
Question
If a person sells one sa' of dry dates (tamar) in exchange for fresh dates
(rutab), then Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullah is of the view that it is
428

permissible. The other Imams and Sahibayn (Imam Muhammad and
Imam Abū Yusuf) are of the view that it is impermissible. The view of
Sāhibayn is based on the following Hadith which is quoted by most
Hadith experts and jurists:
عن سعد بن أبي وقاص رضي الله عنه أنه قال: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله
عليه وسلم يسأل عن شرى التمر بالرطب، فقال: أينقص الرطب إذا يبس،
قالوا: نعم، فنهاه عن ذلك رواه أصحاب السنن الأربعة، وقال الترمذي حسن
صحیح. (شرح نقايه للملا على القارى: ٢٦٤/٣، ابواب الربا)
What is the response of Imam Abu Hanīfah rahimahullah to this
Hadīth?
Answer
1. Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullah says that because societal norms
consider rutab to be tamar, the two can be exchanged with equal
weights. When Imam Abu Hanīfah rahimahullah went to Baghdad and
people asked him about this issue, he said that Abū 'Ayyash - a
narrator in the above transmission - is a weak narrator. He added that
if rutab are tamar, the two can be exchanged because both are tamar.
If they are not tamar, then it ought to be permissible to exchange
them because they now belong to different categories.
However, Mulla 'Alī Qārī rahimahullah said that sometimes the genus
is the same, yet a transaction wherein both sides are equal in weight is
not permissible because the volume is not the same. For example,
roasted wheat cannot be sold in exchange for un-roasted wheat
because one settles to the bottom while the other does not. In other
words, if this Hadith were not present, even then exchanging rutab for
tamar by weight ought to be impermissible just as roasted wheat
cannot be sold in exchange for un-roasted wheat in volume.
2. Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullah said that the above-quoted Hadith
contains Zayd ibn 'Ayyash who is also known as Abū 'Ayyash. He is
classified as a majhūl (unknown) narrator. He is either Zurqā, Maulā
Banī Zuhrah or Maulā Banī Makhzūm. This is why Ibn Hazm said with
reference to him: رجل مجهول . Hakim said:
إن الشيخين لم يخرجا بذا الحديث لما خشيا من جهالة زيد بن عياش.
This is why Ibn Hazm, Tahawī, Tabarī and 'Abd al-Haqq Ashbīlī classify
this narration as ma'lūl.
429

Ibn 'Ayyash has two students, viz. 'Imran ibn Anas and 'Abdullah ibn
Yazīd. However, on account of the two students, the ignorance of the
person has been removed while ignorance of the attribute remains.
Furthermore, 'Imran ibn Anas differed with 'Abdullah ibn Yazid on two
points:
a) He refers to him as Maulā Banī Makhzūm and not Maulā Banī
Zuhrah.
b) 'Imran ibn Anas added the word nasĩ'ah.
This is why this narration is not dependable. However, the objection
which is made is that Imam Malik rahimahullah accepted the
narration of Zayd ibn 'Ayyash; and Imam Malik rahimahullah is in the
habit of not accepting narrations from weak narrators. Imām Tirmidhi
rahimahullah says that this Hadīth is correct. Ibn Jauzī rahimahullah
says:
روى عن عبد الله بن يزيد وعمران بن أبي أنس فكيف يكون مجهولاً مع
تصحيح الترمذي لحديثه قال: فقد عرفه أئمة النقل، قلت: وقد صححه ابن
حبان أيضاً وابن خزيمة والدارقطني وذلك يقتضي أنهم عرفوا حاله. (الدراية
على الهداية: ٨٣/٣، باب الربا)
The essence of the objection is that since many scholars consider Zayd
ibn 'Ayyash to be an acceptable narrator, the weakness of the Hadith is
not severe. Furthermore, Hanafi jurists present weak narrations as
evidence, e.g. the Hadith related to qahqahah, masah 'alā ar-raqabah.
Also, as regards volume, it is difficult for both to be equal because
rutab is mutakhallal (interpenetrative) while tamar settles down.
Therefore, it ought to be impermissible as per Hanafi principles.
3. Another answer which is given on behalf of the Hanafis is that since
the narration of 'Imran ibn Anas contains the word nasi'ah, it is a word
which has been added by the narrator. We should therefore say that
this transaction is impermissible if it is on credit, and ought to be
permissible if it is a cash transaction.
An objection could be made by saying that both narrations should be
accepted. If the dates are of the same category, a credit transaction
will be impermissible. When the two cannot be equal, then it ought to
be impermissible even if it is a cash transaction.
430

