Indexed OCR Text

ولأن القصاص حق الميت بدليل أنه لو عفا عن الجارح صح وانقلب مالاً
تقضى من ديون وتنفذ وصاياه ويورث عنه. (المبسوط للامام السرخسى:
١٧٨/٢٦)
The right of rental is also from among those rights in which the laws of
inheritance will apply, and be distributed among all the heirs. The
author of al-Hidāyah states:
وأصل بذا أن القصاص حق جميع الورثة وكذا الدية ... ولنا أنه عليه الصلاة
والسلام أمر بتوريث امرأة أشيم الضبابى من عقل زوجها أشيم ولأنه حق
يجرى فيه الإرث. (الهداية: ٥٧٢/٤، باب القصاص فيما دون النفس)
'Allāmah Zayla'ī rahimahullāh clarifies this further:
ولنا قوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: من ترك مالاً أو حقاً فلورثته ومن ترك كلاً
فعلي والقصاص حق فيكون لجميعهم كالمال وأمر عليه الصلاة والسلام
بتوريث امرأة أشيم الضبابى من دية زوجها أشيم ولأن القصاص حق يجرى
فيه الإرث حتى أن من قتل ولم ابنان فمات أحدبما عن ابن كان القصاص
بين الصلبى وبين ابن الابن فثبت لسائر الورثة والزوجية تبقى بعد الموت
حكماً فى حق الإرث ... وكان علي رضي الله عنه يقسم الدية على من أحرز
الميراث والدية حكمها حكم سائر الأموال.
وبها مشه قوله: والورثة كلهم فى ذلك سواء، قال الإتقانى: والأصل في ذلك أن
القصاص يستحق من يستحق ماله على فرائض الله تعالى الذكر والأنثى فى
ذلك سواء والزوج والزوجة فى ذلك سواء نص عليه الكرخى فى مختصره.
(تبيين الحقائق مع الحاشية: ٦/ ١١٤، ط: امداديم، ملتان)
It becomes clear from the above quotations that qisas and diyat are
rights which are transferred to the heirs, and that all heirs are
partners in them. Observe the following with reference to the right of
wasīyyat and the right of shuf ah:
359

قال فى الهداية: وإن مات المشتري لم تبطل أى الشفعة لأن المستحق باق ولم
یتغیر سبب حقه. (الهداية: ٣٢١/٤)
This means that if a buyer bought a land and he passes away, the right
of shuf ah will be transferred to his heirs.
The author of al-Hidayah writes with reference to the right of wasīyyat:
قال: إلا فى مسئلة واحدة وبى أن يموت الموصى ثم يموت الموصى له قبل
القبول فيدخل الموصى به فى ملك ورثته استحساناً. (الهداية: ٥١٥/٤)
In other words, if Zayd makes a bequest of one third of his estate in
favour of 'Amr, and 'Amr passes away after the demise of Zayd, the
right of the bequest will be transferred to the heirs of 'Amr.
Hadrat Maulānā Qādī Mujahidul Islam Sahib rahimahullah writes with
reference to pagrī:
If the silent approval of societal norms was put into words, it would
mean that when a landlord collects pagrī from a tenant at the time of
renting a property to him, it means that while he has maintained his
ownership right, he has sold the right of occupation. This right of the
tenant cannot be seized by the landlord. It will also be transferred to
the tenant's heirs.1
Jadīd Ma'āshī Nizām:
In a permanent lease agreement, the tenant receives a permanent
right of leasing a property. After he passes away, the right is
transferred to his heirs, but not ownership. Ownership of the property
remains with the original owner. The tenant receives the right to use
the property. When he passes away, the same right is transferred to
his heirs. This is because in a permanent lease agreement, there is no
ownership; only a right.2
It becomes crystal clear from the above quoted texts that a permanent
lease agreement is a permanent right which will be transferred to the
heirs, as is the case with other rights. Ownership will remain with the
original owner. Nonetheless, the right to rent or occupy the property
will be transferred. Also, it will be transferred to all the heirs; there is
no stipulation for sons alone.
1 Majallah Fiqh Islāmī, vol. 1, p. 83, Islamic Figh Academy, India.
2 Jadīd Ma'āshī Nizām, p. 393.
360

There is a text of 'Allamah Shāmī rahimahullah (in Majmū'ah Rasā'il Ibn
'Abidīn, vol. 2, p. 152), and a statement of Muftī Muhammad Shafi
Sāhib rahimahullāh (in Jawahir al-Fiqh, vol. 5, p. 20) which show that
the right of permanent occupation rests with the sons only. In the
absence of son/s, the daughter/s will receive that right. We are of the
view that this view is surpassed on account of the previously-quoted
texts. Other jurists and 'Allāmah Shāmī rahimahullah himself (as
quoted previously) consider it to be an inheritance, and everyone
[sons and daughters] have a right in it.
Nowadays, a permanent right is considered to be a valuable asset. To
give it to one heir and deprive the others is most certainly against the
spirit of the Sharī ah.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
361

CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS
Exchanging one currency for the same currency
Question
What is the ruling with regard to changing an old currency with a new
one with a difference in the amount? Some muftīs say that it is
impermissible because it entails bay' bi al-fils bi al-filsayn, and
irrespective of the monetary price, it is a valuable metal. On the other
hand, paper money - without a monetary price - has no value; it is a
useless item. Therefore, it is not correct to apply the rules of coins to
paper money. What is the ruling of your Dar al-Ifta in this regard?
Answer
The fundamental and natural currency of the Shari'ah is dirhams and
dīnārs. The currencies which are in vogue today are thaman-e-'urfi (an
accepted currency); not thaman-e-khalqī (a natural currency). This is
why all the rules of a natural currency will not apply to it. After all,
there is a major difference between the two. The value of a natural
currency is perpetual, while the value of a thaman-e-'urfi exists for as
long as a government classifies it as such. If it announces the
cancellation of its currency, its value will cease to exist. Nonetheless, if
modern-day currencies are exchanged - one for another - then there
ought to be room for its permissibility.
إن الأموال ثلاثة: ثمن بكل حال وبو النقدان، صحبه الباء أولا، .. وثمن
بالاصطلاح وبو سلعة فى الأصل كالفلوس فإن كانت رائجة فهي ثمن وإلا
فسلعة. (البحر الرائق: ٢٠٣/٦، كتاب الصرف، كوئته. وكذا فى تبيين الحقائق:
٩٠/٤، ملتان. والمحيط البربانى: ١٧١/٧)
If a modern-day currency is exchanged with a difference in the
amount, this exchange could take three forms:
1. It is unspecified by both parties. Neither of the parties
specified it. This exchange is unanimously classified as
unlawful and harām on the basis of bay' al-kālī bi al-kālī.
2.
One party specifies it while the other does not. If the
unspecified currency is deferred, the exchange is unanimously
classified as unlawful. If the unspecified currency is not
deferred, but possession of it is not taken on the spot, there
362

are differences of opinion on its permissibility. Some 'ulama'
say it is permissible while others sat it is not.
3. The currencies are specified by both parties. The 'ulama' differ
in this regard. Imam Abu Hanīfah and Imam Abu Yusuf
rahimahumallah are of the view that it is permissible while
Imām Muhammad rahimahullāh says it is not. This is because
Imam Muhammad rahimahullah does not believe in any
difference between a thaman-e-khalqī and thaman-e-'urfī.
وإذا باع فلساً بفلسين حالة الرواج، فهذه المسألة على ثلاثة أوجه: أحدبا: أن
يبيع فلساً بغير عينه بفلسين بغير أعيانهما وفي بذا الوجه، البيع فاسد
لوجهين: أحدهما أن بذا بيع الدين بالدين. والثاني: أن الجنس بانفراده محرم
للنساء عندنا.
الوجه الثاني: إذا باع فلساً بعينه بفلسين بأعيانهما وفي بذ الوجه البيع جائز في
قول أبي حنيفة وأبي یوسف، وقال محمد: لا يجوز.
والوجه الثالث: إذا كان أحد البدلين عيناً والآخر ديناً وفي بذا الوجه إن كان ما
فى الذمة مؤجلاً لا يجوز البيع لما ذكرنا أن الجنس بانفراده يحرم النساء عندنا،
وإن كان ما في الذمة غير مؤجل لا شك أن على قول محمد لا يجوز، لأن عنده
لو باع فلساً بعينه بفلسين بأعيانهما لا يجوز فإذا كان أحد البدلين بغير عينه
أولى.
وأما على قول أبي حنيفة وأبي يوسف: فقد اختلف المشايخ، بعضهم قالوا:
يجوز، لأن الفلوس عندبما تصير بمنزلة العرض حال مقابلته لجنسه، قالوا: لو
باع فلساً بعينه، بفلسين بأعيانهما يجوز فإذا صار الفلس المعين على مذيبهما
بمنزلة العرض كان بمنزلة ما لو باع عرضاً بعينه بفلسين فى الذمة. ومنهم من
قال: لا يجوز، لأن الفلس عندما إنما تتعين بالتعيين حال تعيين أحد
البدلين، فلا يجوز، وبذا لأن الفلوس الرائجة لها حكم العرض من وجه.
(المحيط البريانى: ٢٧٠/٧)
363

