Indexed OCR Text

فيهما إذا كانا مما يتعين بالإشارة وإن كانا مما لا يتعين فعلى أربعة أوجه فإن
أشار إليها ونقديا فكذلك يتصدق وإن أشار إليها ونقد غيربا أو أشار إلى
غيربا ونقدبا أو أطلق ولم يشر ونقديا لا يتصدق فى الصور الثلاث عند
الكرخي قيل: وبه يفتى. (الدر المختار: ٦/١٨٩، سعيد)
وكذا في حاشية الطحطاوي على الدر المختار وزاد بقوله: والمختار أنه لا يحل
مطلقاً كذا فى الملتقى ولو بعد الضمان بو الصحيح كما في فتاوى نوازل
واختار بعضهم الفتوى على قول الكرخي في زماننا لكثرة الحرام وبذا كله على
قولهما وعند أبي يوسف لا يتصدق بشيء من كما لو اختلف الجنس ذكره
الزيلعي. (حاشية الطحطاوى على الدر المختار: ٤/١٠٥ وكذا فى الفتاوى
السراجية، ص: ٤٤٨، باب المتفرقات)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
When the entrusted item is less than what was given
Question
Khalid requested Bakr to keep some money for him as a trust. Bakr
declined. Khalid persisted, so Bakr took the amount and stored it in a
safe place. After many days, Khalid asked for the money. Bakr took it
out and handed it over to Khalid. When he checked it, he found that it
was less than what he had given. Bakr is saying that he never touched
the money. Now who is responsible for it?
Answer
The ruling with regard to an entrusted item is that if the entrusted
person was neither heedless nor careless with regard to it, and it gets
less or destroyed, then he is not liable to pay anything. If he displayed
shortcomings in safeguarding it, was careless about it, did something
contrary to what the person asked him to do with it, or used it without
the person's permission - then in all these cases he will be liable to pay
compensation.
In the above case, if Bakr is speaking the truth and the money was not
moved from where he had stored it, and Khalid had agreed to storing
it in that place, then Bakr will not be liable. Rasūlullah sallallahu
'alayhi wa sallam said that if an item is destroyed while by a person
619

who borrows it or without an entrusted person being deceptive, and
there was no treachery in it, then he will not be liable for it.
عن عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال:
ليس على المستعير غير المغل ضمان، ولا على المستودع غير المغل ضمان. (رواه
الدار قطنى: ٣/٤١/١٦٨)
الإيداع بو تسليط الغير على حفظ ماله والوديعة ما يترك عند الأمين ... وبي
أمانة فلا تضمن بالهلاك لقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: لا ضمان على مؤتمن.
رواه الدارقطني، ولأن المودع متبرع فى الحفظ وما على المحسنين من سبيل
ولأن يده يد المالك فيكون بلاكها في يد المالك فلا يجب الضمان ولأن
للناس حاجة إلى الإيداع فلو ضمن المودع لامتنع الناس عن قبول الودائع
فكانوا يحرجون بذلك. (تبيين الحقائق: ٥/٧٦، كتاب الوديعة، ملتان)
الوديعة أمانة في يد الوديع فإذا بلكت بلا تعد من المستودع وبدون صنعه
وتقصيره فى الحفظ لا يلزم الضمان. (شرح المجلة، لمحمد خالد الاتاسى:
٣/٢٤٢، المادة: ٧٧٧)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
When charity money is confiscated
Question
A person has been doing charitable work for a long time in India. He
lives in England or South Africa. Many people give him their zakah and
lillāh amounts. Some people give him some monies as a trust. Before
he can go to India, he sends the money over from England or South
Africa. One of his associates receives the money in India and stores it
in a safe place. This is done for the sake of safekeeping. A few weeks
ago, the police - acting under certain suspicions - searched his house.
They arrested the associate and confiscated all the money. Is the
person who sent the money liable? Is it necessary for those who gave
zakāh amounts to repay their zakāh?
620

