Charging for deeni khidmaat

Discussion in 'Hanafi Fiqh' started by abu Hasan, Nov 23, 2017.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    bump.
     
    Shahzaib likes this.
  2. masha Allah!
    Ala Hazrat's fatwas are real masterpieces and so thorough. Oh how we have fallen!
     
  3. Sohaib

    Sohaib New Member

    Masha ALLAH Azzawajal very importnat topic...

    i would like to share with you Ameer-e-Ahlesunnaths opinion regarding this issue. Madani Muzakra of Naat Khauns held at Faizan-e-Madinah Karachi Pakistan.

    On Friday 9th May 2008

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCMBi3hqoFo

    its only 1:19 seconds
     
  4. Yaseen

    Yaseen Active Member

    Jazakallah Brother. may Allah appreciate your efforts. I'm a bit confused by the following part though as isn't this the same as what Mufti Akmal stated or have I misunderstood the point??

     
  5. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    In another lengthy fatwa [which is composed of a set of questions; I have extracted only the relevant part of the fatwa here for brevity]

    Fatāwā ar-Riđawiyyah, vol.23, page 722
    Fatwā No.366 [Question sent by Shaykh Álī ad-Dīn from Naintal, 27 Rabīy al-Akhir, 1313]

    Question:
    Concerning a person [Zayd] who recites from a book in a Mawlid with such a melodious voice and tune that he outruns professional singers; the commonfolk who do not understand a thing [of what is recited] but are just enthralled by his voice and are captivated by it. Therefore, this person has fixed a fee of five rupees to recite in a Mawlid and will not go to any Mawlid which does not pay him that fee of five rupees.*

    Answer:
    Zayd’s recitation – particularly when he does it in a singing tune [rāg] – and fixing a fee is impermissible and forbidden. It is strictly impermissible for him to take this payment and partaking from it is forbidden as well. It is mandatory for him to return this fees to those he has collected from; and if they are dead, return it to their heir; and if one cannot find them, then such an amount [collected as fees] be given in charity and repent from doing so in the future.

    Firstly, because the mention and remembrance of the Prince of the Universe şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam is a noble deed and an act of worship in itself; and it is forbidden [ĥarām] to demand fees or payment for acts of worship. In Mabsūt, Khulāşah and Ālamgīrī:
    It is not permitted to demand payment for good deeds [ţāáāt] like sermonizing and neither is it necessary to make such a payment.
    In Khulāşah, Tātārkhāniyah and Ālamgīrī:
    If a preacher [al-wāýīž] asks for something [like fees] for himself in a congregation, it is impermissible for him because it is earning this world by expending knowledge [of the hereafter].
    In Qunyah, Ashbāh and Durr al-Mukhtār: [and the passage of Durr is most apt when he used the description: ‘the combination of deeds and actions of bodies’]
    If two entities agree to participate in a partnership in which gainful employment is permissible – such as teaching the Qur’ān or teaching how to write or teaching fiqh as opposed to the [partnership of] middlemen and singers and witnesses in prosecution and reciters in congregation and those who offer condolence and preachers and beggars.**
    Secondly, it is apparent from the question that the person Zayd demands a fee for his performance or recital of poetry; even this is expressly forbidden.

    In Fatāwā Alamgīrī:
    It is not permissible to seek/give payment for singing or recital of poetry; and this is the verdict of all three: Imām Abū Ĥanīfah, Imām Abū Yusuf, Imām Muĥammad as described in Ghāyatu’l Bayān.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Footnotes:

    *It was a considerable amount a hundred years ago. Five rupees was approximately a 10 day wage of a craftsman; a month’s wage for an able bodied farmer; 5 rupees could fetch you 65 pounds of kerosene oil and about 40Kg of rice.

    See Statistical Abstract Relating to British India, http://dsal.uchicago.edu/statistics/1903_excel/index.html
    Also see Prices and Wages in India, http://www.iisg.nl/hpw/data.php#india

    ** The Imām is using this passage to simply illustrate that scholars classified singing and preaching as actions in which gainful employment is impermissible. Even though the mention of ‘partnership’ is actually the focus of the argument in the original texts, in this context, it is not.

