Scholars in Islam

[Nahda]

DID QARADHAWI MAKE INTEREST PERMISSIBLE ?


Did Al-Qaradhawi make usury permissible? A question being repeated, and confidence being shaken, shaken in those who measure matters according to their own opinion, so they make the forbidden permissible and the permissible forbidden. Those who the Hadith applies to, narrated by Al-Tabarani in Al-Kabeer wal-Bazaar, by the Istinad of the men of Sahih, from 'Awf bin Maalik from the Prophet (saw), who said: "My Ummah will be divided into seventy-something divisions, of them, the greatest Fitna (trial) upon my Ummah are a people who measure matters with their opinion, so they make the forbidden permissible and the permissible forbidden." which is also narrated by Al-Haithami in Majma' Al-Zawaa'id, Part 1/ the Book of Knowledge in the section of Al-Taqleed wal-Qiyaas.

This question is put forth often, one time in agreement and another in disagreement, and upon facing this difference of opinion, it is important that the Muslim does not say anything before confirming facts and study, not of the appearance of the subject in a superficial manner, but in depth, for there is no room for shallow, superficial thought in this matter.

The one who put this question forth was someone other than myself, and his method of study was deep, but he did not cover the subject in its entirety, so he became like the one with his arms outstretched to water to bring it up to his mouth, but is incapable of reaching it. The conclusion of his studies was that speaking badly of Al-Qaradhawi and putting him in a cage of accusation is an injustice, as he gave a Fatwa which did not go beyond the sphere of Shar'i evidences and valid differences of opinion in Fiqh - in his opinion - since the scholars in the Fiqh of differences in opinion have stated that the carrier of a Dhanni (uncertain) opinion is not to be rejected, as long as he holds so much as a Shubhat Daleel (a semblance of an evidence).

It is important to know that the objective of refuting the statements of Al-Qaradhawi is not merely refuting, as many would think, for the sake of enmity towards the person of Al-Qaradhawi, or anything of the sort, but rather it is a word of truth, which must be said. How else, when there are people who continue to take these Fatwas without the slightest bit of thought? Ibn Al-Muqaffa' had said the truth when he said: "I do not know of anyone more frivolous with the matters of his Deen, than the one who takes his own opinion and that of other men as a compulsory Deen".

Even assuming sincerity, the mistakes of scholars is one of the factors that destroy Islam, so how is it when a scholar issues a statement that contradicts Qat'i (certain) evidences, which are decisive and not unclear. Abu Shamah had narrated, via the Sanad of Abi Ziyad bin Hudayr, saying: "Omar said to me: Do you know what destroys Islam? I said, No! He said: A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray". So it is very important for those who are cautious in securing the purity and clarity of Islam as well as maintaining its survival, to expose all that contradicts Qat'i evidences.

No one has any objections to discussing such Fatwas and refuting them, for they hear the Hadith narrated by Al-Dar Al-Qatani in Al-Afrad, of Anas of the Prophet (saw), where he said: "Whomever cheats my Ummah has the curse of Allah, the Angels and the people combined, upon him. They asked: What is cheating, Oh Prophet of Allah? He said: If he invented an innovation for them, and they acted upon it".

We are carriers of da'wa, not court judges, so it does not matter to us, nor is it for us, to judge a person whether he is of those in Paradise or those in the hellfire, as this will be judged in the just Divine courts. Our work involves passing judgement on thoughts, laws and opinions, as to whether they are Islamic or not. And now we try the statements of Al-Qaradhawi in the Court of Shari'a evidences. The judge in this court is the Qur'an and Sunnah, and the witnesses are the statements of Al-Qaradhawi himself, and we, the trustworthy guards of this 'Aqeeda, are the prosecution.

It is important to note that those wishing to bring into Islam what is alien to it will not come straight out and say, for example, usury is Mubah (permissible). For its illegality is plain for the eye to see in any Qur'an. Rather, they agree with this verse and agree with it being forbidden, but they will say: The usury which is forbidden is that which is doubled and multiplied and not usury in small amounts, interpreting the verse:

"Devour not Usury, doubled and multiplied" [Ale-Imran: 130]

So such people would contend that this type of usury is made forbidden, but small amounts of usury, 5% or 7%, is made permissible.

