Earning and Spending Money from The Islamic Point of View

We are living in a time when the Importance of money is more than ever. The desire of living a lavish lifestyle is more than ever due to the Impact of media. Our beloved Muhammad SAW has told us that fitnah of my Ummah is wealth. Quran tells us that our wealth and our kids are a test for us. There is no doubt that human beings love wealth. When they get the wealth they want even more and this desire never ends till we die. Having wealth is not a bad thing if earned and used in the right way.

In fact, earning money through Halal way and hard work is a virtue. Beloved Muhammad SAW said that (which means):

“Honest traders will be in the category of messengers, saints and martyrs on the day of judgment.” [Narrated by Bukhari]

Another hadith tells us that spending money earned through the Halal way on your family is Sadaqah. However, its Haram to make money through methods which are forbidden by our Deen like dealing in Interest, doing dishonesty, lying about the Item that you are selling. using the money for wrong purposes like bribery, corruption is also Haram.

It is also important to give Zakat on the money that you have earned. Zakat purifies your wealth and also ends poverty from the society. along with Zakat, you should also try to do as much sadaqah as you can. The Prophet SAW used to do massive charity.

It is Important to be moderate in spending the money. you should not be wasting the money on unnecessary things and you should also not be a miser. these are some point which we must keep in mind related to Money, earning and spending.

*What do you think about this topic? Please tell me what you think in the comment section below.
*Hit the like button if think this post is useful.
*Support this da’wah effort by following my blog.

Kitab Al-Kasb Series (Part 48): Legal Ruling on Plastering Mosques with Gypsum and the Like

Every Wednesday, I will share a part of the translation of the book Kitab Al-Kasb (the book of Earning a Livelihood) written by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani.

Part 48: Legal Ruling on Plastering Mosques with Gypsum and the Like
Imam Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani says, “There is no harm in plastering mosques with gypsum, teak, or gold paint.”

Al-Sarakhsi says, “Our teacher, the Imam Shams al-A’immah al-Halwani used to say, ‘It is implicit in the wording the allusion to the fact that a person is not rewarded for doing that, for he said: there is no harm; and this phrase is used for absolving from blame, not for affirming reward”. This means that it suffices for a person that he is merely not held to account for doing this per se, and this is the legal position of the jurisprudents.

But the people of literal understanding abhor that and they consider sinful whoever does that. They say, “Because in this there is contradicting the Messenger of Allah in what he chose as the way; for indeed, when it was said to him, ‘Shall we not take apart your mosque and then we build it (afresh)?’, he said, ‘No; but rather a canopy like Musa’s, or he said, ‘…a canopy like Musa’s canopy’ [Documented by al-Haythami]. Moreover, the roof of the mosques of the Messenger of Allah used to be of dried palm fronds, and it used to leak when rains fell on them, so much so that they used to prostrate (when praying) in water and mud.” [Allusion to the hadith narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim].

And it is narrated from Ali that he once passed by an embellished and ornamented mosque, and was brought to say, “For whom is this church?” Now, he only said that due to his abhorrence for this manner of work on mosques [Narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah].

When al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik (Umayyad caliph) sent forty thousand dinars for the purpose of adorning the mosque of the Messenger of Allah the money was brought to the attention of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz whereupon he said, “The poor are more in need of this wealth than columns.” The basis of this is what was narrated from the Messenger of Allah that he said, “Among the signs of the last hour is that mosques are embellished, and the minarets raised high, while their hearts are bereft of faith.” [Hadiths of different wordings but similar import are narrated by Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i ibn Majah, Abu Ya’la and Ibn Khuzaymah].

But we say, “There is no harm in doing that because of what it involves of augmenting the congregation of worshippers, encouraging people to engage in a spiritual retreat in the mosque, and sitting therein in anticipation of the prayer. And in all these there devotion and obedience; and moreover, actions are by intentions.”

Furthermore, the proof that there is no harm in doing that is what was narrated that the first who built the mosque of Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis) was Dawud (David) then Sulayman (Solomon) completed it after him, and he embellished it until he placed a ruby jewel on the top of the dome. It became the most impressive and exquisite thing known during that time, and it used to sparkle over a mile’s distance, and the woman spinners use to spin (cloth) by its light at night from a mile’s distance (away).

Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib was the first who embellished the Sacred Mosque after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab embellished the mosque of the Messenger of Allah and expanded it. Likewise, Uthman after him, who built a mosque with his own money and expanded it, and went to great lengths to adorn it. This shows that there is no harm in doing so.

Now, the interpretation of what (apparently) contradicts this position (of there being no harm) is already alluded to at the end of the hadith (in question), “… while their hearts are bereft of faith,” which means that they adorned the mosques, yet were not constant in performing the congregational prayer therein; or it means that the adornment was no funded from wholesome wealth, or that it was for the objective of eyeservice or ear service. So these apparent contradictions can be interpreted away along some of these lines in order for there to be concord between the different reports on the issue.

