Ruling on Mortgages in UK?

very sorry but the translation and editing are atrocious, even though the content itself is super!

 

Hazrat Mufti Abu Bakr Siddiq Shadhili Sahab of Karachi Pakistan has issued a written Fatwa on this topic since some years. He has given proofs from Hanafi and Maaliki Imaams and reached to the conclusion that mortgages in the UK are fully permissible i.e. one can buy as many houses and properties in the UK as he likes, although some conditions must be met. See attachment for the Fatwa in English.

 

Where is Inflation?
Appreciation of property prices?
Vehicle costs (assuming he needs to buy his own for commute to and from work)?
Nikah? (Say by age 25)

I still feel if someone has a good opportunity to purchase a house and the shariah allows him to take a mortgage, he should do so.
Paying back monthly to the bank is way better than paying rent (which increases yearly, whereas your bond decreases as you keep topping up payments). Of course first one should consider an interest free loan from another well off muslim brother before taking/considering a mortgage.

We need to really revive the system of interest free loans. It can be done but really difficult considering the urge of everyone wanting to become wealthy.

 

Buying a house without a mortgage can be done in the UK but it will take some sacrifice. Case study.

Man graduates and gets a graduate level job of around £34k per annum. Age 21. Lives at home for 8 years and pays a share towards bills.

Income circa 2100 per month net
300 to parents
200 living costs bus pass etc

Saving around 15k per year.

In eight years he has saved around 120k which is plenty to buy a first home in Muslim concentrated areas in UK.

Factors not considered.

I suspect a smart individual will soon run into promotions so instead of 34k he might be earning 42 or 52k per year before age 30. Age 29 and earning that much is not unrealistic and is easily enough to support a family as a sole breadwinner.

In short, men must work hard and smart to provide for themselves and their families. Sadly not many young men willing to sacrifice.

 

While I don't have a final laymen position on this matter. I do have the following qualms and would appreciate some discussion on the following. JZK

The idea that mortgages benefit the Muslims is a fallacious argument.

1) If you were to say that you get your house, you can stay in rent.
2) At worse you can get a smaller house with an islamic contract.
3) The issue is that even in terms of appreciation of wealth, you can invest in something that performs reasonably well relatively to housing. you need to be investment savvy.
4) your contract is legally a money for money contract with an increase and a delay- the definition of riba- it's cheaper than the gymnastics employed by the islamic contract but it is still contractually riba , while the other one is not.
5) Mortages leads to economic unstability later on, should we Muslim be encouraging this- literally creating fiat money out of thin air, causing inflation and then making things like renting more expensive.
6) If muslims continue to use the 'dispensation' there will be no pressure to create halal alternatives.

In reality Riba based transactions, are a way for large amount of wealth to move from poor people's hands into the hands of wealthy people. further causing the populace to be worse off. Literal poison dressed like a cake.
Ask yourself this question, if mortgages and the current housing market was so beneficial for the consumer, why can't your children afford similar houses as you did in the past now, even if they can earn more.
By these fatwas, we encourage the destruction of society in the long run, while making it look good in the short term. We can all see the effects of this interest based economy now. We have billionaires who are living extreme lavish lives, and the rest who are worse off day by day.

Now with the increase in interest rates etc, one has to even consider it in term of Gharar and, Ijaab and Qubool. Is a contract where after 5 years they can tell you to pay them more (or less) that what was agreed at the initial point valid? If you can argue that the contract even if was calculated for 30 years is actually a 5 year recurring contract, then the question of gharar is still there. Is it valid to engage in something that you cannot be certain of the financial risk involved at the end you payment cycle? Would appreciate some comments on this, please

Also talking about dar al islam: we do not have any muslim countries left anymore. probably last one was Saudi Arabia. but that's gone also. now we have muslim majority countries who rule with human law adapted from sharia. You know that when they start to imprison scholars who tell them to fear Allah. I don't don the classifications yet, but do that make them dar al islam? if so, other non muslim majority countries have laws inspired by sharia. where is the demarkation to say one is and one isn't.

While I do understand the dispensation for one buying their own house, even with all that I have said above, there is a psychological benefit at least from getting your house, to say that mortgages are halal, i.e. one can freely engage in it is something that I do not feel is correct.

 

he is not saying it is halal for you to steal their money.

read alahazrat's fatawa among others: if they give you 'benefit' willingly, without you falling into sin such as cheating, lying, swindling etc. in a system they consider as legal. this is not saying their wealth is halal for you absolutely.

because 'interest being haram' is an islamic principle.

 

Sorry I thought it was obvious. Here is the question again (with a question mark this time):

“This needs explaining. If their lives and blood are also halal then why stop at finances?”

It is a genuine question. Obviously Mufti Zahid doesn’t mean we can kill and attack any non-Muslim. I am sure of that. But that statement then needs explanation.