This is with the knowledge that anyone with a sound understanding of the Arabic language and the sections of the Qur'an and Sunnah, knows that this description (doubled and multiplied) is not to specify the type of usury, as the verse is not to be taken in its literal interpretation, rather only the explicit meaning is to be taken, for the literal meaning - i.e. limiting the illegality to that which is doubled and multiplied - is an incorrect interpretation, for two reasons:

The first: The verse was presented according to Makhraj Al-Ghaalib (the most likely situation), since the most common type of usury at that time was that which was doubled and multiplied, and that which is Makhraj Al-Ghaalib, is not taken according to its Mafhoom Al-Mukhalafah (meaning according to its opposite). So it is not said that usury, if it is not doubled and multiplied, is Halal, for the Mafhoom Al-Mukhalafah is not considered, due to its being Makhraj Al-Ghaalib. Therefore, usury is Haram, doubled and multiplied or otherwise.

Whatever is presented according to its Makhraj Al-Ghaalib, is not interpreted according to the Mafhoom Al-Mukhalafah. So for example when Allah (swt) said "But force not your young slave girls to prostitution when they desire chastity" [An-Nur: 33], here the Mafhoom Al-Mukhalafah is that if she does not desire chastity, then you may force her, and this is wrong under all circumstances, whether she wishes chastity or not, since this description was presented according to the Makhraj Al-Ghaalib, at that time, for it was common that young slave girls would be forced to commit prostitution when they desired chastity. Therefore, the Mafhoom Al-Mukhalafah is not considered here.

The second reason for not interpreting the verse "Devour not Usury, doubled and multiplied" [Ale-Imran: 130] according to its Mafhoom Al-Mukhalafah is that it was abrogated by the verse which came after it, forbidding usury in all its forms, in a general sense. "But Allah hath permitted trade and forbidden usury" [Al-Baqarah: 275] and the verses of usury in Surah Al-Baqarah were of the last of what was sent down regarding usury, and nothing was sent afterwards to specify any further.

If the literal meaning is abrogated by an evidence, then it is rejected.

As an example, with regard to the saying of Allah (swt) "And when you travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten the prayer if you fear that the disbelievers may put you in trial. Verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies" [An-Nisa: 101] the Mafhoom Al-Mukhalafah here is that if you become safe, then it is not permissible to shorten prayers while travelling. But this interpretation was abrogated by the Hadith of the Prophet (saw). When he (saw) was asked regarding this verse, he (saw) said: "It is a charity Allah has given to you, so accept his charity". So here, shortening during travel became permissible in fear, as well as safety.

These two standpoints show that the verse "Devour not Usury, doubled and multiplied" [Ale-Imran: 130] is only to be taken explicitly and not according to the Mafhoom Al-Mukhalafah. Therefore usury is forbidden, in little or large amounts.

There is no doubt that the Muftis, which made statements regarding usury only being forbidden in large amounts, know very well that the verses do not support their claims in this matter, but they try to spread this poison across this Ummah using these methods of misguidance.

[Nahda]

We now begin with our topic, may Allah (swt) grant us success:

Al-Qaradhawi, in the television programme "Al-Shari'a wal-Hayat" on 6/12/1998, where the subject title was "Joint-Stock Companies" - and it should be known that Al-Qaradhawi has an Internet website, so his statements are reproduced and many look into them - mentioned the following:

Al- Qaradhawi: The companies upon which the differences occurred are those of which the work they do is, in origin, Mubah (permissible), like cement companies, electric companies, oil and gas, and communications companies. The basic work of these companies is permissible…The grey matter arises when there is a small overflow of funds, so she sends this amount to usurious banks…The meaning of this is that she receives interest from it, and it may be that these companies need to start a number of projects, so she is loaned money, with interest. So her work, in origin, is Halal and Mubah, but it may be that she comes across some usury on the way. Here, the Fuqahaa' (Scholars in Islamic Jurisprudence) of our time are in disagreement, and the majority of Ulema (Scholars) disallow…but there is a group of Fuqahaa' and Ulema, which have allowed it, with conditions, and Dr. Abdul Sattar, Dr. Ali Al-Qarra Daghi and myself are of those scholars. The most important of these conditions is that the interaction with usury must not be with large sums, and the defining of large and small amounts is a relative matter. Some said it should not reach 30%, since the Prophet of Allah (saw) said: "A third, and a third is much". 30% is considered less than a third…Many of the Fuqahaa' consider "a third is much" in any matter, since the expression is general, as it was regarding inheritance, so he said "Al-thuluth, wal-thuluth katheer", this is using the Alif and Laam, which are considered of the expressions of generality, and "Al-'ibra be-'umoom Al-lafz, laa be-khusoos Al-sabab" (the meaning is according to the generality of the expression, and not the specificity of the cause). And I personally see that 30% is much, and that we should decrease it more to, for example, 15%, which is more reasonable, so this is best. The second matter is that there must be a goal behind participating, especially those companies in the Islamic lands, for it is unacceptable to leave these companies for the non-Muslims, in some of these countries there are non-Muslim minorities, so, are the religious Muslims to leave all this for the non-Muslim to take, and withdraw from these areas of work completely? Or leave them for the Atheists and irresponsible ones and those with no Deen or morals, so these companies become without the religious Muslim type? This, too, is dangerous.

The Host: So you call the Muslims to take over such companies, even though they deal with usury?

Al-Qaradhawi: Yes, and perhaps, if we were the religious group there, we could choose a board of directors that will decide not to deal with usury…There is a third matter, which is if we were incapable of reaching this level, then it is upon us to take out an equivalent amount to the amount of usury, from the profits. So if you were to enter into this company, and you were incapable of turning it into a completely Islamic one, and it had excess funds, which she placed into a usurious bank, and received interest on it, we can find out, either by way of the published company budget or by asking the accountants and specialists, this percentage, so he would say 10% or 20%, it is then upon the Muslim to purify himself from it and remove it and not enter it into his personal funds…If the person is incapable, he should ask the specialists, even the accountants in the company, and then he can know, but suppose that in the end he still could not find out, he should exert himself to come to a judgement and say, by Allah, I believe the amount is 20% or 25% and remove it from the company and say: "Leave what makes you doubt, for that which does not make you doubt".

I have elaborated in the transmission of this topic to show the reader the danger of this subject and its importance, and I will now comment on his words, may Allah (swt) grant us success:

He assumed that the forbidden usury was only that in large quantities, and began discussing how to specify and define this large amount. We have shown in the introduction that the verses do not support the claim of those who say usury is only forbidden in large amounts, and no doubt they are aware that the interpretation of the verse is not according to their interpretation, but they wish others to stray from the right path, and they too, stray from the right path, but with knowledge, and are more dangerous than those who cause others to stray due to their ignorance.

We now will expose his Fatwa, for he did not depend in it on the evidence, rather he mentioned one Hadith and one Shari'a principle and their use was to turn the Fatwa in a direction the evidence does support, and was a twisting of the evidence, if not worse, as if his mind was a source of legislation, capable of rejecting, limiting, explaining, generalising, specifying and lifting restriction from the Shar'i evidences, using his mind, without depending on the evidence. We do not say, here, that he is a Mujtahid, therefore he is allowed to do so, as is widespread amongst the Sunnah, many of them being the general public and those learned, that Ijtihad is a legislative source, I say: Ijtihad exists in this Deen, but it is not called a source of legislation, nor is it a source of legislation, rather Ijtihad is the exhaustion of all efforts in the attempt to derive the Islamic law from the detailed evidences. In other words, Ijtihad is the dependency on the Shar'i evidences and their interpretation according to the Arabic language and the principles of Usool, to derive the Islamic law. A person achieving the level of Ijtihad does not have the authority to make statements without evidence, and this is a common misunderstanding, which must not remain.