I found a convincing reply in favour of the view of Imam Abu Hanīfah
rahimahullah from the words of 'Allāmah 'Aynī rahimahullah. He
writes:
وصح أيضاً بيع الرطب بالرطب متساوياً أو بيع الرطب بالتمر حال كونه
متماثلاً فى الوزن عند أبي حنيفة وقالا: لا يجوز لأنه عليه الصلاة والسلام
نهى عن بيع الرطب بالتمر وبه قالت الثلاثة .- (رمز الحقائق فى شرح كنز
الدقائق: ٦٠/٢، باب الرباء ادارة القرآن)
In other words, if rutab is sold in exchange for tamar while the weight
of both is the same, it will be permissible. This is because absolute
equality in weight is possible. If the view of impermissibility of
Sāhibayn is taken to refer to volume, while Imām Abū Hanīfah's is
taken to mean weight, the objection will be removed.
Other jurists also quote from 'Allāmah 'Aynī rahimahullah:
قال ابن نجيم: وصح أيضاً بيع الرطب بالتمر حال كونه متماثلاً كيلاً كذا في
غير كتاب، وقال العينى: وزناً. (النهر الفائق: ٤٧٦/٣)
وقال الفقيه أبو السعود المصري: قوله كيلاً، كذا في غير كتاب خلافاً للعينى
حيث اعتبر بالوزن. (فتح المعين شرح ملا مسكين: ٦٠٣/٢)
Yes, one noteworthy point is that there are Ahadith which make
reference to the fact that rutab is an item which is weighed.
عن أبى البختري سألت ابن عباس رضي الله عنه فقال: نهى النبي صلى الله
عليه وسلم عن بيع النخل حتى يوكل من أو يأكل منه وحتی یوزن. (رواه
البخارى: ٢٩٩/١، كتاب السلم)
The text before this reads:
أبى البخترى الطائي قال: سألت ابن عباس عن السلم فى النخل فقال: نهى
النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن بيع النخل حتى يوكل منه وحتى يوزن فقال
431

الرجل: وأى شيء يوزن فقال رجل إلى جانبه: حتى يحرز. (رواه البخارى:
٢٩٩/١، كتاب السلم)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Retrieving unjustifiable taxes from the government
Question
A person received an electricity bill for R100 000 whereas a house like
his normally receives a bill for two to three thousand rands. He
contacted the municipal committee via a lawyer and asked for proof
that he used that amount [R100 000] of electricity. The municipality
did not provide any proof. Eventually, the man paid the amount.
Bearing in mind that he had been charged unjustly, can he try to
retrieve that amount from the government in whichever way
possible?
Answer
It is permissible for him to resort to any possible means to retrieve the
amount which he was unjustly billed. Nonetheless, it is foolish to
dishonour one's self by resorting to incorrect means for the sake of a
few pennies. He will not be permitted to bring shame to himself.
Hadrat Muftī Muhammad Shafi Sahib rahimahullah writes:
If a government collects unjustifiable taxes from a Muslim, he may
retrieve that money from any governmental department in the name
of tax.
Imdād al-Muftīyyīn:
Question: The government of India has issued notes for its Prize Bond.
A person receives an interest of six percent annually. I pay the
government of India about three thousand rupees annually as income
tax. Is it permissible for me to buy the Bond and accept its interest
with the intention that I am re-taking the income tax which is an un-
Islamic demand and which the government has taken from me?
Answer: The money which the government collects from you as
income tax can be retrieved through a government bank or other
governmental institution in whichever way possible. Whether the
government refers to it as interest or something else, you may accept
it with the intention of retrieving your lawful demand. There is no
harm in this. It will not be interest for you. On such occasions, the
432

jurists permitted a person to retrieve the money which he was owed
by stealing it or confiscating it from his debtor.
قال فى الشامية فى باب حد السرقة: إذا ظفر بمال مديون لم الأخذ ديانةً، بل
الأخذ من خلاف الجنس على ما نذكره. (فتاوى الشامى: ٩٥/٤، سعيد) انتهى.
(امداد المفتين: ٧٠٦/٢، كتاب الربا والقمار، دار الاشاعت)
Note: The fatwa of Muftī Shafi Sahib rahimahullah is with respect to a
government bank. It is not permissible to retrieve it from a private
bank.
Observe the following principles:
وفي قواعد الفقه: الضرر يدفع بقدر الإمكان .. (قواعد الفقه، ص ٨٨)
وفى الأشباه والنظائر: الضرر يزال. (الأشباه والنظائر: ٥٢٠/١)
وفي قواعد الفقه عن السير: المظلوم لم أن يدفع الظلم عن نفسه بما قدر
عليه لكن ليس له أن يظلم غيره. (قواعد الفقه: ١٢٤)
وللاستزادة انظر: (درر الحكام فى شرح مجلة الأحكام: ٣٧/١، المادة: ٣١. وشرح
القواعد الفقهية للشيخ أحمد الزرقا، ص ١١٨، المادة: ٣١، والاشباه والنظائر:
(os./)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
The Shari'ah ruling with regard to bank cards
Question
1.
What is the ruling with regard to a bank credit card?
2.
What is the ruling with regard to collecting cash through a
credit card?
3. What is the ruling with regard to collecting a duty or
commission from the credit card holder?
4. If a person makes a purchase with a credit card and does not
make a payment on the due date, he is charged interest. Will
the transaction be invalid because of the pre-condition of
interest?
433

