Indexed OCR Text

GAMBLING AND BRIBERY
Taking part in horse races
Question
A person takes part in horse races and has received prizes on several
occasions. From these monies which he received, he opened a shop in
which he sells foods, drinks, groceries and so on. He now wants to
open more businesses with this money. Is it correct for him to take
part in the horse races and accept the prizes? If his income is not halal,
will it be permissible to do business in these shops?
Answer
If a person takes part in horse races where there is the possibility of
losing and winning, and where there is the precondition of putting
down money [bets] from both parties, and receiving a prize - then this
is harām. It is gambling. The Qur'an prohibits it. It is not permissible to
open a business with the money which was received as a prize. One
should also abstain from doing business with such a shop.
Yes, if from the two parties, the condition of giving a prize is made by
only one person and not by the other, it will be permissible. Similarly,
if someone other than those who are competing is giving the prize, it
will be permissible.
The Qur'an states:
يَأَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ أُمَنُوْا إِنَّمَا الْخَمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنْصَابُ وَالْأَزْلاَمُ
رِجْسٌ مِّنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطِنِ فَاجْتَنِبُوْهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُوْنَ.
O believers! Wine, gambling, idols and divining
arrows are vile deeds of Satan. Continually abstain
from them, then, so that you may gain salvation.1
Faqīh Abū al-Layth Samarqandī writes:
وقال عطاء ومجابد: الميسر القمار كل حتى لعب الصبيان بالجوز والكعاب.
(تفسير السمرقندى: ٢٠٣/١)
Sūrah al-Mā'idah, 5: 90.
519

التعريفات الفقهية:
القمار مصدر قامر بو كل لعب يشترط فيه غالباً أن يأخذ الغالب شيئاً من
المغلوب، وأصله أن يأخذ الواحد من صاحبه شيئاً فشيئاً فى اللعب ثم عرفوه
بأنه تعليق الملك على الخطر والمال فى الجانبين. (التعريفات الفقهية، ص ١٧٧،
وجوابر الفقر: ٢٢٧/٢، وامداد الفتاوى: ١٦١/٣)
رد المحتار:
وسمى القمار قماراً لأن كل واحد من المقامرين ممن يجوز أن يذبيب ماله إلى
صاحبه، ويجوز أن يستفيد مال صاحبه، وبو حرام بالنص. (رد المحتار: ٤٠٣/٦،
كتاب الحظر والا باحة، سعيد)
الفتاوى الهندية:
(والمسابقة) بالفرس والإبل والأرجل والرمي جائزة وحرم شرط الجعل من
الجانبين، لا من أحد الجانبين، ومعنى شرط الجعل من الجانبين أن يقول إن
سبق فرسک فلک علي کذا، وإن سبق فرسي فلي علیک کذا، وہو قمار فلا
يجوز. وإذا شرط من جانب واحد بأن يقول إن سبقتني فلك على كذا، وإن
سبقتك فلا شيء لي عليك جاز استحساناً. (الفتاوى الهندية: ٤٤٥/٦، مسائل
شتى)
تكملة البحر الرائق:
قال رحمه الله (والمسابقة بالفرس ... جائزة وحرم شرط الجعل من الجانبين لا
من أحد الجانبين، لما روى ابن عمر رضي الله عنه أن النبي صلى الله عليه
وسلم سبق بالخيل ورابن، ومعنى شرط الجعل من الجانبين أن يقول إن سبق
فرسک فلک علی کذا، وإن سبق فرسي فلي علیک کذا، وہو قمار فلا يجوز،
520