He mentioned in his speech the honourable Hadith "A third and a third is much" as well as the Shar'i principle "The meaning is according to the generality of the expression, not the specificity the cause"; but used them out of context.

As for the Hadith, it is regarding inheritance and it is not allowed to use it as an evidence for other than the subject it came for. It is true that the meaning is according to the generality of the expression, not the specificity the cause, but the meaning is specific to the subject, so the reason for the Hadith is the circumstance in which he said it i.e. the situation which occurred - and was the reason for the speech of the Prophet (saw), his action or his silence.

So, while the Prophet (saw) was walking he saw the sheep of Maymunah and said "The skin (of an animal) which has been tanned, has been purified". So, it is not said that only the sheep of Maymunah, if tanned, is purified, as this is general, so the passing of the Prophet (saw) by the sheep of Maymunah is the cause, and not the meaning of it, for the meaning is according the generality of the expression.

The saying of the Prophet (saw) here is a lesson: "The skin (of animals) is pure if tanned", so we are not permitted to use this Hadith as an evidence for the making use of her meat - even for other than eating - or otherwise, using the principle "The meaning is according to the generality of the expression, not the specificity of the cause", since the meaning is specific to the subject.

As well as the saying of Allah (swt) "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" [An-Nisa: 11]. The Asbab Al-Nuzool (reason for its revelation) was, as narrated by Ahmed, Abu Dawood and Al-Tirmidhi and Al-Haakim of Jaber, who said: "The wife of Sa'ad ibn Al-Rabee' came to the Prophet of Allah (saw) and said: Oh, Prophet of Allah, these are the two daughters of Sa'ad ibn Al-Rabee', their father died a Shaheed, while he was with you in Uhud, their uncle took all their money and left nothing, and no-one will marry them if they have no money. So he said: Allah will pass judgement upon this". Then the verses for inheritance came down, as is similarly stated in Asbab Al-Nuzool of Al-Suyuti.

So, is it correct for us to say that, according to this verse, the gifts, favours and acts of generosity which a man gives to his children during his lifetime must be according to the measure of: for the male, a portion equal to that of two females, using the principle "the meaning is according to the generality of the expression", since "your children" is a general expression as it is Mudhaf wa Mudhaf Ilayhi, and the addition (Mudhaf) is general. Would it be correct for us to say this? The portion for the male being equal to that of two females is specific to inheritance, so it is not allowed to take it out of context and use it for other than this subject.

[Nahda]

And in the subject of government leadership by a woman, it was narrated by Bukhari, of Abi Bakrah to have said: "When the Prophet (saw) received the news that the people of Persia had placed the daughter of Kisra as a leader upon them, he said: A people who put their matters to a woman, will never succeed." So this is not specific to this particular incident or the daughter of Kisra, rather it is an evidence to be used for all women, due to the principle "The meaning is according to the generality of the expression, not the specificity the cause". But can we then say that the appointment of authority, whether in issues of ruling, like the daughter of Kisrah, or other than ruling, like having them take care of a baby or child, or in matters of Law and Justice and representation are all forbidden for a woman? Is it forbidden to depend upon a woman for anything, like buying and selling? Is it forbidden for her to have authority upon babies and children or work in Law and Justice? No, this is not correct, since the meaning is according to the generality of the expression, which is specific to the subject, which the Prophet (saw) spoke of, which is ruling. Indeed, it was narrated that 'Umar bin Al-Khattab appointed a woman from his tribe, named Al-Shafaa', to run the affairs of the market, and this was done before a number of Sahaba.

Therefore it is important to understand that the saying of the Prophet (saw) "A third, and a third is much" is specific to the issue of Al-Wassiyyah (inheritance), and general for all Muslims, and not for the reasoning and reality in which it was said.

Qaradhawi's statement that "Many of the Fuqahaa' consider "a third is much" in any matter" misleads the listener into thinking that there actually are Fuqahaa' which have stated this.