On one hand it is being said that a harbi kafir is any kafir in dar al-harb. There is no riba with such a person because their maal is halal.

The above, wether you agree or not, makes sense. But then he said their lives and blood are also halal. So we can take their lives and shed their blood?

This is the question someone may ask.

 

From what I grasp, it seems like he meant the part "then they are challenging the verses of the Quran in which Allah has quite clearly mentioned that their anfus, their dima, their maal, is all halal. It is not masum."".

Here Mufti Zahid implies that those who claim that interest between a harabi and muslim is riba are implicitly denying the verses which say their 'anfus, their dima and their maal is halal'..

If one by these verses permit the maal, then why does it also not apply to the rest, such as their dima and anfus? (I,e their blood and lives)..

This is what I think he meant...

 

Which part exactly do you think needs explaining?

 

it's mentioned in Fatawa Ridawiyyah that such a position is attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa by some Shawafi3 of the past. Likewise, some people in the past had attributed permission of mut3ah (12er shia style) to Imam Malik, that too is a blatant lie upon the imam.

https://archive.org/details/fatawa_ridawiyyah/fatawa ridawiyyah - dwi ed - vol.11/page/n486/mode/1up (see pg 484)

===
off topic
in the process i stumbled upon a minor mistake of Akmal Qadri saab - in one of his videos he mentioned that Ghawth-e-A3zam radi Allahu 3anhu was formerly Hanafi, and later on adopted the Hanbali mazhab.

Fatawa Ridawiyya cites that he was formerly Maliki and later on became Hanbali because someone disparaged Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and he couldn't stand the disparaging of one of the imams of the Ahlus Sunnah. lesson for us to respect all schools of the Ahlus Sunnah as their differences of opinion are a mercy from Allah (see page 478 of the same volume)

 

How accurate is this truth that Shafi scholars incorrectly attributed this to Imam Abu Hanifa (ra)? Any references to prove your statement or is this something planted to discredit a different mazhab?

 

those who are not in dar al-islam are certainly in dar al-harb, for there is no third distinct dar, as clarified by sadr'ush shari'ah.

as for the statement, then this is absolutely incorrect, reeks of jahl, and is istihlal of something which is haram as per qur'an, sunnah, and ijmaa', i.e. zina, and i fear kufr upon the one who says such a statement.

=======================================================================================

a legal maxim in the shari'ah is that the original state with regard to the private parts of women is prohibition.

imam zaynuddin ibn nujaym writes:



legal maxim: the original state with regard to female private parts is prohibition.

ashbhah wa'n naza'ir, pg. 57

Allah azza wa jall, has explicitly stated the only two ways by which the private parts of women can become halal for a man, as can be found in surah al-mu'minun, 23:5-7, and surah al-ma'arij, 70:29-31:



therefore, there are only two ways by which sexual intercourse with women becomes halal:

1. marriage

2. milkiyyat.

anything beyond these two is haram and is a transgression of the boundaries set by Allah.

with regard to random non-muslim females of dar al-harb, then sexual intercourse is not permissible with them and is zina, for they are neither the wives of muslim men, nor are they in their milkiyyat.

=======================================================================================

1. with regard to marriage with the non-muslim females of dar al-harb, then this depends upon the religion of the females. if they truly are kitabiyyat, jews and christians, and not atheist/agnostic as many are today, then marriage with a non-muslim female in dar al-harb of this sort would be valid, and sexual intercourse with such a wife would not be zina, and children born from such a marriage would be legitimate and attributed to the father.

however, it is not permitted to marry the kitabiyyat of dar al-harb, this permission is only with regard to the women of the dhimmis in dar al-islam, even though it would be valid with regard to the kitabiyyat of dar al-harb. if, however, they are of another religion or lack a religion completely, then marriage with such women is invalid in all circumstances.

2. with regard to milkiyyat, then firstly, it ought to be known that sexual intercourse is only permitted with concubines who are kitabiyyat or muslimat, those of other religions or those who lack a religion cannot be taken as concubines for sexual intercourse, even if they are in his milkiyyat.

however, just as there are conditions that must be met for marriage to be valid, likewise there are conditions for milkiyyat to be valid. the non-muslim females of dar al-harb are not in the milkiyyat of the muslim men in dar al-harb, and thus sexual relations with them cannot be considered permissible.

the default principle with regard to harbis, whether male or female is that they are free, milkiyyat can only be established when certain conditions are met.

alahazrat writes:



it is in zahiriyyah, "ahl al-harb are free"

fatawa afriqah, pg. 43

then, he writes:



it is in radd al-muhtar, "they are ghulams after istila'a upon them, as for prior to it, then they are free due to what is in zahiriyyah, and in muhit there is evidence for that."

from this, the condition of istila'a upon them is learned. he then refers to the statements of the jurists that if a harbi had sold his son to a muslim in dar al-harb, then the muslim would not have milkiyyat over him whilst in dar al-harb:





ibid, pp. 43-44

from this, we learn the condition of taking to dar al-islam.

based upon this fatwa, it is clear as day that there cannot be milkiyyat of harbis in dar al-harb, and hence sexual intercourse cannot be permissible with the non-muslim females of dar al-harb, even if a muslim man paid her or her father for milkiyyat.