وفى البحر: وليس مرادبم خصوص بيع الفلس بالفلسين بل بيان حل
التفاضل حتى لو باع فلساً بمائة على التعيين جاز عندبما. (البحر الرائق:
١٣٢/٦، باب الربا، كوئته)
وفى الفتاوى الهندية: ولو باع فلساً بعينه بفلسين بغير أعيانهما أو على
العكس لا يجوز ما لم يقبض ما كان ديناً فى المجلس. (الفتاوى الهندية:
١٠٣/٣)
وفى البحر: لو قبض ما كان ديناً فى المجلس جاز. (البحر الرائق: ١٣١/٦،
کوئته)
وفي فتح القدير: وأصله (الخلاف مبني على) أن الفلس لا يتعين بالتعيين ما
دام رائجاً عند محمد وعندما يتعين. (فتح القدير: ٢١/٧، دار الفكر)
The author of al-Hidāyah, Ibn Humām and 'Allamah Abu Bakr Kāsānī
gave preference to the view of Imam Abu Hanīfah and Imam
Muhammad
rahimahumallah. S
Shams al-A'immah
Halwānī
rahimahullāh said that the verdict is issued on their view.
فتح القدير:
وتأخير دليلهما بحسب عادة المصنف ظابر في اختياره قولهما. (فتح القدير:
١٥٨/٧، كتاب الصرف، دار الفكر)
الفتاوى الهندية:
قال الشيخ الإمام الأجل شمس الأئمة الحلواني: كل جواب فى الفلوس فهو
الجواب فى الدرابم البخارية أعني بها الغطارف، وكذلك الجواب فى الرصاص
والستوق، قالوا: ويجب أن يكون فى العدالیکذلک كذا فى الذخيرة، حتى لو
باع واحداً منهما باثنين يجوز بعد أن يكون يداً بيدٍ، بذا بو المختار للفتوى
كذا فى الغيائية. (الفتاوى الهندية: ١٠٣/٣)
364

Another angle to the issue of permissibility
If we were to disregard the issue of monetary value and look at it from
a different angle, we still do not see any reason for making it
impermissible. When money is exchanged with differences in the
amount - even if the currency is the same on both sides - there is no
weight [of the currencies as in the case of gold and silver]. And for it to
be classified as usury, it is necessary to have the weight with the
genus. The reason for this is that money [cash notes] are included as
items which are counted. And when counted items of the same genus
are exchanged, it is permissible for there to be a difference in the
number. This is on the condition that the items which are exchanged
by both parties are present in the place of the transaction, and they
are specified.
وإن قلنا: إن الثمنية لا تبطل إلا أن ربا النقد إنما يجري بالجنس والقدر وہو
الكيل أو الوزن وبهنا إن وجد الجنس لم يوجد القدر، أما الكيل فظابر وأما
الوزن، فلأن الناس تعارفوا بيع الفلوس عدداً لا وزناً ولهذا، قلنا: إذا باع
فلساً بعينه وأحدبما أثقل من الآخر وزناً أنه يجوز، ولو كان موزوناً لكان لا
يجوز كما إذا باع دريماً بدريم أثقل من الآخر وزناً وبهنا لما جاز علمنا أن
الوزن ساقط الاعتبار فى الفلوس فلم يوجد إلا الجنس فلا يجرى الربا.
(المحيط البريانى: ٢٧٠/٧)
وفى البدائع: ويجوز بيع العدديات المتقاربة من غير المطعومات بجنسها
متفاضلاً عند أبي حنيفة وأبي يوسف بعد أن يكون يداً بيدٍ كبيع الفلس
بالفلسين بأعيانهما. (بدائع الصنائع: ١٨٥/٥، سعيد)
وفي فتح القدير: قوله ويجوز بيع البيضة بالبيضتين ... إن ذلك كله مشروط
بكونه يداً بيدٍ أو بي من مسائل الجامع الصغير، صورتها فيه: محمد عن
يعقوب عن أبي حنيفة في بيع بيضة ببيضتين وجوزة بجوزتين وفلس بفلسين
وتمرة بتمرتين يداً بيدٍ جاز إذا كان بعينه وليس كلابما ولا أحدبما ديناً. (فتح
القدير: ٢٠/٧، دار الفكر)
365

