Indexed OCR Text

الدليل على أن محمول على ما ذكر غير مجرى على عمومه انتهى، أقول: الدليل
عليه ما ورد من النصوص في أن الضرورات تبيح المحظورات منها قوله تعالى:
وما جعل عليكم فى الدين من حرج. ولا شك أن في دفع الضرر عن نفسه
دفع الحرج. (تكملة فتح القدير: ٤٠٨/٨، كتاب الصلح، دار الفكر)
تبيين الحقائق:
ولو قلنا إنه رشوة فهي جائزة للدافع لدفع الظلم عن نفسه وما جاء فيه من
الذم من قوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: لعن الله الراشي والمرتشي، المراد به إذا
كان بو الظالم فيدفعها إلى بعض الظلمة من ولاة الأمور يستعين به على الظلم
بالرشوة وأما لدفع الضرر عن نفسه فلا شبهة فيه حتى روي عن أبي يوسف أنه
أجاز ذلك للوصي من مال اليتيم أيضاً لدفع الضرر عن اليتيم، ألا ترى أن
الخضر عليه السلام خرق السفينة كيلا يأخذبا الظالم وما كان مراده بذلك
إلا الإصلاح والله يعلم المصلح من المفسد. (تبيين الحقائق: ٣١/٥، كتاب
الصلح، ملتان)
البحر الرائق:
ومنها إذا دفع الرشوة خوفاً على نفسه أو ماله فهو حرام على الآخذ غير حرام
على الدافع وكذا إذا طمع في ماله فرشاه ببعض المال ومنها إذا دفع الرشوة
ليسوى أمره عند السلطان حل له الدفع ولا يحل للآخذ أن يأخذ. (البحر
الرائق: ٢٦٢/٦، كتاب القضاء، كوئته)
الفتاوى الهندية:
إذا دفع الرشوة لدفع الجور عن نفسه أو أحد من أبل بيته لم يأثم. (الفتاوى
الهندية: ٤٠٣/٤)
539

فتاوى الشامى:
ما يدفع لدفع الخوف من المدفوع إليه على نفسه أو ماله حلال لدافع حرام على
الآخذ، لأن دفع الضرر عن المسلم واجب ولا يجوز أخذ المال ليفعل الواجب.
(فتاوى الشامى: ٣٦٢/٥، كتاب القضاء، سعيد)
وكذا في (رسائل ابن نجيم الاقتصادية، ص ٢٠٠، وتكملة رد المحتار: ٢٢٢/٢)
Kitab al-Fatāwā:
If you have a right over a worker in the sense that he has to carry out
that task, and - as you stated in your question, the task is lawful and is
not intended to wrong anyone - then for you to acquire your lawful
right and save yourself from oppression and injustice, there will be
leeway for you to pay a bribe while you still consider it to be
reprehensible. At the same time, it is haram to accept bribes under all
situations.1
Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah:
It is haram to pay or accept bribes. However, there is leeway to pay a
bribe if it is to remove oppression, or acquire your right in a state of
compulsion. In such a case, there is room to only pay the bribe; the one
accepts the bribe will be sinning.
Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar'ī Ahkām:
Some people pay a bribe to get employment when we know that it is
haram to pay or receive a bribe. Some people are forced into paying a
bribe. It is difficult for them to obtain employment without a bribe.
Government officials place obstacles. In such a situation, if a bribe is
paid to repulse oppression, there is hope that Allah ta'ālā will not take
the person to task. If the person pays a bribe, obtains employment,
then the ruling with regard to his salary is that if he is qualified for
that job and is carrying out his responsibilities correctly, then his
income is halal. If he is not qualified for that job or is not fulfilling his
responsibilities as was required of him, then his income will not be
lawful for him.2
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
1 Kitab al-Fatāwā, vol. 6, p. 245.
2 Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Sharī Ahkām, vol. 1, p. 179.
540

Lotteries
Question
In this country and many other countries, various businesses sell
tickets with certain numbers on them. People buy these tickets, they
are stamped and returned to the buyers. If the stamped tickets
together with certain numbers are drawn, the person/s receive large
sums of money as prizes. Is it permissible to obtain these sums of
money in this way? The tickets are sold at different prices. Some of
them cost R50, while others cost R100 or R200.
Similarly, we see children playing marbles in the villages. Here too, the
children place their marbles in a circle. They take turns to strike the
marbles. The one who strikes them takes all the marbles, while the
remaining children lose their respective marbles. Is this permitted in
the Shariah?
Answer
تعليق التمليك على الخطر Both systems are haram because they entail
(suspending ownership on danger). Payment from one party is certain,
while the receipt of a recompense for the other party is uncertain.
This is known as qimār (gambling).
يَأَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ أُمَنُوْآ إِنَّمَا الْخَمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنْصَابُ وَالْأَزْلامُ
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.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 الإمام احمد بن حنبل: برقم ٦٥١١)
Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam said: “Allāh
prohibited wine and gambling on my followers."
1 Sūrah al-Mā'idah, 5: 90.
541

