Leasing one’s premises to conventional banks and aiding in sin

Q: I recently purchased a property in partnership with two friends. Many prospective tenants have requested that the property be leased to them, including a bank. I refused to accept a bank as a tenant as I always understood it to be wrong. However, my partners have received a ruling that it is permissible to have a bank as a tenant. The ruling states that though according to other Imaams it is impermissible, however Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh) has allowed it. I am now confused. Please clarify this issue for me. It will also be appreciated if you could state the ruling with regard to the following:

  1. Can the premises be let out to an insurance company, liquor store or betting outlet?
  2. Is it permissible to have an ATM on one’s premises?
  3. If the tenant did not disclose the details but later trades in impermissible items, is the income permissible?
  4. I would appreciate if you could explain the reasons for interest being so abhorred and detested in Islam.

Bismillaah

A: Your question refers to the permissibility or impermissibility of leasing one’s premises for an impermissible activity. In order to fully understand the Shar’ee ruling (primarily pertaining to leasing to conventional banks, as well as all other activities mentioned in your question) in its proper context, it is necessary to first understand the underlying Shar’ee principles pertaining to aiding in sin.

In the Noble Qur’an Allah Ta’ala declares:

وَتَعاوَنوا عَلَى البِرِّ وَالتَّقوى وَلا تَعاوَنوا عَلَى الإِثمِ وَالعُدوان

“Assist one another in righteousness and piety, and do not assist one another in sin and transgression”

In another verse the declaration of Sayyiduna Moosa (Alayhis Salaam) is related:

قَالَ رَبِّ بِمَآ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَىَّ فَلَنْ أَكُونَ ظَهِيرًا لِّلْمُجْرِمِينَ

Hazrat Musa (Alayhis Salaam) said: “O Allah! On account of You bestowing Your grace upon me, I shall never be an assistant and support for the sinners.”

From the above verses it is clear that aiding any act of sin is impermissible. The important question nevertheless is: What constitutes “aiding in sin” in terms of the Shari’ah. Is a remote action, that indirectly through a series of other actions eventually become the means of a sin, included in the abovementioned prohibition, or is it restricted to only direct assistance in committing a haraam act? The fuqaha have categorised this into various categories and explained the ruling of each category. 

 

Categories of aiding sin

Primarily there are two ways of aiding sin:

  1. اعانة – Facilitating the commission of a sin.
  2. تسبب – Becoming the cause for the commission of the sin.

 

اعانة Facilitation

With regards to aiding in sin in the course of trade, facilitation could occur in one of the following three ways:

1. Selling an item that can only be used for sin.

It is totally forbidden for one to sell an item which is haraam (e.g. carrion, wine, swine, etc.)[1] or which can only be used for an impermissible cause (e.g. musical instruments, etc) [2]. If the item can be used for both permissible and impermissible purposes, it will be permissible to sell it to a person whose intention for purchasing it is not known.

 

2. The purchaser intending sin through purchasing the item

If the seller knows that the purchaser is purchasing the item for an impermissible purpose, this will render the sale impermissible in Shari’ah. The obvious reason is that through selling the item one will be aiding in sin.  For instance the fuqaha have prohibited the selling of weaponry and ammunition to the Ahle-harb (those who are at war with the Muslims) as this would be aiding in the destruction of Islam and the Muslims. Though there was no intention of aiding sin or explicit mention in the transaction, but having knowledge of the prevailing circumstances is treated as though the purpose of waging war against Muslims was explicitly mentioned at the time of the transaction.[3]

 

3. Explicit mention by the purchaser of his intention for purchase

At the time of the transaction if the purchaser explicitly mentions that he is purchasing or hiring the premises, etc. for an impermissible cause, it will be impermissible for the seller or lessor to sell or lease the property, as he will be aiding and supporting in the sin that will take place on his premises. For example the purchaser or lessee reveals to the seller or lessor that he wishes to purchase or lease the premises for a winery, piggery, casino, escort agency, insurance company or a conventional bank. In all these cases it will be impermissible to sell or lease the property.

All the four Imaams (Imaam Abu Hanifa, Imaam Shaafi’ee, Imaam Maalik and Imaam Ahmad bin Hambal Rahimahumullah) are unanimous upon the impermissibility of the above mentioned three types of transactions as they all aid others in the commission of sinful actions. [4]

 

 تسبب Becoming the cause for the sin materialising

Becoming the cause of sin is classified into three types:

1.  السبب القريب المحرك – A direct means that leads to the sin

The first category is where the cause directly results in the sin taking place. The example of this is a woman who leaves her home without adopting purdah and without being veiled from the eyes of strange men. Though the woman may not intend to cause people to fall into sin, however since she is not clad properly and Islamically, she is the direct cause for spurring the emotions of people and causing them to fall into sin. Hence, just as they will be sinful for casting lustful glances towards her, she will be equally sinful for becoming the direct cause for the sin taking place. Therefore the fuqaha have ruled that such a cause is in the category of haraam. Thus, Allah Ta’ala instructs the women:

وَقَرْنَ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجْنَ تَبَرُّجَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الْأُولَىٰ ﴿الأحزاب:33﴾

Remain within the confines of your homes and do not leave your homes displaying your beauty and attraction as the women of the days of ignorance used to display.

Another example of this category which is cited in the Qur’an is that we are prohibited from swearing the idols of the disbelievers as this will incite them to swear Allah Ta’ala in retaliation. Hence we will become the cause for them swearing Allah Ta’ala.

 Allah Ta’ala says:

وَلَا تَسُبُّوا الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّـهِ فَيَسُبُّوا اللَّـهَ عَدْوًا بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ ﴿الأنعام: 108﴾

Do not swear the gods whom they (the kuffar) call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite begin to swear Allah in their ignorance.

Similarly the Qur’an had prevented the Azwaaj-e-mutahharaat and the women of the ummah from speaking sweetly to strange men (i.e. at the time of need when speaking is necessary) as this will spur up the feelings and emotions within the hearts of the strange men and incite them upon shameful deeds. Allah Ta’ala says:

فَلَا تَخْضَعْنَ بِالْقَوْلِ فَيَطْمَعَ الَّذِي فِي قَلْبِهِ مَرَضٌ ﴿الأحزاب: 32﴾

So do not be soft in speech, lest the one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire.

In all these examples, since the cause directly results in the sin, the cause itself has been completely prohibited.

2. (السبب القريب الموصل إلى المعصية (غير المحرك

The second category is where the cause itself does not directly result in sin. However it has the potential to facilitate the commission of the sin. The example of this category is hiring out one’s premises to someone. The premises can be used for a halaal or a haraam purpose. It all depends on the usage of the one who is leasing the premises. However, in the case where one has prior knowledge that the premises is being leased for a conventional bank, then in this case the aspect of aiding in sin comes into effect. Though the sins perpetrated on the premises will be entirely the doings of the managers, directors and staff of the bank, however one becomes the cause for the sin taking place by making one’s premises available to the bank. Hence, according to Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi’ee, Imaam Ahmad and the two leading students of Imaam Abu Hanifa (Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Muhammad) (Rahimahumullah), this type of leasing is totally impermissible (makrooh-e-tahrimi) and the income accrued therefrom is impermissible. This is regardless of whether one had prior knowledge of the purpose for which the premises is being leased or one only discovered the impermissible usage after the contracting of the lease. In this situation what is the viewpoint of Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullahi Alayh)? Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahamtullahi alaih) concurred with the majority scholars in the case where explicit mention was made of hiring one’s premises for an impermissible cause. Hence there is no difference of opinion between the four imams in this issue. However, since the mazhab of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullahi alaih) differs slightly with the mazhab of the other imams in certain situations we deem it appropriate to expound on this issue.