وفى العناية: بيع العددى المتقارب بجنسه متفاضلاً جائز إن كانا موجودين
لانعدام المعيار، وإن كان أحدبما نسيئة لا يجوز لأن الجنس بانفراده يحرم
النساء. (شرح العناية على بامش فتح القدير: ٢٠/٧، دار الفكر)
فتاوى الشامى:
ثم اعلم أن ذكر النساء للاحتراز عن التأجيل، لأن القبض فى المجلس لا
يشترط إلا فى الصرف وبوبيع الأثمان بعضها ببعض أما ما عداه فإنما يشترط
فيه التعيين دون التقابض. (فتاوى الشامى: ١٧٢/٥، باب الربا، سعيد)
Some objections and answers to the above
1. Some muftīs say that it is not correct to compare currency notes
with coins because even when the value of a coin becomes non-
existent [as a currency], it is still of high monetary value. On the hand,
a currency note becomes valueless when the currency is cancelled.
The answer to this is that paper money in itself is also something to
which a tangible value could be attached. Without its monetary value,
it can still be used for different purposes, e.g. burning it,
beautification, making a necklace, reusing it by recycling it. In fact,
sometimes an old note becomes more valuable because people store it
as an investment or the government takes it back at a higher price.
Refer to Jadīd Fighī Mabahith, vol. 2, p. 81 for further details.
The second answer to this is that when it comes to monetary value, a
difference of this nature is not harmful. This is because the definition
which the jurists give for fulūs (money) includes paper money; it is not
specific to minted coins.
Shaykh Ahmad Zarqa writes in Sharh al-Qawā'id al-Fiqhīyyah:
والذي يظهر أن الورق النقدي الرائج في بلادنا الآن ونظيره الرائج فى البلاد
الأخرى، بو معتبر من الفلوس النافقة، وما قيل فيها من الأحكام السابقة،
يقال فيه لأن الفلوس النافقة بى ما كان متخذاً من غير النقدين الذبب
والفضة، ... والورق المذكور من بذا القبيل، ومن يدعي تخصيص الفلوس
366

النافقة بالمتخذ من المعادن فعليه البيان. (شرح القواعد الفقهية، للشيخ أحمد
الزرقاء ص ١٧٤)
In fact, as per a statement of Imam Malik rahimahullāh, fulūs is also
made of leather.
لو أن الناس أجازوا بينهم الجلود حتى تكون لها سكة وعين لكربتها أن تباع
بالذبب والورق نظرة. (المدونة الكبرى: ٩٠/٣، التأخير في صرف الفلوس، دار
الفكر)
وفى المصباح المنير: الفلس الذي يتعامل به. (المصباح المنير: ٤٨١/٢، بيروت)
Further reading: Jadīd Fiqhī Mabāhith, vol. 2, p. 133.
Although a currency note is a piece of paper, it falls under the
category of fulūs. It can be exchanged with variations in the amount.
This is clearly stated in Fath al-Qadir:
لو باع كاغذة بألف يجوز ولا يكره. (فتح القدير: ٢١٢/٧، کتاب الكفالة، دار
الفكر. وكذا فى رد المحتار: ٣٢٦/٥، سعيد)
Therefore, those who say that a currency note is valueless when its
monetary value is removed are incorrect.
2. Some scholars prohibit it on the basis of the following statement of
the author of al-Hidāyah:
ومشايخنا لم يفتوا بجواز ذلك فى العدالى والغطارفة لأنها أعز الأموال في
ديارنا فلو أبيح التفاضل فيه ينفتح باب الربا. (الهداية: ١٠٩/٣)
The actual reason for the prohibition of 'adala and ghatarifah was that
silver used to be present in it in those days. Since silver is a thaman-e-
khalqī and that too, because the silver was on the surface, people used
to treat it as silver. Mixing it with other valuable metals did not cause
major differences in its value when compared to the value of silver.
أن الفضة وإن كان أقل فهي قائمة للحال حقيقة، فإنها ترى وتشابد، فإن
اللون لون الفضة ومتى أذيبت تخلص الفضة وتخرج بيضاً خالصةً ... فكانت
367

الفضة قائمة باعتبار الحال والمأل ... فلأن الفضة يجعل فى الصفر لترويج
الصفر بالفضة ولهذا سموه درايم، ولهذا جعلوا الفضة ظابراً والصفر باطناً
فكانت الفضة معتبرة وإن كان أقل من الصفر. (المحيط البربانى: ٢٧٦/٧)
This is why the jurists included it in bay' as-sarf, and said that it is
necessary for mutual possession to take place when it is exchanged.
ولكنه مع بذا صرف حتى يشترط القبض قبل الافتراق ... لوجود الفضة من
الجانبين. (فتح القدير: ١٥٢/٧، كتاب الصرف، دار الفكر)
Hadrat Maulānā Rashīd Ahmad Gangohī rahimahullah also gives
preference to the view of Imam Abu Hanīfah and Imam Abū Yusuf
rahimahumallah. He says that it is permissible to exchange money
with differences in the amount.
Fatāwā Rashīdīyyah:
We conclude that fulus is a countable item. If it is exchanged for the
like of it, it is permissible because the genus is the same. Since there is
no weighing and measuring, differences in the amount are permissible
but a deferred payment is harām. This is the verdict of Imam Abū
Hanīfah and Imām Abū Yusuf rahimahumallah and it is the stronger
view.1
Muftī Nizām ad-Dīn A'zamī rahimahullah and Muftī Farīd Sahib also
state that it is permissible.2
Summary of above:
It is very rare to sell notes on the spot with differences in the amount.
Occasionally, people exchange old notes for new ones on the occasion
of 'id. Exchanging of notes is not practised in normal situations. As for
the rupees or rands which are accumulated as interest from a bank,
and then increase in number after a passage of time - this is usury and
it is absolutely harām. This is known as Qur'anic usury:
وَإِنْ تُبْتُمْ فَلَكُمْ رُءُوْسُ أَمْوَالِكُمْ. لَا تَظْلِمُوْنَ وَلَا تُظْلَمُوْنَ.
1 Fatāwā Rashīdīyyah, p. 537, Maktabah Rahmānīyyah.
2 Muntakhabāt Nizām al-Fatāwā, vol. 2, p. 374; Fatāwā Farīdīyyah, vol. 2, p. 677.
368