All of this (is acceptable) if a person does so by using his own wealth which he earned licitly; but as for when he does so by using the mosque’s wealth, then he is sinning by doing so. For the mosque’s wealth should only be used to fortify its structure, whereas embellishment has nothing to do with fortifying and building at all, so much so that our teachers say, “The mosque trustee should plaster the walls with gypsum with the mosque’s funds, but he should not embellish by engraving the plastered walls with the mosque’s funds; but if he does so, then he is liable (for it), for plastering fortifies the building, but engraving on the plaster is weakening the building not fortifying it, hence the trustee is held accountable for what he expends of the mosque’s funds on it.

Imam Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani says, “Do you not see that a person may construct for himself a house, and engrave its roof with gold paint, yet he does not become sinful for doing so?”.

By this, he means that the person spends on embellishing his house with the intention of himself benefitting from it only, whereas in spending for embellishing the mosque he is benefitting himself and others. Hence, if it is permissible for him to spend his wealth for benefitting himself in this manner, then it is even more permissible for him to spend it for benefitting himself and others; and moreover, we have been directed to hold the mosques in high esteem.

There is no doubt that holding the mosques in high esteem means, in the hearts of some people of the lay public, augmenting the mosques by beautifying them; and hence in this manner, a person is rewarded for what he does. (It is narrated) in a hadith that the Prophet says, “The believer is rewarded for spending his wealth in everything except in building,” [Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and al-Tabarani],  and in some narrations, there is the addition, “…other than mosques” [Documented by al-Suyuti]. If the soundness of this addition is established, then it is proof that a person is rewarded for what he spends on building mosques and embellishing them.


22 The Book of Earning-700x700

*What do you think about this topic? Please tell me what you think in the comment section below.
*Hit the like button if think this post is useful.
*Support this da’wah effort by following my blog.

The Sources of Islamic Economics

An introduction to the principles Islam has legislated to guide the economic system of society. The sources from which the laws that guide economical activity are derived.

As a complete way of life, Islam has provided guidelines and rules for every sphere of life and society.  Naturally, a functioning economic system is vital for a healthy society, as the consumption of goods and services, and the facilitation of this by a common medium of exchange, play a major role in allowing people to realize their material and other goals in life.

Islam has set some standards, based on justice and practicality, for such economic systems to be established.  These standards aim to prevent the enmity that often occurs between different socioeconomic sections.  Of course, it is true that the gathering of money concerns almost every human being who participates in transactions with others.  Yet, while these standards recognize money as being among the most important elements in society, they do not lose sight of the fact that its position is secondary to the real purpose of human existence, which is the worship of God.

An Islamic economic system is not necessarily concerned with the precise amount of financial income and expenditure, imports and exports, and other economic statistics.  While such matters are no doubt important, Islam is more concerned with the spirit of the economic system.

A society that implements Islamic laws and promotes Islamic manners will find that it brings together all the systems – social, economic, and so forth – that it deals with.  Islam teaches that God has created provision for every person He has brought to life. Therefore, the competition for natural resources that are presumed to exist among the nations of the world is an illusion.  While the earth has sufficient bounty to satisfy the needs of mankind, the challenge for humans lies in discovering, extracting, processing, and distributing these resources to those who need them.

Islam consists of a set of beliefs which organizes the relationship between the individual and his Creator; between the person and other human beings; between the person and universe; and even the relationship of the person to himself.  In that sense, Islam regulates human behavior, and one type of human behavior is economic behavior. Economic behavior is dealt with by Muslims as a means of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.  In Islam, human behavior -whether in the economic area or others – is not value-free; nor is it value neutral.  It is connected with the ideological foundation of the faith.

The Sources of Islamic Economics

The fundamental sources of Islam – the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet – provide guidelines for economic behavior and a blueprint of how the economic system of a society should be organized. Therefore, the values and objectives of all “Islamic” economic systems must necessarily conform to and comply with, the principles derived from these fundamental sources. The purpose of these articles is to outline the most salient characteristics of an economic system based on the fundamental sources of Islam.  The focus here is on the principal features of the Islamic system.

The Islamic economic system is defined by a network of rules called the Shariah. The rules which are contained in the Shariah are both constitutive and regulative, meaning that they either lay the rules for the creation of economic entities and systems, as well the rules which regulate existing one. As an integral part of the revelation, the Shariah is the guide for human action which encompasses every aspect of life – spiritual, individual, social, political, cultural, and economic.  It provides a scale by which all actions, whether on the part of the individual agents, society and the state, are classified in regards to their legality. Thus there are five types of actions recognized, namely: obligatory; recommended; permissible; discouraged, and forbidden.  This classification is also inclusive of economic behavior.

The basic source of the Shariah in Islam is the Quran and the Sunnah, which include all the necessary rules of the Shariah as guidance for mankind.  The Sunnah further explains these rules by the practical application of Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him.  The expansion of the regulative rules of the Shariah and their extensions to new situations in later times was accomplished with the aid of consensus of the scholars, analogical reasoning – which derived rules by discerning an analogy between new problems and those existing in the primary sources – and finally, through textual reasoning of scholars specialized in the Shariah.  These five sources – the Quran, the Sunnah, the consensus of the scholars, analogical reasoning, and textual reasoning – constitute the components of the Shariah, and these components are also used as a basis for governing economic affairs.