 

The Mazhab of Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullahi Alayh)

Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullahi Alayh) differed with the majority scholars in two cases:

Case One:  A Muslim is hired by a non-Muslim to transport wine. There can be one of two situations in this case:

  1. The Muslim porter was clearly aware that the wine was for consumption. All the Fuqaha including Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullahi Alayh) are unanimous that this is impermissible.
  2. The Muslim porter did not know the purpose of the hirer.

According to Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi’ee, Imaam Ahmad, as well as Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Muhammad (Rahimahumullah), such hiring is impermissible. These jurists contend that generally wine is transported for the purpose of consumption.[5] Hence though there was no explicit mention of consuming the wine, however the circumstantial evidence will be treated as though one was aware of the purpose of the hirer.

Furthermore they explain that the Hadith curses the one who carries wine. Therefore such a person will enter under the purview of the curse mentioned in the Hadith. Hence the income accrued therefrom will be impermissible.

According to Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullahi Alayh) such hiring is permissible. He argues that the Muslim porter does not know the intention of the one hiring his services. In addition, just as wine is transported from one place to another to be consumed, similarly it could be transported for some permissible purpose, such as making vinegar, etc. Hence, due to the Muslim porter NOT KNOWING THE INTENTION of the one hiring him, this transaction will be permissible and he will be entitled to a wage. Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh) avers that the curse mentioned in the Hadith was in regard to the person who knowingly carries wine to someone for the purpose of consumption.[6]

It is clear from the above discussion that Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullahi Alayh) concurred with the majority scholars and did not allow the hiring of a Muslim porter for transporting wine in the case where it was clearly stated or one had knowledge that the transportation is taking place for the purpose of consumption, as this will be aiding in sin.

The clear distinction that Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullahi Alayh) made between the situation of knowing the intent of the hirer and not knowing his purpose has been clearly explained by Allamah Abu Bakr Kaasaani, Allamah Sarakhsi and from the latter day Ulama, Hazrat Moulana Gangohi (Rahmatullahi Alaihi).[7]

Case Two: Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh) differed with the majority scholars in the situation where a Muslim leases out his premises to non Muslims for the purpose of erecting a church etc. According to the majority scholars (Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi’ee, Imaam Ahmad, as well as Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Muhammad Rahimahumullah) leasing one’s premises for a church is impermissible in all situations. According to Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullahi Alayh) leasing one’s premises to non Muslims for a church is permissible.

However it should be understood that the permission issued by Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullahi Alayh) was not a general permission, instead it was subject to two conditions being met.

The first condition is that the property be leased to non Muslims in the villages that were populated only by the kuffaar. If the property was leased for the purpose of a church in the cities and towns of the Muslims or in the villages that were populated by Muslims and non Muslims, according to Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh) such a leasing will be impermissible.

The second condition is that explicit mention of the property being leased for the purpose of a church does not take place at the time of the lease. If it was included in the contract or explicit mention was made at the time of the lease, it will not be permissible according to Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh).

Allama Kaasaani, the famous Hanafi jurist of the sixth century of Islam explains in his famous book badaai-us-sanaai’ that the permission that Abu Hanifa issued of leasing one’s property for the purpose of a church, etc (in the villages that were populated only by the kuffaar) was subject to this not being mentioned at the time of the lease. If it was included in the contract or explicit mention was made at the time of the lease, it will not be permissible according to Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh). Similarly the permission Imaam Abu Hanifa issued was restricted to those villages which were only inhabited by the kuffaar. Allama Kaasaani further explains that since the villages have now also been populated by Muslims and there is great fear through allowing these types of transactions and leases that Muslims will be influenced towards kufr, the fuqaha state that the verdict of permissibility issued by Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh) will no longer be applicable.[8] A similar ruling has been issued by Allamah Sarakhsi in Kitaabul Mabsoot (a commentary on the Mabsoot of Imaam Muhammad Rahmatullah Alaihi). While explaining the difference between the verdict of Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh) and his two students he states that according to Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah Alayh) such a transaction will only be permissible if there was no explicit mention of the impermissible purpose at the time of the transaction. If explicit mention was made, then it will not be permissible.[9] Allamah Sarakhsi further mentions that according to Imaam Abu Hanifah if explicit mention of the sin was made in the transaction then one will not deserve any fee and the wealth acquired through such a transaction will be impermissible. Hence, all the latter Hanafi jurists concur that the view of permissibility will no longer remain on account of the fact that Muslims have populated the villages and towns and there is the potential danger of them being influenced by kufr and disbelief.

 

Summary of Imaam Abu Hanifah’s (Rahmatullahi Alayh) view

Thus we have clearly seen from the above that Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullahi Alayh) did not differ with the majority. Instead he held the view that hiring one’s premises to a non Muslim for a Haraam purpose is impermissible if explicit mention of the Haraam was made at the time of the transaction.[10]

Hence if explicit mention was made at the time of the contract that the premises is being leased for a conventional bank, then in this case all the four Imaams, Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi’ee, Imaam Ahmad, Imaam Abu Hanifah as well as the two renowned students of Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Muhammad (Rahimahumullah) agree that such a leasing is impermissible.

 

Misconception

There is a misconception among some scholars that Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullahi Alayh) had issued a verdict of general permissibility with regard to leasing one’s premises for an impermissible purpose. This misconception is probably due to the fact that many classical Hanafi books on fiqh have merely recorded the difference of Imaam Abu Hanifah and his two students with regard to this issue, but without giving much detail of the nature of the difference. However, Allamah Sarakhsi and Allamah Kaasaani have clarified the viewpoint of Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh) that if the impermissible purpose was explicitly mentioned at the time of the transaction, such a transaction according to Imaam Abu Hanifa (Rahmatullah Alayh) will be impermissible and the wealth earned by this contract will not be halaal. From among our latter Ulama, Hadhrat Mufti Shafee Sahib[11] and Hadhrat Moulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmaani have clarified the viewpoint of Imaam Abu Hanifah and explained that according to Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah Alayh) though such a transaction will be valid due to the commodity being in itself permissible, however this does not negate one becoming sinful due to aiding in sin. In other words, the validity of the sale does not mean that this act is not sinful. This can be likened to a sale concluded at the time of Jumu’ah. All the Hanafi jurists agree that this is makrooh-e-tahreemi, though the sale will be valid. Hence, we understand that in a situation where it is clearly stated or one knows in advance that one is leasing his premises for the purpose of a conventional bank, winery, piggery, casino, escort agency or insurance company, all the four Imams and the two notable students of Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullahi Alayh) are unanimous that it will be impermissible and one will be sinful.

