Dealing with Riba Dar al Harb

I agree with brother KS for the most part.

Hanafis need to keep a few basic axioms in mind. This is baed on my little investigation I have done on the issue. If I am wrong, please do correct me.

------------

In a dar al-harb TAKING extra profit from the kafir is allowed and it is not termed riba.

Why?

1) The kafir harbi's property is ghayr mahfooz and ghayr masoom AND

2) because the MUSLIM is the beneficiary WITH CERTAINTY.

------------

GIVING interest is haram.

1) The Muslim's property is mahfooz and masoom so any extra payments on a loan IS giving riba

2) It's a no-brainer the Muslim is NOT the beneficiary. It is pure extortion of the Muslim.

------------

Coming back to the question of OWNING a house, renting, and necessity, doing the sums tells us

OWNING property IS a CERTIFIED benefit in the long run.

So comparing it to renting for life, vs a mortgage for 20-30 years at the end of which the Muslim owns, it DOES accord better financial odds to the Muslim as opposed to paying kafirs rent for life.

People should note that it's not just for PERSONAL reasons, but we have to think as a community for the LARGER COLLECTIVE financial and strategic interests of Muslims.

Granted, yes, mortgages are essentially contracts involving transactions which are forbidden in the Sharia BUT applying BOTH of the above axioms here, we reach the conclusion:

1) we can use the first axiom here that the Muslim is the BENEFICIARY eventually as far as a long term STRATEGIC & MORAL point of view is concerned.

2) the second axiom ALSO applies because the Muslim is NOT a beneficiary because as brother KS said and we all know, the contract IS extortionate

So with the house issue, I can see how some respected muftis would apply point 2 from the bit above and some others would apply point 1 from it.

----------------

The situation gets complex when people exploit the "mortgage allowed" permission to buy INVESTMENT properties (not used for living) or take out business loans. And this IS a problem.

----------------

I don't know if any north-Indian/Pakistani desi muftis issue such a fatwa, but I know that the Turkish and Bosnian Hanafi muftis fatwa, and Jamia Nizamia muftis similar rulings are:

First home for personal living (decent middle class home in the burbs for your family to stay comfortably with dignity) - Mortgage allowed.

Investment property - Mortgage NOT allowed - and you can't bring in the point of strategic and moral benefit to Muslims, because this is not darura and the mortgage agreement DOES demand interest FROM a Muslim. The first house for the family is deemed darura AND the point of Muslim being beneficiary (albeit from moral and strategic pov) can also be applied to it considering long term strategic interests of personal family as well as community. It will help the community own an asset base.

Business loans - DEFINITELY NOT allowed, as business success depends on chance, there is zero question of a Muslim benefiting CERTAINLY.

---------------

Me adding to the complexity.

What about properties for Sunni purposes: Mosques, community centers, libraries, madaris etc.?

Just a query. Not giving an opinion or arguing.

 

Come on Shaykh, a roof is 'kinaya' for a house.

 

so a roof over the head with or without walls? sheets will do?

by any chance, can someone call it a 'house'?

 

so you are `awaam.
but if you were `aam, you would be generality.

 

I would like to also add that immigration is not limited to India and Pakistan. There are hundreds of places to choose from. Cuba, Venezuela, Spain etc etc that is of course if a person is complaining of the restrictions on his religion in the country he lives in. Immigration may apply to one person but not another.

 

Necessity is having a roof over the head to protect a person from the weather and for privacy.

OWNING a house is not a necessity. Anyone who can pay monthly mortgage can definitely pay rent. So if they can rent the necessity is dropped.

Take the following into consideration Sidi:

1 If this is 'dar alharb' then then the other rulings of 'dar alharb' would have to apply. And one would have to consider the ruling of living in 'dar alharb'.

2 If these lands are established as 'dar alharb' then taking from the harbi disbelievers is allowed not GIVING. Especially if we are at loss buy paying extortionate prices for the roof and walls and the land is never ours. With the same amount of money a person can buy very good pots of lands and bungalows in other countries.