    In other words, it is not permissible to solicit/accept payment for

    -singing
    -to bear witness in a case/prosecution
    -to recite in a congregation
    -to offer condolences
    -to preach
    -to beg
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2008
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  6. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    Fatāwā ar-Riđawiyyah, vol.23, page 537
    Fatwā No.211 [Question sent by Abdu’r Rahman from Bari Sal District in Bengal]

    Question:
    Concerning the following:
    -In certain parts of Bengal, certain literate people* are invited to gatherings to recite the Qur’ān or recitation of litanies and donate the reward to the dead. These people are then paid for this service after visiting the graves.

    -Even though an amount is not agreed upon beforehand, it is a tacit agreement that something has to be paid for this service and that such a payment is necessary.

    -These literate folk accept such invitations and attend the gatherings in the greed of getting something.

    -The method of knowing [whether an offering is expected] is that these reciters will not go to a house/place once again, if they are not paid anything the first time.
    a) Is it permissible to give and accept such offerings as described above?
    b) In such a case, will the reward of such recitations benefit the dead?

    Please issue a verdict and may Allāh have mercy upon you and reward you.

    -------------
    Answer:
    If it is a tacit agreement to give and take [payment] as described above and is a common practice, then such a recitation is counted as ‘recitation for payment.’ Because, that which is common practice is counted as an express and spelled agreement [fa inna’l márūfa úrfan ka’l mashrūti lafžan].

    And it is expressly forbidden [ĥarām] to give and receive payment for reciting the Qur’ān and litanies. Both the payer and the payee are sinful for such an act as described in Radd al-Muĥtār, Shifā al-Álīl and other books.

    When such an act is a sin itself, then what hope is there for a reward that is expected to benefit the dead? It is an additional sin to expect reward from an act of sinning as described in Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah, Al-Bazzāziyyah and scholars have harshly reprimanded such practices.

    However, if at all one wants the reward to be donated [in such circumstances where the reciters do not come except for a price], there is a workaround. Those who want to conduct the gathering hires the person for an hour or two during a pre-defined period and give him a salary for this period. For instance, the conductor of such ceremony says to the reciter: ‘I have appointed you in my employ for these two hours for a salary of x monies. And you shall do whatever I ask you to do.’

    The reciter accepts these terms of employment.

    After this, the conductor tells his employee: ‘Recite salawāt or kalimah or Qur’ān for such and such deceased’ [as a part of the employment].

    This is a workaround to permit such payment; may Allāh táālā give good sense to Muslims. And only Allāh táālā knows best and His Knowledge is complete.


    -------------------------
    *miyānjī aur munshī: in days when literacy was abysmal, those who were literate and literally conducted the affairs of the people – teachers, schoolmasters and scribes were referred as miyāNjī and munshījī with reverence; it was a term of respect though the word munshī has since ceased to mean anything but a clerk.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2008
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    Fatāwā ar-Riđawiyyah, vol.23, page 380-381
    Fatwā No.133

    Question:
    [This is a snipped and relevant part of a compound question:]

    Speech makers who sermonize in a Masjid or outside of it are given offerings in cash or kind by the listeners; some of them merely recite poems and odes [naat]
    - Is it permissible to give such offerings in a mosque or out of the mosque?

    - Is such an income permissible for the speaker?

    - Are they included in the description of the verse: ‘These are a people who have bought this worldly life in lieu of the hereafter.’ [2:86]
    ----
    Answer:
    There are three possibilities in this case.

    1. If one’s objective of making a speech, sermonizing or reciting odes [hamd, naat] is just to make money out of it, verily they are included in the verse: ‘Sell not ye, my verses for a small price.’ [2:41].