If you repent, then for you is your capital wealth.
Neither should you wrong anyone nor should
anyone wrong you.1
In short, increasing a loan amount because of an increase in the period
of the loan is totally unlawful.
Some scholars such as Muftī Kifayatullah Sāhib rahimahullāh, Maulānā
'Abd al-Hayy rahimahullah, Muftī Taqī Sahib and others are of the
view that it is not permissible to sell currency notes when there are
differences in the amount.
This view is based on caution. In the light of the above proofs, there
ought to be room for permitting the sale of currency notes with
differences in the amount.
The decision of the Islamic Fiqh Academy on the issue of exchanging
currency notes:
Presently, transactions with currency notes have completely replaced
the natural currencies - gold and silver. Mutual loans and credits are
conducted through notes. This is why currency notes are similar to
thaman-e-haqīqī (genuine monetary value) as regards the rules which
apply to them. Therefore, exchanging the currency of one country
with the currency of the same country with differences in the amount
is impermissible; neither in a cash transaction nor in a credit
transaction.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
A bill of exchange
Question
Zayd bought goods to the value of R100 000 from 'Umar. It was agreed
that Zayd will pay the amount after two months. He gave 'Umar a post-
dated cheque which he will be able to cash only after two months.
However, 'Umar needs the money immediately, so he goes to Bakr or
to a bank and sells the cheque or bill for R98 000. Bakr or the bank will
receive the R100 000 after two months [as per the date on the cheque].
Is this transaction permissible?
Answer
This is an interest transaction because Bakr or the bank paid R98 000
and will collect R100 000 after two months. Yes, if there is an urgent
1 Sūrah al-Baqarah, 2: 279.
369

need, 'Umar could sell goods to Bakr or the bank for R98 000 and
collect R98 000 from it. The same buyer [Bakr or the bank] must take
possession of the goods and then re-sell them to 'Umar for R100 00 on
a two-month credit basis. This is one leeway which could be resorted
to at the time of need.
Further reading: Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar'ī Ahkām, vol. 1, p. 147; Islām Aur
Jadīd Ma'īshat Wa Tijārat, p. 123; Islām Aur Jadīd Ma'ashī Masā'il, vol. 7, p.
251; Gharar Kī Sūratei, pp. 334-337.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Exchanging one currency for a different currency
Question
There are two ways of sending money to another country:
1. A bank or person in South Africa is given one thousand dollars
or eight hundred rands. After two or three days, a specified
amount of rupees is collected in Karachi or Delhi. The wrong
which seems to be committed here is that when a currency is
exchanged for a currency, the two parties must take
possession of it in the same assembly; and this is not found
here.
2.
Fifty thousand rupees are sent from Karachi to Lahore through
a bank or someone else. Those very same rupees do not reach
Lahore. Rather, that same amount is given to the recipient
through the bank. Some scholars say that this is saftajah (bill of
exchange) which is prohibited in the books of jurisprudence. It
is also known as a bill of exchange.
What is the Shari'ah ruling with regard to these two forms of
exchange?
Answer
1. In the first case, rupees are received in return for dollars, and the
currencies of two countries are classified as different species. This
transaction will therefore be permissible with differences in the
amounts. Furthermore, because this is a thaman 'urfi and not a
thaman haqīqi, it is not necessary for both parties to take possession of
it in the same assembly. Yes, it is necessary for one party to take
possession of it so that one abstains from bay' al-kālī bi al-kālī. A
detailed fatwa on thaman 'urfi not being under the ruling of thaman
haqīqī was issued previously.
370