3 The necessity is living in a house and not owning a house. So if one can keep up payments of mortgage he can definitely rent. The case in England being that everyone is guaranteed shelter. Yes necessity does come about if someone is homeless and forced into a mortgage as mentioned by Shaykh Abdullah Siraj alDin.

4 If they base the ruling on 'dar alharb' then not ONE mortgage is allowed but many according to their reasoning. But as mentioned previously the ruling pertains to TAKING and NOT giving. If the ruling is based on necessity then the ruling is limited to a small house sufficient to accommodate everyone.

4 The ruling of immigration would definitely apply to those Muslims who have big bungalows in Mirpur and other cities. There are plenty of those around. Darura definitely does not apply to those people. There are thousands of Muslims who build big bungalows in their native countries, they can either immigrate back home or sell their bungalows and then buy a home with cash in England.

5 Those 'Mullah's' may not have to immigrate because they may have homes bought with cash or are renting. The immigration point applies to those who say it is 'dar alharb' or those who have enough money to buy property abroad, because they are definitely not in 'darura'.

6 Yes, the Hanafi rulings are practical but they do not apply to many people if not everyone.

 

Roti kapra makaan are all basic necessities for human life with dignity.
The Sunni ulama i have spoken to justify the taking of mortgages as a necessity and
also on the basis of the non Muslims being Harbi.
On the basis of necessity one house via mortgage is allowed. Im sorry but for the vast majority of people its not possible to live in England and buy a house up front with cash as the average price for a 3 bedroom house is ca. A quarter of a million pounds. Its also easy to tell people they can go and live back in Pakistan and India etc. Id like to see the mullahs who say these things buy there money where their mouths are and go first. Of course they won't go themselves! Im generalities so don't shoot me please! its actually impossible to live free from riba in the modern world as the entire financial system of the world is based on it.

I think it is a beauty of the Hanafi madhab that it allows such ruling which are practical.

 

we should not mix up issues.

i am not talking about riba, dar al-harb, harbi or mortgages. i understand that respected muftis have differing opinions - but i was only investigating one specific issue: is house a necessity or not?

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

If someone is forced to live out on the streets then this does fall under darura.

In the case where the person would have to live on the road and is forced to live on the road, if he buys a home with riba the sin will fall on the Muslim community and not on the individual. (Shaykh Abdullah Siraj alDin, as quoted by Dr Nur alDin Itr)

But this case example needs to be differentiated from those validating riba under the pre-text of dar alharb. They have opened the doors for multiple purchasing of buildings all with riba.

In the case of darura if it does arise, each case must be analysed individually if it actually is darura or not.
In many cases within the UK it does not fall under darura.

Many Pakistanis also have land in their native country. A lot of the Pakistanis have mansions built in their homeland.
If they can immigrate to the west they can easily immigrate out of the west where it is possible for them to live with more ease.

 

either don't get married (as it is anyway not a necessity) and if you get married, stay on the pavement if you cannot afford a house. if you perchance have children and they are all girls, they too can stay on the pavements.

so is hijab a necessity? after all, a house is not a necessity.

 

let us say these are haajaat e asliyyah or basic necessities.

so why is shelter not considered as basic necessity?
if it is not, does one pay zakat on the house in which one lives or not?
if one does not pay zakat on the house in which they live, then what is the reason for exemption of this property?

suppose a man lives in a house valued at 50 million dollars. how much zakat is due on him every year?

---
on the flip side:
are photos and video necessities? if not, then what about the dire warnings in the hadith and then on what basis do you consider them permissible?

thus, one can live without a house, but not without a photograph. of course, a photograph is forced upon us by the government, but the government doesn't care if you live on the street - so you can live on the street.

----

 

al Fataawaa al Shadhiliyyah Ghair Muslim Mumaalik Mein Sood Aur Mortgage Ka Shari'e Hukm

Mufti Abu Bakr Sahib Tooba Welfare Trust International

edit mod [aqdas]: please, no personal contact numbers.

