Question One: Is it permissible to participate in an auction? That is, bringing goods for sale where the highest bidder buys the item?
Answer: Bidding (al-muzayadah) linguistically means competing to increase the price of a commodity offered for sale.
Technically, it means announcing a commodity for sale, where people outbid one another until it reaches the last bidder, who then takes it.
This type of sale is permissible according to the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (saw) narrated by Tirmidhi in his Sunan on the authority of Anas bin Malik, that the Messenger of Allah (saw):
بَاعَ حِلْسًا وَقَدَحًا وَقَالَ مَنْ يَشْتَرِي هَذَا الْحِلْسَ وَالْقَدَحَ فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ أَخَذْتُهُمَا بِدِرْهَمٍ فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَنْ يَزِيدُ عَلَى دِرْهَمٍ مَنْ يَزِيدُ عَلَى دِرْهَمٍ فَأَعْطَاهُ رَجُلٌ دِرْهَمَيْنِ فَبَاعَهُمَا مِنْهُ
"Sold a saddlecloth and a cup, saying: 'Who will buy this saddlecloth and cup?' A man said: 'I will take them for a dirham.' The Prophet (saw) said: 'Who will give more than a dirham? Who will give more than a dirham?' A man gave him two dirhams, so he sold them to him." (Sunan al-Tirmidhi)
Tirmidhi said this is a hasan (good) Hadith. This does not contradict the Hadith of Sufyan ibn Wahb al-Khawlani (ra) who said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) forbidding bidding sales," because that Hadith is weak; its chain contains Ibn Lahi'ah, who is weak. Likewise, it does not contradict the Hadith of Ibn Umar: "The Messenger of Allah (saw) forbade that any of you should sell over the sale of his brother... except for spoils of war and inheritance." The prohibition here applies when the sale has been settled with a buyer; at that point, no one is allowed to come and say "I will pay more." However, while the sale has not yet been settled, as in an auction, this Hadith does not apply.
Al-Ayni stated in Umdat al-Qari that the permissibility of bidding sales is the view of Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and the majority of the people of knowledge.
13 Safar 1430 AH 8/2/2009 CE
==========
Question Two: Is it permissible to work as a defense lawyer in our country? We have a good professor who is considered a famous lawyer nationwide and appears on television due to his fame. He takes on the task of defending some oppressed people... Brothers are questioning the permissibility of such work. Does the Sharia ruling for a prosecutor differ from the ruling for a defense lawyer? Furthermore, if a defense lawyer is convinced that a right belongs to his client but it is difficult to obtain without using illegal means such as bribery, is that permissible as long as the intention is to return the right to its owner?
Answer:
Regarding the work of a lawyer:
It is not permissible for him to work as a "prosecutor" (wakil niyabah) because the nature of his work is to defend the authority in terms of its law and prosecution. As long as the authority does not apply Sharia, representing it is not permissible, and no excuse is sought for the lawyer's work as a prosecutor; it is haram.
A defense lawyer's work is permissible if he focuses his defense on supporting the oppressed and returning rights to their owners as established by Sharia. As for rights established according to man-made law but not established by Sharia, it is not permissible to defend them.
For example, a person who is oppressed and imprisoned because he spoke a word of truth... Islam defends him and seeks his release from prison. Therefore, the work of a defense lawyer to remove oppression from him and save him from prison is a valid and obligatory action.
Another example: someone who is a victim of theft. Islam returns his stolen property to him. Thus, it is permissible for a defense lawyer to defend him to recover his stolen property.
Another example: a person who sells his house for a specific amount, part of which is paid upfront and the rest in installments. The buyer pays a portion then refuses or denies the rest, despite having moved in. Islam returns the seller's right from the buyer. Therefore, it is permissible for a defense lawyer to defend him to obtain the price of his house which the buyer denied.
Thus, the work of a defense lawyer to remove oppression and return rights established by Sharia to their owners is a valid action.
However, if the right is established for him by man-made law but contradicts Sharia, it is not permissible for a defense lawyer to defend it.
For example, someone who is a shareholder in a joint-stock company with an invalid contract (batil). When profits are distributed, he finds his share is less than what he is entitled to based on his shares according to the contract. It is not permissible for a defense lawyer to defend this "right" to return it to the owner as long as this right is established by man-made law but contradicts Sharia, because the company itself is invalid and its profits are not recognized by Sharia. The duty of the Muslim is to exit such a company.
Another example: someone who places his money in a bank for interest (riba) at a certain rate. When the bank gives him his share, it calculates the interest at a lower rate than agreed. It is not permissible for a defense lawyer to defend this right, as it is established by man-made law which permits usurious banks, but it is not established by Sharia. The duty of the Muslim is to cancel this usurious transaction with the bank.
Thus, the defense lawyer's work is valid if it is to remove oppression and return a Sharia-established right, but it is not permissible if he is litigating for rights established by man-made law that contradict Sharia.
As for the defense lawyer using illegal means to return a Sharia-established right, such as bribery (rushwah), even if the intention is to return the right to its owner, this is not permissible. Bribery is haram, whether the interest to be achieved is a right or a falsehood. This is because the texts regarding the prohibition of bribery were not restricted to achieving a false interest only; rather, they came in general terms without being specified. This is clear in the texts:
Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah narrated from Abdullah bin Amr who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَى الرَّاشِي وَالْمُرْتَشِي
"The curse of Allah is upon the one who gives a bribe and the one who takes it."