 

Fatwa of Hazrat Moulana Gangohi (Rahmatullahi Alayh)

Hazrat Moulana Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi (Rahmatullah Alayhi) also issued a fatwa to this effect. The following question and answer appear on page 421 of Ta’leefaat-e-Rashidiyyah:

Question: Is it permissible to lease one’s premises for a liquor store? Kindly explain the preferred view of the Hanafi Mazhab.

Answer: The correct position of the Hanafi Mazhab and the fatwa is that it is impermissible. 

 

Deeni expediency

It has been clearly understood from the discussion above that according to Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah Alayh), since Christians living in remote villages in an Islamic state are permitted to build churches, hiring out a premises to them in that part of the land is permissible subject to the conditions mentioned. If one attempts to extend this permission and apply it generally to all situations, the doors of fitnah will be thrown wide open. People will begin hiring their premises to casinos, wineries, piggeries, escort agencies and other haraam enterprises and incorrectly attribute all this to the fatwa of Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah Alayh). Hence, it is not in keeping with Deeni expediency that this route be adopted.

The importance of considering the Deeni expediency is evident from the ruling of the fuqaha with regard to many alcoholic beverages. According to some Hanafi scholars many alcoholic beverages do not fall under the definition and classification of khamr. Yet the clear fatwa of impermissibility was issued on all alcoholic beverages regardless of whether they fall under the technical definition of khamr or not. The expediency of Deen necessitated that the fatwa of impermissibility be applied across the board due to the fear of people falling into that which is clearly haraam.

Riba, which is the lifeblood of conventional banks, is so abhorred and accursed in the eyes of Shari’ah, that though the zimmis (non-Muslim residents in an Islamic state) were given permission and allowed to consume alcohol and pork provided it was not done in public places, yet they were strictly prohibited from all usury and interest dealings. Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) openly declared that those zimmis who deal in interest in any form will no longer remain safe citizens in Darul Islam (Islamic country) and immediately the guarantee of amnesty for such a person will terminate.

The following is recorded in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah:

عن الشعبي ، قال : كتب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى أهل نجران وهم نصارى : أن من بايع منكم بالربا ، فلا ذمة له. (مصنف ابن أبي شيبة #38170)

Hazrat Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) wrote to the Christians of Najraan: “Whoever from amongst you deals in interest, there is no amnesty for him.”

According to another narration Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said:

وأخرج أبو عبيد في الأموال عن مرسل أبي المليح الهزلي نحوه مطولا ولفظه لا تأكلوا الربا، فمن أكل منهم الربا فذمتي منهم برية (تخريج في أحاديث الهداية 3/338)

“Do not consume interest! And whoever does so then my guarantee (for his protection) is cancelled.”

Thus, when Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) issued such a stern warning, how can it be assumed that Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah Alayh) will allow a Muslim to lease out his property to a conventional bank for such evil?

 

3. Third Type of cause:

The third category of aiding in sin is where the cause for the sin is an indirect cause. In this case, the ruling will be issued depending on the extent of mediums and processes found before the actual sin takes place. The more the mediums, the lesser the degree of karahiyyat (reprehensibility). The reason for this is that since there are various processes or mediums being found prior to the occurrence of the actual sin, and since the cause is not directly leading to the sin, it will be permissible for one to deal in it. An example of this type is the selling of timber to a non-Muslim. The non-Muslim may use the timber for many permissible things (such as making furniture, etc) as well as use it for impermissible purposes (such as making musical instruments). However, since the cause is distant and the musical instrument will be made after various mediums and processes, the Shari’ah has not considered this cause as being a means of aiding in sin.

 

Hiring out one’s premises to a kaafir for a permissible cause but thereafter sinful activities occur on the premises

The Fuqaha have explicitly mentioned that if the premises was leased for a permissible cause and thereafter impermissible activities began taking place on the premises, this will not invalidate the lease nor will it cause the income to be contaminated, as the purpose for leasing the premises was a halaal purpose.[12]

For example, Zaid lets out his house to a non-Muslim (Hindu, Christian, Jew, etc). While residing in the house the non-Muslim conducts his acts of worship.[13] This will  not invalidate the lease. The lease will not be invalidated for two reasons: Firstly, the purpose for which the premises was leased was to reside in it, which has taken place as agreed. Secondly, the sin is not taking place through the action of the lessor. Instead it occurs solely through the action of the lessee.

 

The Shar’ee ruling regarding ATM machines

Generally, most businesses which have ATM machines installed by the bank on their premises do so with the intention of either drawing clientele to the business or providing customers the facility of withdrawing cash from the bank at any time they wish. Hence, this convenience facility eventually prompts them to make purchases at the same store. In essence, one opts for installing this type of ‘mini bank’ within one’s premises ultimately to boost and promote one’s business. Notwithstanding the aforementioned benefits, as a Believer (a bearer of Imaan), one ought to analyse the situation from an Islamic perspective. One needs to pose the question to himself, “Is leasing this small area to the bank for the purpose of installing an ATM machine permissible in Islam? Am I not aiding in the mission and operation of the bank in some form or in some way?”

Though the ATM machine affords one the ability to withdraw one’s personal money kept in the bank and many other conveniences, however since it is possible for one to withdraw interest bearing loans through this medium as well, leasing this area to the bank will result in one sanctioning and promoting the riba based transactions of the bank on his premises. Interest bearing loans can be acquired from the ATM machines by drawing money using a credit card. When a person draws money using his credit card, then he is charged a fee (which in reality is interest) which varies according to the amount he draws. It should be noted that this fee should not be misconstrued as legitimate bank fees. The bank charges the card holder a monthly fee for the usage of his credit card. This is a legitimate charge by the bank. However the fee that is charged for withdrawing cash with a credit card is not legitimate. This in actual fact is a fee for advancing a loan (which is over and above the administrative charges for using the credit card) and thus it is interest. Furthermore, a person is also able to access interest bearing loans through his debit card in an ATM machine. If a person has as overdraft facility (and many people do), he can draw an interest bearing loan from an ATM. Apart from this it is also possible for one to pay interest at certain ATM’s which have the facility of depositing money in the bank or carrying out an internal transfer. Therefore knowing full well that these types of grave sins will be perpetrated on one’s premises, it does not behove a Mu’min to embark on such a venture which will be aiding in sin. It will also earn the curse of Allah Ta’ala and His Rasul (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam), merely on the hope of attracting clientele towards one’s business. This can be equated to one hiring out a small area within one’s business or premises to a food dealer who wishes to sell pork or wine. Naturally everyone understands that this is impermissible.     

Further, the Ulama explain that the comparison between leasing one’s premises to a conventional bank and allowing the bank to install an ATM machine (which is in reality a mini bank) in one’s store or on one’s premises is like the comparison between a person owning one swine compared to the one who is the owner of a piggery, or a person consuming a glass of wine compared to the one who owns a winery. In both instances one understands that the sin perpetrated is the same. The difference, however, lies in the quantity and hence the gravity of the sin. As far as becoming victims of the curse of Allah Ta’ala that has been sounded in the Ahaadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam), both are identical.