In summary, we can say that the Islamic Economic system is based upon the notion of justice  It is through justice that the existence of the rules governing the economic behavior of the individual and economic institutions in Islam can be understood.  Justice in Islam is a multifaceted concept, and their several words exist to define it.  The most common word in usage which refers to the overall concept of justice is the Arabic word “adl”.  This word and its many synonyms imply the concepts of “right”, as equivalent to fairness, “putting things in their proper place”, “equality”, “equalizing”, “balance”, “temperance” and “moderation.” In practice, justice is defined as acting in accordance with the Shariah, which, in turn, contains both substantive and procedural justice covering economic issues.  Substantive justice consists of those elements of justice contained in the substance of the Shariah, while procedural justice consists of rules of procedure assuring the attainment of justice contained in the substance of the Law.  The notion of economic justice and its attendant concept of distributive justice is particularly important as an identifying characteristic of the Islamic economic system.  The rules governing permissible and forbidden economic behavior on the part of consumers, producers, and government, as well as questions of property rights, and of the production and distribution of wealth, are all based on the Islamic view of justice.

*What do you think about this topic? Please tell me what you think in the comment section below.
*Hit the like button if think this post is useful.
*Support this da’wah effort by following my blog.

Kitab Al-Kasb Series (Part 47): The Abhorrence of Wearing Silk and Its Dispensation in Time of War.

Every Wednesday, I will share a part of the translation of the book Kitab Al-Kasb (the book of Earning a Livelihood) written by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani.

Part 47: The Abhorrence of Wearing Silk and Its Dispensation in Time of War.
Then, Imam Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani says, “It is abhorrent for men to wear silk when they are not in a war situation.”

This question is not really among the question of this topic (of earning), but rather it is discussed in many places in the books (of Imam al-Shaybani), yet it is appropriate to what he has discussed of the questions of this book (of earning). Indeed, he has composed this book (of earning) in regard to abstinence, according to what was reported that when he was done with composing his other books, it was said to him, “Should you not compose something on abstinence and prudence,” whereupon he said, “I have composed the book of buying and selling,” and then, he proceeded to compose this book (of earning). But he was afflicted by a sudden illness during which his brain became dehydrated, and he could not realize his intention.

It was reported that it was said to him, “Make for us an index of what you have intended to compose,” and so he made for them an index of a thousand chapters which he had intended to compose on abstinence and prudence; hence some latter-day scholars said, “The passing away of Imam Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani and the occupation of Imam Abu Yusuf with the judiciary are a clemency for the disciples of Imam Abu Hanifah; for indeed if it (the situation) was not so, they would weary those who follow (closely their works)”.

And this book (of earning) is the first of his works on abstinence and prudence, and at its end, he mentions some of the questions that are connected to that (the topic of abstinence and prudence), such as the question of wearing silk. The basis of this question is what was narrated that the Prophet went out one day with gold in his right hand and silk in his left hand, and said, “These two are illicit for the males of my community, but licit for the females.” [Narrated by Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, al-Tirmidhi and Ahmad].

The wearing of silk in a situation other than war is abhorred, and likewise during a situation of war, according to the view of Abu Hanifah. However, in the view of the two of them, there is no harm in wearing silk during a situation of war if it is of compact texture such that (a fabric of) this kind can be used to ward off weapons. As for the case of its warp being not silken, but its woof is silken, then it is not licit for men to wear it in other than a situation of war; however it is licit by concord during a situation of war. And as for when it warps is silken but its woof not silken, then there is no harm in harm in wearing it in a situation other than war, such as (when one is infested with) lice, and other similar situations. These topics of wearing silk and related issues have already been elaborated in the books (of the Mabsut).

Imam Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani says, “There is no blame for a person to have a bed of gold or silver covered over with bedspread of silk brocades as an adornment for the enjoyment of people without sitting or sleeping on it, for such a practice is reported of the predecessors from among the Companions and the Followers.”

It is narrated about al-Hasan and al-Husayn that when either of them – depending on which of the different narrators about the matter is correct – was married to Shah Banu, she adorned his house with furnishings of silk brocades and utensils fabricated from gold and silver, and some of those Companions of the Prophet who were still living visited him and said, “What is this in your house, O son of Allah’s Messenger?,” whereupon he said, “This, is a lady whom I have married, and she brought (with her) things like these, and I did not deem it nice to prevent her from doing so.”

And it is reported from Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah that he adorned his house with something like this, and some of the Companions censured him, whereupon he said, “I am only beautifying for people with this, but I am not using it. I only did this so that no one’s heart will be concerned about me, and that none would look at me in an unseemly manner.”

Thus, we know that in this case, if a person has those things with this objective, then there is no blame in it, though to do without these is preferable. This situation enters into the meaning of the statement of Allah, “Say: Who has forbidden the finery of Allah, which He has produced for devotees, and wholesome means of subsistence?” [Al-Quran, surah Al-A’raf, verse 32].