لأن القمار من قمر الذي يزاد تارة وينقص أخرى، وسمى القمار قماراً لأن كل
واحد من القمارين ممن يجوز أن يذيب ماله إلى صاحبه ويجوز أن يستفيد مال
صاحبه فيجوز الازدياد والنقصان في كل واحد منهما فصار ذلك قماراً وہو
حرام بالنص. (تكملة البحر الرائق: ٤٨٦/٨، مسائل شتى، كوئته)
وللاستزادة انظر: (رد المحتار على الدر المختار: ٧٥٢/٦، سعيد. وتبيين الحقائق:
والجوبرة النيرة)
Islāmī Fiqh:
Just as all types of interest transactions are haram, all types of
gambling transactions are harām. Whether the gambling is through
races, on the basis of certain conditions, or a person acquires
incidental benefit from it; all these forms are unlawful. The Qur'an and
Hadith classify maysir (gambling) as harām.1
Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar'ī Ahkām:
The current forms of horse racing, where a horse race is hosted by a
company, the horses belong to the company, the jockeys are employed
by it, the general public places bets on the horse numbers for which it
has to pay a fee, and if a horse whose number the person placed a bet
on comes out first, he receives a prize while all the others who had
paid the fees have them forfeited ... This is absolutely haram. First of all,
this race has nothing to do with developing the ability to wage jihad.
The organizers neither maintain the horses nor do they have anything
to do with the training of the jockeys. The recompense or payment
system is such that the one who placed the bet receives a cash prize
while others have to lose their monies which they paid as fees. This is
clear-cut gambling which is explicitly forbidden by the Qur'an.2
Further reading: Jadīd Fiqhī Masā'il, vol. 1, p. 263.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
1 Islāmī Figh, vol. 2, p. 354.
2 Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar'ī Ahkām, vol. 2, p. 73.
521

A muhallil in a horse race
Question
Zayd and 'Umar have a horse race against each other. They lay down
the condition that the one who wins shall receive R10 000 from the
other. This is unlawful. We learn from a Hadith that if a muhallil (the
one who creates permissibility) is included, it becomes permissible to
lay down a condition. How is a muhallil included?
Answer
There are two ways in which a muhallil can be included into a horse
race.
(1)
Zayd and 'Umar say to a muhallil: "If you win, you will receive the
amount which we agreed on. If you lose, you will not give the winner
anything. Instead, the winner will take the specified amount from his
competitor. From this, four scenarios are possible:
1. If the muhallil wins, he will receive R20 000.
2. If either one from Zayd or 'Umar wins, he will receive the
R10 000 of the other one. The muhallil will receive nothing.
3. Zayd and 'Umar are equal in winning from the muhallil. Both
of them will receive nothing.
4. The muhallil and one of the two - Zayd or 'Umar - are equal in
winning. There is difference of opinion in this regard. 'Allamah
Shāmī rahimahullah says that the muhallil will receive
nothing. The other person will receive the agreed amount of
R10 000. Mullā 'Alī Qarī rahimahullah says that the prize will
be divided equally between the muhallil and the other person.
تبيين الحقائق:
وصورة إدخال المحلل أن يقولا للثالث إن سبقتنا فالمالان لك وإن سبقناك
فلا شيء لنا عليك ولكن الشرط الذي شرطاه بينهما وبو أيهما سبق كان له
الجعل على صاحبه باق على ماله فإن غلبهما أخذ المالين وإن غلباه فلا شيء
لهما عليه ويأخذ أيهما غلب المال المشروط له من صاحبه. (تبيين الحقائق:
٢٢٨/٦، ملتان)
522

الدر المختار:
... إلا إذا أدخلا ثالثاً محللاً بينهما ... ثم إذا سبقهما أخذ منهما وإن سبقاه لم
يعطهما وفيما بينهما أيهما سبق أخذ من صاحبه. (الدر المختار: ٤٠٣/٦، سعيد)
الفتاوى الهندية:
ثم إذا كان المال مشروطاً من جانبين فأدخلا بينهما ثالثاً وقال للثالث إن
سبقتنا فالمالان لك وإن سبقناك فلا شيء لنا يجوز استحساناً .. وإن سبقناه
على التعاقب فالذي سبق صاحبه يستحق المال على صاحبه وصاحب لا يستحق
المال عليه. (الفتاوى الهندية: ٣٢٤/٥)
وللاستزادة انظر: (عمدة القارى: ١٩٢/١٠، ط: ملتان، ورد المحتار: ٧٥٢/٦،
سعيد، والفتاوى السراجية، ص ٣٣٦، والبحر الرائق: ٤٨٢/٨)
فتاوى الشامى:
وإن سبقاه وجاءا معاً فلا شيء لواحد منهما وإن سبق المحلل مع أحدبما ثم
جاء الآخر فلا شيء على من مع المحلل بل له ما شرطه الآخرله كما لو سبق
ثم جاء المحلل ثم جاء الآخر فلا شيء للمحلل. (فتاوى الشامى: ٤٠٣/٦،
سعيد)
مرقاة المفاتيح:
وإن جاء المحلل وأحد المستبقين معاً ثم جاء الثاني مصلياً أخذ السابقان
سبقه. (مرقاة المفاتيح: ٣٢٠/٧، ملتان)
(2)
Zayd and 'Umar say to the muhallil: "If you win, you will not receive
anything. If you lose, you won't have to give us anything. The one who
wins from us two [Zayd and 'Umar] will receive ten thousand from the
other." Here too, the sin of gambling will not be committed.
523