Answer
When something is entrusted to a person, he has to make all efforts to
safeguard and protect it. If the item is destroyed or damaged without
committing an excess, carelessness and laziness; then the entrusted
person is not liable to pay back anything. If he was found wanting in
the way he safeguarded it or committed an excess in this regard, he
will be liable. Similarly, if someone appointed a person as a
representative to convey an item, the ruling is the same as for an
entrusted person. If the item is destroyed while under the
representative and without any shortcoming from his side, he will not
be liable to pay any compensation.
الدر المختار:
الإيداع شرعاً تسليط الغير على حفظ مالم صريحاً أو دلالة .. وبي أمانة، بذا
حكمها مع وجوب الحفظ والأداء عند الطلب، واستحباب قبولها، فلا تضمن
بالهلاك. (الدر المختار: ٥/٦٦٤، سعيد)
وأما حكمها فوجوب الحفظ على المودع، وصيرورة المال أمانة في يده، ووجوب
أدائر عند طلب مالكه. (الفتاوى الهندية: ٤/٣٣٨)
بدائع الصنائع:
إن المبيع أمانة في يد الموكل، ألا ترى أنه لو بلك في يده فالهلاك على الموكل.
(بدائع الصنائع: ٦/٣٧، سعيد)
الفتاوى الهندية:
فهو - أى الوكيل - مصدق، لأنه أمين، كذا في محيط السرخسي في باب الوكيل
مع الموكل إذا اختلفا. (الفتاوى الهندية: ٣/٦٤٤)
When a person appoints another as a representative to pay zakah on
his behalf, and the poor are specified and known - they are given the
zakāh every year - then once the representative takes possession of
the zakah, it will be fulfilled [on behalf of those who had given it to
him]. If the money is destroyed in any way while being with the
representative, it will not be necessary to pay the zakah a second time.
621

This is what is gauged from the verdicts of our seniors. The madrasah
authorities and their collectors fall under the category of 'amilin-e-
sadaqah (those employed over the collection and distribution of
zakāh) and become the representatives of the poor. They are
representatives of the donors [those who gave the zakah] only to the
extent that they have accepted them as representatives of the poor,
and therefore handed over their money to them. When the person
takes possession of the money as a representative, it will be referred to
as a legal possession by the poor.1
Tadhkiratur Rashīd:
The principal of a madrasah is a representative of all the
students ... when someone gives something to the principal, his taking
possession of it is synonymous to the students taking possession of it.
Once he takes possession of it, ownership of it has left the person who
gave the thing and enters the ownership of the students.2
قال فى الدر المختار مع رد المحتار: (لا يخرج عن العهدة) ... بخلاف ما إذا
ضاعت في يد الساعي، لأن يده كيد الفقراء. (الدر المختار مع رد المحتار:
٢/٢٧٠، سعيد)
If the recipients of zakah are unspecified and unknown, and the
representative spends the zakah money according to his discretion,
the zakah of those who gave it has not been fulfilled. It is necessary for
them to pay the zakāh again.
قال فى الدر المختار: ولا يخرج عن العهدة بالعزل، بل بالأداء للفقراء. وفى
الشامية:
(لا يخرج عن العهدة) فلو ضاعت لا تسقط عنه الزكاة، ولو مات كان ميراثاً
عنه، بخلاف ما إذا ضاعت في يد الساعي، لأن يده كيد الفقراء. (الدر المختار
مع رد المحتار: ٢/٢٧٠، سعيد)
1 Refer to Imdād al-Muftīyyīn, vol. 2, p. 1085.
2 Tadhkiratur Rashīd, p. 164; Imdād al-Fatāwā, vol. 3, p. 316; Nizām al-Fatāwā, p.
446; Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah, vol. 9, p. 506; Jadīd Fiqhī Masā'il, vol. 1, p. 227.
622

خلاصة الفتاوى:
رجل عزل زكاة ماله ووضعها في ناحية بيته، فسرقها سارق لا يقطع يده
للشبهة وعليه أن يزكيها. (خلاصة الفتاوى: ١/٢٣٨)
Further reading: Fatāwā Mahmūdīyyah, vol. 9, p. 480; Kifāyatul Muftī, vol.
4, p. 297; Fatāwā Farīdīyyah, vol. 3, p. 275.
Allāh ta ālā knows best.
When the entire tax amount is not paid to the government
Question
Quite often, businessmen collect taxes from their customers but do not
pay the full amount to the government. Is this tax classified as an
amanat? Is it necessary to convey it in full?
Answer
When businessmen collect tax from their customers, they are
representatives on behalf of the government, and the tax amount is a
trust with them. It is necessary to pay it to the government. If not, it
will amount to treachery. Allah ta'ālā says:
يَأَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ أُمَنُوْا لَا تَّخُوْنُوا اللهَ وَالرَّسُوْلَ وَتَخُوْنُوْا أَمْنَتِكُمْ
وَأَنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُوْنَ.
O believers! Do not betray Allah and the Messenger,
and do not wilfully betray your mutual trusts.1
وأما صفتها أى صفة الوكالة فإنها من العقود الجائزة الغير اللازمة ... ومنه أنه
أمين فيما في يده كالمودع. (الفتاوى الهندية: ٣/٥٦٧)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
1 Sūrah al-Anfal, 8: 27.
623