Hazrat Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu Anhu) reports that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) has said:

عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال يأتي على الناس زمان لا يبالي المرء ما أخذ منه أمن الحلال أم من الحرام (صحيح البخاري # 2059)

 “A time will dawn upon the people (before qiyaamah) when no one will be concerned about his income, whether it is from a halaal source or a haraam source.”

In another narration Hazrat Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu Anhu) reports that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) has said:

عن أبى هريرة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال ليأتين على الناس زمان لا يبقى أحد إلا أكل الربا فإن لم يأكله أصابه من بخاره (سنن أبي داود # 3333)

 “A time will come upon the people that every person will be involved in interest, and if he does not consume it, most certainly he will be affected by its smoke.”

 

Card payment machines

As far as card payment machines are concerned which are currently found in many businesses, some may argue that this is no different to the ATM machine since payments are made through it via the bank. Hence just as installing the ATM machine is impermissible; as it ultimately aids in sin; so too should be the Shar’i ruling regarding the use of the card payment machines in vogue.

However there is a distinct difference between both these machines. As far as the ATM machine is concerned, the bank leases that specific area from the owner of the business and becomes the lessee. Hence the bank is one’s tenant on the premises and the bank is actually paying the lessor (from severely contaminated wealth) in order to allow them the right to conduct riba transactions on his premises. As for the card payment machine, the owner of the business hires it from the bank (at a specified rate in addition to a specific percentage charged on each individual transaction). In this case, the bank is not becoming the tenant on one’s premises and is not paying one for using one’s premises to conduct interest transactions. Rather the bank is charging a fee to the owner of the business for the permissible usage of the card payment machine. Thereafter if one uses the machine in a halaal way, not contravening any law of Shariah, the use of the machine will be permissible. On the other hand, if one uses the machine in a manner that contravenes the laws of Shariah and aids in sin, then obviously it will be impermissible. Hence hiring the card machine will be just like hiring any other equipment to use on one’s premises. If one utilises it correctly, it will be permissible.

 

Two ways of using the card payment machine

The card payment machine can be utilized in one of two ways. The first way is that at the time of payment the customer opts to pay for the purchased item through a straight transaction. Payment is effected by the bank on behalf of the customer and the customer is not charged interest. As far as this way is concerned, it is totally Shariah compliant and hence permissible. The second way is that the customer opts to pay for the purchased item through a budget transaction. In this case payment is effected through the bank and the purchaser is charged for the purchase in instalments including interest. The Ulama are in agreement that to use the machine in this manner is impermissible as one is becoming the direct means for the bank providing the customer with an interest bearing loan. Hence on account of aiding in sin, using the machine in this way is ruled as impermissible. In the Mubaaruk Ahaadith, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) had cursed such a person who becomes the means for facilitating the sin of interest and usury, as mentioned in the following narration:

عن جابر قال لعن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم آكل الربا وموكله وكاتبه وشاهديه وقال هم سواء (صحيح مسلم # 1598)

Hazrat Jaabir (Radhiyallahu Anhu) reported that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) cursed the one who consumes interest, pays interest, the scribe for the interest transaction and the witness to such a deal. Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said that all are equal in the sin.

 

The Shar’ee implications of being associated with a riba based institute

The conventional bank, which in reality is a riba based system, is aimed towards enslaving man to his carnal desires through the agency of providing him with loans on interest. Many people due to their limited vision and naivety view the benefits and privileges afforded to them by the bank (OD facility, etc.) as a means of their progress and advancement, only to realise at the end that they have been entrapped in the snare of Shaitaan. The outcome of these loans is that one will live beyond one’s means, labouring under the misconception and fallacy that the bank will always aid one and be at one’s side in the hour of need.  The pitiful result is that one eventually finds oneself drowning in a sea of debts, enslaved to the conventional banks in trying to pay off the interest on the loan which in many cases eventually exceeds the actual loan. Islam has strongly condemned this inhumane system in such unequivocal and categorical terms in the Holy Qur’aan that no other evil has been condemned in this manner in the Qur’aan. Allah Ta`ala says:

يـأَيُّهَا الَّذينَ ءامَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّـهَ وَذَروا ما بَقِىَ مِنَ الرِّبوا إِن كُنتُم مُؤمِنينَ ﴿٢٧٨﴾ فَإِن لَم تَفعَلوا فَأذَنوا بِحَربٍ مِنَ اللَّـهِ وَرَسولِهِ وَإِن تُبتُم فَلَكُم رُءوسُ أَمولِكُم لا تَظلِمونَ وَلا تُظلَمونَ ﴿٢٧٩﴾ ﴿ البقرة ﴾

O you who believe, fear Allah and give up all interest dealings, if you are believers. But if you do not desist from it, then be prepared to wage a war against Allah and His Rasul (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). However if you repent, then you will be allowed to take back your capital; do not deal unjustly, and you shall not be dealt with unjustly.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) is reported to have said:

عن عبد الله بن حنظلة غسيل الملائكة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم درهم ربا يأكله الرجل وهو يعلم أشد من ستة وثلاثين زنية ( مسند أحمد # 21957)

Hazrat Abdullah bin Hanzhalah (radhiyallahu anhu) reported that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “Consuming one dirham of riba knowingly is worse than committing zina thirty-six times.”

On the occasion of the farewell pilgrimage, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) declared:

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إن دماءكم وأموالكم عليكم حرام كحرمة يومكم هذا فى شهركم هذا فى بلدكم هذا ألا إن كل شىء من أمر الجاهلية تحت قدمى موضوع … وربا الجاهلية موضوع وأول ربا أضعه ربانا ربا عباس بن عبد المطلب فإنه موضوع كله (سنن أبي داود # 1907)

“Indeed your life and wealth is sacred like the sanctity of this day, in this auspicious month, in this blessed land. Remember! All pre Islamic ways and practices (against the Deen of Islam) are abolished beneath my feet…. All interest dealings which used to take place in the pre Islamic era (jaahiliyyah) are all abolished in Islam. The first transaction of riba I abolish is the riba owed to my uncle Abbas ibn Abdil Muttalib.”

 

Why is riba condemned in Shari’ah?

The western economic system based on interest has resulted in concentrating the wealth and resources in the hands of few individuals. Monies of the rich are pooled in banks and offered to the poor according to their financial status. The wealth of the rich is loaned to the poor under the disguise of fulfilling their needs and requirements with the condition of interest attached, thereby making it extremely difficult for them to continue life. The outcome is that the wealthy thrive through the blood and sweat of the poor. Hence they create monopolies and become richer while the poor become poorer in slogging to pay off their debts to the rich. In essence, riba has achieved nothing besides widening the gap between the rich and the poor, causing man to fall deeper into the abyss of destruction. Worst of all, it gradually sucks the blood of the poor and enslaves them with slavery that is not in the form of shackles and chains, rather in the form of anxiety and sleepless nights. Many countries deficit accounts run into billions due to the interest bearing loans that are borrowed from other countries, the brunt of which is suffered by none but the citizens of the borrowing countries. The reality of the matter is that today’s ten richest men in the world own more than the combined wealth of 48 poor countries of the world. Millions are malnourished, lack access to pure water, underprivileged in terms of the basic necessities of life and are deprived of education.