As for the one who says, “He should neither sit nor sleep on it,” that is also the view of Imam Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani. However, according to the view of Imam Abu Hanifah, there is no blame for sitting and sleeping on it, for only wearing it is abhorred, as what is worn becomes attached to the wearer. As for that which is sat or slept on, it does not become attached to him (the sitter or sleeper), hence there is no blame in that.


22 The Book of Earning-700x700

*What do you think about this topic? Please tell me what you think in the comment section below.
*Hit the like button if think this post is useful.
*Support this da’wah effort by following my blog.

Kitab Al-Kasb Series (Part 46): Types of Activities of the People of Legal Responsibility and Their Discussion at Length.

Every Wednesday, I will share a part of the translation of the book Kitab Al-Kasb (the book of Earning a Livelihood) written by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani.

Part 46: Types of Activities of the People of Legal Responsibility and Their Discussion at Length.
Then he moved the discourse on to another topic the upshot of which became a section of its own, which is that the activities of the people of legal responsibility are of three types, namely: (i) a type which is for a person, like the ritual devotions; (ii) a type which is against him, like the iniquities; and (iii) a type which is in between the two, which is neutral – neither for nor against him – and these are permissible of the words and works of a person, like your saying, “I ate”, or “I drank”, or “I stood”, or “I sat”, and the like. This is the legal position of the jurisprudents, may Allah Most High have mercy on them.

The Karramites said that the activities of the people of responsibility are of two types, namely: for them, or against them; and none of their activities are in the domain of neutrality, because of the statement of Allah, “But what is there after Truth but error?” [Al-Quran, surah Yunus, verse 32]. He has divided all things into two divisions without any separating (division) between them; (so there is) either the truth, which is what is for a person or deviation, which is against a person.

Allah says, “One gets what one has earned and is responsible for what one deserves.” [Al-Quran, surah al-Baqarah, verse 286]. The “ma” (“what” in the verse) is for generalizing, and so it is clear by this verse that all that one earns is either for him or against him. Allah says, “If anyone acts with integrity, that is for the benefit of his own soul; and if anyone does evil, that is to its detriment. And your Lord never treats servants unjustly” [Al-Quran, surah al-Fussilat, verse 26]. It is thus clear that a person’s work cannot be disengaged from being either good or evil.

And in the book Allah, there is a statement to the effect that all that a person utters is recorded, for Allah says, “No one utters a word without a ready observer there.” [Al-Quran, surah Qaf, verse 18]. This verse shows that all that a person does is recorded, as Allah says, “Everything they have done is in the scriptures” [Al-Quran, surah al-Qamar, verse 52]. This proves that everything that a person has done is put on the divine balance for the reckoning, for Allah says, “And they will find everything they did before them” [Al-Quran, surah al-Kahf, verse 49]. The “ma” (“everything in the verse_ is for generalization, which shows that not a single action is morally neutral.

The significance of this can be seen from two perspectives. One, that the covenants of Allah with his servants are binding on them in every situation, that is, as indicated in the statement of Allah, “Worship Allah, and do not associate anything with Allah” [Al-Quran, surah, al-Nisa’, verse 36]. And He, says, “And I only created sprites (jinn) and humans for them to serve Me” [Al-Quran, surah al-Dhariyat, verse 56]. Therefore a person is either incertitude of this bond and covenant, thus it (the covenant) shall be for him, or he is in disregard thereof, thus it shall be against him; for any other than these two situations is inconceivable.

The proof of this is that (on the one hand) the permissible thing that he imagines is either something which is for him, such that it is something licit to which he is devoted, and for which he is commanded; or it is something illicit which he is to abhor, and so it is for him (also). But on the other hand, it (i.e, the permissible thing that he imagines) may actually be something illicit to which he is devoted; or something licit and enjoined from which he is keeping away, and this will be against him. Hence we know that all a person’s activities are not exempt from being either for him or against him.

Our argument (Imam al-Shaybani) in this regard is that the Companions and those who came after them from among the Followers and the learned are agreed that some of the actions of servants are commanded, and some recommended, and these are the religiously sanctioned devotions for them, and that of these actions some are proscribed, and these are against them. Of these actions (too) some are permissible, and what is permissible cannot be characterized as being enjoined or recommended or proscribed.

Therefore, we know by community consensus that there is a third division (of activities), which is neither for the person nor against the person. This division is not differentiated from the other two divisions except by a juristic evaluation, which is that it is morally neutral, neither deserving of reward for doing it nor of punishment for forgoing it. This is so because, what is for a person is something for which he is rewarded, as Allah says, “And whoever acted with integrity will make their own bed, so Allah may reward from the bounty divine those who had faith and did well. For Allah does not love the ungrateful” [Al-Quran, surah al-Rum, verse 44-45].

Allah says, “If you did good, you did good for yourselves” [Al-Quran, surah al-Isra’, verse 7], whereas what is against a person is something for which he is penalized, as Allah says, “And if you did wrong, it was to yourselves” [Al-Quran, surah al-Isra’, verse 7], that is, it was against yourselves.