GIFTS AND DONATIONS
A pre-conditioned permission to install an ATM
Question
A Muslim is running a petrol station. The property belongs to the
petroleum company and the man took it on rent. A bank wants to
install an ATM in the petrol station. People will deposit and withdraw
money from it. The bank has laid down the condition that the one
running the petrol station will not receive any benefits for the first
three thousand transactions of the ATM in a month. Once the number
three thousand is reached, he will receive seventy-five cents for every
transaction. Is an agreement of this nature permissible?
Answer
An agreement of this nature appears to be valid due to the following
two reasons:
1. It is classified as tabarru' mashrūt (a pre-conditioned donation). This
refers to the laying down of a condition for a favour. For example, the
permission for free usage of three thousand transactions is a tabarru'.
It is then pre-conditioned with a rental agreement that any number
above three thousand will be paid as rent by the bank. This becomes a
tabarru' mashrut. This agreement is therefore permissible and valid.
2. It is classified as an ijārah - a rental contract. A condition has been
laid down in it. However, because it is accepted as a societal norm and
it does not lead to dispute, the condition does not invalidate the
agreement.
إلا أن يكون متعارفاً لأن العرف قاضٍ على القياس. (الهداية: ٣/٥٩، باب
البيع الفاسد)
Additional details can be found in Kitab al-Ijārah.
Observe the following proofs for tabarru' mashrūt:
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:
624

لا، فعاد يدعوه، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: وبذه، قال: لا، قال رسول
الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: لا، ثم عاد یدعوه، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه
وسلم: وبذه، قال: نعم فى الثالثة، فقاما يتدافعان حتى أتيا منزله. (رواه مسلم:
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 'Azib radiyallahu 'anhu and said to him: "Tell your son,
Barrā', 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 کیف صنعت أنت و رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حین خرجتما من
مكة. (رواه البخارى: ٥١٥/١، مناقب المهاجرين)
We deduce from both these Ahadith that tabarru' mashrut is
permissible. Tabarru' mashrūt means laying down a condition in a
favour, or laying down a condition for one's own benefit in a
transaction. It is the same scenario in the case under question. The
bank made a request to install an ATM. The owner of the petrol station
said: "Very well. I give you free permission, but after the first three
thousand transactions, you will have to give me seventy-five cents for
each transaction. The bank accepts the condition. This agreement is
permissible.
Further reading: Imdād al-Ahkām, vol. 3, p. 386, 606.
625

Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
A prize for monthly subscribers
Question
The Readers Digest is a monthly periodical. The names of those who
subscribe to it are included in a lot. The one whose name is drawn
receives a prize. Is this permissible? If a person's name is drawn, is it
permissible for him to accept the prize?
Answer
If a person bought the periodical and the publishers said that the one
whose name is drawn will receive a certain prize, then there is nothing
wrong in this. In fact, it is classified as tabarru' mashrūt. In other
words, we will do a favour to those who buy the Readers Digest. It will
be pre-conditioned by the drawing of a lot. This is similar to admitting
a student with the pre-condition of paying fees. There is no gambling
in this lot. The drawing of a lot which contains the element of
gambling means that some of those who are eligible will be deprived
while other eligible people will receive something. In this case, there is
no one who is eligible. Each person is eligible for the periodical in
return for the money which he paid for it, and he has received the
periodical.
Imdād al-Ahkām:
The gist of a question is: A company makes an agreement with a retail
business: "If you buy goods to the value of ten thousand from our
company, you will receive three hundred rupees as a discount. But if
you buy from any other company which is similar to ours, even once,
you will not get this discount." Is it permissible to lay down this
condition?
Answer: This agreement is permissible because the commission which
the buyer receives at the end of the year is a donation from the seller.
The right of the buyer is not critical, and it is permissible to
precondition a donation.1
The following is stated in another place:
Question: Is it permissible to collect admission fees and monthly fees
from students of madāris?
1 Imdād al-Ahkām, vol. 3, p. 386.
626