In contrast, Islam advocates brotherhood and showing kindness and compassion to the creation. One is permitted and encouraged to earn a halaal living. However this must be done together with maintaining a balance and with fulfilling the needs of the creation.

 

A question was sent to Hazrat Mufti Ebrahim Salejee Saheb (Muddazilluhu) with regard to interest. Hazrat Mufti Saheb’s fatwa is reproduced hereunder for the general benefit of the readers.

How do you live in the UK without participating in interest?

Q: My question pertains to interest which I know is forbidden in Islam and is seen as a great sin. But in the UK through mortgages, insurances etc. it seems virtually impossible to avoid riba/interest. I have looked into Islamic banking in the UK but I see that as an awful alternative as it still essentially charges riba but with some clever play on words and has been dismissed by the consensus of scholars. So my question is: how do you live in the UK without participating in interest as I am struggling to see alternatives?

Bismillaah

A: The prohibition of interest is clearly and explicitly mentioned in the Noble Qur’aan. Allah Ta`ala states: “And Allah has permitted sale and prohibited riba – interest.” [2:275][14]

On the Day of Qiyaamah, the one who consumed interest will wake up in such a state of bewilderment and shock that it will seem as if he has been affected by the evil touch of Shaitaan. Allah Ta`ala speaks of this in another aayah: “Those who consumed interest will rise [on the Day of Qiyaamah] like the one who has been afflicted by the evil touch of Shaitaan.”[15]

In yet another aayah, Allah Ta`ala sounds an extremely severe warning to those who deal in interest despite understanding its evil and prohibition. Allah Ta`ala says: “If you do not do so [desist from dealing in interest] then be prepared to wage war against Allah and His Rasul (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam).”[16]

In Surah Aal-e-Imraan, Allah Ta`ala has sounded another warning. Allah Ta`ala says: “O you who believe, do not consume interest multiplied manifold and fear Allah so that you be successful. And fear the fire (of Jahannum) which has been prepared for the disbelievers.”[17]

Commenting on this aayah, Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah Alayh) said: “This is the most fearsome aayah in the entire Qur’aan Shareef, for Allah has warned the believers of the fire of Jahannum which has been prepared for the disbelievers, if they do not refrain from the haraam of interest.”

Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) has also sounded stern warnings against those who consume riba.

Abdullah bin Hanzhalah (Radhiyallahu Anhu) reported that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “Consuming one dirham of riba knowingly is worse than committing zina thirty-six times.”[18]

In another hadeeth, Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) is reported to have mentioned: “The fire of Jahannum is more deserving for the one who nourished his body with haraam (riba).”[19]

Jaabir (radhiyallahu anhu) reported that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) cursed the one who consumes interest, pays interest, the scribe of the interest based deal and the witness to such a deal.”[20]

Interest outwardly seems to be a means of increase in wealth, yet in reality it is a means of decrease. Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “No matter how much the interest may be, but it will result in decrease (of wealth).”[21]

Any sensible and understanding person will appreciate the severity of the prohibition of interest in the above-mentioned aayaat and ahaadeeth.

When the prohibition of riba (interest) was revealed, the general Muslim public were undergoing constraints much worse than what the present day Muslims face. For months on end not even a fire could be lit in the houses of many. Stones had to be tied on their bellies to fight the pangs of starvation and hunger. They did not have sufficient clothing to cover their entire bodies. Nights would be spent in darkness, for a lamp could not be lit to provide light. Their infant children would constantly cry out of hunger. Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) himself had to give his armour which he used in jihaad as collateral for the grains that he purchased from a Jew in order to provide for the needs of his blessed wives. He eventually left this world without being able to release the armour.

The greatest solution to the present economic crisis is the inculcating of contentment in our lives. Despite the severe constraints that the Muslims were facing during the era of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam), yet Allah Ta`ala commanded Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) not to cast his gaze at the worldly riches of the kuffaar.

Involving oneself in interest will bring no benefit to an individual. In fact, it will be a means of loss and detriment, as is understood from the aforementioned Hadith wherein Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “No matter how much the interest may be, but it will eventually decrease (and result in loss).”

In another aayah of the Qur’aan, Allah Ta`ala speaks of the evil worldly consequence of interest: “Allah Ta`ala obliterates riba.”[22]

Hence a Muslim should totally refrain from dealing in interest. Muslims can never progress by means of something which Allah Ta`ala has explicitly prohibited, nor will it be a solution to their problems and difficulties.

Adopting the ways of the kuffaar will in no way bring a person anywhere close to success.

Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) never worried about his ummat having to face poverty and financial constraints, for their purpose of life is something much greater and nobler than merely amassing worldly riches. Their purpose is pleasing Allah Ta`ala and earning maximum rewards for the hereafter.

In one Hadith Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned: “I do not fear faqr (poverty) befalling you, but I fear that the world would be spread out before you as it was spread out to those before you. Then you would compete with one another in amassing its riches as they had competed, eventually leading to your destruction and ruin as it had destroyed them.” [23]

Ibnu Abbas (radhiyallahu anhuma) reported that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “Whoever suffers from hunger or want and he conceals his need, Allah Ta`ala takes the responsibility of sustaining him with halaal sustenance for a whole year.”[24]

In such times of constraints and hardship, a mu’min’s focus should be to Allah Ta`ala, for it is only Allah’s assistance that would be able to help a person out of the predicament that he is facing.

Further, one should live within his means and budget his spending. If one is really in debts then he should request his creditors to grant him some leniency and respite. (Adapted from Fatawaa Mahmoodiyyah, vol 17) 

We make dua that Allah Ta’ala guides the Ummah towards earning halaal, emulating the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and refraining from any involvement in riba (interest).

 

Answered by:

Mufti Zakaria Makada

Checked & Approved:

Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)


[1] ولا يجوز بيع الحر والخمر والخنزير والميتة كذا في التهذيب (هندية 3/116)

[2] قال ولا يجوز الاستئجار على الغناء والنوح وكذا سائر الملاهي لأنه استئجار على المعصية والمعصية لا تستحق بالعقد (هداية 3/303)

[3] قوله ( وكره بيع السلاح من أهل الفتنة لأنه إعانة على المعصية ) قيد بالسلاح لأن بيع ما يتخذ منه السلاح كالحديد ونحوه لا يكره لأنه لا يصير سلاحا إلا بالصنعة نظيره بيع المزامير يكره ولا يكره بيع ما يتخذ منه المزامير وهو القصب والخشب وكذا بيع الخمر باطل ولا يبطل بيع ما يتخذ منه وهو العنب كذا في البدائع وذكر الشارح أن بيع الحديد لا يجوز من أهل الحرب ويجوز من أهل البغي والفرق أن أهل البغي لا يتفرغون لعمله سلاحا لأن فسادهم على شرف الزوال بخلاف أهل الحرب اه … وسيأتي إن شاء الله تعالى في الحظر والإباحة تمامه أطلق في أهل الفتنة فشمل البغاة وقطاع الطريق واللصوص قوله (وإن لم يدر أنه منهم لا) أي لا يكره البيع لأن الغلبة في الأمصار لأهل الصلاح وظاهر كلامهم في الأول أن الكراهة تحريمية لتعليلهم بالإعانة عن المعصية والله أعلم بالصواب (البحر الرائق 5/154)