And when there is in his actions and utterances something for which he is neither rewarded nor penalized, then we know that it is morally neutral. and the proof of this is that Allah Most High says, “Allah does not hold you responsible for thoughtlessness in your oaths” [Al-Quran, surah al-Baqarah, verse 225]. The scriptural proof here for the negation of censure for oaths of frivolity is itself also scriptural proof for the fact that a person is not penalized for them. Hence, when it is established by scripture that he is neither rewarded nor penalized for them, then we know that they are neutral.

Allah says, “Yet there is no blame on you if you make a mistake in this” [Al-Quran, surah al-Ahzab, verse 5]. And there is no ambiguity concerning the fact that he is not rewarded for something he was mistaken about, and censure was here negated by scripture, hence we know that it is not taken into account. The Prophet says, “My community is excused for mistakes, forgetfulness and what they are coerced to do.” [Narrated by Ibn Majah, al-Hakim, Ibn Hibban, and al-Daruqutni]. The meaning is that the sins of these are removed from them, and there is no doubt that they are also not rewarded for those.

When it is established by these scriptural proofs that for which a person does not attain a reward, he does not get penalized for it either; hence it is something not taken into account and is not described as something for or against a person. This is because that which is for him specifically refers to something that is of benefit to him in the hereafter, and that which is against him specifically refers to something that is harmful to him in the hereafter; and in his actions and utterances there also are things that neither benefit nor harm him in the hereafter, and these are not taken into account.

Thereafter, the jurisprudents are in disagreement over whether the things not taken into account of the actions and utterances are recorded regarding the servant or not. Some of them say, “These are not recorded about him, for the recording cannot be for no avail; and the avail is either the servant’s taking benefit by it in the hereafter, or the servant’s taking blame by it in the hereafter; and whatever that is beside these two considerations, it is recording on the servants is of no avail”.

However most of the jurisprudents are of the legal position that everything is recorded about the servant for Allah says, “And We record what they have sent before and what they have left after them; and We have accounted for everything in an illustrative book of examples,” [Al-Quran, surah Ya Sin, verse 12], except that they say, “After everything is recorded about him, what remains on the record is what is neutral.”

The clarification for this is the statement of Allah, “For We have been transcribing what you have been doing” [Al-Quran, surah al-Jathiyah, verse 29]. In a hadith of A’ishah, it is narrated that the Prophet said, “When the two angels ascend with the record book of the servant, if it’s beginning and ending are good (deeds), then what is in between them of evil deeds shall be erased; and if such is not the case in its beginning and its ending, then all shall remain recorded about him” [Abu Ghuddah says that he has not come across this hadith].

As for those who say, ‘What is of no account is erased from the record,” they differ on the issue. Some of them say, “That is only erased on Mondays and Thursday” [As alluded to in a hadith of Abu Hurayrah narrated by Malik, Ahmad, al-Bukhari and Muslim]. This understanding is widespread among people, namely that deeds are exhibited to Allah on these two days of the week; that us, on these two days, what is neutral with respect to requital thereof is erased from the record. However, most of them are of the view that these are only erased on the day of resurrection.

The basis for this view is a hadith of A’ishah – and Imam Muhammad has mentioned it in his book (Kitab al-Kasb) – that the Prophet said, “The registers with Allah are three: a register which is of no account, and this is in which there is no requital of good or evil; a register of the misdeeds of the servants, and there is no avoiding the giving and demanding of justice in respect thereof; and the third register which contains requital for good or evil” [A hadith of similar wording is narrated by al-Hakim and Ahmad]. This is a sound (sahih) hadith which is accepted by the People of the Sunnah and the Community.

However, they differ with regard to the register which is of no account. It is said (by some), “It is that which is not taken is in it neither reward nor penalty.” It is said by some, “It is that which is between the servant and his Lord, in which there is nothing pertaining to the rights of the servants, for Allah is most forgiving, most generous.” Allah says, “Why would Allah punish you if you are grateful and faithful” [Al-Quran, surah al-Nisa’, verse 147]. And it is said (by some), “This is the (register of the) minor sins, for these are forgiven for those who avoid the major sins, for Allah says, “If you avoid the worst of what you are forbidden, We will efface your evils from you and introduce you to noble behavior” [Al-Quran, surah al-Nisa’, verse 31]. And this is the register which is of no account.

And yet it is said, “What is intended are the works of the unbelievers in which there is the form of obedience, for these indeed are of no account whatsoever due to their not believing; that is their good works are of no benefit for them in the hereafter, for idolatry is not forgiven for them as Allah says, “Allah does not forgive idolatry” [Al-Quran, surah al-Nisa’, verse 48]. There is no value in their works when accompanied by idolatry, for Allah says, “And We will turn to the works they have done, and make them scattered dust” [Al-Quran, surah al-Furqan, verse 23].

The soundest view is the first view, namely: that which is of no account is the third division which we have explained as referring to the permissible, which is neither for nor against a person; and this is that which is of no account. Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani had indeed elaborated on that by saying, “And this is that in which there is neither requital of good nor evil.”