Even regarding the evidence "A third, and a third is much", which was twisted and interpreted out of context, I say: This Hadith was not used to complete his Fatwa, as the Hadith - according to Al-Qaradhawi - permits the third and does not consider less than it to be too much, but Al-Qaradhawi continued to say: "And I personally see that 30% is much, and that we should decrease it more to, for example, 15%, which is more reasonable, so this is best". So the Hadith, according to Al-Qaradhawi's groundless interpretation, permits the third. But Al-Qaradhawi "sees" that it is best to decrease it from 30% to 15% and abandoned the evidence "A third, and a third is much" and did not make the measure: a third and not a quarter, rather he came up with a measure he found reasonable, being 15% (approximately one-sixth). So he did not continue upon his groundless interpretation of "A third, and a third is much", rather he judged according to his mind, which stated, "A sixth, and a sixth is much". The crime is that he said: "15%, which is more reasonable, so this is best" as if the issue depends on the judgment of the mind and not of the Shar'i evidences, and his words: "so this is best" is an even greater crime, for, by this, he makes his own opinion capable of perfecting behaviour and organising it, and describes those who follow it as being correct.

With this Fatwa and this mentality, Al-Qaradhawi makes it permissible for a Muslim to be a partner in a Joint-Share Company, even if this company sends its money to usurious banks, and even if part of its profit is from usury (interest) on their money in the banks; but he placed the condition that the amount of the usury dealt with must not be in large amounts!!! And he makes it forbidden for the Muslim to be partners in a company, in which the amount of usury - on its money in the banks - makes up a large part of her profits.

A strange contradiction:

In his Fatwa he stated that the limit or percentage, which is considered little and whatever above it being much, was 15%, but he contradicted himself regarding those people who cannot know the percentage of usury in the profits of the company, telling them in such an instance: "but suppose that in the end he still could not find out, he should exert himself to come to a judgement and say, by Allah, I believe the amount is 20% or 25% and remove it from the company and say: "Leave what makes you doubt, for that which does not make you doubt".

Firstly: He says that the small percentage is 15%, so how can he permit someone to stay in a company where its profits hold 20-25% of usury?!!

Secondly: How is a person to know the percentage of usury in the profits of a company before joining it and performing the work necessary to bring about profit? Suppose the company did not make any profit from its projects, nor any losses, and her profits were strictly from her money in the banks (i.e. 100% of her profits are from usury); is this not possible?

He, unfortunately, uses the evidence "Leave what makes you doubt, for that which does not make you doubt". Is not that which causes doubt, rather in certainty, the participation in the likes of what Al-Qaradhawi has made permissible?

It is important to note that we have not discussed the forming of Joint-Stock Companies, which is illegal from its foundations whether the company deals with usury or not, but this is not the issue. We have limited the discussion to what was stated in the Fatwa to show an example of the danger of such Fatwas, and how they use their mind to legislate in the Shari'a of Allah, according to their vain desires, without an evidence or even a Shubhat Daleel (a semblance of an evidence).

To conclude, there are some simple people, to my knowledge, who deny that Al-Qaradhawi has made such statements. I say that it is possible to visit Al-Qaradhawi's website on the Internet, named Al-Shari'a wal-Hayat, and see for yourself what he said on the episode regarding Joint-Stock Companies on 6/12/98 and witness the truth of what I have said. Then you will know that this respectable magazine does not lie to the Muslims, rather it conveys the reality in its true form.

Some people may say: It is true that Al-Qaradhawi makes such Fatwas, but leave him and his matters be, and do not spread his statements and its refutation across the Muslim Ummah. I say to such people, you are one of two types: Either sincere and unaware of the dangers of such interpretations, or a malicious conspirator on Islam who wishes such false and invalid Fatwas to be passed onto this Ummah.

How could it be allowed to propagate and advertise those who demolish upon the Muslims their world, and disallow the warnings and exposing of those who wish to destroy the Deen of the Muslims? Which is more of a priority and which is more dangerous?

