Indexed OCR Text

قال فى الكفاية: وجه الاستحسان أن فيه عرفاً ظابراً وفى النزوع عن العادة
حرج بين فصار كصبغ الثوب لأن القياس أن لا يجوز لأن الإجارة بيع المنافع
والصبغ عين وجوزنابا للتعامل وكالاستصناع فإن بيع المعدوم لا يجوز وإنما
جوزناه للتعامل. (الكفاية شرح الهداية على بامش فتح القدير: ٨٥/٦،
رشیدیة)
وقال فى العناية: ووجه ما بيناه أن شرط لا يقتضيه العقد وفيه منفعة لأحد
المتعاقدين وفى الاستحسان يجوز للتعامل والتعامل قاضٍ على القياس لكون
إجماعاً فعلياً كصبغ الثوب. (العناية فى شرح الهداية على بامش فتح القدير:
٨٥/٦، رشیدی)
وقال في فتح القدير: قوله وفى الاستحسان يجوز البيع ويلزم الشرط للتعامل
كذلك ومثله في ديارنا شراء القبقاب على بذا الوجه أى على أن يسمر له سيراً
... ومثله إجارة الظئر مع لزوم استهلاك اللبن جاز للتعامل ... قوله وللتعامل
جوزنا الاستصناع مع أن بيع المعدوم ومن أنواعم شراء الصوف المنسوج على
أن يجعله البائع قلنسوة بشرط أن يبطن لها البائع بطانة من عنده. وفى
المنتقى ... قال لو اشترى على أن يهب لم ديناراً من الثمن جاز وبو حسن لأن
حاصل بذا حطيطة مشترطة ومآلها إلى الشراء بالثمن الأنقص ولو باع رقبة
الطريق على أن له حق المرور أو السفل على أن لم قرار العلو جاز. (فتح
القدير: ٨٥/٦، رشيدية. وكذا فى شرح المجلة: ٧٠٠٦٤/٢ المادة ١٨٨-١٨٩)
If trees are sold after the appearance of fruit on them, then Imam
Muhammad rahimahullah says that it is permissible to leave the fruit
on the trees. The proof for it is based on societal norms, tradition and
commendableness.
وكذا إذا تنابى عظمها عند أبي حنيفة وأبي يوسف لما قلنا واستحسن محمد
للعادة. (الهداية: ٢٦/٣)
279

The verdict is issued on the opinion of Imam Muhammad
rahimahullāh because of ta'āmul.
القول الراجح بو قول محمد قال العلامة ابن الهمام يجوز عند محمد استحساناً
وبو قول الائمة الثلاثة واختاره الطحاوي لعموم البلوى. وقال العلامة
الحصكفي: وبه يفتى، بحر عن الأسرار ... وقال العلامة ابن نجيم وفى الأسرار:
الفتوى على قول محمد وبه أخذ الطحاوي ... قال أستاذنا المفتي غلام قادر
النعماني: والعرف في زماننا يقتضي ترجيح قول محمد. (القول الراجح: ٩/٢)
Since the condition of surety is suitable in a transaction, the author of
al-Hidāyah says that it is permissible.
قال فى الهداية: ومن باع داراً وكفل رجل عنه بالدرك فهو تسليم لأن الكفالة
لو كانت مشروطة فى البيع فتمامه بقبوله ثم بالدعوى يسعى في نقض ما تم من
جهته وإن لم تكن مشروطة فيه فالمراد بها أحكام البيع وترغيب المشتري فيه
إذ لا يرغب فيه دون الكفالة. (الهداية: ١٢٤/٣)
وفي شرح العناية: قال: إن الكفالة إما أن تكون مشروطة فى البيع أو لا، فإن
كان الأول (أى مشروطة) وبو شرط ملائم للعقد. (العناية فى شرح الهداية
على بامش فتح القدير: ٢١٧/٧، باب الكفالة)
ولو قال: اعتق عبدک عني بألف دريم، فأعتق، فإنه يعتق عن الآمر ويلزمه
المال عن الآمر استحساناً. (المحيط البربانى: ٢٨١/٤، كتاب العتاق، فصل فى
المتفرقات، رشيدية)
وفى البدائع: ولو قال لآخر: اعتق عبدك عني على ألف دريم فأعتق فالولاء
للآمر لأن العتق يقع عنه استحساناً. أن الأمر بالفعل أمر بما لا وجود للفعل
بدون كالأمر بصعود السطح يكون أمراً بنصب السلم والأمر بالصلاة
يكون أمراً بالطهارة ونحو ذلك ولا وجود للعتق عن الآمر بدون ثبوت الملک
280