5. A bank sometimes gives prizes to credit card holders. Is it
permitted to accept these prizes?
Answer
(1)
Currently, there are three types of cards:
1. Debit card.
The card holder has to have an amount of money from before hand in
the account of the institution whose card it is. Whenever the card
holder uses it, the institution pays the amount from his account. The
card holder does not enjoy the benefit of credit. He can only use the
card if he has money in his account. The institution collects a certain
fee for issuing the card and enjoying its benefits.
It is undoubtedly permissible to use such a card. It is permissible to
buy and sell through it because it neither involves incurring a debt nor
any interest. Nonetheless, it will be the card holder's responsibility to
abstain from using it for non-Shari' ah purposes.
2. Charge card.
The card holder does not have any money with the institution from
before hand. Instead, the institution provides him with the benefit of
buying on credit. He is able to purchase for a specified period of time,
and he will have to repay within that period. If he pays it within the
specified period, he is not charged any interest. If he delays in his
payment, he will have to repay together with interest which is
charged. The institution also collects a certain fee for issuing the card
and enjoying its benefits.
It is permissible to use such a card provided the following conditions
are met:
a) The card holder must make full arrangements to ensure he
pays before the due date so that he leaves no possibility of
being charged interest.
b) It is the card holder's responsibility to abstain from using it for
non-Sharī ah purposes.
c) If his needs can be fulfilled through a debit card, it will be
better for him to abstain from using such a card.
3. Credit card.
Here too, the card holder does not have any money with the
institution. Rather, it is an interest-bearing credit agreement.
434

Although the institution specifies a due date - whereby if the card
holder pays the full amount before it, he will not have to pay any
interest - the fundamental agreement is based on interest, and he
promises to pay it. In addition to this, the benefit of rescheduling is
provided. This enables the card holder to increase the period of
repayment. At the same time, the interest amount increases. In some
cases, an additional amount is charged.
There are several types of credit cards: (1) American Express. (2) Visa.
(3) MasterCard. (4) Diner's Club. And so on.
If a person is unable to acquire a debit or charge card, he may obtain a
credit card while fulfilling the previously-listed conditions for a charge
card. If not, it will be impermissible. Nonetheless, since there is more
likelihood of interest, one should abstain from such a card.
(2)
There are two ways in which cash could be obtained through a credit
card.
One way is for the card holder to go to a bank, present his card, and
the bank hands over cash money to him. This will be permissible
provided he is not charged any extra taxes for withdrawing the cash
money, because this tax will be in exchange for the loan; and this is
interest.
The other way is to withdraw cash from an ATM (automated transfer
machine). This machine it self is astronomically expensive, and it
incurs many expenses for its maintenance, upkeep and protection. If
there is a specific charge for withdrawing money from it - without the
institution taking into consideration the amount which is withdrawn -
then it will be permissible. But if the institution makes the amount the
basis for how much it is going to charge for the transaction, then not
only is it impermissible but will also be classified as interest.
Nonetheless, the institution may collect fees for issuing and
maintaining the card.
(3)
It is permissible to charge a fee and duty to a bank card holder because
these fall under service fees. For example, approving the card
application, preparing it, embedding signs to it, preparing files for the
account, telephonic and other expenses, etc. Furthermore, all office-
related operations and services, installing machines in major cities -
which is a major expense in its own. Obviously, fees are collected for
these services. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with that.
435