2. The second scenario appears to be saftajah. The root of this word
means "to make a hole and store". In olden days, people used to make
a whole in a walking stick [for example] and conceal their dirhams and
dīnārs in it to protect them against thieves. They would then convey
the coins in this way. This is why this is referred to as saftajah. The
essence of saftajah is that a person gives one thousand dirhams as a
loan to another person, and lays down the condition that he will
collect this amount from him or from his representative in a certain
city. The jurists says that this is prohibited because it falls under the
ruling of:
کل قرض جر نفعا فهو ربا.
A loan which attracts a benefit is usury.
Because of this loan, the lender acquired safety for the movement of
his money. This is why it is prohibited. However, there are two
conditions. One is that it must be a loan. If a person gives the money as
a trust (amanat) then there is no objection. If the entrusted item is
destroyed, the person to whom the item belongs has been destroyed.
The second condition is that the lender lays down the prerequisite
that he is giving the loan on condition that the borrower must pay it to
him in a certain city. If he lends the money without such a condition,
and the borrower wrote to someone in the other city to pay the person
there, then it will not be disapproved.
فشرط الكرابة أو عدم الجواز شيئان: الأول أن يدفع المال في بلده قرضاً لمن
يكتب له، فلو دفعه أمانة لم يكره ولم يفسد. والثاني: أن يشترط عليه في
عقد القرض أن يكتب له به إلى البلدة الأخرى فلو لم يشترط لم يكره، عن
عطاء بن أبي رباح أن عبد الله بن الزبير رضي الله عنه كان يأخذ من قوم
بمكة درابم، ثم يكتب بها إلى مصعب بن الزبير رضي الله عنه بالعراق
فيأخذونها من، فسئل ابن عباس رضي الله عنه عن ذلك، فلم ير به بأساً،
فقيل له: إن اخذوا أفضل من درابمهم، قال: لا بأس إن اخذوا بوزن درابمهم،
وروي في ذلک عن على رضي الله عنه.
فإن صح ذلك عنه، وعن ابن عباس رضي الله عنه فإنما أرادا والله أعلم إذا
كان ذلك بغير شرط. السنن الكبرى للبيهقى: (٣٥٢/٥، دار المعرفة، بيروت).
371

(الفقه الحنفى وادلته، فقه المعاملات، القسم الاول، حكم السفتجة، ص
١٣٤)
فتح القدير:
والقرض بهذا الشرط فاسد ولو لم يكن مشروطاً جاز وصورة الشرط ما فى
الواقعات رجل أقرض رجلاً مالاً على أن يكتب له به إلى بلد كذا فإنه لا
يجوز، وإن أقرضه بغير شرط وكتب جاز. (فتح القدير: ٢٥١/٧، كتاب الحوالة،
دار الفكر)
If the person give the dirhams as a loan to the bank or to any person,
pays for the courier of the money, and then makes a condition in the
transaction that he will collect the money in a certain city; then this
will be permissible. This is because the benefit of acquiring a safe
transport (here the objective is not safety but the conveyance of the
money) is not because of the loan. Rather, a remuneration has been
given for it, and the bank has been made the representative for the
remuneration. Generally, a fee is paid for a money order or to a bank
for conveying the money. There is no objection to such a transaction.
Maulānā Fath Muhammad Lucknowī rahimahullah writes in the
marginalia of Sharh al-Wiqāyah that it is permissible. Details in this
regard are to be found in Takmilah 'Umdah ar-Ri'āyah, vol. 2, p. 119.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
When a measured item becomes a weighted one
Question
It is common practice in villages for a woman to borrow three kilos of
flour. She then returns the same amount after a few days. The books of
jurisprudence state that wheat and flour are from among the
measured items, and it is not permissible to change a measured item
into a weighed item because even when there is equality in weight,
their could be differences in measurement. What is the ruling of the
Sharī ah?
Answer
This is a loan agreement, and it is essential to return the same amount
in a loan agreement. Since three kilos is an equal of three kilos, this
agreement is permissible. It is also permissible to sell three kilos of
372

flour in return for three kilos flour in a non-deferred transaction.
Since flour has become a weighted item - and Imam Abu Yusuf
rahimahullāh is of the view that when a measured item becomes a
weighted one in a society, then it is permissible to sell it for the same
weight - the fatwa is issued on his view.
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
بذالنص نصاً عرفياً، بمعنى أنه ذكر فيه المقياس الذي عينه النص، لأنه كان
بو المتعارف حين وروده النص، ولو كان المتعارف مقياساً آخر لورد النص
بذلك الآخر، لأن مقاييس الكميات تتبع الأعراف، ولتنظررسالة "نشر
العرف فيما بنى من الأحكام على العرف" لابن عابدين. وقد أوضحت بذه
المسألة في كتابى المدخل الفقهى العام. (حاشية شرح القواعد الفقهية، ص
٢٢١، تحت القاعدة: العادة محكمة)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
A forward exchange contract
Question
Is a forward exchange contract permissible? This is how it works:
It entails the exchange of currencies of different countries whereby,
for example, dollars will be paid on a specified date in the future. This
is known as a forward exchange rate. The specified date in the future
is generally set at three months. The deferred value of the currency
differs from the present cash value. In other words, it is paid with an
additional amount.
For example, a South African company purchases goods from an
American company for $100 000. Both parties agree that the goods will
be handed over after three months and the price [$100 000] will also be
paid at that time. During this three-month period, there is a strong
373