فكان أمر المالك بإعتاق عبده عنه بالبدل المذكور أمراً بتمليك من بذلك
البدل ثم بإعتاق عن تصحيحاً لتصرفه كأنه صرح بذلك فقال: بعه مني
واعتقه عني ففعل ... لأن الملك فى البيع الصحيح لا يقف على القبض، بل
يثبت بنفس العقد فصار المامور بائعاً عبده منه بالبدل المذكور ثم معتقاً عنه
بأمره وتوكيله. (بدائع الصنائع، كتاب الولاء، ١٦٠/٤، سعيد)
وفى درر الحكام: كأنه قال: بع عبدک عني بألف وكن وكيلي بالإعتاق. (درر
الحكام شرح غرر الاحكام، اكثر مدة الحمل، ٤٣٣/٤)
To summarize the above, this transaction - surety for freeing a slave -
includes a surety for the sale. This is safqah fi safqah. Despite this, the
jurists say that it is permissible on the basis of commendableness.
The author of al-Hidāyah states:
وكذا لو سلطا المرتهن على بيع لأن توكيل بالبيع وبما يملكانه. (الهداية:
٥٢٩/٤، کتاب الربن)
In the above text, a mortgage contract contains surety for a sale,
which the jurists classify as permissible.
A sale with a condition of free service is permissible. This comprises
ijārah mashrūtah fī al-bay'. Hadrat Muftī Taqī 'Uthmānī Sahib explains it
as follows:
In a sale contract, a condition which was against the requisite of the
contract was laid down. However, traders - in their normal
transactions - consider the condition to be included in the contract. It
will be permissible to attach such a condition. For example, many
items are sold while the merchant says: "I will provide a free service
for one year." The provision of the free service is obviously not
included in the requisite of the contract, but because it is commonly
done, it is permissible. Therefore, if a buyer says: "I will buy this item
on condition you provide one-year free service for it," the transaction
will not be invalid because of this condition.1
1 Tagrīr Tirmidhī, vol. 1, p. 108.
281

Observe the following text of Hadrat Thanwī rahimahullah on the
issue of safqah fi safqah:
Question: When the obvious meaning of نهى عن صفقة في صفقة is
considered, certain transactions appear to be impermissible, whereas
they are quite common among all sections of the community. For
example:
(1) A person repairs a watch by removing a broken part and replacing
it with a new one. It entails a sale of the part plus the labour for
replacing it. (2) Asking a person to make a bed without providing the
rope for its base. It entails a sale of the rope plus the labour for
attaching it to the base of the bed. (3) Buying water from a water-
carrier. He went to a well, drew out the water and filled it into his
water-skin. He is now the owner of the water. This entails a sale of the
water plus his labour of carrying the water. (4) A person asks a jeweller
to set a stone [e.g. diamond] to a ring. It entails a sale of the stone plus
the labour for setting it. There are many other similar transactions.
Answer: This is a common practice which is done without any
objections from anyone. It is a type of ijma' (consensus). All these
transactions are permissible. The text is therefore general in nature,
but specific in certain situations. The jurists permitted this in the cases
of dying a garment and tailoring a garment. The acts of dying and
sewing are done by the dyer and tailor, and it also entails hiring him
for his labour. This is quite obvious. Allah ta'ālā knows best.1
Hadrat Muftī Taqī 'Uthmānī Sahib writes:
According to the Hanafis, when a condition is attached to a transaction
in normal situations, the transaction is invalidated. However, there are
three types of conditions which are permitted and they do not
invalidate the transaction. (1) A condition which is in line with the
requisite of the transaction. (2) A condition which is expedient to the
transaction. For example, conditions for mortgage, surety, bill of
exchange (hawalah). (3) A condition which has become common
practice.
If the condition of wafa is included in the contract of bay' bi al-wafa',
then some Hanafi jurists say that it is permissible. The author of an-
Nihayah has issued a fatwa on this. 'Allamah Shamī quotes the meaning
of this from 'Allamah Zayla' by saying that the transaction will
become correct and it will also be lawful for the buyer to derive
1 Imdād al-Fatāwā, vol. 3, pp. 63-64.
282

benefit from it. However, because this condition is laid in the sale that
if the seller ever asks for the return of the price, the buyer will have to
resell it; it is not permissible for the buyer to sell the item to someone
else. Zayla'ī says that this is the fatwa which is to be issued. 'Allamah
Shāmī quotes from Nahr that this is the view which is practised in their
area as preferred by Zayla'ī. He adds: "The verdict of permissibility is
probably based on the reasoning that this condition has become a
common practice. Nonetheless, the majority of Hanafi jurists do not
consider this form of agreement to be permissible - that the condition
of wafa be included in the contract.
Muftī Taqī Sahib then explains the proofs from Shāmī, Muhīt Burhanī,
Fatāwā Qādī Khān, Jāmi' al-Fusūlayn, Sharh al-Majallah, etc.1
The second scenario where safqah fi safqah is permissible:
If the two contracts are separated, the transaction will become valid.
(In other words, if one contract is not like a prerequisite for the second
one, the transaction will be valid).
The author of al-Hidayah gives a few examples:
1. A person says: "I am selling five books for R200." The buyer says: "I
have bought three books for R120," then this is not correct because the
seller will now have to make two transactions with respect to a single
sale item. However, if the seller says: "I am selling five books for R200,
and I am selling each book for R40," and the buyer buys three books,
then this will be permissible. This is because repetition of the word
[selling] is found in this statement.
وليس له أن يقبل في بعض المبيع ولا أن يقبل المشترى ببعض الثمن لعدم
رضاء الآخر بتفرق الصفقة إلا إذا بين كل واحد لأن صفقات معنى. (الهداية:
١٩/٣)
وفى الكفاية: قوله وليس له أن يقبل في بعض المبيع، وإذا أوجب البائع البيع في
شيئين أو ثلاثة وأراد المشتري أن يقبل العقد في أحدبما دون الآخر فهذا على
وجهين إن كانت الصفقة واحدة فليس له ذلك وإن كانت متفرقة فلم ذلک
وبذا لأن الصفقة إذا كانت واحدة فالمشتري بقبول العقد في أحدبما يريد
1 Ghayr Sūdī Bankārī, pp. 242-247.
283