قال قوم من أبل العلم القمار كله من الميسر ... وبو السهام التي يجيلونها فمن
خرج سهم استحق من ما توجبه علامة السهم فربما أخفق بعضهم حتى لا
يحظى بشيء وينجح البعض فيحظى بالسهم الوافر، وحقيقته تمليك المال على
المخاطرة، وبو أصل في بطلان عقود التمليكات الواقعة على الأخطار. (احكام
القرآن: ٤٦٥/٢، سہیل اکیدمی)
احكام القرآن:
وقال عطاء وطاؤس ومجابد حتى لعب الصبيان بالكعاب والجوز. (احكام
القرآن: ٣٢٩/١)
قال الفقيه أبو الليث السمرقندى: الميسر القمار كل حتى لعب الصبيان
بالجوز والكعاب. (تفسير السمرقندى: ٢٠٣/١)
تبیین الحقائق:
وحرم لو شرط المال من الجانبين. (تبيين الحقائق: ٣٢/٤، ملتان)
الدر المختار:
وحرم لو شرط فيها من الجانبين لأنه يصير قماراً - وفي رد المحتار: لأن القمار
من القمر الذي يزداد تارة وينقص أخرى، وسمى القمار قماراً لأن كل واحد
من المقامرين ممن يجوز أن يذبيب ماله إلى صاحبه ويجوز أن يستفيد مال
صاحبه وبو حرام بالنص. (الدر المختار مع رد المحتار: ٤٠٣/٦، سعيد)
Kifāyatul Muftī:
It is not permissible to buy or sell lottery tickets. It entails gambling
which is harām.1
1 Kifāyatul Muftī, vol. 9, p. 226.
542

Islām Aur Jadīd Ma āshī Masā'il:
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
Mālī Mu āmalāt Parr Gharar Ke Atharāt:
In some places, children play with walnuts or marbles. The game
entails the winner taking the walnuts or marbles from those who lost.
This is included in qimar - gambling.2
Further reading: Nizām al-Fatāwā, vol. 2, p. 301; Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah,
vol. 16, p. 435; Jadīd Fiqhī Masā'il, vol. 1, p. 430; Īdāh an-Nawādir, vol. 1, p.
123; Jawahir al-Fiqh, vol. 2, pp. 348-350; Qāmūs al-Fiqh, vol. 4, p. 524;
Fatāwā Bayyināt, vol. 4, p. 214; Mālī Mu'āmalāt Parr Gharar Ke Atharāt, p.
401.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Speculation
Question
Nowadays, speculation has reached its peak among most large
companies. Does the Sharī ah permit it?
Answer
This transaction is not intended to buy shares, but to balance profits
and losses on account of the rise and drop in prices. In such a case,
neither does the buyer pay any price nor does the seller hand over any
goods. It is therefore unlawful.
Speculation is one type of gambling. Sattā bāzī or speculation is
defined as: (1) A type of gambling in which conditions are laid down
for the application of certain rules. (2) Goods of a trader. (Fīroze al-
Lughāt, p. 780)
There are two reasons for the prohibition of speculation:
1. It entails the sale of something which is not owned.
2. It entails the sale of something before taking possession of it.
1 Islām Aur Jadīd Ma'āshī Masā'il, vol. 4, p. 77.
2 Mālī Mu'āmalāt Parr Gharar Ke Atharāt, p. 393.
543