[4] مسألة : قال (موفق الدين الحنبلي) : (وبيع العصير ممن يتخذه خمرا باطل) وجملة ذلك أن بيع العصير لمن يعتقد أنه يتخذه خمرا محرم وكرهه الشافعي وذكر بعض أصحابه أن البائع إذا اعتقد أنه يعصرها خمرا فهو محرم وإنما يكره إذا شك فيه (المغني لابن قدامة 1/908)

وكذا يمنع بيع كل شيء علم أن المشتري قصد به أمرا لا يجوز كبيع جارية لأهل الفساد أو مملوك (حاشية الدسوقي على الشرح الكبير 4/10)

قال العلامة المحقق محمد بن أحمد بن محمد في تقريراته على حاشية الدسوقي لمذهب المالكية: (قوله: كبيع جارية لأهل الفساد) أي أو بيع أرض لتتخذ كنيسة أو خمارة والخشبة لمن يتخذها صليبه والعنب لمن يعصره خمرا والنحاس لمن يتخذه ناقوسا، وكذا يمنع أن يباع للحربيين آلة الحرب من سلاح أو كراع أو سرج وكل ما يتقون به في الحرب من نحاس أو خباء أو ماعون ويجبرون على إخراج ذلك، وأما بيع الطعام لهم فقال ابن يونس عن ابن حبيب يجوز في الهدنة، وأما في غير الهدنة فلا يجوز، والذي في المعيار عن الشاطبي أن المذهب المنع مطلقا وهو الذي عزاه ابن فرحون في التبصرة وابن جزي في القوانين لابن القاسم وذكر في المعيار أيضا عن الشاطبي أن بيع الشمع لهم ممنوع إذا كانوا يستعينون به على إضرار المسلمين، فإن كان لأعيادهم فمكروه، انظر بن. (قوله: وأجبر المشتري من غير فسخ للبيع على إخراجه) هذا هو المشهور كما قال المازري: وهو مذهب المدونة ومقابله أنه يفسخ البيع إذا كان المبيع قائما. ونسبه سحنون لأكثر أصحاب مالك قال ابن رشد: والخلاف مقيد بما إذا علم البائع أن المشتري كافر أما إذا ظن أنه مسلم، فإنه لا يفسخ بلا خلاف ويجبر على إخراجه من ملكه ببيع ونحوه (حاشية الدسوقي على الشرح الكبير 4/10)

[5] فصل : استئجار ما منفعته محرمة

ولا يجوز الاستئجار على كتابة شعر محرم ولا بدعة ولا شيء محرم لذلك ولا يجوز الاستئجار على حمل الخمر لمن يشربها ولا على حمل خنزير ولا ميتة لذلك وبهذا قال أبو يوسف ومحمد و الشافعي …. وقد روي عن أحمد فيمن حمل خنزيرا أو ميتة أو خمرا لنصراني أكره أكل كرائه ولكن يقضى للحمال بالكراء فإذا كان لمسلم فهو أشد (المغني ص1293)

[6] وكذلك لو أن ذميا استأجر مسلما يحمل له خمرا فهو على هذا عند أبي يوسف ومحمد رحمهما الله لا يجوزان العقد لأن الخمر يحمل للشرب وهو معصية والاستئجار على المعصية لا تجوز والأصل فيه قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “لعن الله في الخمر عشرا” وذكر في الجملة حاملها والمحمولة إليه وأبو حنيفة رحمه الله يقول يجوز الاستئجار وهو قول الشافعي رحمه الله لأنه لا يتعين عليه حمل الخمر فلو كلفه بأن يحمل عليه مثل ذلك فلا يستوجب الأجر ولأن حمل الخمر قد يكون للإراقة وللصب في الخل ليتخلل فهو نظير ما لو استأجره ليحمل ميتة وذلك صحيح فهذا مثله إلا أنهما يفرقان فيقولان الميتة تحمل عادة للطرح وإماطة الأذى فأما الخمر يحمل عادة للشرب والمعصية. وذكر هشام عن محمد رحمهما الله قال ابتلينا بمسئلة وهو أن مسلما استؤجر على أن ينقل جيفة ميتة من المشركين من بلد إلى بلد فكذلك قال أبو يوسف رحمه الله لا أجر له لأنه أنما يحمل حمل الجيفة إلى المقبرة لإماطة الأذى فأما حملهما من بلد إلى بلد فهو معصية لا يجوز الاستئجار عليه وقلت أنا إن كان الأجير عالما بما أمر بحمله فلا أجر له أيضا وإن لم يعلم بذلك فله الأجر لمعنى الغرور واستئجار الذمي الدابة من المسلم أو السفينة لينقل عليها خمرا على الخلاف الذي بينا.

وإن استأجر ذمي ذميا لشيء من ذلك فهو جائز وكذلك لو استأجره يرعى له خنازير لأن الخمر والخنزير مال متقوم في حقهم بمنزلة الشاة والبعير في حقنا وإن استأجره ليبيع له ميتة أو دما لم يجز لأن هذا ليس بمال في حق أحد فحكمهم فيها كحكم المسلمين. (المبسوط للسرخسي 16/39-38)

ومن استأجر حمالا يحمل له الخمر فله الأجر في قول أبي حنيفة وعند أبي يوسف ومحمد لا أجر له كذا ذكر في الأصل وذكر في الجامع الصغير أنه يطيب له الأجر في قول أبي حنيفة وعندهما يكره لهما أن هذه إجارة على المعصية لأن حمل الخمر معصية لكونه إعانة على المعصية وقد قال الله عز وجل { ولا تعاونوا على الإثم والعدوان } ولهذا لعن الله تعالى عشرة منهم حاملها والمحمول إليه ولأبي حنيفة أن نفس الحمل ليس بمعصية بدليل أن حملها للإراقة والتخليل مباح وكذا ليس بسبب للمعصية وهو الشرب لأن ذلك يحصل بفعل فاعل مختار وليس الحمل من ضرورات الشرب فكانت سببا محضا فلا حكم له كعصر العنب وقطفه والحديث محمول على الحمل بنية الشرب وبه نقول إن ذلك معصية ويكره أكل أجرته ولا تجوز إجارة الإماء للزنا لأنها إجارة على المعصية وقيل فيه نزل قوله تعالى ولا تكرهوا فتياتكم على البغاء إن أردن تحصنا لتبتغوا عرض الحياة الدنيا وروي عن رسول الله أنه نهى عن مهر البغي وهو أجر الزانية على الزنا (بدائع الصنائع 4/190)

[7] حدثنا عبد الله بن منير قال سمعت أبا عاصم عن شبيب بن بشر عن أنس بن مالك قال : لعن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم في الخمر عشرة عاصرها ومتعصرها وشاربها وحاملها والمحمولة إليه وساقيها وبائعها وآكل ثمنها والمشتري لها والمشتراة له (ترمذي #1295)