تفريق الصفقة على البايع وفي ذلك ضرر بالبائع لأن العادة فيما بين الناس
أنهم يضمون الردئ إلى الجيد فى البياعات وينقصون شيئاً عن ثمن الجيد
لترويج الردئ بالجيد فلو ثبت خيار قبول العقد في أحدبما فالمشتري يقبل
العقد فى الجيد ويترك الردئ على البايع فيزول الجيد عن ملك البايع بأقل من
ثمنه وفيه ضرر بالبايع وقال القدورى: إلا أن يرضى البايع فى المجلس نحو أن
يقول بعتك بذا العبد بخمسين فيقول المشتري قبلت في نصف فیرضى به
البايع ... ويكون ذلك من المشتري فى الحقيقة استيئناف إيجاب لا قبولاً فإذا
رضي به البائع فى المجلس يصح. (الكفاية: ٤٦٢/٥، رشيدية)
While discussing this issue, 'Allamah Ibn Humām rahimahullah writes
in Fath al-Qadir that if the price is distributed as parts, it will be
permissible because each of the parts will be known. If the distribution
is done on the basis of the value - e.g. the transaction is attributed to
two slaves or two garments - it will be impermissible on the basis of
ignorance. If the seller said: "I have sold you these two slaves; this one
for one hundred and this one for one hundred," and the buyer accepts
one of the two, then this is permissible in certain situations. Al-Jāmi' as-
Saghīr states that it is necessary to repeat the word bay' for the
transaction to be permissible. For example, "I have sold you these two
slaves; I have sold you this one for one hundred and I have sold you
this one for one hundred."
.. إلا أن يرضى الآخر بذلك بعد قبول فى البعض ويكون المبيع مما ينقسم
الثمن عليه بالأجزاء كعبد واحد أو مكيل أو موزون، فإن كان مما لا ينقسم
إلا بالقيمة كثوبين وعبدين لا يجوز وإن قبل الآخر ... فلو كان بين ثمن كل
منهما فلا يخلو إما أن يكون بلا تكرار لفظ البيع أو بتكراره، ففيما إذا
كرره فلاتفاق على أنه صفقتان فإذا قبل في أحدبما يصح مثل أن يقول بعتك
يذين العبدين بعتك بذا بألف وبعتك بذا بألف أو اشتريت منک بذين
العبدين اشتريت بذا بألف واشتريت بذا بألف كذا في موضع ... (فتح القدير:
٢٥٥/٦، ٢٥٧، دار الفكر)
284

2. A person gives one dirham to a money-changer and says to him:
"Give me cash money in exchange for half a dirham, and half dirham
except habbah for the other half dirham. Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam
Muhammad rahimahumallah are of the view that the transaction is
permissible with respect to the first half dirham, and impermissible
with respect to the second half because it is interest. Imam Abu
Hanīfah rahimahullah says that it is invalid with respect to everything
because the transaction is one. When part of it is invalid, the
remainder becomes invalid because of the strength of the invalidity. If
the person repeats the word i'ta' (give) and says: "Give me cash money
in exchange for half a dirham, and for the other half dirham, give me
half dirham except habbah," then all the Imams concur that the
transaction with respect to the half which was exchanged for cash
money will be correct because the word "give" was repeated. The word
habbah equals 620 milligrams.
قال فى الهداية: ومن أعطى صيرفياً دربماً وقال أعطنى بنصفه فلوساً وبنصفه
نصفاً إلا حبة جاز البيع فى الفلوس وبطل فيما بقي عندبما وعلى قياس قول
أبي حنيفة بطل فى الكل ولو كرر لفظ الإعطاء بأن قال: أعطنى بنصف كذا
فلساً وأعطني بنصفه الباقي نصفاً إلا حبة فالحكم أن العقد في حصة
الفلوس جائز بالإجماع بو الصحيح. (الهداية مع الحاشية: ١١١،١١٠/٣)
Answers to the Hadith
There are three answers to the Hadith under discussion.
1. The prohibition was based on societal norms. When the latter
changed, the ruling changed.
2. It is a general ruling, but specific to certain situations.
3. Two transactions are done here.
The first two answers need to be explained.
There are three types of texts.
(1) Ahādīth which are based on societal norms. The ruling in this
regard is that when societal norms change, the ruling of the text
changes. For example, wheat and barley were commonly known as
items which are sold by volume. This norm continued for some time.
The norm has now changed and they are sold by weight. This is why
they are referred to as waznī [and not kaylī].
285