possibility of the value of the dollar increasing, due to which the South
African company could suffer losses because it could be required to
pay more rands for the same amount of dollars. To protect itself
against this possible loss, the South African company enters into a
forward exchange contract with a bank. The company buys the dollars
at the current rate. It will pay the rands immediately but receive the
dollars after three months - the time when it has to pay the dollars to
the American company. What is the Shari' ah ruling in this regard?
Answer
If a currency is sold for a different currency for the future, it could
have the following three scenarios:
1. If dollars are bought in exchange for rands for the future, and all the
rands were paid so that one will receive the dollars on a specified date
at the end of three months, then this transaction could be included in
salam. If the prerequisites for salam are fulfilled, the transaction is
correct and permissible as a salam agreement.
The conditions for salam are to be found in this acronym:
"مص جنا مرأة" أو "امرأة مصت جنا"
1. The mīm represents the miqdar (amount) of the salam item.
2.
The sad represents the sifat. The attribute of the item has to be
known.
3. The jim represents the jins. The genus of the item has to be
known.
4.
The nun represents the nau'. The type or category of the item
has to be known.
5. The alif represents the ajal. The time-period has to be known.
6. The mīm ra represent miqdār ra's al-mal - the capital amount.
7. The tā represents tasmīyyatul makan - the place has to be
specified.
I am of the view that currencies fall under the classification of fulūs-e-
nafiqah, i.e. a currency which is in vogue. A currency is not a thaman
haqīqī because only gold and silver are classified as thaman haqīqī.
In a salam transaction, it is essential to take possession of the capital
amount. For the sake of possession (qabdah), takhliyah and qabdah
hukmī will suffice. Also, if the amount is transferred into an account, it
will suffice.
374

If the two parties do not engage in a salam transaction, they have the
leeway of giving one currency at present and the other currency later
on.
الفتاوى الهندية:
ويجوز السلم فى الفلوس عدداً في ظابر الرواية كذا فى الينابيع وبو الصحيح
بكذا فى النهاية. (الفتاوى الهندية: ١٨٣/٣، فصل فى بيان ما يجوز السلم)
فتح القدير:
وكذا فى الفلوس عدداً أى يجوز السلم فى الفلوس عدداً بكذا ذكره محمد فى
الجامع الصغير من غير ذكر خلاف فكان بذا ظابر الرواية عنه. (فتح القدير:
٧٥/٧، دار الفكر)
2. The second scenario is when the rabb as-salam does not pay
anything. This is not permissible because it entails bay' ad-dayn bi ad-
dayn. Furthermore, it is necessary to hand over the capital amount in
a salam transaction.
قال فى الهداية: ولا يصح السلم حتى يقبض رأس المال قبل أن يفارقه فيه أما
إذا كان من النقود فلأنه افتراق عن دين بدين وقد نهى النبي صلى الله عليه
وسلم عن الكالى بالكالئ. (الهداية: ٩٦/٣)
3. The third scenario is that a part of the capital amount is given, and
not the entire amount. The transaction will be permissible in respect
to the amount which was paid, while it will remain impermissible with
respect to the unpaid amount. However, if a promise is made in
scenario numbers two and three, and an agreement is not made, then
there could be leeway for its permissibility. When the promise is in the
form of a condition, it will be obligatory to fulfil it. For example, "If I
give you the dollars on such and such date, you will have to sell me
pounds at such and such price."
المواعيد في صورة التعليق تكون لازمة مثل أن يقول بع بذا الشيء من فلان
بكذا فإن لم يعطك الثمن فأنا أعطيه. (شرح المجلة، للأتاسى، ٢٢٨/١، شرح
القواعد الفقهية، ٢٦٣)
375

Mullā 'Alī Qārī rahimahullah writes:
المواعيد قد تكون لازمة، قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: العدة دين
فيجعل بذا الميعاد لازماً لحاجة الناس إليه. (شرح النقاية: ٢٥٣/٣، قبيل فصل
الاقالة، بيروت)
Furthermore, this is one form of hundī (bill of exchange) in which
there is room for deferment because it is a customary currency and
not a genuine currency [gold or silver] in which there is no room for
deferment.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Exchanging currencies of different countries
Question
A person gave R500 to another and said: "After three months, you
must give me such and such amount of dollars in exchange for the
rands." Is this permissible?
Answer
A currency is not a genuine thaman, but a customary one.
Furthermore, countries have different names for their currencies.
Therefore, it is not necessary for mutual taking of possession on the
spot; it could be deferred.
The following is stated in Fiqhī Maqālāt:
Businessmen and people in general are in the habit of giving the
currency of one country to a certain person and saying to him: "You
must pay me such and such currency after such and such time at such
and such place." Imam Abu Hanīfah rahimahullah is of the view that
this is permissible because when a thaman is sold, it is not a
precondition for the thaman to be in the possession of the one selling
it. Thus, if the currencies are different, it will be permissible to sell
them on credit.
وإذا اشترى الرجل فلوساً بدرايم ونقد الثمن ولم تكن الفلوس عند البائع
فالبيع جائز لأن الفلوس الرائجة كالنقود، وقد بينا أن حكم العقد فى الثمن
وجوبها ووجودبا معا ولا يشترط قيامها في ملك بائعها لصحة العقد كما لا
376