Refer to the following for proofs: Islam Aur Jadīd Ma'ashī Masā'il, vol. 4,
pp. 80-82; Jadīd Fiqhī Mabāhith; Islām Aur Jadīd Ma'īshat Wa Tijārat, pp. 84-
114; Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar'ī Ahkām, vol. 1, p. 108; Fatāwā 'Uthmānī, vol.
3, p. 186; Gharar Kī Sūratei, pp. 371-376.
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
Promoting a business through prizes
Question
In most countries, large businesses draw lots and give prizes to the
winners. This is done to promote their business and increase their
sales. The one whose name is drawn receives a prize in cash or kind.
The buyer pays the full price for whatever item he buys, but the prize
is given separately. A few winners are selected from thousands of
buyers. Is it permissible to acquire a prize in this way? Some muftīs say
that it is unlawful because a prize of this nature entails usury and
gambling.
Answer
It is permissible to set aside a prize and for the winner to obtain it due
to his name being drawn from the lot. This is neither usury nor
gambling. It is not usury because the jurists refer to usury to that
additional amount which is not in exchange for something, and the
additional amount is not preconditioned in the transaction.
الربا بو الفضل المستحق لأحد المتعاقدين فى المعاوضة الخالي عن عوض شرط
فيه. (الهداية: ٧٨/٣)
We cannot refer to it as gambling because the jurists say: It is gambling
when both parties lay down the condition of putting down some
(تعليق الملك بالخطر من الجانبين) .wealth
However, the following conditions will have to be considered:
1. The seller is selling items at a price which is similar elsewhere. In
other words, he is selling them for about the same price as sold in
other shops. If the seller increases the price of items because of the
prize, it will not be permissible and the transaction will be included in
gambling.
Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar'ī Ahkām:
If the items are sold at a higher price because of the prize coupons
which are attached to them, and it is possible to buy them elsewhere
544

at a lesser price because the prize coupons are not attached to them,
then it is haram to make efforts to buy those items in the hope of
receiving the prize. It is essential for a person to abstain from such
transactions because this is classified as gambling which is harām in
the Sharī ah.1
2. Some scholars lay down the condition that a buyer must not go for
the sake of winning the prize. His fundamental objective must be to
buy the item. After that, if he wins the prize, it will be permissible. If
he goes with the express purpose of winning the prize, it will be
classified as gambling. Hadrat Muftī Shafi Sahib rahimahullah writes
in Jawahir al-Fiqh:
Now it revolves around the intention. The person who buys this ticket
for the sake of winning the prize will be committing the sin of
gambling. As for the person who goes solely for the exhibition, and not
for the prize, and happens to win the prize; then as per the
injunctions, he is out of the ruling of gambling.2
Maulānā Khālid Sayfullāh Rahmānī Sāhib writes:
If the buyer went with the purpose of buying goods and happened to
receive a prize coupon, and incidentally, his name was drawn from the
lot, then there is no reprehensibility in it. If his fundamental objective
was to obtain a prize coupon and bought goods with that purpose,
then it will not be permissible. It will fall under the ruling of
gambling.3
However, Muftī Ihsānullah Sha'iq Sahib considers the above scenario
to be permissible as well. (Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar'ī Ahkām, vol. 1, p. 126)
To sum up, the view of those who say that it is unlawful is based on
caution, while the view of those who permit it is based on concession.
Obtaining a prize coupon is neither usury nor gambling. Observe some
proofs and parallels in this regard:
Hadrat Muftī Nizām ad-Dīn Sahib rahimahullah writes:
The fact of the matter is that whether the entrant's number comes out
or not, he will receive in full the money which he paid in. He can take
it back whenever he wants. Also, there is no fear of losing his money.
Thus, there is no gambling here. As for the additional amount of
1 Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Sharī Ahkām, vol. 1, p. 126.
2 Jawahir al-Fiqh, vol. 4, p. 566.
3 Kitab al-Fatāwā, vol. 5, p. 249.
545

money which he will receive if his number is drawn, will it be
classified as usury or not ?... At the time of paying in the money, the
agreement is that he will not get an additional amount when it is
returned to him and that the agreement will not be a usurious one.
Since there is no certainty in receiving the additional amount, the
person cannot demand it, and everyone does not receive it. 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 ... If a person's number is drawn and he therefore receives an
additional amount - whether it is one hundred pounds for the one
pound with which he bought the ticket - we will not refer to the
additional amount as usury.
... after all these discussions, it becomes clear that the additional
amount is a donation from the post office, and a donation is
permissible; it is not unlawful. Therefore, it will be permissible to
accept the additional amount. It is another matter if a person adopts
piety and abstains; this will be the better thing to do.1
Hadrat Maulānā Qādī Mujāhidul Islam Sahib rahimahullāh writes:
This ownership could be unrestricted or preconditioned. For example,
"After my death, such and such house is bequeathed to you." This is
unrestricted. "If you perform hajj next year, I will bequeath such and
such house to you after my death." This is an example of a
preconditioned bequest. If the person performs the hajj, he will
become the owner of whatever the bequester bequeathed to him after
his death. (Majmū'ah Qawānīn Islāmī, p. 248). (Even in this form of
bequest, there is تعليق الملك على الخطر with respect to one party. After all,
no wealth is preconditioned on both sides. In short, it will be gambling
when there is a precondition on both sides).
Hadrat Muftī Taqī Sahib writes:
The only condition is that the item which is being sold is being sold at
a price which is similar elsewhere ... If the seller gives a prize by
drawing a lot, it will be a donation which is permissible.2
Muftī I'jāz Ahmad Samdānī Sāhib writes:
1 Muntakhabāt Nizām al-Fatāwā, vol. 1, p. 194.
2 Islām Aur Jadīd Ma'āshī Masā'il, vol. 4, p. 77.
546