Jawahir al-Fiqh:
Two riders get a third rider - e.g. Khalid - to join them in the
race ... The condition is that if Zayd wins, 'Umar will give him one
thousand rupees. If 'Umar wins, Zayd will give him the same amount.
If Khalid wins, no one will have to pay anything to anyone.1
(وكذا فى الفقر المعاملات: ٧٢/٢، واشرف التوضيح شرح مشكوة المصابيح:
٥٦٨/٢)
Like the first option, four scenarios are possible here:
The second two are the same. In the first option, when the muhallil
wins, he will not receive anything. Here too he will receive nothing.
However, the precondition is that the horse of the muhallil will have
to be of the same standard as the other two. In other words, it has the
possibility of winning and losing. Its winning or losing must not be
definitive. If not, it will be classified as gambling.
عن أبي بريرة رضي الله عنه عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: من أدخل
فرساً بين فرسين يعني وبو لا يؤمن أن يسبق فليس بقمار، ومن أدخل فرساً
بین فرسین وقد أمن أن يسبق فهو قمار. (رواه ابو داود، ص ٣٥٥)
وللاستزادة انظر: (تبيين الحقائق: ٢٢٧/٦، ملتان، الفتاوى الهندية: ٣٢٤/٥.
وبدائع الصنائع: ٢٠٦/٦، سعيد)
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
Receiving a prize on behalf of a third person
Question
A school is hosting a function for which there is a R50 entrance fee.
This money will go towards assisting the school. It has not been
imposed by the owner of the school, but by a third person. Lots will be
drawn and a few prizes will be given to the winners. For example, a
mobile phone. If the prize is won by those who are collecting the
entrance fees, will it be permissible for them to accept the prize?
1 Jawahir al-Fiqh, vol. 2, p. 355.
524

Answer
If those who are collecting the entrance fees win the prize, it is
permissible for them to accept it. There are two reasons for this:
1. The prize is not given in return for the R50, because this
amount is an entrance fee. And it is to assist the school, it is
not in exchange for the prize. This is why it is permissible.
2. The prize is sponsored by a third person and not by the owner
of the school. It is permissible to accept a prize from a third
person.
وكذلك (أى لا بأس به) ما يفعله السلاطين وبو أن يقول السلطان لرجلين:
من سبق منكما فلم كذا فهو جائز لما بينا أن ذلك من باب التحريض على
استعداد أسباب الجهاد خصوصاً من السلطان. (بدائع الصنائع: ٦/٢٠٦، كتاب
السباق، سعيد-وفتاوى الشامى: ٥/٣٥٤، سعيد)
In the above quotation, the king is like a third person. Just as it is
permissible for the king to give the prize, in the scenario under
question, it is permissible for a third person to give the prize.
Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Sharī Ahkām:
There is a lawful way of giving a recompense in a horse race: Two
persons are competing against each other. Neither of them is to give
anything to the other. Rather, the government, a third person or a
group offers to give a prize to the one who wins.1
Further reading: Jawahir al-Fiqh, vol. 2, p. 356.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Prize bonds
Question
The following is one of the ways in which a prize bond operates:
People contribute R10 each, one person or few persons then receive a
prize. The remaining contributors lose their money. This is one type of
gambling. The other type is where the R10 which was paid initially is
returned. A lot is drawn and some people receive prizes. Here, it seems
that there is no gambling because the initial money is not lost. Also, it
1 Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Sharī Ahkām, vol. 2, p. 71.
525