يشترط ذلك فى الدرابم والدنانير. (المبسوط للامام السرخسي: ٢٤/١٤، باب
البيع بالفلوس، ادارة القرآن)
Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar'ī Ahkām:
The currencies of different countries are classified as items of different
categories. Their names, etc. are different. Since they are of different
categories, it is permissible to sell the currency of one country for the
currency of another country with differences in the amounts. It is also
permissible to engage in such a business. However, it is essential for
one of the two parties to take possession of either of the two
currencies in the assembly of the transaction. If even one party does
not take possession of it in the assembly, and each party promises to
pay the other later on, this will not be permissible because it would
entail separating while each one having a debt against the other. And
this is impermissible as per the teachings of the Hadith.
قال العلامة بربان الدين المرغيناني: وإذا عدم الوصفان الجنس والمعنى
المضموم إليه حل التفاضل والنساء لعدم العلة المحرمة والأصل فيه الإباحة
وإذا وجد حرم التفاضل والنساء لوجود العلة وإذا وجد أحدبما وعدم الآخر
حل التفاضل وحرم النساء. (الهداية: ٧٩/٣، باب الربا، دار الفكر).
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Buying gold/silver with currency notes
Question
A person bought jewellery to the value of R50 000 from a jeweller. The
buyer had R40 000 at the time. He paid the R40 000, took the jewellery
and promised to pay the balance after one week. Is this transaction
valid? After all, we know that in a bay' as-sarf, it is necessary for it to
be a cash transaction.
Answer
Currency notes are not classified as thaman haqīqī but thaman 'urfi. So
the injunctions of bay' as-sarf will not apply in their trading.
Therefore, it will be permissible to buy on credit. Yes, it is necessary to
take possession of one of the two exchanges [the money or the
1 Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar ī Ahkām, vol. 1, p. 139.
377

jewellery] in the assembly so that it does not become bay' ad-dayn bi
ad-dayn.
الدر المختار:
عقد الصرف بيع الثمن بالثمن أى ما خلق للثمنية ومنه المصوغ جنساً بجنس
أو بغير جنس كذب بفضة. (الدر المختار: ٢٥٧/٥، سعيد)
بدائع الصنائع:
فالصرف في متعارف الشرع اسم لبيع الأثمان المطلقة بعضها ببعض وہو بيع
الذهب بالذهب والفضة بالفضة. (بدائع الصنائع: ٢١٥/٥، سعيد)
وفي رد المحتار: سئل الحانوتي عن بيع الذهب بالفلوس نسيئة فأجاب بأنه يجوز
إذا قبض أحد البدلين. (فتاوى الشامى: ١٨٠/٥، باب الربا، سعيد)
وفى المبسوط للإمام السرخسي: إذا اشترى الرجل فلوساً بدرابم ونقد الثمن
ولم تكن الفلوس عند البائع فالبيع جائز لأن الفلوس الرائجة ثمن كالنقود ...
وبيع الفلوس بالدرابم ليس بصرف. (المبسوط: ٢٤/١٤)
وللاستزادة انظر: (المحيط البربانى: ٢٦٨/٧. والفتاوى الهندية: ٢٢٤/٣)
Fatāwā 'Uthmānī:
أما الذبب سواء كان تبراً أو مصوغاً فقد أجمع الأئمة الأربعة على أنه لا يعامل
معاملة البضائع، وإنما يعمل أحكام النقود في جميع الأمور، لكن "الأوراق
النقدية" قد وقع فيه خلاف بين العلماء المعاصرين، وإن كثيراً من علماء
البلاد العربية جعلوبا في حكم الذبب سواء بسواء، ولكن خالفتُهم في
رسالتي "أحكام الأوراق النقدية" وذكرت أنها ليست قائمة مقام الذبب في
جميع الأمور، فلا تجري فيها أحكام الصرف، ولذلك يجوز عندي أن يشترى
الذهب أو الفضة بالنقود، ويجوز أيضاً أن يشترى الذبب نسيئة بالأوراق
378