From this fourth condition, we learn the ruling with regard to many of
those competitions which companies have for the promotion of their
products. If the companies offer their products at the same price as
they would be in the case where there is no competition [or lucky
draw], it will not be gambling ... This is because the buyer received the
full recompense for what he paid. Even if his name is not drawn and he
does not receive a prize, he will not suffer any loss. If his name is
drawn and he receives a prize, it will be nothing but a prize from the
company which he will be permitted to accept.1
The drawing of lots is permissible. This is because it is permissible on
every such occasion which does not entail the invalidating of an
obligatory right. Rather, it is used as a means to distinguish and
identify rights, or for an initial donation and favour. A lot is drawn to
achieve satisfaction of the hearts. Here it is an initial donation and not
any person's obligatory right.
قوله: (والقرعة لتطبيب القلوب إزاحة الميل) قال الشراح: بذا جواب
الاستحسان، والقياس يأبابا ... ولكنا تركنا القياس بابنا بالسنة والتعامل
الظابر من لدن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى يومنا بذا من غير نكير
منكر ... ألا يرى أن يونس عليه السلام في مثل بذا استعمل القرعة مع
أصحاب السفينة ... وكذلك زكريا عليه السلام استعمل القرعة مع الأحبار
في ضم مریم إلی نفسه ... وکان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقرع بین نسائم
إذا أراد السفر تطبيباً لقلوبهن. (تكملة فتح القدير: ٤٤٠/٩، دار الفكر، وكذا
فى العناية على بامش فتح القدير: ٤٤٠/٩)
Fatāwā 'Uthmānī:
It is permissible to draw lots for the distribution of prizes.2
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
1 Mālī Mu āmalāt Parr Gharar Ke Atharāt, p. 387.
2 Fatāwā 'Uthmānī, vol. 3, p. 342.
547

Objections and answers
(1)
Some scholars say that there is doubt as to whether one's name will be
تعليق الملك على drawn or not. It is therefore impermissible on the basis of
.الخطر
وأما الذي لا يصح تعليقه بالشرط شرعاً فضابط كل ما كان من التمليكات
سواء كان مبادلة المال بمال من الطرفين أو لا كالبيع والإجارة والاستيجار
والقسمة والهبة. (شرح مجلة: ٢٣٤/١)
Answer:
It should be borne in mind that the issue of تعليق الملك على الخطر is
prohibited when wealth is preconditioned by both parties. This is
included in qimār (gambling) by a text of the Qur'an.
قال الله تعالى: إنما الخمر والميسر .. رجس من عمل الشيطان، فاجتنبوه.
(المائدة: ٩٠). والميسر القمار. وقال فى التعريفات الفقهية: القمار مصدر قامر
بو كل لعب بشترط فيه غالباً أن يأخذ الغالب شيئاً من المغلوب وأصله أن
يأخذ الواحد من صاحبه شيئاً فشيئاً فى اللعب ثم عرفوه بأن تعليق الملك على
الخطر والمال فى الجانبين. (التعريفات الفقهية، ص: ١٧٧، بيروت)
وفي معجم لغة الفقهاء: القمار .. تعليق الملك على الخطر والمال من الجانبين
(معجم الفقهاء، ص: ٣٦٩)
وفي تيسير الكريم الرحمن فى تفسير كلام المنان: وأما الميسر فهو كل المغالبات
التي يكون فيها عوض من الطرفين. (تيسير الكريم الرحمن، ص: ٨١)
احكام القرآن:
لا خلاف بين أبل العلم في تحريم القمار وأن المخاطرة من القمار قال ابن
عباس: إن المخاطرة قمار وإن أبل الجابلية كانوا يخاطرون على المال والزوجة
548