does not appear to be usury because it is defined as "a preconditioned
additional amount which is devoid of a recompense". In this case, no
condition is made with each person individually - that you will receive
such and such additional amount. What is the Shari'ah ruling with
regard to the second type which I described?
Answer
Both types of prize bonds are unlawful.
Islām Aur Jadīd Ma āshī Masā'il:
Some scholars say that a prize bond is permissible. They looked at it
from the angle that it does not entail ta'līq at-tamlīk 'alā al-khatar
(placing one's possession in danger). No matter what amount of money
a person contributes, it will be returned to him. This is why it is not
gambling. It is therefore permissible. However, this way of thinking is
incorrect. Although there is no direct gambling, there is usury in it. If
the person's name comes out in the draw, then - if, for example, he
contributed one hundred rupees - he will receive 100 100 rupees.
Some scholars are confused into assuming that this too is not usury
because when the person bought the bonds, there was no precondition
of receiving more.
The answer to this confusion is that the condition of receiving more is
made collectively with all those who bought the bonds. Although it is
not stated explicitly that we will give any profits over and above it, it is
done in practice. This practice is continuous and adhered to that when
a person takes back his loan, the government gives him something
extra. Although the precondition is not stated in words, it falls under
.المعروف كالمشروط the principle of
Generally, the government adds interest to every person who takes
out a bond. The interest of all participants is brought together and
then distributed among individuals by drawing a lot. We could put this
in another way by saying that usury is distributed in the form of
gambling. Although it is not gambling because usury is not owned in
the first place, it contains the spirit of gambling; and the gambling is
taking place over the usury. That is, the interest of one person or the
interest of many persons is brought together, and another person
receives it through a lot. This is why it is unlawful.1
1 Islām Aur Jadīd Ma'āshī Masā'il, vol. 4, pp. 11-78.
526

Fatāwā Bayyināt:
It is haram to trade in prize bonds, and to accept prizes from them.
Jadīd Fiqhī Masā'il:
The first type of prize bonds is included in gambling, and therefore
unlawful. The second type is unlawful because it includes usury. It is
therefore necessary to abstain from both forms.
Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar'ī Ahkām:
A scheme comprises of 250-300 people. Each member contributes
three hundred rupees monthly. A lot is drawn each month. The person
whose name is drawn receives fifteen thousand rupees or other items
to that value. The remaining portions are not taken.
There are two possibilities in this scheme. Each member will definitely
receive a prize money or there is the danger of losing his entire
amount. If he will definitely receive an amount, it is usury because
those who join the scheme do so with the intention of getting their
money back, plus an additional amount. Those who run the scheme
also encourage and push people into joining it by saying that those
whose names come out in the draw shall receive an additional amount.
If there is the danger of the original contribution being lost, then this
is gambling. Usury and gambling are both haram. It is obligatory to
abstain from them.1
It is gauged from a detailed fatwa of Hadrat Muftī Nizam ad-Din Sahib
rahimahullāh (Muntakhabāt Nizām al-Fatāwā, vol. 1, p. 195) that the
second type in which the participants receive the full amount which
they paid is not classified as usury, so it is permissible to accept it. This
ruling will be clarified further on.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Accepting a prize for solving a puzzle in a newspaper
Question
Newspapers often publish a quiz or puzzle. If it is solved, the person
will receive a certain prize. There are no fees for this competition. Is it
permissible to accept the prize? Yes, the person has to buy the
newspaper.
1 Jadīd Mu āmalāt Ke Sharī Ahkām, vol. 1, p. 264.
527

Answer
It is permissible to accept a prize for solving a quiz or puzzle in a
newspaper. There is no objection to it. It is a one-sided prize; there is
neither gambling nor usury in it. As for the money which is paid for
the newspaper, the person received the newspaper in return.
تنوير الابصار:
حل الجعل إن شرط المال من جانب واحد .. وفى الشامية: جواز الجعل فيما
ذكر استحسان. (تنوير الابصار مع فتاوى الشامى: ٤٠٢/٦، كتاب الحظر
والا باحة، سعيد)
الفتاوى الهندية:
وحرم شرط الجعل من الجانبين، لا من أحد الجانبين، ... وإذا شرط من جانب
واحد بأن يقول إن سبقتني فلك على كذا، وإن سبقتك فلا شيء لي عليك
جاز استحساناً. (الفتاوى الهندية: ٤٤٥/٦، مسائل شتى)
Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah:
A newspaper published that if the meaning of a certain word or a
certain quiz is solved, the person will receive a prize. A person solved
it and received a prize. This prize now belongs to him ... There is no
objection to it because it is a one-sided thing.1
Fatāwā 'Uthmānī:
If no fees were collected from children for participating in a
competition or draw, then it is not gambling. It is permissible to draw
lots for the distribution of prizes.2
Halāl Wa Harām:
If no fees are collected from those taking part in the competition, it
will be permissible. The amount which will be received will be
classified as a prize.3
1 Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah, vol. 16, p. 443.
2 Fatāwā 'Uthmānī, vol. 3, p. 342.
3 Halāl Wa Harām, p. 381.
528