Ahmad narrated from Thawban who said:
لَعَنَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الرَّاشِيَ وَالْمُرْتَشِيَ وَالرَّائِشَ يَعْنِي الَّذِي يَمْشِي بَيْنَهُمَا
"The Messenger of Allah (saw) cursed the one who gives a bribe, the one who takes it, and the go-between (the one who walks between them)."
These Hadiths are general and include every bribe, whether it is to seek a right or to seek something false. Furthermore, these texts did not specify a reason ('illah) for the prohibition, nor is there any other text from which a reason for the prohibition of bribery can be derived.
Therefore, it is not permissible for a defense lawyer to use bribery even if his intention is to facilitate the return of a right to its owner where he sees it difficult to return it otherwise.
29 Safar 1430 AH 24/2/2009 CE
==========
Question Three: In the book The Social System in the chapter "Looking at Women," it says:
"Whoever wants to marry a woman is allowed to look at her without being in seclusion (khalwah) with her. Jaber narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 'When one of you proposes to a woman, if he is able to look at that which will encourage him to marry her, let him do so...'" (Extracted by Al-Hakim, who said it is authentic according to Muslim’s conditions).
At the end of page 42 and the beginning of page 43, it states:
"That is, the believers must lower their gaze except for the suitors (khatibeen), for they are allowed not to lower their gaze in order to look at the women they wish to propose to."
What is the definition of a suitor (khatib)? Is it after proposing or before? If it is before proposing, is it someone who looks at this one and that one to decide on one, or is it someone who is determined to propose to a specific woman?
Answer: In language, if "إذا" (if/when) is coupled with a past tense verb, it means performing the action, and it also means what is in the status of performing it—i.e., about to perform it or during the performance.
It means both: performing the action literally or effectively, unless a context (qarinah) specifies one of them.
For example, the verse: "O you who believe, when you stand up for prayer (idha qumtum), wash your faces and your hands to the elbows..." Here, "when you stand up" means when you intend to stand for prayer, go and perform wudu. It does not mean after you have actually performed the prayer, because wudu precedes prayer.
Similarly, "when one of you proposes" (idha khataba) includes if he has actually proposed or if he intends to propose.
However, for the intention to perform the action to be treated as the action itself, the person must be serious about performing it; otherwise, the meaning does not apply. Therefore, the majority of jurists (Malikis, Shafi'is, and Hanbalis) stipulated for the permissibility of the suitor's look that the viewer must intend to marry her and hope for a positive response, or know/suspect he will be accepted. The Hanafis were satisfied with the condition of intending marriage without the other stipulations.
The conclusion is that the one permitted to look is the suitor literally or effectively. "Effectively" means he is serious about proposing to that woman for marriage, not just looking from one to another to settle on one. This is because "when he proposes" refers, as explained, to the man who is actually or effectively heading towards proposing to a specific woman, not just looking around without seriousness. Allah (swt) knows the reality of this matter and nothing is hidden from Him. If the looking is not for an actual or effective proposal, he will be questioned about it on the Day of Resurrection, and Allah is severe in punishment.
9 Rabi’ al-Thani 1430 AH 4/4/2009 CE
==========
Question Four: In Sahih al-Bukhari (Book of Jizya - Chapter on Expelling Jews from the Arabian Peninsula), Abu Hurairah (ra) narrated: While we were in the Masjid, the Prophet (saw) came out and said: "Go to the Jews." So we went out until we reached the Beit al-Midras, and he said: "Embrace Islam and you will be safe. Know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and I want to expel you from this land. So, whoever among you has property, let him sell it; otherwise, know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Messenger."
We are confused by this Hadith, as it is understood that these Jews had their own schools. Some of us understood that this relates to separate Jewish entities like Banu Qurayza or Khaybar... so there is no problem with them having their own schools. Others leaned towards the view that they were People of Dhimma (Ahl al-Dhimma) from the Jews who remained after the events of Banu Qurayza and Khaybar. This would mean that private schools are permitted for the People of Dhimma, and here lies the problem! We request clarification.
Answer: Regarding the subject of the Midras:
You have elaborated on whether the matter concerns the People of Dhimma or Jewish entities... and it became confusing for you regarding the ruling if they were from the People of Dhimma, as you concluded the permissibility of private schools for them!
The matter is simpler than that. It does not relate to schools in the modern sense, but rather to the People of Dhimma studying their religions. The "Midras" is an annex to their place of worship where they study their Torah and rituals. It is permissible for the People of Dhimma to study their religions among themselves. This is different from schools in the well-known sense.
To clarify, the meaning of Midras in Al-Qamus al-Muhit has two meanings:
- The place where Jews read the Torah.
- A place where they gather on their holidays to eat and drink.
In Lisan al-Arab, it has two meanings:
- The place where they gather on their holiday to pray.
- A day on which they eat and drink.
As you can see, it is nothing more than an annex to their places of worship where they study their religion among themselves, or a place for social gathering. In both cases, it has no relation to schools in the modern sense.
12 Ramadan 1430 AH 1/9/2009 CE