 

good question. I always thought house is a necessity until I came across the video posted by brother, where Mufti Akmal says it is not necessity.

Necessity is something which is must for one's survival. like oxygen, eating food, drinking water.

This is my definition, but if someone knows the fiqhi def. please post.

In the present situation and relevant to our discussion, can the western countries considered
a) Dar al Harb
b) Kuffar be considered as Harbis
c) can muslims live in western countries as per the rules, laws and agreements of the country

Probably countries like Syria ( during Hafiz Asad ) would be considered Dar al Harb or Tunisia where Muslims were persecuted for wearing hijab or practicing religion

America, Canada or UK, Muslims have more freedom here in the western countries than many so called Muslim Countries.

 

this brings us to the basic question: how do you define necessity?

 

you always have the option of shelter house. So again, every western country has shelter houses. So the question of thrown on the street, but you have a place always. One may not like it, because it is not comfy..

 

I disagree with AbdulQadir because why only house is single out ? why not buy Business by taking loans on interest from Jews and Christians using the same logic ? Why shouldn't muslims get into 7 Eleven -- starbucks so when a muslim wants to drink coffee ( make it darurah for work ) so he can buy from muslim instead of kafir ?

Islam is clear. House is not necessity as explained by Mufti Akmal.

So, when a Muslim is living in the country of Kuffar he is benefiting them through his work, taxes, serving the community , purchasing their products. All this cannot be simply ignored because one wants to purchase a house on mortgage.

If you consider UK USA CANADA INDIA as DAR al HARB you are suppose to leave the country, not go and establish yourself. Where is this point ?

Also, you should see the clauses put when taking mortgage ( loan on interest ) from these Jewish and Christian banks.

In a 30 year mortgage payment you pay interest for 10 years at the minimum considering you pay the 20% downpayment.
The $100K house which you purchase by taking loan, you return back to bank $300K this is calculated based on 4% interest which is the lowest these days in recession. If the interest rate goes up you pay probably 6x

But rents have stayed same for the last 10 years in the US and Canada (+- 10% variance )

 

Where can Mufti Sahib's booklet be obtained from? Is it online?

This subject does need thorough work looking at it from all angles and situations which vary from a country to country.

Also the option of immigrating is always open for people.

 

Yes (from my understanding). I remember Allamah Ziaul Mustafa listing out the very same things that Abdul Qadir has listed out and saying that although the ruling on mortgages still stands, these are things that need to be considered in this age. He mentioned that one of the Muftis who sits on the Fiqh panel in the Bareilly Seminars was researching this and was going to present his research to the council.

 

You mean to say you guys in the UK don't accumulate equity as you keep making payments on the house? As far as I know (other places), once the house is sold or auctioned off due to non-payments, you will get back your share of the equity, albeit at somewhat of a loss after all the deductions, penalties etc.

The point is that it's still Muslim money going to the kuffaar.

Considering a lifetime scenario for UK, as you state

RENT - Muslim pays money to kuffaar for life, accumulates nothing. if he can't, government provides housing.

MORTGAGE - i) Muslim pays money for 20-30 years to kuffaar and then owns property which is beneficial to him, assuming he makes it

ii) Government provides housing assuming he doesn't make it and the house gets re-possessed OR dies OR gets disabled. no big deal

Going purely with the financial interests of the Muslim, the odds are better with buying, as it has a chance of him acquiring property and ownership.

Also the thing with a home on mortgage is that it's a sure deal. It's not like taking out a business loan and the business is risk based (where it is clearly not allowed to pay the kafir riba, because the eventual benefit to the Muslim is only a matter of chance).

I'm assuming a person will be at the government's mercy then, and may be even end up in a place where it is difficult/dangerous for Muslims for Islam and/or Muslim life in general.

I wonder if this is a valid factor to be considered before issuing a fatwa. Just thinking loudly.

 

you are confining yourself to the UK. This is not the case in most countries. You are literally thrown onto the street if you cannot pay your rent.

this is an excellent idea.