وقد كان ذلك مباحاً إلى أن ورد تحريمه. (احكام القرآن للجصاص: ٣٧٩/١
،سهيل)
فتاوى الشامى:
لأن القمار من القمر الذى يزداد تارة وينقص أخرى وسمى القمار قماراً لأن
كل واحد من المقامرين ممن يجوز أن يذيب ماله إلى صاحبه ويجوز أن يستفيد
مال صاحبه وبو حرام بالنص ولا كذلك إذا شرط من جانب واحد. (فتاوى
الشامى: ٦/٤٠٣، وكذا فى البحر الرائق: ٤٨٦/٨)
امداد الفتاوى:
تعليق الملك على الخطر والمال من الجانبين. (امداد الفتاوى: ١٦١/٣، ومثله فى
جوابر الفقر: ٣٤٢/٢)
تعليق الملك على الخطر والمال من The case under discussion is not included in
JwUI. The buyer gave over his wealth and got an exchange for it in
the form of goods. Now, a condition is laid down only from the seller's
side for the name to be drawn from the lot to receive the prize. This is
not gambling.
Islām Aur Jadīd Ma āshī Masā'il:
We must remember one point: Qimar is realized when payment from
one party is certain, and uncertain or probable from the other party.
Where payment is certain from both parties, and then one party says
that I will draw a lot, then this is not qimar ... Take the case of two
traders. They say: "Whoever buys goods from us, we will give each
person a piece of paper and draw a lot later on ... This is not qimār.1
Muftī I'jāz Ahmad Samdānī writes:
If a person acquired a real return for his wealth, and then receives a
prize, it is not qimār.2
1 Islām Aur Jadīd Ma āshī Masā'il, vol. 4, p. 76.
2 Gharar Ke Atharāt, p. 386. Also Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Sharī Ahkām, vol. 1, p. 126.
549

Muftī Taqī 'Uthmānī Sahib writes:
If no fees were collected for participating in a competition or draw,
then it is not gambling. It is permissible to draw lots for the
distribution of prizes.1
However, an objectionable point is what was made in Sharh al-Majallah:
If تعليق الملك بالخطر من جانب واحد is from among the ownerships, then it is
also impermissible. What is the answer to this?
If we were to examine the other texts of the author and his other
written works, we will conclude that this is not a general rule. There
are exclusions to it. We learn from this that it is permissible for one
party to lay down a condition even if it contains ownership.
وما كان من الإطلاقات كالإذن بالتجارة وكالوكالة أو الولايات كالقضاء
والإمارة ... أو ما كان من التحريضات صح تعليقه بالملائم وذلك كقول المولى
لعبده إن قبضت لى من فلان الألف التي لي عليه فقد أذنت لك بالتجارة ...
وإن وصل إليک كتابى فقد عزلتك وكقول الإنسان للدائن إذا جاء مديونك
من سفره فأنا كفيل لما لك عليه ... وأما غير الملائم كأن بيت الريح أو دخلت
الحمام فلا يصح. (شرح المجلة: ٢٣٣/١)
We learn from the above rule that in matters related to
encouragement and promotions, a one-sided condition which is in
sync with the agreement is permitted. In the case under discussion,
there is an angle of encouragement/promotion in the sense that the
businessman wants to promote his business and create an interest in
the minds of the customers. Laying down the condition of a prize by
drawing a lot is in sync with the agreement. This is why it ought to be
permissible.
Furthermore, it is similar to a preconditioned donation (tabarru'
mashrūt) because the prize which the seller is giving is not in
exchange for anything. Rather, it is an initial donation; and it is
permissible to lay down a condition in a donation. For example,
whichever person's name is drawn shall receive a prize. For example,
Rasūlullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam had laid down the condition of
including Hadrat 'A'ishah radiyallahu 'anha in an invitation which was
1 Fatāwā 'Uthmānī, vol. 3, p. 342.
550