Imam Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybanimentions in the book (Kitab al-Kasb) a narration from Ibn Abbas with regard to the statement of Allah, “Allah abolishes and establishes whatever He will” [Al-Quran, surah al-Ra’d, verse 39], that what is meant is the erasure of some names from the register of the condemned, and the establishment of these names in the register of the blessed; along with the erasure of some names from the register of the blessed, and the establishment of these names in the register of the condemned.

The commentators of the Quran only narrated this from Ibn Mas’ud, who used to say in his supplication, “O my Lord! If you have recorded our names in the register of the condemned, then erase them from the register of the condemned and establish them in the register of the blessed, for You have indeed said in Your book – and your statement is truth – ‘Allah abolishes and establishes whatever He will’; and the source of scripture is with Him.'”[Al-Quran, surah al-Ra’d, verse 39; This report is documented by al-Suyuti]. As for Ibn Abbas, the evident narration from him is that the abolishment and the establishment are in everything, except in regard to blessedness and wretchedness, and life and death.

Among the jurisprudents are those who hold on to the first narration and say, “We see the unbeliever becoming a Muslim, and the Muslim apostate; the sound of health falling ill, and the ill becoming well; hence we say that it is possible for the blessed to become wretched, and the wretched blessed, without there being any change in Allah’s knowledge of anyone. For, ‘the matter is up to Allah, in the past and in the future’ [Al-Quran, surah al-Rum, verse 4], ‘He does what He wills’ [Al-Quran, surah Ali ‘Imran, verse 40]; and ‘He decides what He wants’ [Al-Quran, surah al-Ma’idah, verse 1]. And on this understanding is the interpretation of the statement of Allah, “Some of them will be miserable, and some of them will be happy” [Al-Quran, surah Hud, verse 105].

However most of them are of the view that the sound narration is the second narration, from Ibn Abbas for it is closer in coming into accord with the well-known hadith, “The blessed is one who is blessed in the womb of his mother, and the wretched is one who is wretched in the womb of his mother” [Narrated by al-Tabarani and al-Bazzar].

And the interpretation of the statement of Allah, “Allah abolishes whatever is of no account from the register of the servant, of that in which there is no requital of good or evil, and establishes whatever in which there is requital; as we have explained in regard to the hadith of A’ishah, “The registers are three.” Because of this, Imam Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybanibrought forth this hadith right after that hadith.

And it is said (by some) that what is meant is the effacement of knowledge from the hearts of some people and its establishment in the hearts of some other people. This view is in correspondence with the statement of Allah, “And Allah leaves people astray at will, and guides anyone at will” [Al-Quran, surah Ibrahim, verse 4]. Or that what is meant is the effacement and establishment of the things that are apportioned for every servant, such as sustenance, security, tribulations, illness, and the like.

Now, Imam Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani narrated a hadith of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq in which he asked a question of Allah’s messenger saying, “A meal of meat, barley bread, and olive oil, which we ate with you in the house of Abu al-Haytham ibn al-Tayyihan…” We have already narrated this hadith in full (see previous Part). He added at the end of the hadith (the words), “And as for the believer, his thankfulness when food is served before him is that he says ‘in the name of Allah’; and when he is done, that he says, ‘all praise is due to Allah.'” This addition is not mentioned by the scholars of hadith in their books, whereas Imam Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani is trustworthy with regard to what he narrates, and so it can be surmised that this addition is of the discourse of Imam Muhammad which he expressed after narrating the hadith.

A hadith of similar import was narrated from Allah’ messenger that he said, “When food is served before the believer, and he says, ‘in the name of Allah’, and when done he says, ‘all praise is due to Allah’, his sins are all scoured of him though they may be like the foam of the sea, just as dry leaves drop off from the tree” [Document by al-Haythami]. And he says, “All praise is due to Allah for every blessing.”

And he says, “If the whole world was rendered into a morsel of food, and a believer gulped it down and said, ‘All praise is due to Allah,’ surely what he had brought forth would be better than what was brought forth to him.” And such is the reality of the situation, for Allah has described the world as little and lowly, as Allah says, “Say: the enjoyment of this world is little” [Al-Quran, surah al-Nisa’, verse 77], whereas the mention of Allah is loftier and better. And in his, the believer’s saying, “All praise is due to Allah,” there is the mention of Allah by way of glorification and appreciation, and this is better than the whole world.


22 The Book of Earning-700x700

*What do you think about this topic? Please tell me what you think in the comment section below.
*Hit the like button if think this post is useful.
*Support this da’wah effort by following my blog.

About Debt. Muhammad was Right.

Taken with changes from Roger Scruton is a writer and philosopher living in England. His many books include Beauty and The Uses of Pessimism and the Danger of False Hope. Learn more about him at http://www.roger-scruton.com.

Everybody has an opinion about what we ought to do to fix our dreadful financial situation. Here’s a thought: why not listen to Muhammad? True, the Prophet did not hold an economics degree, nor was he a fixture on noisy cable chat shows about finance. Times have changed since the seventh century. But Muhammad knew a thing or two about human nature, which has not changed. A verse of the Qur’an says (which means):

“O you who have believed, do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves [or one another].” [Al-Quran, surah an-Nisa’, verse 29].