Further reading: Malī Mu'āmalāt Parr Gharar Ke Atharāt, p. 401.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Competitions which require a payment
Question
A competition is announced in which participants have to solve a
puzzle but have to pay a fee to enter it. A lot is drawn and the winning
entry receives a prize. Is it permissible to enter competitions of this
nature? Is it permissible to accept the prize which is given?
Answer
If those who are running the competition ask for an entrance fee, then
this is classified as gambling, and therefore haram. It is not permissible
to enter such competitions. It is necessary for us to abstain from them.
If a person enters such a competition mistakenly and wins the prize, it
will be obligatory to give the entire amount into charity. He will not be
permitted to use it.
The Qur'an states:
يُأَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ أُمَنُوْاْ إِنَّمَا الْخُمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنْصَابُ وَالْأَزْلاَمُ
رِجْسٌ مِّنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطْنِ فَاجْتَنِبُوْهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُوْنَ.
O believers! Wine, gambling, idols and divining
arrows are vile deeds of Satan. Continually abstain
from them, then, so that you may gain salvation.1
Faqīh Abū al-Layth Samarqandī writes:
وقال عطاء ومجابد: الميسر القمار كله حتى لعب الصبيان بالجوز والكعاب.
(تفسير السمرقندى: ٢٠٣/١)
التعريفات الفقهية:
القمار مصدر قامر بو كل لعب يشترط فيه غالباً أن يأخذ الغالب شيئاً من
المغلوب، وأصله أن يأخذ الواحد من صاحبه شيئاً فشيئاً فى اللعب ثم عرفوه
1 Sūrah al-Mā'idah, 5: 90.
529

بأنه تعليق الملك على الخطر والمال فى الجانبين. (التعريفات الفقهية، ص ١٧٧،
وجوابر الفقه: ٢٢٧/٢، وامداد الفتاوى: ١٦١/٣)
رد المحتار:
وسمى القمار قماراً لأن كل واحد من المقامرين ممن يجوز أن يذيب ماله إلى
صاحبه، ويجوز أن يستفيد مال صاحبه، وبو حرام بالنص. (رد المحتار: ٤٠٣/٦،
كتاب الحظر والا باحة، سعيد)
Āp Ke Masā'il:
The entrance fees are paid with a view to increasing one's chances of
winning, and winning as much as possible. This is therefore interest.
Furthermore, there is no guarantee of winning the prize. This is
gambling. Interest and gambling are both haram. Whether the
additional amount which is won is in the form of cash, a ticket or
something else - all are haram. The fundamental objective of the
competitions is to win as much as possible. The objective is not to
increase one's knowledge. Also, it increases the habit and urge to
gamble. We could refer to it as a "noble" form of gambling.1
Jawahir al-Fiqh:
Different types of puzzles are advertised. A person sends a solution
with the entrance fee of one rupee for example. A lot is drawn for all
the correct entries, and a prize is given to the one whose name comes
out ... This is clear-cut gambling. One person pays a fee on the premise
that he will either lose the one rupee which he paid or win the prize
and receive thousands of rupees. The Shari'ah refers to this as qimar
(gambling).2
Fatāwā 'Uthmānī:
If any fee is stipulated for taking part in a puzzle/competition, then it
is harām because it is classified as gambling.3
1 Ap Ke Masā'il Aur Oen Kā Hull, vol. 6, p. 261.
2 Jawahir al-Fiqh, vol. 2, p. 349.
3 Fatāwā 'Uthmānī, vol. 3, p. 341.
530

Someone may say that the fee is only for entering the competition and
not in exchange for the prize. Hadrat Muftī Mahmud Hasan Sahib
rahimahullāh says in response:
Everyone knows that entrance is not the only objective, due to which a
person is prepared to pay it. Rather, the objective is to acquire the
amount which has been named a "prize" ... Everyone also knows that
the objective of the one giving the prize is not merely to fill a space
nor to fulfil any specific purpose. It is solely to accumulate a large sum
of money while offering the incentive of a prize.1
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Taking part in a bank competition
Question
A certain bank in South Africa innovated a new type of bank account
in which it does not pay interest. Instead, whoever opens the account
is automatically entered into a competition in which the person could
win R100 000. If a person wins, will it be permissible to accept this
money?
Answer
If the deposited amount will definitely remain as it is, and the
depositor receives an additional amount, then this is interest
according to some scholars. If the deposited amount is forfeited, then
this is clear-cut gambling. Both are haram in the Shari'ah.
The Qur'an states:
يَأَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ أُمَنُوْاْ إِنَّمَا الْخُمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنْصَابُ وَالْأَزْلاَمُ
رِجْسٌ مِّنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطْنِ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُوْنَ.
O believers! Wine, gambling, idols and divining
arrows are vile deeds of Satan. Continually abstain
from them, then, so that you may gain salvation.2
1 Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah, vol. 16, p. 442.
2 Sūrah al-Mā'idah, 5: 90.
531