extended to him. The father of Barra' radiyallahu 'anhu had laid down
a condition with Hadrat Abu Bakr radiyallahu 'anhu, and so on.
عن أنس رضي الله عنه أن جاراً لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فارسياً كان
طيب المرق فصنع لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم جاء يدعوه، فقال: وهذه
لعائشة رضى الله تعالى عنها فقال: لا، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم:
لا، فعاد یدعوه، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم:وهذه، قال: لا، قال رسول
الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: لا، ثم عاد یدعوه، فقال رسول الله صلی الله علیه
وسلم: وبذه، قال: نعم فى الثالثة، فقاما يتدافعان حتى أتيا منزله. (رواه مسلم:
(17/s
The gist of the above Hadith: A person invited Rasūlullah sallallahu
'alayhi wa sallam to a meal. Rasūlullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam laid
down the condition that Hadrat 'A'ishah radiyallahu 'anha should also
be included. The man declined. He eventually acquiesced when
Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam asked him a third time.
Rasūlullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam then brought Hadrat 'A'ishah
radiyallāhu 'anhā with him.
Hadrat Abu Bakr radiyallahu 'anhu bought a palanquin for a camel
from Hadrat 'Āzib radiyallahu 'anhu and said to him: "Tell your son,
Barra', to take this palanquin for me." Hadrat 'Āzib radiyallahu 'anhu
said: "He will take it on condition you relate the story of the Hijrah."
Hadrat 'Āzib radiyallahu 'anhu preconditioned the favour of carrying
the palanquin with relating the story of the Hijrah, and Hadrat Abū
Bakr radiyallahu 'anhu accepted the condition of relating the story.
عن البراء رضي الله عنه قال: اشترى أبو بكر رضي الله عنه من عازب رضي
الله عنه رحلاً بثلاثة عشر دربماً، فقال أبو بكر رضي الله عنه لعازب رضي
الله عنه: مر البراء فليحمل إلي رحلي، فقال عازب رضي الله عنه لا، حتى
تحدثنا كيف صنعت أنت ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حين خرجتما من
مكة. (رواه البخارى: ٥١٥/١، مناقب المهاجرين)
551

Jadīd Mu'āmalāt Ke Shar'ī Ahkām:
This prize from the shopkeeper is a donation, it is not in exchange for
anything.1
Objection: We gauge from the rule stated in Sharh al-Majallah that it is
not permissible to lay down a one-sided condition in matters related to
ownership. A gift (hibah) is also listed among tamlīkāt (items of
ownership) even though a hibah is a donation. This would mean that it
is impermissible to lay down a condition in donations.
Answer: We learn from a more detailed text of Sharh al-Majallah that
tamlikāt which are preconditioned are of two types:
1. A transaction in which wealth is exchanged for wealth.
2.
A transaction in which wealth is not exchanged for wealth.
The rules governing each one are different. Transactions of the first
type become invalid because of the invalid condition. On the other
hand, those of the second type, an invalid condition which is not
suited to the transaction is classified as useless (laghw) but valid. In
other words, when a gift is given to the person, his ownership over it
will be established. Furthermore, we learn from a text of Shamī that
the condition which is spoken about refers to an unsuitable condition.
In other words, it is permissible to lay down a suitable condition. And
in a hibah, an unsuitable condition becomes invalid.
لكن ما كان فيه مبادلة مال بمال يبطل أيضاً بالشرط الفاسد كالبيع وما
ليس كذلك كالهبة والصدقة والإبراء ... لا يبطل بالشرط الفاسد بل يصح
ويلغو الشرط. (شرح المجلة: ١/٢٣٤)
Donations fall under the second category. Therefore, an unsuitable
condition will be laghw while the transaction will be correct.
Note: It seems that Sharh al-Majallah has classified all types of
conditions to be invalid with respect to conditions. On the other hand,
'Allāmah Shāmī rahimahullah says that a suitable condition in a
donation is valid and permissible while an unsuitable condition is
invalid. Therefore, if we consider the text of Sharh al-Majallah to refer
to an unsuitable condition, the objection will be removed.
1 Jadīd Mu āmalāt Ke Sharī Ahkām, vol. 1, p. 126.
552