This is one of many verses and hadiths interpreted as forbidding interest, insurance, and the trade in debts. The Prophet was appalled by the sale and purchase of unreal things, especially when people sought to forestall the will of God by selling something that they did not possess or which they might never be called upon to provide. Traditional Islamic law, therefore, forbids many of the commercial constructs that we take for granted: for example, limited liability, which permits people to escape from the consequences of what they do by wearing a corporate mask.

Of course, an economy without interest, insurance, limited liability, or the trade in debts would be a very different thing from the world economy today. It would be slow-moving, restricted, and comparatively impoverished. But that’s not the point: the economy proposed by the Prophet was justified not on economic grounds but on moral grounds, as an economy of righteous conduct. Nor is the desire for a moral economy confined to Islam. In the postwar world in which I was raised, economic life was equally circumscribed by moral edicts.

For a long time following World War II, something called “capitalism” was regarded with great suspicion by European elites and also by large sections of the people. Capitalism meant “greed,” “profiteering,” and “exploitation.” Private business was regarded as an assault on public assets, if not on public morals, and in the England of nationalized industries and massive state projects, it was rare to find the “profit motive” referred to except as an object of abhorrence.

Then came the Thatcherite revolution. We lived through what was, in retrospect, a radical transformation in the world of ideas and also in day-to-day politics. Quite suddenly the system that had been condemned as capitalism was being praised as “the market.” Economics, we were told, was not about profit and exploitation but about freedom. The market was not just a social necessity but a moral good. It was the system whereby each person dealt openly and honestly with every other, to the benefit of everyone. It offered freedom and demanded responsibility as the price. The state was no longer the guardian of the common good but the great intruder, the free rider on all our contracts, the robber who took the proceeds of honest workers and distributed them to its pampered clients. After the dreary years of socialist Puritanism, this new morality was undeniably liberating. But it liberated both good things and bad, and never faced up to the truth that had dawned on Muhammad — the truth that, in an economy of fictions, nobody can be called to account.

Whether bubbles of the kind we have recently seen are a necessary part of the trade in the unreal estate, I do not know. I suspect that they are and that the search for regulations that would prevent them is a futile use of public funds and political energy. Nobody can enjoy the sight of people becoming stinking rich by trashing the scant savings of others. But matters are not improved when the state steps in. The underlying premise of state interference is that the state and its clients come first. The main concern of the political class is to ensure that those on whom it immediately depends for an easy life — the bureaucrats and the clients — will be properly provided for, with a reserve fund to buy favor from the discontented. The trade in unreal estate goes on.

The European norm, in which the largest part of the economy is controlled by the state, represents a kind of default position of modern democracies, and one to which the U.S., long the exception in Western politics, is now tending. High taxes on all who work hard, take risks and keep the economy going, combined with a free ride for all those from whom votes can be most easily purchased — such is the tendency of the democratic state. Nobody in Greece or Portugal has ever doubted it, and only a residual glimmer of the Protestant work ethic has distracted the Germans from the truth that they are not really entitled to complain when the Greek political class tries to transfer the cost of its borrowing, which it cannot pay, to the German taxpayer, who can. For that is what social democracy means, and social democracy has been Germany’s greatest postwar export.

Many economists write learned and technical articles to explain how the current debt crisis arose and how it might be managed. The theory of refinancing and sovereign debt fills many a volume of innocent-seeming graphs and statistics. But this should not blind us to the truth that dawned on the Prophet, which is that we have another and truer way of perceiving these matters: the way of moral judgment. If you borrow money, you are obliged to repay it. And you should repay it by earning the sum required, and not by borrowing again, and then again, and then again. For some reason, when it comes to the state and its clients, those elementary moral truths are forgotten. You may say that there is a disconnect here between economic and moral wisdom. I am not convinced of that. It seems to me that the moral sense emerged in human beings precisely because it has proved to be, in the long run, for their advantage. It is the thing that puts a brake on reckless behavior, which returns the cost of mistakes to the one who makes them, and which expels cheating from the fold.

It hurts to be punished and states that act wrongly naturally try to avoid the punishment. And because under the current system they can pass on their hurt so easily to the rest of us, we turn a blind eye to their behavior. But I cannot help thinking that the result is at best only a short-term economic advantage and that the long-term costs will be all the greater. For what we are seeing, in both Europe and America, is a demoralization of economic life. Debts are no longer regarded as obligations to be met, but as assets to be traded. And the cost of them is being passed to our children, to whom we owe protection and who will rightly despise us for stealing what is theirs.

*What do you think about this topic? Please tell me what you think in the comment section below.
*Hit the like button if think this post is useful.
*Support this da’wah effort by following my blog.

Islamic Systems

Islamic economic and financial system and Riba’

Islamic Gems

images - 2019-04-17T211712.422.jpegMan has experienced and invented many things inculding man-made systems like Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, Secularism, Communism,  Liberalism, Communism and Fascism, etc. The solutions that emanate from such systems breed more problems instead of solving them. As these systems do not have permanent solutions, the reason is that human beings have limited vision and incapable of formulating solutions that will address all problems. For example, the freedom of capitalism has caused imbalance in society due to this difference where few people are rich and deprive a significant amount of people from rightful wealth distributions increasing poverty.