Answer: It is permissible because it is not a wage but a donation, and it
is permissible to lay down a condition in a donation. It does not entail
compulsion because if a student does not accept the condition, he has
the right of not admitting himself into the madrasah.
ودليله أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لمن أضافه وعائشة رضى الله تعالى عنها
قال: لا، قال: فلا إذن حتى قال فى الثالثة: وعائشة رضى الله تعالى عنها، قال:
نعم. (امداد الاحكام: ٦٠٦/٣)
The meaning of this Hadith is that a person wanted to invite
Rasūlullāh sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam to a meal. Rasūlullāh sallallahu
'alayhi wa sallam laid down the condition of bringing Hadrat 'A'ishah
radiyallāhu 'anhā with. The host declined initially but agreed to it on
the third occasion. Rasulullah sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam going to the
person's house was a tabarru' which was preconditioned with taking
Hadrat 'Ā'ishah radiyallahu 'anhā.
Imdād al-Ahkām is a collection of fatāwā by Hadrat Maulānā Zafar
Ahmad Thanwī rahimahullah compiled under the supervision of
Hadrat Maulānā Ashraf 'Alī Thanwī rahimahullāh.
Hadrat Maulānā Muftī 'Abd ash-Shakur Tirmidhī Sahib rahimahullāh
wrote an article in the monthly al-Balagh dated Jumādā al-Ūlā 1432
A.H. In it he writes :... In reality, Imdad al-Ahkām is an addendum to
Hadrat Thanwī's Imdad al-Fatawā ... (al-Balāgh, p. 40)
If there is no other defect in the above agreement, there will be
nothing wrong in doing this.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
When an invitation is pre-conditioned with a donation
Question
When certain organizations are in need of money and their expenses
are too high, they extend an invitation to a meal. They charge an extra
amount of money to those who come. The money which is left over is
then used for the organization's expenses. Is it permissible to take the
extra amount and then use it?
Answer
The invitation to the meal is essentially a tabarru' from the
organization. The extra amount is charged without compelling
anyone. The one who does not want to fulfil the condition has the
627

choice of not attending. This agreement will be classified as a tabarru'
mashrūt and is permissible.
References were provided previously.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Pre-conditioned gifts in a walīmah
Question
The following custom is observed in walimahs and other similar
functions: People bring gifts and, at the end of the function, the person
who hosted the function makes an assessment of all the gifts and
makes a note of them with the intention that when he is invited, this is
how much he will have to give. Those who gave the gifts have it in
their minds that when it is their turn, this is how much they ought to
receive. Is it permissible to give and accept gifts in this way?
Answer
This is a tabarru' mashrūt. If the quality or nature of the item is
inferior, it leads to unhappiness and backbiting. This custom is
disastrous for poor people. It is necessary to abstain from it. Allah
ta'ālā says:
وَمَا آتَيْتُمْ مِّنْ رِبًا لِيَرْبُوَ فِي أَمْوَالِ النَّاسِ فَلَا يَرْبُوْ عِنْدَ اللهِ.
Whatever you give in usury in order that it may
increase in the wealth of people - it does not
increase in the sight of Allah.1
Some exegists explain this verse as follows: If a person gives anything
to someone else with this in mind that the latter will return the favour
with a greater favour, then this giving of his will earn him no blessing
and reward in the sight of Allah ta'ala even though it is permissible to
do this. (Tafsir 'Uthmānī)
This explanation is quoted from Hadrat 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas
radiyallāhu 'anhu and Imām Shafi'ī rahimahullāh in Ma'ārif al-Qur'ān of
Maulānā Idrīs Kāndhlawī rahimahullāh, vol. 6, p. 158.
Islāh ar-Rusūm:
Hadrat Thanwī writes:
1 Sūrah ar-Rūm, 30: 39.
628