This is further clarified by 'Allamah Shamī rahimahullah and Shaykh
Mustafa az-Zarqā:
وعن الثاني اعتبار العرف مطلقاً ورجحه الكمال وخرج عليه سعدي أفندي
استقراض الدرابم عدداً وبيع الدقيق وزناً في زماننا يعني بمثله وفى الكافى
الفتوى على عادة الناس بحر، وأقره المصنف. (قوله مطلقاً) أى وإن كان
خلاف النص، لأن النص على ذلك الكيل فى الشيء أو الوزن فيه ما كان في
ذلك الوقت إلا لأن العادة إذ ذاك كذلك وقد تبدلت فتبدل الحكم ... (قوله
ورجحه الكمال) حيث قال عقب ما ذكرنا: ولا يخفى أن بذا لا يلزم أبا يوسف
لأن قصاراه أن كنص على ذلك وبو يقول: يصار إلى العرف الطارئى بعد
النص بناء أن تغیر العادة يستلزم تغیر النص، حتی لو کان صلى الله عليه
وسلم حياً نص عليه وتمامه فيه، ... وملخص: أن النص معلول بالعرف
فيكون المعتبر بو العرف في أى زمن كان ولا يخفى أن بذا فيه تقوية لقول أبي
يوسف فافهم. (الدر المختار مع رد المحتار: ١٧٦/٥، مطلب فى ان النص اقوى
من العرف، سعيد. وفتح القدير: ١٥/٧، دار الفكر)
وقال مصطفى أحمد الزرقا: خلافاً لأبي يوسف الذي يعتبر المقياس المتعارف
فيهما مطلقاً في كل زمن بحسبه، ويتبدل مقياس التساوي بتغير العرف تبعاً له
حيث يعلل النص بالعرف الذي كان قائماً وقت وروده، فلا يكون اتباع
العرف عند أبي يوسف مخالفاً للنص، بل يراه بو الموافق للنص، وأن الثبات
على المقياس القديم الذي ورد فى النص بو المخالف للنص، فهو يعتبر بذا
النص نصاً عرفياً، بمعنى أنه ذکر فيه المقیاس الذي عينه النص، لأنه كان بو
المتعارف حين وروده النص، ولو كان المتعارف مقياساً آخر لورد النص بذلك
الآخر، لأن مقاييس الكميات تتبع الأعراف، ولتنظر رسالة "نشر العرف فيما
بنى من الأحكام على العرف" لابن عابدين. وقد أوضحت بذه المسألة في كتابى
286

المدخل الفقهى العام. (حاشية شرح القواعد الفقهية، ص ٢٢١، تحت القاعدة:
العادة محكمة)
Take another example. Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam said
with reference to a lost camel - that one should not interfere with it.
Let it be because it has its water-skins and shoes with it. In other
words, do not make it a lugtah. Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullah says
that this Hadith is based on the societal norms of that era, and they
have changed in later times. People in the past would not leave their
camels open. This is why if a person came across a stray camel, he
could catch it with a view to protect it, and its owner may then come
and reclaim it. These details are known to students who have studied
Kitab al-Luqtah in the Hadith books.
A third example: If a person needed milk and reached a flock of sheep
or goats which were herded by a shepherd, and the latter was not
present, the person would call out for the shepherd three times. If the
shepherd did not reply, the person could milk an animal and drink the
milk. Or a person went to an orchard and did not find the owner there.
He may call out for him three times. If he does not answer his call, he
may break some fruit and eat it. Yes, he may not fill any fruit in a
container to take away with him.
In addition to several other answers to this Hadith, the commentators
say that it reflects the norms and habits of that era. In those days, an
arriving guest could take these items according to need. 'Allamah
'Aynī rahimahullāh says in this regard:
والثالث: أن ذلك محمول على ما إذا علم طيب نفوس أرباب الأموال بالعادة
أو بغيريا. (عمدة القارى: ١٧٤/٩، دار الحديث ملتان).
Muftī Taqī Sāhib also writes in a similar vein:
أن بذه المسائل تدور على العرف والعادة وكانت عادة أبل الحجاز والشام
المسامحة في مثل بذا، بخلاف البلاد الأخرى. (تكملة فتح الملهم: ٦٢٧/٢)
The norms changed later on, and now a guest may not take these items
without permission.
قال العلامة العينى: وقال جمهور العلماء وفقهاء الأمصار، ومنهم الأئمة أبو
حنيفة ومالك والشافعي وأصحابهم: لا يجوز لأحد أن يأكل من بستان أحد
287