Despite the best efforts of man these systems have failed to establish social justice. As these ideologies are purely materialistic, devoid of spirituality, divine guidance and moral values, Not only that they have failed to deliver but have placed the humanity at peril. These ideologies are dying.

Conversely, Islam has a solution of it…

View original post 257 more words

Islamic Microfinance: A Model for Alleviating Poverty

This article was taken with slight changes from https://muslimmatters.org

Islamic microfinance is becoming an increasingly popular mechanism for alleviating poverty, especially in developing countries around the world. The Islamic finance industry as a whole is expected to reach over $2 billion dollars in 2012 and is a continually growing sector due to its ethical principles and prohibition of riba (interest).

The concept of Islamic microfinance adheres to the principles of Islam and is a form of socially responsible investing. Investors who use their wealth for Islamic microfinance projects only involve themselves in halal projects which benefit the community at large. Such projects include zakat, which is charity based, or trade and industry projects to develop a country’s economy.

The mechanism of lending in Islamic microfinance differs from conventional microfinance due to the prohibition of riba. Unlike conventional microfinance, Islamic microfinance offers an interest-free way to give small loans to people who are poor and in need. One key method of lending is through the Islamic financial instrument, qard’l-hasan, which is a loan that has been extended by the lender on a goodwill basis and the borrower is only required to pay the exact amount borrowed without additional charges or interest. The Quran clearly encourages Muslims to provide qard’l-hasan, or benevolent loans, to “those who need them” (which means):

“Who is he that will give Allah qard’l-hasan? For Allah will increase it manifold to his credit.” (57:11) “If you give Allah qard’l-hasan… He will grant you forgiveness.” [Al-Quran, at-Taghabun, verse 17]

At a time when poverty is still prevalent around the world, there is no better solution than opting for funding which can provide benefits to a poverty-stricken community and help to rebuild economies.

Islamic microfinance gives the investor a chance to get involved in worthwhile projects which could essentially play a significant role in targeting poverty and alleviating it in many countries around the world. Islamic microfinance primarily relies upon the provision of financial services to the poor or developing regions which are subject to certain conditions laid down by Islamic jurisprudence. It represents the merging of two growing sectors: microfinance and the Islamic finance industry.

It has the potential to not only be the solution for an increased demand to help the poor but also to combine the Islamic socially responsible principles of caring for the less fortunate with microfinance’s ability to provide financial access to the poor.

Unleashing this potential could be the key to providing financial stability to millions of less privileged people who currently reject microfinance products that do not comply with Islamic law.

Many regions around the world have already created tailor-made Islamic microfinance programs, either through Islamic banks or Islamic microfinance institutions to cater for dealing with poverty.

Utilizing Islamic financial instruments such as Murabahah and Musharaka to help in facilitating Islamic microfinance can not only spur the Islamic micro financial sector but can also increase the options of Islamic finance and make it more accessible to poverty-stricken countries.

While poverty in the Muslim world is widespread, Somalia is shouldering more than its fair share of the crisis. The famine which hit Somalia in July 2011 resulted in the worst food crisis that Africa has faced since 20 years. The United Nations had confirmed that famine does exist in two regions of southern Somalia, Southern Bakool and Lower Shabelle. Across the country, nearly half of the Somali population, which is currently 3.7 million people, is now experiencing a crisis of food, poverty, shelter, and malnutrition.

However, if the population of Somalia had more access to financial services then they would be able to develop their economy and get it back on track. Unfortunately, the options of financial services for alleviating poverty in East Africa are either inadequate or exclusive.

Islamic microfinance has been an unprecedented way to combat poverty which may also provide the affected people of Somalia with a form of economic relief and provide a financial solution to developing countries worldwide.

What is The Difference Between Renting and Interest?

Renting and interest differ from each other in these aspects:


  1. Interest comes out from giving (lending) money or money-like goods for a certain period of time and receiving it back with an extra benefit.
  2. The property loaned for interest is consumed. The borrower returns it by an equal amount of the same type, not the exact property itself.
  3. The risk of the loaned property belongs to the borrower. It doesn’t bother the lender if the property is vanished or stolen. The borrower should give the same amount with its interest at the end of the defined period no matter what.


  1. Renting means transferring the “usage right” of a property from the owner to someone for a certain period. The rental price is the cost of usage right for the defined period.
  2. The rented and the received property are exactly the same ones in renting. Rented properties cannot be consumed and consumer goods cannot be rented.
  3. All risks and the responsibility of keeping the rented property “ready to use” belong to its owner. Renters just pay for using it.

A house, a field or other types of properties which can be used and returned back later can be rented. All risks-except which arise from the intentional and culpable actions of renter- belong to the owner in this process.

Money and money-like goods cannot be rented because they are consumed. They can only be loaned and loans are subject to interest.

*What do you think about this topic? Please tell me what you think in the comment section below.
*Hit the like button if think this post is useful.
*Support this da’wah effort by following my blog.