This is like a pre-conditioned loan: If you give money in his meal
function, he will give money in your meal function. Although they will
not say it verbally, it falls under the principle "a prevailing custom is
like a pre-condition". And this is not correct.
However, we learn from Imdad al-Ahkām that a transaction like this is
tabarru' mashrūt.
Although tabarru' mashrūt is permissible, one should abstain from it
because of its many harms and evils.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
An issue related to a pre-conditioned donation
Question
Certain airlines have this advertisement: The one who earns a certain
amount of miles with us will receive a free ticket or certain discounts.
Is it permissible to accept them?
Answer
This is classified as tabarru' mashrut and permissible. This is similar to
madrasah authorities pre-conditioning fees for admission. Hadrat
Maulānā Zafar Ahmad Thanwī rahimahullāh says it is permissible.
Details were provided previously.
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
A joint grant
Question
While Zayd was in his senses and fully aware of his actions, he gave his
land to his four brothers. It is now in their possession. However, he did
not divide the land into separate portions when giving it to them. Zayd
has passed on and his sisters are now demanding their share of the
land. Is their demand valid?
Answer
The jurists in general state that according to Imam Abu Hanīfah
rahimahullāh a joint grant (hibah mushā') is not permissible. It has to
be divided and given. Hibah musha' refers to giving one portion of a
whole. This issue is clearly mentioned in the books of jurisprudence,
there is no need to provide references. Nonetheless, it needs to be
reviewed because hibah musha' has become quite common nowadays.
Apart from Islamic law, other laws consider this type of gifting to be
correct and complete. The jurists state that when general societal
629

norms are in conflict with the text of the jurists, general and specific
societal norms will be given preference. I am therefore of the view that
this grant ought to be executed. Yes, it is necessary to give possession
over the gifted item. Taking possession is necessary according to Imam
Abū Hanīfah, Imam Shafi'ī and Imam Ahmad rahimahumullah. There
will be possession in hibah musha', but it will be defective; it will be
incomplete.
The books of jurisprudence state that a partner cannot be a paid
employee. In other words, if two brothers are partners in a business,
then it is not permissible to specify a wage for one brother in addition
to the profits of his share. However, after a lengthy investigation,
Hadrat Muftī Rashid Ahmad Sahib rahimahullah writes: The text of the
madh-hab is left aside even on account of specific practice. Nowadays,
it is common practice for companies to hire partners as paid
employees. Therefore, there is more reason for leaving aside the text
of the madh-hab.1
He writes before the above:
Common practice is a pre-requisite for leaving aside a text of the
Shari'ah. However, even a specific practice will be sufficient reason to
leave aside a text of the madh-hab.2
Observe the following attestations:
Jurists of the past included the statement sw as a written divorce
and classified it as a talaq-e-ba'in. However, latter day jurists - due to
societal norms - classified it as an explicit divorce, and issued the
fatwa of a revocable divorce without having made such an intention.
Imām Abū Hanīfah rahimahullah considers a compulsion to be one
only when it is done by a sultan. Imam Muhammad rahimahullah is of
the view that it is classified as a compulsion even when done by a non-
sultan.
The jurists say that it is impermissible to hire out books. Some jurists -
due to societal norms - permit it. This was explained previously.
The fatwa of tadmin as-sa'ī and tadmin ajir mushtarak was issued on
the basis of societal norms.
1 Ahsan al-Fatāwā, vol. 7, p 328.
2 Ibid.
630

In short, an explicit Hadith cannot be left aside in favour of general
and specific societal norms. Yes, qiyas can be given up for general
societal norms. For example, the narration on qafiz at-tahhan (dry
measure of a miller) cannot be cast aside because of general societal
norms. However, other issues which stem from it on the basis of qiyas
are permissible. For example, a commission agent who works on a
percentage. This is why the jurists of Balkh say it is permissible to take
a payment on a percentage basis. In other words, a person sews a
garment, and takes half or quarter payment. It will be permissible on
the basis of general societal norms even though 'Allamah Shāmī
rahimahullāh is hesitant in classifying it as a general societal norm. (In
our times, this has become so common that there is no doubt
whatsoever about it being a general societal norm.)
However, the explicit text of the madh-hab or the zahir ar-riwayah
can be cast aside because of general societal norms which are
prevalent in all cities, and specific societal norms in specific cities.
This issue is explained in Sharh 'Uqud Rasm al-Mufti and Nashr al-'Urf of
'Allāmah Shāmī rahimahullah, and other books. Therefore, if
possession is given over a joint gift without dividing it first - and this
has become a general societal norm, as is the case today; and is also
the law - then this gift will have to be accepted. It is probably for this
reason that 'Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmirī rahimahullah stated in
Fayd al-Bārī:
ثم اعلم أن بية المشاع لا تتم في أصل المذبب وإن تحقق القبض أيضاً وأفتى
المتأخرون بجوازبا وبه أفتى وذلك لأني أتردد في نفس مسألة الشيوع فلست
أشدد فيها كالحنفية ولا أوسع فيها كالبخاري بل بي أمر بين الأمرين كما
علمت، فإن مرضى الشرع وبو رفع الإبهام والتمييز، والشيوع يخل به، فلا
يكون بدراً، كما أبدره البخاري، ولا ضرورياً، كما فهمه الحنفية، بحيث قالوا
ببطلان الهبة، وبالجملة إذا كان حال الشيوع عندي ما سمعت، فلم أشدد فى
الحكم ووافقت المتأخرين في جوازيبة المشاع عند القبض. (فيض البارى:
٣/٣٧٥، كتاب الهبة)
The great and erudite jurist of the past, 'Allamah Shams al-A'immah
Sarakhsī rahimahullāh writes:
631