ولا يشرب من لبن غنم إلا بإذن صاحبه. (عمدة القارى: ١٧٤/٩، دار الحديث
ملتان)
(2) The second type are those texts and Ahadith which prohibit a thing
because of its inherent repugnance. It will remain unlawful under all
situations. For example, usury, gambling, and transactions which
contain the elements of cheating, deceiving and deluding.
(3) Ahādīth which prohibit a thing because it could lead to dispute and
quarrel. If it does not lead to dispute, its prohibition will not remain.
Instead, there will be leeway for it. One example of this can be found in
Sahīh Bukhārī, vol. 1, p. 292. People used to sell fruit before their
flowers could mature on the trees. The fruit would then fall prey to
various types of illnesses, and the buyer would dilly dally in the
payment; while the seller would demand the full price. When disputes
of this nature were presented to Rasūlullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa
sallam, he said: "I advise you not to sell the fruit before maturity." We
learn that the prohibition of sale of fruits on the custom of retaining
them on the trees was due to the disputes it caused. And that
Rasūlullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam said this as a word of advice; it
was not an absolute prohibition. A narration of Sahīh Bukhārī reads:
واشترى نافع بن الحارث داراً للسجن بمكة من صفوان بن أمية على إن عمر
رضي الله عنه رضي بالبيع فالبيع بيعه وإن لم يرض عمر رضي الله عنه
فلصفوان أربع مائة دينار. (رواه البخارى: ٣٢٧/١)
Nāfi' ibn al-Harith bought a building in Makkah to make it into a
prison. He bought it from Safwan ibn Umayyah on the condition that
Hadrat 'Umar radiyallahu 'anhu agrees to it, then the transaction will
be for him. If he does not agree to it, then it is for himself, and he will
pay Safwan four hundred dīnārs.
This transaction has a precondition. It is classified as safqah fi safqah.
The commentators provide several answers for it, but Hadrat Shah
Sāhib rahimahullāh writes in Fayd al-Bārī:
وقد علمت أن الفساد إذا كان لأجل مخافة النزاع لا يسرى إلى العقد إذا لم
يرفع أمره إلى القضاء أما إذا كان لكونه معصية فيلزم حينئذٍ والمذكور فى
الحديث من النحو الأول. (فيض البارى: ٢٢٣/٣)
288

Maulānā Badr 'Ālam Sahib rahimahullah writes in his annotation to
the above:
وفى جامع الفصولين: من اشترى حزمة من الحطب له أن يشترط حمله إلى
البيت وفى الهداية: أن ما تعارف الناس عليه من الشرائط تتحمل فى البيوع.
قلت: لأنه لا تفضي إلى النزاع. (٢٢٣/٣)
Imām Tirmidhī rahimahullah gives three explanations to safqah fī
safqah. I am leaving out the third explanation because it is explicitly
invalid and haram due to it comprising expressly of interest.
First explanation: Zayd says: "This item is one hundred dirhams if paid
in cash, and two hundred dirhams if bought on credit and paid over
two months." 'Umar replies: "I have accepted," but did not specify
which of the two he has accepted. This transaction could lead to a
dispute. For example, the buyer may say: "I will pay two hundred after
two months," while the seller says: "I want one hundred dirhams
now."
The second explanation is related from Imam Shafi'ī rahimahullah and
quoted by Shah Sāhib rahimahullāh in al-'Arf ash-Shadhī:
نقل صاحب المشكاة عن الخطابى تفسير بيعتين في بيع مثل ما ذكر الترمذى
عن الشافعى وہو المختار وہو تفسير أبي حنيفة فى كتاب الآثار انتهى، ذكره فى
باب النهى عن بيعتين. (العرف الشذى على بامش الترمذى: ٢٣٤/١)
The gist of this explanation is: Zayd says: "O 'Umar! I am selling you
such and such house for R100 000 provided you sell me your special
horse for R50 000." 'Umar accepted the offer. Incidentally, 'Umar's
horse died, so Zayd says: "I am not going to give you my house or, I will
give it to you for R120 000 because I did not get the horse which I
wanted." This is obviously a dispute. However, in situations where
disputes do not normally occur or do not occur in the above
mentioned situations, then it will be permissible.
The books of jurisprudence and principles of jurisprudence contain:
أعتق عبدك عني بألف درهم.
This means that a person is asked to buy a slave for one thousand
dirhams, and is then appointed as his representative to free the slave.
However, the absence of a dispute makes this transaction permissible.
289

Similarly, in reply to a questioner, Hadrat Thanwī rahimahullah
labelled certain transactions to be permissible because in their
[questioner's] society, they do not result in disputes. The questioner
asked:
(1) A person repairs a watch by removing a broken part and replacing
it with a new one. It entails a sale of the part plus the labour for
replacing it. (2) Asking a person to make a bed without providing the
rope for its base. It entails a sale of the rope plus the labour for
attaching it to the base of the bed. (3) Buying water from a water-
carrier. He went to a well, drew out the water and filled it into his
water-skin. He is now the owner of the water. This entails a sale of the
water plus his labour of carrying the water. (4) A person asks a jeweller
to set a stone [e.g. diamond] to a ring. It entails a sale of the stone plus
the labour for setting it. There are many other similar transactions.
Hadrat Thanwī rahimahullah said that the above are permissible on
the basis that transactions of this nature are commonly practised.1
Someone could raise this objection: The rule is that safqah fi safqah is
prohibited. Excluding some individuals from it because of societal
norms is similar to excluding the usury of banks from the prohibition
of usury because of people practising it. How can this be permissible?
We can leave out qiyas on the basis of ta'amul (common practice). For
example, all individuals of qafiz at-tahhan (dry measure of a miller)
are impermissible. However, based on qiyas, the payment which is
given to the commission agent is not impermissible. Rather, it is
classified as permissible on the basis of common practice. In such a
case, it will be correct.
The answer to this is that the prohibition in the Hadith of safqah fi
safqah is based on the dispute which it could cause. Where there are no
disputes due to common practice and societal norms, then those will
be excluded from this prohibition. Nowadays, there are many
transactions where the condition of bay' fi bay' or a precondition is
well-known. For example: (1) Providing a free one-year service when
selling a machine, (2) Women give their garments to a dyer, a price is
agreed upon, and the transaction contains the actual sale of the dye
plus the labour for dying it. (3) Machines or vehicles are given to a
mechanic. He replaces broken parts and charges for his labour. A
vehicle meets in an accident. It is then taken to a mechanic who says
that such and such parts will need to be replaced, and the car will have
to be repaired. Is this not a combination of a sale plus labour? It
1 Imdād al-Fatāwā, vol. 3, pp. 64-65.
290