ويصح تعليق ببة وحوالة وكفالة وإبراء عنها بملائم. (الدر المختار: ٢٥٥/٥)
وما يصح ولا يبطل بالشرط الفاسد ... قوله والهبة والصدقة كوببتك بذه المائة
أو تصدقت عليك على أن تخدمنى سنة فتصح ويبطل الشرط لأنه فاسد وفى
جامع الفصولين ويصح تعليق الهبة بشرط ملائم ... ولو مخالفاً تصح الهبة لا
الشرط. (الدر المختار مع رد المحتار: ٢٤٩/٥، سعيد)
Even from the previously quoted Ahadith we learn that it is valid and
correct to lay down suitable conditions in donations.
(2)
Winning a prize in a competition involving horse-racing, archery, etc.
and also an academic competition fall under the classification of
encouragement. The purpose is to improve and progress in a
particular field. For example, in the first case [horse-racing and
archery], the object is jihad training; and in the second it is to progress
academically. On the other hand, the case under question does not aim
to progress in any attribute or field.
فيباح فى كل الملاعب أى التى تعلم الفروسية وتعين على الجهاد لأن جواز
الجعل فیما مر إنما ثبت بالحديث على خلاف القیاس فيجوز ما عداپا بدون
الجعل. (فتاوى الشامى: ٤٠٢/٦، سعید)
Answer:
There are three types of occasions when a prize is given:
a) It is a competition which is of benefit. In such a case, it is
unanimously considered to be permissible to set aside a one-sided
prize. In fact, it is preferred.
b) It is a competition but it neither helps in jihad nor is there any other
benefit in it. Setting aside a one-sided prize is not preferred even
though the competition is permissible. It is done as a form of
encouragement.
c) It falls under the category of donations, encouragements and
incentives. If a one-sided prize is set aside, then 'Allāmah Shāmī
rahimahullah is of the view that it is permissible.
553

قال ابن عابدين: ألقى شيئاً وقال: من أخذه فهو لم فلمن سمعه أو بلغ ذلك
القول أن يأخذه ... لأن أخذه على وجه الهبة وقد تمت بالقبض. (فتاوى
الشامى: ٢٨٥/٤، سعيد)
Other jurists also permit it.
الفتاوى السراجية:
رجل قال لآخر من أكل من مالى فهو فى حل قيل لا يحل لأحد أن يأكل
والفتوى على أن يحل. (الفتاوى السراجية، ص: ٤٠٣)
الفتاوى الهندية:
إذا وضع الرجل مقداراً من السكر أو عدداً من الدرابم بين قوم وقال من شاء
أخذ منه شيئاً أو قال من أخذ منه شيئاً فهو لم فكل من أخذ منه شيئاً يصير
ملكاً له. (الفتاوى الهندية: ٣٤٥/٥)
(3)
We gauge the verdict of impermissibility from a text of Hadrat
Maulānā Muhammad Yūsuf Ludhyānwī rahimahullāh. It reads thus:
... The essence of this business is to buy and sell with the precondition
of a prize. The Shari'ah does not permit buying and selling of this type
- where an external condition is laid down in which the benefit goes to
one of the two parties.1
Answer:
We cannot understand Hadrat Maulana's text - that a prize is not
preconditioned with trade. If a person does not want to buy a prize
coupon, he is not forced to do so. And he can purchase the goods
without the coupon. We also do not understand what he means by
"buying and selling with the precondition of a prize". Furthermore,
the prize is not preconditioned; it is probable. Preconditioned means
that every buyer will have a right to a prize; whereas this is not the
case.
1 Ap Ke Masā'il Aur Oen Kā Hull, vol. 6, p. 277.
554

We gauge the verdict of permissibility from a text of Hadrat Muftī
Nizām ad-Din Sahib rahimahullāh as well - that this additional amount
is not preconditioned. Rather, it is nothing more than a donation:
Since there is no certainty in receiving the additional amount, the
person cannot demand it, and everyone does not receive it. 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. The extra amount is a donation
from the post office, and a donation is permissible. It will therefore be
permissible to accept the additional amount. As for the Hadith which
refers to a loan which draws profits (كل قرض جرّ نفعا) - it refers to a profit
which is preconditioned in the agreement. This is not the case here.1
(4)
Sometimes a prize is given as a cash amount. This is usury because the
customer is receiving far more than what he had paid for the item. The
extra amount has been received without having given something in
exchange. This is why it is usury.
الربا فضل مال بلا عوض فى معاوضة مال بمال. (تبيين الحقائق: ٨٥/٤، ط:
ملتان)
Answer:
It is impractical to include this as usury because usury refers to a
preconditioned additional amount in a monetary compensation. In the
question under discussion, no additional amount is preconditioned; it
is probable. Neither does every person receive it nor can every person
demand it. Furthermore, the transaction of the buyer entails an
exchange of goods - he paid cash and received goods in exchange.
There is no connection with the prize. The only thing is that the
buyer's name has been included in the draw, and if his name is drawn,
he receives a donation from the seller in the form of a prize. And the
prize was probable; not certain.
Observe the following definitions of usury:
1 Muntakhabāt Nizām al-Fatāwā, vol. 1, pp. 194-195.
555