قال العلامة رشيد أحمد الكنكوهي: [عاصرها] المرتكب لفعل العصر والمعتصر من يرتكب له والظاهر أن العاصر من يرتكب العصر لغيره والمعتصر لنفسه، وفي حكم العاصر كل من اهتم لأمرها وسعى في إعدادها، فأم الأجير لحملها فلم يوجدها ولا هو ساع في إيجادها فلا يقاس أحدهما على الآخر، والحامل هو الحامل ليشرب فلا يدخل فيه من استأجره ذمي ليحمل خمره إلى بلدة كذا لما أنه لم يحمل لذلك، وإن لم يخل فعله هذا عن كراهة إلا أنه لايحرم عليه أجرته. (الكوكب الدري 2/328)

[8] أن الذمي إن استأجر دارا من مسلم في المصر فأراد أن يتخذها مصلى للعامة ويضرب فيها بالناقوس له ذلك ولرب الدار وعامة المسلمين أن يمنعوه من ذلك على طريق الحسبة لما فيه من إحداث شعائر لهم وفيه تهاون بالمسلمين واستخفاف بهم كما يمنع من إحداث ذلك في دار نفسه في أمصار المسلمين ولهذا يمنعون من إحداث الكنائس في أمصار المسلمين قال النبي لا خصاء في الإسلام ولا كنيسة أي لا يجوز إخصاء الإنسان ولا إحداث الكنيسة في دار الإسلام في الأمصار ولا يمنع أن يصلي فيها بنفسه من غير جماعة لأنه ليس فيه ما ذكرناه من المعنى ألا ترى أنه لو فعل ذلك في دار نفسه لا يمنع منه ولو كانت الدار بالسواد ذكر في الأصل أنه لا يمنع من ذلك لكن قيل أن أبا حنيفة إنما أجاز ذلك في زمانه لأن أكثر أهل السواد في زمانه كانوا أهل الذمة من المجوس فكان لا يؤدي ذلك إلى الإهانة والاستخفاف بالمسلمين وأما اليوم فالحمد لله عز وجل فقد صار السواد كالمصر فكان الحكم فيه كالحكم في المصر وهذا إذا لم يشرط ذلك في العقد فأما إذا شرط بأن استأجر ذمي دارا من مسلم في مصر من أمصار المسلمين ليتخذها مصلى للعامة لم تجز الإجارة لأنه استئجار على المعصية (بدائع الصنائع 4/176)

[9] وإذا استأجر الذمي من المسلم بيتا ليبيع فيه الخمر لم يجز لأنه معصية فلا ينعقد العقد عليه ولا أجر له عندهما وعند أبي حنيفة رحمه الله يجوز والشافعي رحمه الله يجوز هذا العقد لأن العقد يرد على منفعة البيت ولا يتعين عليه بيع الخمر فيه فله أن يبيع فيه شيئا آخر يجوز العقد لهذا ولكنا نقول تصريحهما بالمقصود لا يجوز اعتبار معنى آخر فيه وما صرحا به معصية وكذلك لو أن ذميا استأجر مسلما يحمل له خمرا فهو على هذا عند أبي يوسف ومحمد رحمهما الله لا يجوزان العقد لأن الخمر يحمل للشرب وهو معصية والاستئجار على المعصية لا تجوز والأصل فيه قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “لعن الله في الخمر عشرا” وذكر في الجملة حاملها والمحمولة إليه وأبو حنيفة رحمه الله يقول يجوز الاستئجار وهو قول الشافعي رحمه الله لأنه لا يتعين عليه حمل الخمر فلو كلفه بأن يحمل عليه مثل ذلك فلا يستوجب الأجر ولأن حمل الخمر قد يكون للإراقة وللصب في الخل ليتخلل فهو نظير ما لو استأجره ليحمل ميتة وذلك صحيح فهذا مثله إلا أنهما يفرقان فيقولان الميتة تحمل عادة للطرح وإماطة الأذى فأما الخمر يحمل عادة للشرب والمعصية. وذكر هشام عن محمد رحمهما الله قال ابتلينا بمسئلة وهو أن مسلما استؤجر على أن ينقل جيفة ميتة من المشركين من بلد إلى بلد فكذلك قال أبو يوسف رحمه الله لا أجر له لأنه أنما يحمل حمل الجيفة إلى المقبرة لإماطة الأذى فأما حملهما من بلد إلى بلد فهو معصية لا يجوز الاستئجار عليه وقلت أنا إن كان الأجير عالما بما أمر بحمله فلا أجر له أيضا وإن لم يعلم بذلك فله الأجر لمعنى الغرور واستئجار الذمي الدابة من المسلم أو السفينة لينقل عليها خمرا على الخلاف الذي بينا.

وإن استأجر ذمي ذميا لشيء من ذلك فهو جائز وكذلك لو استأجره يرعى له خنازير لأن الخمر والخنزير مال متقوم في حقهم بمنزلة الشاة والبعير في حقنا وإن استأجره ليبيع له ميتة أو دما لم يجز لأن هذا ليس بمال في حق أحد فحكمهم فيها كحكم المسلمين. (المبسوط للسرخسي 16/39-38)

(و) جاز (إجارة بيت بسواد الكوفة) أي قراها (لا بغيرها على الأصح) وأما الأمصار وقرى غير الكوفة فلا يمكنون لظهور شعار الإسلام فيها وخص سواد الكوفة، لأن غالب أهلها أهل الذمة (ليتخذ بيت نار أو كنيسة أو بيعة أو يباع فيه الخمر) وقالا لا ينبغي ذلك لأنه إعانة على المعصية وبه قالت الثلاثة زيلعي. (رد المحتار 6/392)

[10] (و) جاز (بيع عصير) عنب (ممن) يعلم أنه (يتخذه خمرا) لأن المعصية لا تقوم بعينه بل بعد تغيره وقيل يكره لإعانته على المعصية ونقل المصنف عن السراج والمشكلات أن قوله ممن أي من كافر أما بيعه من المسلم فيكره ومثله في الجوهرة والباقاني وغيرهما زاد القهستاني معزيا للخانية أنه يكره بالاتفاق. (بخلاف بيع أمرد ممن يلوط به وبيع سلاح من أهل الفتنة) لأن المعصية تقوم بعينه ثم الكراهة في مسألة الأمرد مصرح بها في بيوع الخانية وغيرها واعتمده المصنف على خلاف ما في الزيلعي والعيني وإن أقره المصنف في باب البغاة. (رد المحتار 6/392)

ولو استأجر رجلا لينحت له أصناما، أو ليزخرف له بيتا بالتماثيل فلا أجر له كما لو استأجر نائحة، أو مغنية، وإن استأجر لينحت له طنبورا أو بربطا، ففعل طاب له الأجر إلا أنه يأثم به (فتاوى قاضي خان 2/226)

[11] قال الشيخ المفتي شفيع رحمه الله في تحقيقه حول هذه المسئلة (تفصيل الكلام في مسئلة الإعانة على الحرام):

والثاني: بتصريح المعصية في صلب العقد: كمن قال: بعنى هذا العصير، لأتخذه خمرا ، فقال بعته ، أو أجرلي بيتك لأبيع فيه الخمر فقال أجرته، فإنه بهذا التصريح تضمن نفس العقد معصية مع قطع النظر عما يحدث بعد ذلك من إتخاذه خمرا وبيع الخمر فيه، وذلك لما في (إجارات) ((المبسوط)) للسرخسي: وإذا استأجر الذمي من المسلم بيتا؛ ليبيع فيه الخمر لم يجز؛ لأنه معصية فلا ينعقد العقد عليه، ولا أجر له عندهما، وعند أبي حنيفة رحمه الله: يجوز، والشافعي يجوز هذا العقد، ولكنا نقول تصريحهما بالمقصود لا يجوّز اعتبار معنى آخر فيه، وما صرحا به معصية. اهـ. ((مبسوط)) (16/38).