certainly is. However, it is commonly practised. In fact, it has become a
part of our daily life. We conclude that when a precondition becomes
well-known, or it is not a cause of dispute due to safqah fi safqah, then it
is tolerable. 'Allāmah Shāmī rahimahullah writes:
ثم اعلم أن العرف قسمان عام وخاص فالعام يثبت به الحكم العام ويصلح
مخصصاً للقياس والأثر بخلاف الخاص ... قال فى الذخيرة فى الفصل الثامن من
الإجارات في مسألة ما لو دفع إلى حائک غزلاً لينسجم بالثلث ومشايخ بلخ
كنصير بن يحيى ومحمد بن سلمة وغيربما كانوا يجيزون بذه الإجارة فى الشياب
لتعامل أبل بلدیم فى الشیاب والتعامل حجة یترک به القیاس ويخص به الأثر
وتجويز بذه الإجارة فى الثياب للتعامل بمعنى تخصيص النص الذي ورد في
قفيز الطحان لأن النص ورد في قفيز الطحان لا فى الحائك إلا أن الحائك
نظيره فيكون وارداً فيه دلالة فمتى تركنا العمل بدلالة بذا النص فى الحائک
وعملنا بالنص في قفيز الطحان كان تخصيصاً لا تركاً أصلاً وتخصيص النص
بالتعامل جائز ألا ترى أنا جوزنا الاستصناع للتعامل والاستصناع بيع ما
ليس عنده وإنه منهي عنه وتجويز الاستصناع بالتعامل تخصيص منا للنص
الذي ورد فى النهي عن بيع ما ليس عند الإنسان لا ترک للنص أصلاً لأنا
عملنا بالنص في غير الاستصناع. (شرح عقود رسم المفتى، ص ٤١. وكذا فى
رسالة "نشر العرف فى بناء بعض الاحكام على العرف" المندرجة فى رسائل ابن
عابدين، ١١٤/٢، سهيل)
‘Allāmah Nasafī rahimahullāh states:
... والاستصناع فيما فيه تعامل الناس مثل أن يأمر إنساناً بأن يخرز له خفاً
بكذا ويبين صفته ومقداره ولم يذكر لم أجلاً والقياس يقتضي أن لا يجوز
لأنه بيع معدوم لكنهم استحسنوا تركه بالإجماع لتعامل الناس فيه. (منار مع
شرحه لعبد اللطيف ابن الملك، ٨١٢/٢)
The following is one of several examples of safqah fi safqah:
291

The jurists says that a cash payment is not necessary in a labour
transaction (where a person is asked to make an item). It can be paid
later on. The objection to this is that it will then become bay' ad-dayn bi
ad-dayn because the manufactured item is a responsibility and the
price has been deferred. The answer that is given is that it contains a
combined similarity with a hiring contract (ijarah) and a sale. Because
it is similar to a sale, the price can be paid later on. And because it is
similar to a hiring contract, it is as though the craftsman is doing the
work for a wage, and he will be paid for it later on. For example, a
builder is asked to build a wall and he receives his payment after he
completes the job. This entails a combination of a sale and a hiring
(bay' wa ijārah).
وينعقد الاستصناع إجارة ابتداء وبيعاً انتهاء. (الكفاية على الهداية: ٢٤٣/٦،
باب السلم، مکتبه رشیدیم)
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
Purchasing a house through a bank
Question
A person purchases a house through a bank. There are two ways he
could do this. (1) He takes an interest-loan from the bank and buys the
house. (2) The bank buys the house for R500 000 and sells it to the
needy person for R600 000 on credit. Which of the two should he opt
for?
Answer
He should opt for the second because, in normal situations, it is not
permissible to take an interest-loan from a bank. The second option is
one of murabahah, and it is permissible to do this provided it is stated
in the agreement that such and such additional amount will be
collected in each instalment.
Īdāh al-Masā'il:
The best and easiest method of buying a vehicle and other items
through a bank is for the bank to send one of its representatives with
the buyer. As an example, the representative and the buyer agree to
buy a vehicle for 100 000 from a company. The vehicle costing 100 000
now belongs to the bank. The same representative of the bank then -
as per the rules of the bank - hands over the vehicle to the buyer for
110 000. After that, the bank will collect the amount of 110 000 from
292