رد المحتار:
وسمى القمار قماراً لأن كل واحد من المقامرين ممن يجوز أن يذبيب ماله إلى
صاحبه، ويجوز أن يستفيد مال صاحبه، وسو حرام بالنص. (رد المحتار: ٤٠٣/٦،
كتاب الحظر والا باحة، سعيد)
Islām Aur Jadīd Ma'āshī Masā'il:
Some scholars say that a prize bond is permissible. They looked at it
from the angle that it does not entail ta'līq at-tamlīk 'alā al-khatar
(placing one's possession in danger). No matter what amount of money
a person contributes, it will be returned to him. This is why it is not
gambling and is therefore permissible. However, this way of thinking
is incorrect. Although there is no direct gambling, there is usury in it.
If the person's name comes out in the draw, then - if, for example, he
contributed one hundred rupees - he will receive 100 100 rupees.
Some scholars are confused into assuming that this too is not usury
because when the person bought the bonds, there was no precondition
of receiving more.
The answer to this confusion is that the condition of receiving more is
made collectively with all those who bought the bonds. Although it is
not stated explicitly that we will give any profits over and above it, it is
done in practice. This practice is continuous and adhered to that when
a person takes back his loan, the government gives him something
extra. Although the precondition is not stated in words, it falls under
1.المعروف كالمشروط the principle of
Other scholars say that this amount is not interest because the bank
said that it is not interest. As for the prize which is given, it is a prize;
it is not interest. As for the principle of كل قرض جرنفعا فهو ربا this applies
if a precondition is made. Here, there is no precondition that "I alone
will receive the prize". In fact, every participant does not receive the
كل قرض جر نفعا prize. It is therefore not a precondition. The principle of
.(if it is preconditioned) إذا كان مشروطا also contains the words فهو ربا
1 Islām Aur Jadīd Ma'āshī Masā'il, vol. 4, pp. 11-78.
532

وفى الذخيرة: إن لم يكن النفع مشروطاً فى القرض فعلى قول الكرخى لا بأس
به. (فتاوى الشامى: ١٦٦/٥، مطلب كل قرض جر نفعاً حرام، سعيد)
قال الجرجانى فى التعريفات: الربا: بو فى اللغة: الزيادة، وفى الشرع: بو فضل
خالٍ عن عوض شرط لأحد العاقدين. (التعريفات، ص ١١٢، بيروت)
وفى الهداية: لأن الربا: بو الفضل المستحق لأحد المتعاقدين فى المعاوضة
الخالى عن عوض شرط فيه. (الهداية: ٧٨/٣، باب الربا)
Hadrat Muftī Nizām ad-Dīn Sāhib rahimahullāh writes:
Question: What do the 'ulama' say about the following. The post office
has a scheme where a person deposits one pound, five pounds, or
whatever amount; and receives a receipt for the deposit. No interest is
paid. He can withdraw the money whenever he wants when he
produces the receipt. Every month, the newspapers publish certain
numbers, where a person who deposited one pound, receives one
hundred pounds. Is it permissible for a person to accept the amount
which is more than what he deposited? He still receives the full
amount which he deposited.
Answer: ... Hadrat Muftī Sahib rahimahullah said that it is permissible
to receive the additional amount because when he deposited his
money, there was no agreement that he will receive an additional
amount and the transaction will be non-usurious. There is no certainty
in receiving the extra amount, the person cannot demand the extra
amount, and everyone does not receive the extra amount. Rather, the
post office merely announces the distribution of the extra amount
according to whatever rules it has laid down, and as per the numbers
[of the receipts] which are announced. One of the persons whose name
appears receives the extra amount. No one else has the right to
demand it. The additional amount cannot be classified as "a debt
which draws profits". The additional amount cannot be classified as
usury.
Yes, it is another matter if a person adopts piety. This is obviously the
better thing to do. Piety will demand that he does not leave that
additional money in the Post Office. Instead, he withdraws it and
spends it on the poor or in some other charitable or welfare work.1
1 Muntakhabāt Nizām al-Fatāwā, vol. 1, pp. 194-195.
533