    This income is besmirched for them and particularly for those people who are not needy; that is as needy that makes it permissible for them to beg. In this case, they beg without a justified need making it a second forbidden act; because, it is a form of unlawful expropriation as mentioned in Fatāwā Al-Hindiyyah [Ālamgīrī]: “The amount collected by assiduous begging is unclean.

    2. If one’s sole objective by making a speech or reciting an ode or a poem is to please Allah [a remembrance of the Lord] and then, Muslims give such a speaker/reciter something of their own volition, then it is permissible for the person to take it.

    3. If one’s objective by making a speech or reciting an ode is mainly the remembrance of Allah taala, but such a person is needy and knows that people usually give something; therefore, this greed is also conjoined and together with the noble intention. It is not as ugly as the first one; yet, it is not as praiseworthy as the second either.

    In Durr al-Mukhtār: ‘It is among the waywardness of Jews and Christians to make [religious] speeches in order to gain wealth.’ [al-waáž li jamýi’l māli min đalālati’l yahūd wa’n naşārā]

    This third possibility is closer to the first than the second similar to a person who goes to Hajj but takes something along to do business; and ‘There is no blame on you if you seek the provision and favor of your Lord.’ [2:198]. Therefore the ruling in the third case is that of permissibility.

    Just as Faqīh Abu’l Layth as-Samarqandi permitted in his fatwā as mentioned in Fatāwā Qāđī Khān and Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah; and this third possibility is actually a reconciliation between the first two.

    Only Allah ta’ala gives success and Allah ta’ala knows best.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2008
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i was speaking to a friend a few minutes ago and he was asking me about the same 'fatwa' and i came back to check whether it was the same. unfortunately, yes it is:
    i am trying to understand the logic behind this fatwa:"not charging for the naat, but only for the time." does it mean that if a man attends a majlis, he is liable to be paid, for merely attending the majlis? like, not charging for the barakat he brings with him, but only for the time he grants you to soak in his barakah.

    most of us workers are paid for our time. in other words, a profession demands that you apply your skills or knowledge - and you are NOT paid for your skills or knowledge per se. you are being paid for the TIME you spend doing using it. otherwise, it would not be impermissible to take up certain professions.

    fuqaha permitted a variant of this as a necessity to imams and mu'adhins because it was a community service. that is, somebody has to lead the prayer and call for prayer. if everybody is busy with their business, then nobody would fulfil this service. conversely, those who render this service would go and make money if they were not burdened with this service. so, they were permitted to accept a salary as imams and mu'adhdhins.

    the same concession is extended to teach qur'an and work as teachers in islamic schools; that is, if these people were not spending time here rendering this important service, they would be probably in the fields tilling land or in workshops and markets. to make up for their loss of livelihood, they are allowed to accept salaries to teach.

    however, it is a bit of a stretch to use it as an analogy to fit the maddening, islamic pop culture of our times. people can live without na'ats; it is not an obligation. nobody will be questioned in their graves if they missed a particular na'at congregation or why they missed it.

    scholars forbade demanding a fee for making speeches or reciting qur'an or by extension, reciting na'ats.

    ----
    anyway, i assume that people are extrapolating a fatwa on a workaround to pay needy reciters. a few fatawa follow:
     
    Aqdas and Unbeknown like this.
  9. Yaseen

    Yaseen Active Member

    i actually came across this again today morning. somebody asked mufti akmal re na'at khwan demanding money. he stated that charging for na'at is haraam but charging for time is perfectly acceptable. Is this a valid position as effectively a na'at khwan will be reciting na'at in the time he's demanded money for or is this a shar'i loophole. I just feel uncomfortable with certain recitors charging £500 to attend mahafil and would like to hear others opinions re this.
     
  10. Yaseen

    Yaseen Active Member

    Salaam

    This is something that has been bugging me for a while and would like some clarification on this. I have heard that it is incorrect to charge for reading na'at and teaching the qur'an, etc. However, i have also heard that whilst this is impermissible there is no prohibition from charging for the time. Hope this makes since but i heard this particular mas'ala on QTV but didn't catch it all.

    jazakallah
     

Share This Page