In closing, all praise is to Allah (swt).

Source: Ayman, Al-Khaleel, Palestine

[Huthaifah]

Is this another article by those who disagree with his views as regards to muslim participating in elections, to twist his words and to "degrade" him?

Which website was this taken from? also I have answered this in the privious post where one such misguided Muslim called him a kafir.

[barodate]

hmm all i know is that he said it was OK under severe circumstances.... which i agree with... anything else then no thanks..

usury = alot of pain in hereafter...

[Suhail]

The guy who is commenting on Al-Quradhawi says:


He assumed that the forbidden usury was only that in large quantities, and began discussing how to specify and define this large amount. .

He is taking Al-Qaradhawi words out of context.
Al-Qradhawi says

The basic work of these companies is permissible…The grey matter arises when there is a small overflow of funds, so she sends this amount to usurious banks…The meaning of this is that she receives interest from it, and it may be that these companies need to start a number of projects, so she is loaned money, with interest. So her work, in origin, is Halal and Mubah, but it may be that she comes across some usury on the way. .

Al-Qaradhawi is saying the interest of small amounts may be acceptable if in these cirumstances and is very hard to avoid, but NOT all circumstances. The guy commenting on Al-Qarhadawi fails to mentions this and basis much of his arguement is that Al-Qradhawi was talking about all circumstances and fails to mention AL-Qaradhawi was only taking about a specific circumstance.

I dont think AL-Qaradhawi is wrong, he evn mentions the fact that many other scholars disagree


the Fuqahaa' (Scholars in Islamic Jurisprudence) of our time are in disagreement, and the majority of Ulema (Scholars) disallow…but there is a group of Fuqahaa' and Ulema, which have allowed it, with conditions.

[ah1999]

Assalaamu alaikum wa rehmatullah everyone,
JazakAllah Nahda for providing all the info. above also in all the other thread recently. Some of the info. is very useful.
However, just for information’s sake the hadith narrated by Sa‘d bin Abī Waqqās which has been quoted in your posting above several times, "A third, and a third is much”, does not refer to inheritance (mirath) but to bequest/ will (wasiyyah). Sharia has place a limit of one-third on the testamentary power of the testator. The mistake is most likely due to translation of the Arabic text. Inheritance is intestate while a bequest a testate disposition.

*********************************************

On a different note we seem to be all high and mighty criticising and worrying about this scholar and that scholar …. perhaps we should spend equal amount of iur time looking at ourselves? I am referring to several other posts/ threads on this forum not just this thread.
After all how will the level of iman of Yusf Qaradawi or any other scholar affect us on the Day of Judgement.
How many of us and our relatives are committing sins akin to having sexual intercourse with their mothers.
The mere thought of such an act is abhorrent and repuslive beyound belief yet many Muslims close to us are committing sins akin to such acts.
How can a Musim who goes around saying he/she belives in the Day of Judgement where every single act will have to be accounted for committ such heinous acts.
The characteristic of the Ummah of the Prophet Muammed (SAWS) is haya when you lose that you can do what you like.
It seems we have lost our haya, lost most of our shame.
Should we really be surprised at our sorry state of affairs?

If we want to make a differnce let’s point the finger at ourselves first and those close to us, let Yusuf Qaradawi and the likes thereof worry about their own souls.
We should of course defend our brothers/ sisters when they are attacked unjustifiably but let us worry about our own souls and the souls of our families.

Jabir ibn Abdullāh (RA) narrated,
“The Messenger of Allāh (SAWS) cursed the accepter of interest and its payer, and one who records it, and the two witnesses; and he said: They are all equal.
(Sahih Muslim)
Also narrated by Abdullāh ibn Mas'ud and recorded by Abu Dawud.

Abu Hurayrah (RA) narrated,
“The Messenger of Allāh (SAWS) said "Interest has seventy parts, the least important being that a man should marry his mother."
Ibn Majah and Bayhaqi, transmitted it in Shu'ab al-Iman

Check out:
http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?p=19562#post19562

Wassalaam, A.H.