=======================================================================================

the objection which has been brought, of asking whether the private parts of the women of ahl al-harb are permissible for muslim men, by doing qiyas with riba and their wealth, then the jurists have already answered this centuries before. may Allah reward them and illuminate their graves, their answers and explanations are relevant even after many centuries.


alahazrat writes:



treachery is haram in dar al-harb by ijmaa', likewise zina, due to there not being permissibility with regard to female private parts. it is in fath, from mabsut, after the aforementioned passage:

"in opposition to zina, if qiyas is done upon riba, because the female private part does not become permissible due to ibahah [i.e. the absence of 'ismah, as is the case with their wealth], rather [it is made permissible] by a specific way. as for wealth, then it is permissible by giving it with consent and due to ibahah."

fr, 17/317

=======================================================================================

sometimes people are misled by a statement which is incorrectly attributed to imam e aazam abu hanifah regarding zina with a harbiyyah in dar al-harb being permissible. the truth is that there is no such statement from imam e aazam, and this was a mistake on behalf of the shafi scholars who transmitted this.

والله تعالی اعلم

 

aalim or non aalim? if aalim what is his justification? if jahil what is the value of his statement?

if anyone says such things, my first question would be: 'where did you get this from?'

----
on alcohols, etc, i have a relatively long article to post - in sha'Allah. but parked for now due to other priorities. i mentioned this in case brothers are curious why i have not answered those issues.

 

one of the clear definitions of dar al-islam is in a fatwa of alahazrat about jumu'ah in western countries

 

aray. kya ho raha hai bhai. kafi garma garmi ka mahaul hai.

got busy, so didn't get time to read responses - so when i began reading, i see fights going on. and amazing level of digression

- started with mortgage
- went to riba

and took a sharp turn towards sanitisers with alcohol
- alcohol haram and najis
- isopropyl alcohol is inebriating

suddenly, it swerved to concubinage and dar al-islam/dar al-harb

- concubines, and their analogy for extra marital relations in the west
- we steered for a while in the direction of dar al-islam/harb
- living in the west and then back to mortgages.

=====
i was discussing with a relative, the incompetence of indian engineers - in fact, the indian education system churns out 'graduates' without no real knowledge - except perhaps how to 'solve' problems (in text books) without real insight into the significance of the subject.

entirely my opinion, feel free to ignore: i think it is because of poor grasp of basics - and the haste to go somewhere very fast. so they try to 'master' skills - again without a sound understanding of underlying principles.

thus, trying to understand a topic without sound fundamentals of that science will lead to fallacies.

---
dar al-harb and dar al-islam are defined by fuqaha following statements in hadith and various reports that imply a situation. it is not as simple as: ok rishi sunak became PM of UK so it is dar-shirk; tomorrow, some politician with muslim name becomes the PM and we consider it 'um ok. it is dar-islam now'.

definitions of terms will remain as specified by fuqaha if we are to discuss anything within their framework.

a comprehensive treatment of the subject can be found in various fatawa of alahazrat, especially iylam al-a'alam bi anna hindostan dar al-islam.

------
some rash responses by brothers are because they are conditioned to think in terms of western values subconsciously. such as having sexual relations with one's own concubine. orientalists were usually islamophobic and in the victorian era and morality, sexual relationships were dirty and they used this brush to paint islam and islamic societies as a sex-obsessed society.

one hundred years later - the society is totally upturned and nothing is off limits - BUT, it is 'regressive' if a muslim talks of polygamy and 'unethical' and 'morally repulsive' if the ruling of legitimacy of having sexual relations with one's own concubine.

in the west, a man can cheat his wife and sleep with as many women as he likes without being married - there is no law to prevent that. he can father as many children as he wishes out of wedlock. no law against that. but a man should NOT marry more than one. that is a crime.

thus islamic laws should not be judged by the mores and laws de jour.

---
the qur'an permits relations with concubines - however, slavery has been outlawed all over the world. there are no slaves technically. even though, there is a different form of slavery but the classical human beings as chattel does not exist in our time. so the question of permissibility by using it as analogy does not arise.