وبالإجماع ببة المشاع فيما لا يحتمل القسمة تتم بالقبض وكذلك عندى فيما
يحتمل القسمة جائز. (المبسوط للامام السرخسى: ٢١/٦٩، ط: ادارة القرآن)
'Allāmah Sarakhsī rahimahullah first writes this in Kitab al-Hibah and
then in Kitab ar-Rehn.
It is essential that there must be no dispute. If it causes a dispute - as
regards who is going to take which portion - then it will be incorrect.
والذي أراه أن النهي عن لكونه مفضياً إلى النزاع، وكل أمر يكون النهي عنه
كذلك لا يشدد فيه الشارع بنفسه، بل ربما يغمض عنه أيضاً، فلا ينبغى
التشدد فيه، ويدل عليه ما أخرجه البخاري ... وفيه فقال رسول الله صلى الله
عليه وسلم لما کثرت عنده الخصومة في ذلک: فإما لا، فلا تبتاعوا حتى يبدو
صلاح الثمر، كالمشورة يشيريا، لكثرة خصومتهم. (فيض البارى: ٣/٣٧٢)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
A minor taking possession of a grant
Question
Honourable Muftī Sahib. My father passed away a few days back. Seven
months before he died, he said: "Whatever I own here in Africa
belongs to my youngest son, Husayn." I, my wife and my brother-in-
law 'Abdullah are witnesses to this statement.
My question is: Will the grant be complete by this statement? There is
no paper-work in this regard. Bear in mind that we - the remaining
brothers and sisters - have no objection to it.
Answer
Your father's statement: "Whatever I own here in Africa belongs to my
youngest son, Husayn," is a gift. When your father gave over
something to his minor son, his mere statement suffices. There is no
need for him to take possession of it or for any other paper-work. This
is because a father is himself a guardian over his minor child. When a
father takes possession, it is synonymous to the minor children taking
possession. The grant is therefore complete.
632

بدائع الصنائع
ولو نحل ابنه الصغير شيئاً جاز ويصير قابضاً له مع العقد كما إذا باع ماله منه
حتى لو بلك عقيب البيع يهلك من مال الابن لصيرورته قابضاً للصغير مع
العقد وينبغي للرجل أن يعدل بين أولاده فى النحل لقوله سبحانه وتعالى: "إن
الله يأمر بالعدل والإحسان." (بدائع الصنائع فى ترتيب الشرائع: ٦/١٢٧، شرائط
الهبة، منها القبض، سعيد)
(وكذا فى الفتاوى الهندية: ٤/٣٩١، الباب السادس فى الهبة للصغير)
الدر المختار
وببة من له ولاية على الطفل فى الجملة تتم بالعقد أى بالإيجاب فقط، كما
يشير إليه الشارح كذا فى الهامش وبذا إذا أعلمه أو أشهد عليه والإشهاد
للتحرز عن الجحود بعد موته والإعلام لازم لأنه بمنزلة القبض، بزازية، قال
فى التاتارخانية: فلو أرسل العبد في حاجة أو كان آبقاً في دار الإسلام فوبيه من
ابنر صحت، فلو لم يرجع العبد حتى مات الأب لا يصير ميراثاً عن الأب،
قوله لو الموبوب معلوماً، قال محمد: كل شيء وبه لا بنه الصغير وأشهد عليه
وذلك الشيء معلوم في نفسه فهو جائز والقصد أن يعلم ما وبيه له والإشهاد
ليس بشرط لازم لأن الهبة تتم بالإعلام تاتارخانية، قوله وكان في يده أو في يد
مودعم لأن قبض الولي ينوب عنه والأصل أن كل عقد يتولاه الواحد يكتفى
فيه بالإيجاب .- (الدر المختار مع فتاوى الشامى: ٥/٦٩٤، كتاب الهبة، سعيد)
وفى التحرير المختار: قال الرحمتى: وبل يشترط أن يكون محوزاً مقسوماً كما
بو الشرط فى الهبة أو يقال إنما شرط ذلك لأجل تمام القبض وہو مقبوض
لولي القبض فلا يفتقر لذلك. (تقريرات الرافعى على رد المحتار: ٥/٢٥٢، کتاب
الهبة، سعيد)
633