the person in instalments. This is permissible according to the
Sharī ah. (Fatāwā 'Ālamgīrī, vol. 2, p. 160)
Another way of doing this is for the bank not to send its
representative. Rather, it appoints the buyer as its representative. The
buyer buys the vehicle for 100 000 and hands it over to the bank. The
bank then sells it immediately to the buyer for 110 000. He will then
pay this amount in instalments as per the rules laid down by the bank
within a certain period. This transaction is permissible according to
the Sharī' ah. As gauged from Imdad al-Fatawā, vol. 3, p. 125.1
فتاوى الشامى:
علله الحانوتي بالتباعد عن شبهة الربا لأنها في باب الربا ملحقة بالحقيقة،
ووجهه أن الربح في مقابلة الأجل، لأن الأجل وإن لم يكن مالاً، ولا يقابله
شيء من الثمن، لكن اعتبروه مالاً فى المرابحة إذا ذكر الآجل بمقابلة زيادة
الثمن، فلو أخذ كل الثمن قبل الحلول كان أخذه بلا عوض. (فتاوى الشامى:
٧٥٧/٦، قبيل كتاب الفرائض، سعيد. وكذا ١٤٢/٥، باب المرابحة، سعيد)
البحر الرائق:
وجوابه أن الأجل في نفسه ليس بمال فلا يقابله شيء حقيقة إذا لم يشترط
زيادة الثمن بمقابلته قصداً ويزاد فى الثمن لأجله إذا ذكر الأجل بمقابلة زيادة
الثمن قصداً فاعتبر مالاً فى المرابحة احترازاً عن شبهة الخيانة. (البحر الرائق:
١١٥/٦، باب المرابحة، كوئته)
Further reading: Ghayr Sūdī Bankārī, p. 78; Kifāyatul Muftī, vol. 8, p. 54;
Islām Aur Jadīd Ma'āshī Masā'il, vol. 5, p. 90; vol. 3, p. 118.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
1 Īdāh al-Masā'il, p. 158.
293

ISLAMIC BANKING
Definition of a bank
A bank is a financial institution which receives amounts of money
from people, and then gives the money as loans to traders, craftsmen
and other individuals. Traditional banks collect interest on these
loans, and give their depositors an interest amount which is of a lower
percentage. The difference between these two interests is the profit of
the bank.
A bank invites people to deposit their monies (which in fiqhī terms is a
loan). In Urdu its call amānatei, in Arabic it is called wadā'i' and in
English it is called deposits. There are several types of deposits:
1. Current account. In Arabic it is called al-hisāb al-jārī and moedd rawā
in Urdu. A person does not receive interest for monies deposited in
this account. A depositor can withdraw any amount at any time
without any restrictions.
2. Savings account. In Arabic it is called hisab at-tawqir and bachat
khatah in Urdu. Generally, there are various restrictions on
withdrawing from this account. The account holder receives interest
on it.
3. Fixed deposit. In Arabic is it called wada'i' thabitah. The person who
makes a deposit into this account cannot withdraw it before the
specified date. The bank gives him interest for this deposit. The
percentage of interest depends on the length of the fixed deposit. The
longer the period, the more the interest, and the shorter the period,
the less the interest.
After collecting the monies, the bank plays several roles. For example,
investments, gold offerings, acting as an agent for import and export,
etc. Details in this regard can be found in Islam Aur Jadid Ma'īshat Wa
Tijārat and other books.
Islamic banking
The activities of the bank can be fundamentally divided into two parts:
1. Responsibility
An interest-bank collects monies from its depositors and offers various
types of accounts for this purpose. Essentially, there are two types of
accounts:
a) Non-profit account. Also known as a current account.
294

b) Profit-bearing account. This includes a saving account, fixed
deposit, etc.
Non-profit/current account
The amount which an Islamic bank receives as a current account is
classified as a non-interest loan in the Shari'ah. The account holder is
given a guarantee that his money will be returned to him. And every
guaranteed amount is known as a loan. The person does not receive
any additional amount. Only the original amount is returned to him. It
is therefore synonymous to a non-interest loan.
Profit-bearing account
Apart from a current account, the money which an Islamic bank
receives for other accounts such as a saving account or fixed deposit, it
receives it on the basis of mudarabah or musharakah. The depositor
takes on the role of a rabb al-mal (the one who provides the capital) or
a silent partner; while the Islamic bank takes on the role of a mudarib
(speculator) or active partner.
The Islamic bank makes profits through its investment schemes such
as murābahah, ijārah, mushārakah. From these profits, it pays its
depositors their shares as agreed upon from before hand. For example,
it states that whatever profits the bank makes, fifty percent will be for
the bank and fifty percent for the depositor. The amount which the
depositor deposits into the bank is classified as an amanat or trust by
the Shari'ah. This means that if the money is destroyed without an
excess, shortcoming or negligence committed by the bank, then the
bank will not be held responsible.
It should be borne in mind that when an Islamic bank accepts a capital
amount from its depositor, it cannot guarantee its return under every
situation. Nor can it definitively say at the beginning the amount of
profit which the depositor will receive. In fact, it is not even
permissible for it to say with definitiveness the percentage with the
depositor will receive on the basis of the amount which he deposited.
If it does, the partnership will be invalidated. Generally, an Islamic
bank does not even know how much profit it will make from a
particular capital amount.
Yes, if at the end of a term, it gives a depositor a share in line with the
amount which he deposited, it can ascertain the difference between
the capital amount and the profit, and then inform him of the
percentage share. This is not impermissible in the Shari'ah.
We learn from this that if, after the distribution of profits, an Islamic
bank announces that it gave ten percent profit to its depositors this
295