(4)
Charging of interest. It should be clear that the agreement between a
credit card holder and a bank is a loan agreement. The money given by
a bank to a card holder is a debt which he is responsible for. The
invalid condition of interest is attached to the loan agreement (if he
does not pay the amount within a certain date, he will be charged
interest). However, a loan is an 'aqd-e-tabarru' not an 'aqd-e-
mu'awadah. One of the principles of Hanafi jurisprudence is that
attaching an invalid condition to an 'aqd-e-mu'awadah renders the
agreement invalid. On the other hand, an invalid condition in an 'aqd-
e-tabarru' is a futile act in itself; the agreement is not invalidated.
However, it contains the defect of an invalid condition. Nonetheless, if
a person makes a firm promise that he will never practise on the
invalid condition, he will pay the due amount within the specified
date, and not allow himself to be charged interest; then - Allah willing
- he will not be sinning on account of the invalid condition.
(5)
It is permissible for a card holder to accept prizes which are given by
banks and other institutions. A bank is like a loaner, and it is
permissible for the one who took a loan from a bank to accept a gift or
prize from it. Yes, if the debtor gives a gift or prize (because of the
loan) to the one from whom he took the loan, then it is not permissible
for the creditor to accept the gift.
Sources: Credit Card Kei Shar'ī Ahkām of Maulānā Muhammad Usamah;
the Fatawa of Muftī Muhammad Faruq - Dar al-Ifta' Jami'ah
Ihtishāmīyyah, Karachi, pp. 130-132; Fatāwā 'Uthmānī, vol. 3, p. 354;
'Asr-e-Hadir Kei Peichīdah Masā'il Aur Oen Kā Hull, compiled by Maulānā
Mūsā Karmādī, vol. 2, pp. 195-199; Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar'ī Ahkām, vol.
1, pp. 142-146.
Observe the proofs from the marginalia of Fatāwā 'Uthmānī:
فى المعايير الشرعية:
الحكم الشرعي لأنواع البطاقات:
بطاقة الحسم الفوري:
يجوز للمؤسسات إصدار بطاقة الحسم الفوري ما دام حاملها يسحب من
رصيده ولا يترتب على التعامل بها فائدة ربوية.
436

بطاقة الائتمان والحسب والآجل:
يجوز إصدار بطاقة الائتمان والحسم الآجل بالشروط الآتية:
(١) ألا يشترط على حامل البطاقة فوائد ربوية في حال تأخيره عن سداد المبالغ
المستحقة عليه.
(٢) أن تشترط المؤسسة على حامل البطاقة عدم التعامل بها فيما حرم
الشريعة وأنه يحق للمؤسسة سحب البطاقة في تلك الحالة.
بطاقة الائتمان المتجدد:
لا يجوز للمؤسسات إصدار بطاقات الائتمان ذات الدين المتجدد الذي يسدده
حامل البطاقة على أقسام آجلة بفوائد ربوية. والله أعلم.
Quoted from the marginalia of Fatāwā 'Uthmānī, vol. 3, pp. 355-356. This
fatwa contains the signatures of Hadrat Muftī Muhammad Taqi
'Uthmānī Sāhib, Muftī 'Abd ar-Ra'ūf Sakkharwī Sahib, Muftī 'Abd al-
Mannān Sahib, Muftī Mahmud Ashraf Sahib and Muftī Muhammad
Abdullah Sāhib.
وما لا يبطل بالشرط الفاسد القرض .. بأن قال أقرضتك بذه المائة بشرط أن
تخدمني شهراً مثلاً فإنه لا يبطل بهذا الشرط، وذلك لأن الشروط الفاسدة من
باب الربا وأن يختص بالمبادلة المالية، وبذه العقود كلها ليست بمعاوضة مالية
فلا تؤثر فيها الشروط الفاسدة، ذكره العيني. وفى البزازية: وتعليق القرض
حرام والشرط لا يلزم. (البحر الرائق: ١٨٧/٦، باب المتفرقات من كتاب
البيوع، كوئته)
وكذا فى تبيين الحقائق: ١٣٣/٤. والفتاوى البزازية على بامش الفتاوى الهندية:
٤٢٦/٤)
437

وفي مجمع الأنهر: وما لا يبطل الشرط الفاسد وبوسبعة وعشرون شيئاً على ما
ذكره المصنف، الأول القرض ... الخ. (مجمع الانهر: ١٥٨/٣، مسائل شتى فى
البيع، بيروت)
It is permissible for banks to give prizes and for card holders to accept
them. This agreement is known as 'aqd-e-tabarru'. In other words, to
make a pre-condition of kindness to someone. Hadrat Maulānā Zafar
Ahmad 'Uthmānī rahimahullāh states that this is permissible (Imdād al-
Ahkām, vol. 3, p. 386)
There are some testimonies in favour of this:
1. A Persian neighbour invited Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam
to a meal. Rasūlullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam accepted it on the
condition that Hadrat 'A'ishah radiyallahu 'anha was also invited.
(Sahīh Muslim, vol. 2, p. 176)
2. 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 carry this palanquin for 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 Abu Bakr radiyallahu 'anhu accepted the condition of relating
the story.
عن البراء رضي الله عنه قال: اشترى أبو بكر رضي الله عنه من عازب رضي
الله عنه رحلاً بثلاثة عشر دربماً، فقال أبو بكر رضي الله عنه لعازب رضي
الله عنه: مر البراء فلیحمل إلي رحلي، فقال عازب رضي الله عنه لا، حتى
تحدثنا كيف صنعت أنت و رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حين خرجتما من
مكة. (رواه البخارى: ٥١٥/١، مناقب المهاجرين)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
The ruling with regard to garage cards
Question
A company issues a garage card to people. When they buy petrol
through it, the company will pay the bill to the garage. At the end of
the month, the company sends an account to the card holder and adds
438