Ahsan al-Fatāwā:
The gist of the question is: A minor is given some gold and silver. Does
he become its owner by making an intention in this regard or is it
necessary for him to take possession of it? If taking possession is
necessary, how will this be done?
Answer: If a person gives a gift to minor children, then the father
taking possession of it will suffice for it to be included in the minors'
ownership.1
Majmū ah Qawānīn Islāmī:
The father, legal guardian or testator of a minor acquired some wealth
or property and said: "I acquired it for such and such minor." His mere
saying this will be a grant in favour of the minor.2
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
A conditional gift
Question
Is a conditional gift valid? For example, a person says: "If I get married
in this month, this book will be a gift to you."
Answer
A conditional gift is invalid.
ثانيها أن كل ما كان من التمليكات أو التقييدات كرجعة يبطل تعليقه
بالشرط. وقال الشامي: قوله من التمليكات كبيع وإجارة واستئجار وبة. (الدر
المختار مع فتاوى الشامى: ٥/٢٤١، سعيد)
البحر الرائق
وفى البزازية من البيوع وتعليق الهبة بـ "إن" باطل وبـ "على" إن ملائماً كهبته
على أن يعوض يجوز وإن مخالفاً بطل الشرط وصحت الهبة. (البحر الرائق:
٦/١٩١، كوئته)
1 Ahsan al-Fatāwā, vol. 7, p. 258.
2 Majmū ah Qawānīn Islāmī, p. 242.
634

حاشية الطحطاوى
قوله ويصح تعليق بية أى بشرط ملائم إن كان بـ"على" لا بـ"إن" قال فى
البزازية من البيوع ... الخ. (حاشية الطحطاوى على الدر المختار: ٣/١٣٦، باب
المتفرقات، كوئته)
فتاوى سراجيم
رجل قال لآخر: إن كان كذا فقد وببت مالي منك لم يصح. (الفتاوى
السراجية، ص ٤٠٦، كتاب الهبة باب الهبة الجائزة والفاسدة)
وفي شرح المجلة: قال: والظابر أن الفساد لكون تعليق الهبة بالخطر. (شرح
المجلة لمحمد الاتاسى: ٣/٣٧١، كتاب الهبة)
وللاستزادة انظر: (تكملة رد المحتار: ٨/٤٢٧، كتاب الهبة، سعيد. والفتاوى
الهندية: ٤/٣٩٧)
In short, if the pre-condition is suitable then the condition with Je is
valid, but not with 3 !. However, 'Allāmah Shāmī rahimahullah has
quoted an uncommon opinion which states that a condition with 3! is
also valid.
لكن فى البحر أيضاً عن المناقب عن الناصحي: لو قال: إن اشتريت جارية
فقد ملكتها منك يصح، ومعناه إذا قبض بناء على ذلك، أى إذا قبض
الموہوب له الموبوب بناء على التمليك يصح مع أن معلق بـ "إن" وہو خلاف
ما فى البزازية من إطلاق بطلانه، ولعله قول آخر يجعل التعليق بالملائم
صحيحاً كالتقييد تأمل. (فتاوى الشامى: ٥/٢٥٥، سعيد)
635