year, then this will not be in conflict with Shariah principles.
However, if, at the beginning, it says that it will give a certain
percentage for the capital deposit, then this is not permissible in the
Sharī ah.
2. Ownership options
Here, the bank provides various ownership options to its investors. In
other words, the bank provides ownership options to those who
contact the bank for their financial needs.
Bearing in mind the various needs of its clients (those who take loans
from the bank), several transactions are available to them. Nowadays,
three types of transactions are quite common:
1.
Murābahah.
2. Ijārah.
3. Mushārakah Mutanāqisah.
Sometimes, ownership options through salam and istisna' are also
offered.
1. Murābahah
Murabahah is actually a type of sale in which the person having the
goods says to the buyer: "This is what these goods cost me. This is the
amount of profit I am making, and then selling them to you."
The murabahah in banks comprises of the following steps:
1. General agreement: The bank and the client enter into a general
agreement. The maximum amount [price] of goods which the client
will buy from the bank is decided, the amount of profit which the bank
will make on the purchased goods, and the method of repayment, etc.
are discussed.
2. Purchase of goods: The bank then purchases those goods from the
market which it has to sell to the client. Generally, the client is
appointed as the representative for the purchase of the goods. But this
is not always the case.
3. Possession of the purchased goods: If the client was made the
representative for the purchase, then after buying the goods, he takes
possession of them and informs the bank: "I have purchased the goods
as your representative and taken possession of them." According to
the Shari'ah, the qabdah of the representative is actually the qabdah of
the one who appointed him. This is why it will be accepted that this, as
per the Shari'ah, entails the qabdah of the bank. At this stage, all the
296

injunctions related to qabdah will apply. Among them a specific ruling
is that if the goods are destroyed without any transgression by the
client, the loss will be borne by the bank, and not the client.
4. The formalisation of the murabahah agreement:
The client then makes an application to the bank to sell him the goods
at an agreed price which would include the costs and the bank's profit,
and he will pay the total amount immediately or over a specified
period. When the bank accepts this, the murabahah comes into
existence and the payment of the amount becomes obligatory on him.
The bank takes some guarantees from the client for the amount which
he has to pay.
2. Ijārah
In the definition of the Shari'ah, ijarah refers to deriving a specific and
lawful benefit from an item or person in return for a payment.
Difference between ijarah of an interest- and Islamic bank:
An ijārah agreement is prevalent in interest- and Islamic banks. The
differences between the two banking systems are therefore explained
here.
The ijarah system in conventional banks contains the following three
drawbacks:
a) A single contract contains a sale and an ijārah. The instalments
which the client pays during the ijarah period are initially included in
the ijarah instalments. But as the rental period comes to an end, the
instalments are considered to be the value, and the item automatically
comes into the ownership of the client. This is known as safqah fi safqah
which is not permissible in the Shari' ah.
b) All responsibilities related to the item given as an ijārah are borne
by the tenant. Whereas, in the Shari'ah, only the responsibilities
related to the use of the item are placed on the tenant. For example,
servicing the vehicle, changing the oil, etc. As for the responsibilities
which are related to the owner of the item, they are placed on the
shoulders of the rentee. For example, paying taxes, repairing it if it is
damaged by a sudden calamity, etc.
c) The rent for the item which is given on rent has to be paid by the
client before he can even receive it. Whereas in the Shari'ah, it is not
permissible to charge rent to the tenant for as long as the item is not
given over to him.
297

On the other hand, the above-listed drawbacks are done away with by
Islamic banks in the following way:
a) In the beginning, the agreement is solely an ijarah. The item given
as ijārah remains the property of the bank. Once the ijarah period
comes to an end, the client is given the choice to buy it at a specified
price or return it to the bank. In the first case, the bank sells the item
to the client through an independent and separate transaction.
Sometimes, the bank gives the item to the client, also through an
independent and separate transaction. In this way, the prohibition of
safqah fī safqah does not apply.
b) The ijarah transactions of Islamic banks explicitly state that the
tenant/renter will only bear those expenses which are related to the
use of the vehicle. This is known as siyanah 'adiyah (general or normal
upkeep). All other responsibilities will be borne by the bank on the
basis that it is the owner of the vehicle. Taxes, insurance, takaful,
damage to the vehicle in the case of an accident - all these will be
taken care of by the bank.
c) The Islamic bank does not collect any rent from the client as long as
the rental contract is not completed by the Islamic bank, and the item
not handed over to the client.
3. Mushārakah Mutanāqisah1
The third major form of ownership which is offered by Islamic banks is
known as musharakah mutanaqisah. Through this transaction,
ownership of houses is generally realized. This is why it is also known
as "home partnership". This system comprises of three fundamental
steps:
a) The Islamic bank and its client purchase a house collectively. The
share of the bank is generally more than that of the client. For
example, a house was bought as a partnership with the bank having
80% of the share and the client having 20%.
b) The share of the bank is divided into small parts. In the above
example, the bank's share is divided into eighty units. The client then
buys one unit at a time from the bank. In this way, the client's share
increases while that of the bank decreases.
1 Diminishing partnership - a partnership contract between two parties
where one party's instalments will gradually increase his share in the
property until the whole ownership.
298