قلت: وقول أبي حنيفة له الأجر؛ لا يستلزم أيضا جواز هذا الفعل بمعنى رفع الإثم ؛ بل ظاهر اللفظ بمعنى تصحيح العقد فقط. كما صرح به في عبارة ((الأصل)): فجاز. انتهى كلام الشيخ المفتي شفيع رحمه الله.

أقول: ومما يدل على ما قال الشيخ المفتي شفيع رحمه الله من استحقاق الأجر وعدم رفع الإثم

[12] لأن المعصية لم تقم بفعل الموجر ولكنه سبب قريب وصورة إعانة للمعصية، فيكره لأجله إن كان له علم بتلك المعصية قبل عقد الإجارة. وهذا مفاد كلام الإمام محمد في شرح السير الكبير الآتي ذكره.

[13] وإذا استأجر الذمي من المسلم دارا يسكنها فلا بأس بذلك وإن شرب فيها الخمر أو عبد فيها الصليب أو أدخل فيها الخنازير ولم يلحق المسلم في ذلك بأس لأن المسلم لا يؤاجرها لذلك إنما آجرها للسكنى كذا في المحيط (الفتاوى الهندية 4/450)

ولا بأس بأن يؤاجر المسلم دارا من الذمي ليسكنها فإن شرب فيها الخمر أو عبد فيها الصليب أو دخل فيها الخنازير لم يلحق المسلم إثم في شيء من ذلك لأنه لم يؤاجرها لذلك والمعصية في فعل المستأجر وفعله دون قصد رب الدار فلا إثم على رب الدار في ذلك كمن باع غلاما ممن يقصد الفاحشة به أو باع جارية ممن لا يشتريها أو يأتيها في غير المأتى لم يلحق البائع إثم في شيء من هذه الأفعال التي يأتي بها المشتري وكذلك لو اتخذ فيها بيعة أو كنيسة أو باع فيها الخمر بعد أن يكون ذلك في السواد ويمنعون من إحداث ذلك في الأمصار (مبسوط 16/75)

فإن اشتروا دورا للسكنى فأرادوا أن يتخذوا دارا منها كنيسة أو بيعة أو بيت نار يجتمعون فيها لصلاتهم منعوا من ذلك .لما في إحداث ذلك من صورة المعارضة للمسلمين في بناء المساجد للجماعات وفيه ازدراء بالدين واستخفاف بالمسلمين .وكذلك يمنعون من إظهار بيع الخمور والخنازير ونكاح ذوات المحارم في هذا المصر .لأن في هذا الإظهار معنى الاستخفاف بالمسلمين ، ومقصودهم يحصل بدون الإظهار . ولا ينبغي لأحد من المسلمين أن يؤاجرهم بيتا لشيء من ذلك لما فيه من صورة الإعانة إلى ما يرجع إلى الاستخفاف بالمسلمين ، فإن آجرهم فأظهروا شيئا من ذلك في تلك الدار منعهم صاحب البيت وغيره من ذلك ، على سبيل النهي عن المنكر ، وهو في ذلك كغيره ، ولا يفسخ عقد الإجارة بهذا ، بمنزلة ما لو أجر بيته من مسلم فكان يجمع الناس فيه على الشراب أو يبيع المسكر فيه فإنه يمنعه من ذلك على سبيل النهي عن المنكر ولا تفسخ الإجارة لأجله .لأن المنع من هذا ليس لمعنى يتصل بعقد الإجارة .وإن اتخذ فيه مصلى لنفسه خاصة لم يمنع من ذلك .لأن هذا من جملة السكنى ، وقد استحق ذلك بالإجارة ، وإنما يمنع مما فيه صورة المعارضة للمسلمين في إظهار أعلام الدين ، وذلك بأن يبنيه كنيسة يجتمعون فيها لصلاتهم . (شرح سير الكبير 4/248)

قلت: قال الشيخ مولانا محمد شفيع: أفاد كلام الإمام محمد هذا جواز الإجارة إذا لم يعلم بقصده، وهذا هو التوفيق الحسن بين كلام المانعين كقاضي خان والمجوزين كالزبلعي وغيره بأن المنع عند العلم والجواز عند عدمه.

[14] وَأَحَلَّ اللَّـهُ الْبَيْعَ وَحَرَّمَ الرِّبَا ﴿البقرة: ٢٧٥﴾

[15] الَّذِينَ يَأْكُلُونَ الرِّبَا لَا يَقُومُونَ إِلَّا كَمَا يَقُومُ الَّذِي يَتَخَبَّطُهُ الشَّيْطَانُ مِنَ الْمَسِّ ﴿البقرة: ٢٧٥﴾

[16] فَإِن لَم تَفعَلوا فَأذَنوا بِحَربٍ مِنَ اللَّـهِ وَرَسولِهِ ﴿البقرة: 279﴾

[17] يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَأْكُلُوا الرِّبَا أَضْعَافًا مُّضَاعَفَةً وَاتَّقُوا اللَّـهَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ ﴿آل عمران: ١٣٠﴾

[18] عن عبد الله بن حنظلة غسيل الملائكة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم درهم ربا يأكله الرجل وهو يعلم أشد من ستة وثلاثين زنية ( مسند أحمد # 21957)

[19] عن جابر بن عبد الله أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لكعب بن عجرة … يا كعب بن عجرة إنه لا يدخل الجنة لحم نبت من سحت النار أولى به ( مسند أحمد # 14441)

[20] عن جابر قال لعن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم آكل الربا وموكله وكاتبه وشاهديه وقال هم سواء ( صحيح مسلم # 1598)

[21] عن ابن مسعود أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال الربا وإن كثر فإن عاقبته تصير إلى قل (مسند أحمد # 3754)

[22] يَمْحَقُ اللَّـهُ الرِّبَا ﴿البقرة: ٢٧٦﴾

[23] عن المسور بن مخرمة أنه أخبره أن عمرو بن عوف الأنصاري وهو حليف لبني عامر بن لؤي وكان شهد بدرا أخبره أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم … قال فأبشروا وأملوا ما يسركم فوالله لا الفقر أخشى عليكم ولكن أخشى عليكم أن تبسط عليكم الدنيا كما بسطت على من كان قبلكم فتنافسوها كما تنافسوها وتهلككم كما أهلكتهم (صحيح البخاري # 3158)

[24] عن ابن عباس قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم : من جاع أو احتاج فكتمه الناس كان حقا على الله عز و جل أن يرزقه رزق سنة من حلال ( شعب الإيمان # 10054)