الربا بو الفضل المستحق لأحد المتعاقدين فى المعاوضة الخالي عن عوض شرط
فيه. (الهداية: ٧٨/٣)
العناية:
الربا فى اللغة بو الزيادة ... وفى الاصطلاح بو الفضل الخالى عن العوض
المشروط فى البيع. (العناية: ٧١٣، ومثله فى الدر المختار: ٥/١٦٨، سعيد)
معجم لغة الفقهاء:
الربا كل زيادة مشروطة فى العقد خالية عن عوض مشروع. (معجم لغة
الفقهاء، ص ٢١٨، وكذا فى التعريفات الفقهية، ص ١٠٢)
Hadrat Muftī Nizām ad-Dīn Sahib rahimahullah writes:
The essence of all the definitions of usury as given by the jurists is that
in usurious items, there is an exchange transaction; and in the same
transaction one party receives an extra amount without
compensation. In other words, a profit is preconditioned in the
transaction.1
This transaction may be objectionable if the prize is in the form of
cash. If the prize is of a different genus, there can be no objection
because according to Hanafi scholars, for usury to be realized, there
has to be the same genus on both sides.
فالعلة عندنا الكيل مع الجنس أو الوزن مع الجنس. (الهداية: ٧٨/٣)
وفي معجم لغة الفقهاء: ربا الفضل بيع شىء من الأموال الربوية بجنسه
متفاضلاً. (معجم لغة الفقهاء، ص: ٢١٨)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
1 Muntakhabāt Nizām al-Fatāwā, vol. 1, p. 195.
556

LOANS AND DEBTS
When a debtor delays in repaying
Question
A person gave a loan to someone. The debtor is not paying back. The
creditor is asking repeatedly but the debtor is resorting to delay
tactics. What is the ruling in this regard?
Answer
If a person has no Shar'i excuse and has the means to pay back what he
owes, but still does not pay back even when asked; then he is
committing a major act of oppression according to the Shari'ah. It is
haram to do this. He must pay back what he owes as quickly as
possible.
Observe the following warning to the person who delays repayment
despite having the means:
عن أبي پريرة رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه
وسلم قال: مطل الغني ظلم. متفق عليه. (مشكوة شریف:
٢٥١/١، باب الافلاس والانظار، قديمى)
Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam said: The
delay of a wealthy person is an act of oppression.
وعن الشريد رضي الله عنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله
عليه وسلم: لي الواجد يحل عرضه وعقوبته، قال ابن
المبارك: يحل عرضه يغلظ له عقوبته يحبس له، رواه أبو
داود والنسائى. (مشكوة شريف: ٢٥٣/١، باب الافلاس
والانظار، قدیمی)
Rasūlullāh sallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam said: "When a
wealthy person delays [in repaying his debt], his
honour becomes lawful and it becomes permissible
to punish him." Hadrat 'Abdullah ibn Mubarak
rahimahullah said: "This means that he will be
cursed verbally and he will be punished with
imprisonment."
557

عن أبي سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه قال: صلى بنا رسول
الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوماً صلاة العصر بنا بنهار ثم قام
خطيباً فلم يدع شيئاً يكون إلى قيام الساعة إلا أخبرنا
به ... وفيه ألا وخيربم الحسن القضاء الحسن الطلب، ألا
وشربم سيئ القضاء وسيئ الطلب ... الخ. (رواه الترمذى:
٤٣/٢، باب ما اخبر النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم اصحابه بما
سو كائن الى يوم القيامة، فيصل)
.Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam said: "The
best of them is the one who pays back a loan in a
good way, and the one who asks its repayment in a
kind manner. The worst of them is the one who does
not pay back a loan in the proper manner, and the
one who demands its repayment in a cruel way."
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Taking one kilo1 wheat on loan
Question
If a person sells one kilo of wheat in exchange for one kilo of wheat
which will be paid back to him after one month, then this is
impermissible. However, if he gives one kilo of wheat on loan on the
condition that it will be paid back after one month, then this is
permissible and commonly practised. When we look at the principle
the essence of both transactions is the same. The jurists ,الإعتبار للمعاني
say that kafalah with the condition of bara'ah ad-dayn is hawalah, and
hawalah with the condition of i'ta' al-madyun is kafalah. They say that
this is because the meaning is taken into consideration. If the meaning
is taken into consideration, why is the wheat given on credit
permissible?
1 The original contains the word sa' which is equals about 3kgs. The kilo
weight is used for easy understanding. (translator)
558