In short, although some scholars do not include it as usury, it is better
to abstain from transactions of this nature.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
A fishing competition
Question
An area on the sea-shore is demarcated and a fishing competition is
held there. Participants have to pay an entrance fee. Those who catch
the largest fishes are given prizes from the monies which were
collected as entrance fees. Is this permissible? Is it permissible to
accept the prize, bearing in mind that some people do not receive
anything?
Answer
This is included as gambling and is therefore unlawful. Observe the
following definitions of gambling:
التعريفات الفقهية:
القمار مصدر قامر بو كل لعب يشترط فيه غالباً أن يأخذ الغالب شيئاً من
المغلوب، وأصله أن يأخذ الواحد من صاحبه شيئاً فشيئاً فى اللعب ثم عرفوه
بأنه تعليق الملك على الخطر والمال فى الجانبين. (التعريفات الفقهية، ص ١٧٧،
وجوابر الفقه: ٢٢٧/٢، وامداد الفتاوى: ١٦١/٣)
رد المحتار:
وسمى القمار قماراً لأن كل واحد من المقامرين ممن يجوز أن يذيب ماله إلى
صاحبه، ويجوز أن يستفيد مال صاحبه، وبو حرام بالنص. (رد المحتار: ٤٠٣/٦،
كتاب الحظر والا باحة، سعيد)
Ahsan al-Fatāwā:
Question: The Red Crescent is a Pakistani organization which sells
tickets for three and four rupees. At the end of each month, it
distributes 150 000 rupees and 300 000 rupees as prizes ... Is it
permissible to buy these tickets, and then accept the prizes?
534

Answer: This is a combination of usury and gambling, and is therefore
harām.1
Taqrīr Tirmidhī:
The third type of gharar is تعليق التمليك على الخطر. This means to suspend
ownership to an event which could or could not occur .... This is why
this transaction is impermissible. It is called تعليق التمليك على الخطر and
also known as qimār (gambling). In qimār, the payment of money from
one party is certain, while the receipt of a recompense for the other
party is uncertain; it is only probable. This is why qimār is also
included in gharar.
Yes, if arrangements are made for people to sit there, food and drinks
are provided, etc. then the entrance fee can be considered to be in
exchange for these provisions. Thereafter, prizes can be given to those
who come out first, second and third. There seems to be no objection
to this.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Taking part in a Vodacom competition
Question
Many companies have competitions in which expensive prizes are
given. Vodacom has one such competition. Participants must send an
SMS message for which they are charged R10. At the end of the day, a
lot is drawn and the one whose name is drawn receives a BMW vehicle
to the value of R250 000.
Many Muslims participate enthusiastically in competitions of this
nature. Is it permissible to take part in such a competition? If a person
wins the car, is it permissible for him to accept it?
Answer
This competition entails gambling. It is therefore not permissible to
take part in it and to accept the prize. If a person wins the car, he will
have to sell it, and it will then be obligatory on him to give the money
in charity. He is permitted to accept only that amount of money which
he had paid as an entrance fee.
1 Ahsan al-Fatāwā, vol. 7, p. 26.
535

يَأَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ أُمَنُوْآَ إِنَّمَا الْخُمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنْصَابُ وَالْأَزْلاَمُ
رِجْسٌ مِّنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطُنِ فَاجْتَنِبُوْهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُوْنَ.
O believers! Wine, gambling, idols and divining
arrows are vile deeds of Satan. Continually abstain
from them, then, so that you may gain salvation.1
وعن عبد الله بن عمرو رضي الله عنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه
وسلم: إن الله حرم على أمتى الخمر والميسر. (مسند احمد: ٢١٣٥١١٥٦١١،
بیروت، وسنن ابى داود، ص ٣٢٧، باب ما جاء فى السكر)
رد المحتار:
وسمى القمار قماراً لأن كل واحد من المقامرين ممن يجوز أن يذبب ماله إلى
صاحبه، ويجوز أن يستفيد مال صاحبه، وسو حرام بالنص. (رد المحتار: ٤٠٣/٦،
كتاب الحظر والا باحة، سعيد)
احكام القرآن:
إن أبل الجابلية كانوا يخطرون على المال والزوج وقد كان مباحاً إلى أن ورد
تحريمه. (احكام القرآن للجصاص، ٣٢٩/١)
Islām Aur Jadīd Ma āshī Masā'il:
One type of gharar is تعليق التمليك على الخطر . In a transaction of exchange,
ownership is suspended on some danger. Danger means to suspend
ownership to an event which could or could not occur. Ownership is
suspended on that event in the sense that if it occurs, I will make you
an owner of a certain item which I own. It is also known as qimar
(gambling).
Qimār is one department of this. In qimar, the payment of money from
one party is certain, while the receipt of a recompense for the other
party is uncertain. For example, a person says: "Everyone must give
me R200 each. I will then draw a lot. I will give R100 000 to the person
1 Sūrah al-Mā'idah, 5: 90.
536