However, the more popular view is that a condition with 3! is invalid.
This view is supported by the ruling related to raqba,1 which,
according to
Imām
Abū Hanīfah and Imam Muhammad
rahimahumallāh is invalid.
وہو أن يقول: أراقب موتک فراقب موتي فإن متُ فهي لک وإن متَ فهي لي
فيكون بذا تعليق التمليك بالخطر وبو موت المملک قبله وذلك باطل.
(مبسوط للامام السرخسى: ١٢/٨٩، باب الرقبى، ادارة القرآن)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Gifting a lost item
Question
A person lost his watch. He said to Zayd: "If you find the watch, it is
yours." He searched for the watch and found it. The owner of the
watch now regrets his offer. Has the watch entered Zayd's ownership?
Answer
Ownership of the watch is not established in favour of Zayd. Rather, it
continues to be in the original owner's ownership.
رجل أضل لؤلؤة فويبها لآخر وسلطه على طلبها وقبضها متى وجدبا قال أبو
يوسف: بذه ببة فاسد، لأنها ببة على خطر، والهبة لا تصح مع الخطر، وقال
زفر: تجوز بذه الهبة. (فتاوى قاضيخان على بامش الهندية: ٣/٣٨١)
رجل سقطت من لؤلؤة فوببها من رجل وسلطه على الطلب والقبض فطلبها
وقبضها فالهبة باطلة، لأن في قيامها وقت الطلب خطراً، والهبة تبطل
بالأخطار. (الفتاوى السراجية، كتاب الهبة، باب الهبة الجائزة والفاسدة، ص
( 2.0
1 A person says to another: "If I die first, the item is yours. If you die first, it is
mine." This is invalid.
636

وللاستزادة انظر: (فتاوى الشامى: ٥/٦٨٨، كتاب الهبة، سعيد. والفتاوى
الهندية: ٤/٣٨١. ومجمع الضمانات: ٢/٧١٤. ودرر الحكام فى شرح مجلة الأحكام:
٢/٣٨٥، المادة: ٦٥٨)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
A shawl which is given in an aeroplane
Question
Airlines normally give a shawl which is used while in the aeroplane. Is
it permissible for a person to take the shawl after obtaining permission
from an air hostess?
Answer
It is not permissible to take it after obtaining permission from an air
hostess because it does not belong to her. The actual owner is someone
else. Furthermore, it is written on the shawl that it has to be returned
after using it.
ومنها (شرائط الهبة) أن يكون مملوكاً للواب فلا تجوز ببة مال الغير بغير
إذن لاستحالة تمليك ما ليس بمملوك للوابب كذا فى البدائع. (الفتاوى
الهندية: ٤/٣٧٤)
Allāh ta'ālā knows best.
Gifting a Qur'an to a non-Muslim
Question
Is it permissible to give a Qur'an as a gift to a non-Muslim?
Answer
If the non-Muslim has respect for the Qur'an and you are convinced
that he will not show disrespect to it, then it is permissible to give it to
him. He may well be guided. However, if there is the possibility of the
opposite, then it is not permissible to give it to him.
عن عبد الله بن عمر رضي الله عنه عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه كان
ينهى أن يسافر بالقرآن إلى أرض العدو مخافة أن يناله العدو. (رواه مسلم:
637

٢/١٣١، باب النهى ان يسافر بالمصحف الى ارض الكفار اذا خيف وقوعه
بایدیہم)
نفع المفتى والسائل
الاستفسار: بل يجوز السفر إلى أرض العدو مع المصحف؟
الاستبشار: من سافر إلى أرض العدو ليس له أن يخرج المصاحف إلا في
جيش يؤمن عليهم من استيلاء الكفار. قال فى التبيين شرح الكنز: لما فيه من
تعريض المصحف على الاستخفاف، وبو المراد من قول النبي صلى الله عليه
وعلى آله وسلم: لا تسافروا بالقرآن في أرض العدو. وذكر الطحاوي أن بذا
النهي كان في ابتداء الإسلام حيث كانت المصاحف قليلة، والقراء قليلين،
فيخاف ذباب بعض القرآن، وانتسخ ذلك حين كثرتهم، والأول أصح وأحوط،
كذا في كشف الوقاية. (نفع المفتى والسائل، ص ٤٣٦، ما يتعلق بقراءة القرآن
وسجدة التلاوة والمصاحف)
Fatāwā Rahīmīyyah:
If the non-Muslim has respect for the Qur'an and you are convinced
that he will not show disrespect to it, then it is permissible to give it to
him. He may well be guided. At the same time, he should be advised
that it is the sanctified speech of Allah ta'ala and as such, it should not
be touched while in a state of impurity. If he is in a state of impurity,
he must perform ghusl or wudu', and then study it. He must be taught
how to perform ghusl and wudū'. Allah willing, this will create
reverence in his heart for the Qur'an.
ويمنع النصراني (وفي بعض النسخ الكافر) من مسر وجوزه محمد إذا اغتسل
ولا بأس بتعليم القرآن والفقر عسی یهتدى .!
A non-Muslim is not liable to carry out good actions. At the same time,
it is our duty to protect the Qur'an from disrespect.
1 Fatāwā Rahīmīyyah, vol. 6, p. 283.
638