----

you equated mortgages with riba; riba is prohibited in qur'an. and the rest.

bad reasoning. i would like to know a few things, if you can explain (please don't try to be snarky. i can be also be zero-pH if i wish to)

- what is the definition of 'riba' according to fuqaha?
- what is the meaning of the qur'anic verse, a portion of which says: "then indeed, trade is also similar to interest"
- what do you understand by 'Hiyal' / workarounds (pl. of Heelah)
- maslahah mafsadah etc. / alahazrat's excellent work on dispensations: jali al-naSS fi amakin al-rukhaS is a good read to understand the reasons why there is scope in fiqh al-islami to make dispensations.

you don't have to answer, but if you look up these, the fatawa on mortgages will automatically make sense. this is a vast subject and in our time life is not simple - and business is not only about selling & buying. i studiously avoid these topics simply because i do not have the time to follow up and answer myriad questions related to this at the moment.

a great scholar said: that one who answers everything is a madman. and in another case, imam qasim ibn sallaam, a towering maliki imam was asked a question and he did not answer. after a few days the questioner showed impatience and said: 'what is the answer to my query'. the imam said: "i am thinking about it still - and if you cannot wait, you can please go to someone who can answer you. and i will not answer until i am sure about my answer". [quote from memory, there could be mistakes. will correct if i can place the quote]

if this be the way of mountains, insignificant pebbles at the foot of such mountains are more worthy of keeping quiet.

---

 

fair point. even though a lot of people have a lot of reasons, especially the second or subsequent generations who were just born there due to no choice of their own. plus living humbly back home isn't a piece of cake either. looks very virtuous and good on paper. but if you're a person of mediocre means and you have to pay a bribe for anything from a school admission to a hospital treatment, you'd be forced smack bang into those very same verbal gymnastics and justify a lot of outright haram

in the case of us indians, india vs west is just dar al-harb 1 vs dar al-harb 2, i'd like to see someone who makes the case that current india is a lesser evil than the west for Islam and Muslims!

we can't give esoteric answers to objective, in-duniya situations

even going by the barakah comment in an esoteric manner - is it just because of the mortgage, or lack of purdah and free mixing, gheebah, cutting ties of kinship, dishonest dealings, a bunch of other sins common among people? is barakah something you can touch and feel? is it defined by monetary or financial independance? is poverty always bad, or good? is an outwardly bad situation like an accident or suffering from cancer necessarily a punishment for one's sins, or is it an ibtila from Allah and will the slave's status gets raised by it?

can you define fiqh please? mention if it is your own definition or textual definition

do your own homework bro - read up the verses, ahadith, and rulings related to wars, peace, treaties, governance, mudahana, family laws, nafaqah, umm ul-walad, etc. you'll find all the explanations - i promise. your blanket and literal understanding of the mufti's words is really not enviable!

 

Mufti Zahid says at the end of the clip:

"Those people who believe that interest, or riba, the dealing between a harbi and a Muslim is riba and is haram, then they are challenging the verses of the Quran in which Allah has quite clearly mentioned that their anfus, their dima, their maal, is all halal. It is not masum."

This needs explaining. If their lives and blood are also halal then why stop at finances.

 

No regrets. My life is not a financial mess. I have seen people do it and who are perfectly happy. I have also seen many people who save for years and buy an house outright (I know this is not possible for a lot of people), or people who have sold their houses and have gone to live in rent just because of this issue. They will tell you, life is so much more peaceful for them and their children.

People can easily get long term fixed rental contracts nowadays, 5 years, 10 years.

As with everything there are some hurdles but nothing that would make me not sleep at night. I don’t think I could ever be comfortable taking a mortgage and paying interest for over 30 years of my life, even for a house.

In most cases, nobody is forcing anyone to live in the West, they have the option to ‘go back home’ and live more humbly but they won’t. Why live in dar al harb if you will have to engage in such an activity is beyond me. Thinking of taking a loan or mortgage and pay interest should make anybody cringe but we won’t rest until we hound every imam we know until we find one who will give us a fatwa that it’s okay. Only then we’ll be happy.

No matter what dispensation you want to take to engage in ‘riba’, and whether you want to do verbal gymnastics to justify it, or call it Muslim prosperity, I can tell you it sucks the barakah from the house and from what I have observed over the years, comparing people who have never gotten a mortgage vs people who have, nothing good comes out of it in the long term for you or for your children.

 

May Allah reward you for taking this decision. I don't think anyone will argue this is more the scrupulous thing to do. Or would they?

Anyway, I really want to know how you have found it. Do you have any regrets? Did you still face pressure from family to get a mortgage? Is your life a financial mess? Or have you found barakah and ease? Genuine questions and would love to hear your thoughts.

 

You might be one of the very few people who is comfortable with spraying olive oil on their hands to disinfect themselves when they are out and about. I’m not comfortable having oily hands so I’ll just use alcohol based sanitisers.