whose name is drawn ... This is qimar and it is also called maysir ... There
are various types of lotteries in our times, e.g. a car is displayed at an
airport. People are encouraged to buy tickets for R200. Later on, a
draw will take place and the one whose number is drawn will receive
the car. This is qimar. It is تعليق التمليك على الخطر. It is one type of gharar
which is harām.1
Further reading: Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah, vol. 16, p. 435; Ahsan al-Fatāwā,
vol. 7, p. 26; Muntakhabāt Nizām al-Fatāwā, vol. 2, p. 302.
Objection: Some people are of the view that the R10 for the SMS
message is actually an entrance fee, and the prize from the company is
to promote participation. What, then, is the reason for it being
impermissible?
Answer: Entrance is not the fundamental objective; winning the prize
is. This is why a person bears the burden of paying the fee.
Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah:
Everyone knows that entrance is not the only objective, due to which a
person is prepared to pay it. Rather, the objective is to acquire the
amount which has been named a "prize" ... Everyone also knows that
the objective of the one giving the prize is not merely to fill a space
nor to fulfil any specific purpose. It is solely to accumulate a large sum
of money while offering the incentive of a prize.2
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Paying a bribe to obtain a licence
Question
Each time a person goes for his driver's licence, he fails. He learnt that
the inspector will not pass him without paying a bribe. Will it be
permissible to pay a bribe in such a situation?
Answer
If the person can drive a vehicle confidently and also knows the rules
of the road, but is still unsuccessful in passing the licence test and
cannot pass without paying a bribe, then due to this compulsion, there
is hope that he will not be taken to task in the Hereafter for paying a
bribe. Nonetheless, it is unlawful to accept a bribe under all conditions.
1 Islām Aur Jadīd Ma āshī Masā'il, vol. 4, p. 76.
2 Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah, vol. 16, p. 442.
537

عن أبي بريرة رضي الله عنه قال: لعن رسول الله صلى الله
عليه وسلم الراشي والمرتشي. (جامع الترمذى: ٢٤٨/١)
Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam cursed the
one who pays a bribe and the one who accepts one.
الهداية:
ودفع الرشوة لدفع الظلم أمر جائز. (الهداية: ٢٤٥/٣)
قال الجرجاني فى التعريفات: الرشوة: ما يعطى لإبطال حق أو لإحقاق باطل.
(التعريفات، ص ١١٤، والتعاريف للمناوى، ص ٣٦٥)
أو المال الذي يعطى بمقابلة الواجب.
أو ما يأخذه الآخر ظلماً.
أو أخذ الأموال على فعل ما يجب على الآخذ فعله أو فعل ما يجب عليه تركه.
(تفسير البحر المحيط: ٥٣٣/٤، ودستور العلماء: ١٣٦/٢)
تكملة فتح القدير:
(قوله ودفع الرشوة لدفع الظلم أمر جائز) بذا دليل عقلي على ما ذب إليه
أئمتنا من جواز الصلح من إنكار أو سكوت أيضاً متضمن للجواب عن دليل
عقلي للشافعي مذكور فيما قبل، وبو قوله ولأن المدعى عليه يدفع المال لقطع
الخصومة، وبذا رشوة، قال الشراح: لا يقال لا نسلم جواز دفع الرشوة لدفع
الظلم لأن قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: لعن الله الراشي والمرتشي، عام لأنا
نقول: بذا الحديث محمول على ما إذا كان على صاحب الحق ضرر محض في أمر
غير مشروع، كما إذا دفع الرشوة حتى أخرج الوالي أحد الورثة عن الأرث
وأما إذا دفع الرشوة لدفع الضرر عن نفسه فجائز للدافع، انتهى، واعترض
بعض الفضلاء على الجواب حيث قال فيه، إن المعتبر بو عموم اللفظ وما
538