(Series of Answers by the Eminent Scholar Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Ameer of Hizb ut-Tahrir, to the Questions of Visitors to his Facebook Page "Fiqhi")
Answer to a Question
To Michael Christensen
Question:
Barakallahu feek My question is related to Economic where I seek a clarification about dealing with stocks: This is the process; Since I was young (under 10 years - almost 20 years ago) my mother gave me some Stocks In a bank In my name. These Stocks has grown In value and In 2015 my mother sold the Stocks for me on my behalf and gave me the money.
I havent used the money because i do not if they are legal for me. I converted to islam 6 years ago and do not know much about islamic Economic system but I do not know Stocks are forbidden. But was is the verdict on This situation of mine as I Been told that the details i just told is important In this matter. Is it posible for you to give a short but still detailed islamic Conclusion about me keeping the money or Throw Them out?
Hope you understand my question or else ask me for more details thanks.
*not know = do know Stocks are forbidden) End.
Answer:
(Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuh,
We delayed the answer until we received your response to our inquiries regarding your question, which were as follows:
- The date of your conversion to Islam, even approximately: September 2010.
- The date you learned that stocks are haram: 2015.
- When you authorized your mother to sell the stocks in your name, was your mother a disbeliever, or was she a Muslim at the time of authorization? She was and still is kafirah (she was and still is a disbeliever).
- To whom did she sell the stocks? Was the buyer a Muslim or a disbeliever? The shares were sold back to the Bank (money bank), not muslims (The shares were sold to the bank—a money bank—whose owners are non-Muslims).
- Based on this, we have understood from your original question and your answers to our inquiries the following:
Your non-Muslim mother gave you stocks about twenty years ago when you were under ten years old and not a Muslim at the time. Your mother placed the stocks in your name at the bank, and their value increased over the past twenty years from their original value. You then embraced Islam about six years ago, around 2010 CE.
You learned that these stocks are prohibited (haram) for a Muslim in 2015. In the same year, 2015, you authorized your mother to sell them for you, and your mother was a disbeliever when you authorized her. She sold the stocks to a bank in your country whose owners are disbelievers.
- You are now asking: What part of this money is lawful for you?
Dear brother, first, I praise Allah for guiding you to Islam and for guiding you to adhere to the lawful (halal) and the prohibited (haram). You are asking what is lawful for you... may Allah bless you, and may He grant you lawful and good provision. Allah is with you.
- The answer regarding what is lawful for you from those stocks is as follows:
- What results from the financial transactions of disbelievers before they embrace Islam is lawful for them after they embrace Islam, unless that money was usurped or stolen; in those cases, it is not lawful either before or after Islam. Evidence for this includes:
a- Financial Transactions Before Islam:
Ahmad narrated in his Musnad from Amr bin al-Aas that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
إِنَّ الْإِسْلَامَ يَجُبُّ مَا كَانَ قَبْلَهُ
"Islam wipes out what was before it."
Muslim narrated in his Sahih from Amr bin al-Aas from the Messenger of Allah (saw) that he said:
أَمَا عَلِمْتَ أَنَّ الْإِسْلَامَ يَهْدِمُ مَا كَانَ قَبْلَهُ؟
"Did you not know that Islam demolishes what was before it?"
These hadiths indicate that whoever embraces Islam is not held accountable for what he did before his Islam. Al-Nawawi mentioned in his explanation of Sahih Muslim regarding this hadith: "His (saw) saying 'Islam demolishes what was before it' means it drops it and erases its trace." Accordingly, what a disbeliever earns of wealth before his Islam, he is not held accountable for after his Islam; rather, it becomes his property even if he earned it through a prohibited way—meaning it becomes lawful wealth for him according to Sharia.
The Prophet (saw) affirmed the Muslims' ownership of the wealth they acquired while they were disbelievers. He (saw) did not ask them upon their conversion to get rid of the wealth they had acquired through usury (riba), selling wine, gambling, or any other prohibited means of ownership or growth in Islam. Rather, he affirmed the wealth they had with them when they embraced Islam. However, he (saw) held them accountable for their financial transactions after Islam—from the moment of their conversion—according to Sharia rulings: usury is prohibited, wine is prohibited, gambling is prohibited, and so on; they must adhere to financial transactions according to Sharia rulings after they embrace Islam.
b- As for usurped or stolen money acquired before Islam and still in one's possession after Islam, it must be returned to its owner. This is because a usurped item is guaranteed to the one it was taken from, and the usurper must return the exact item to its owner. It was narrated from Samurah that the Prophet (saw) said:
عَلَى اليَدِ مَا أَخَذَتْ حَتَّى تُؤَدِّيَ
"The hand is responsible for what it took until it returns it." (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, who said it is a hasan hadith).
Muslim narrated from Wail bin Hujr who said: "I was with the Messenger of Allah (saw) when two men came to him disputing over a piece of land. One of them said, 'O Messenger of Allah, this man seized my land in the days of Jahiliyyah.' He was Imru' al-Qays bin Abis al-Kindi and his opponent was Rabiah bin Abdan. The Prophet said: 'Your evidence.' He said: 'I have no evidence.' He said: 'Then his oath.' The man said: 'Then he will take it.' The Prophet said: 'You have nothing but that.' When the man stood up to swear, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
مَنِ اقْتَطَعَ أَرْضًا ظَالِمًا لَقِيَ اللَّهَ وَهُوَ عَلَيْهِ غَضْـبَانُ
'Whoever seizes a piece of land unjustly will meet Allah while He is angry with him.'"
The term "seized" (intaza) means he overpowered and took it by force (usurpation). The Messenger (saw) looked into the man's claim against the one who usurped his land even though it happened in the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic) period. This indicates that usurped money has a different ruling than wealth acquired through prohibited transactions before Islam. Usurped money does not become lawful for the disbeliever upon his conversion; rather, it remains the property of its original owner. The disbeliever who has embraced Islam must return that wealth to its original owner according to Sharia rulings.
The same applies to stolen money. Ahmad narrated from Samurah that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
إِذَا سُرِقَ مِنَ الرَّجُلِ مَتَاعٌ، أَوْ ضَاعَ لَهُ مَتَاعٌ، فَوَجَدَهُ بِيَدِ رَجُلٍ بِعَيْنِهِ، فَوَجَدَهُ بِيَدِ رَجُلٍ بِعَيْنِهِ، فَهُوَ أَحَقُّ بِهِ، وَيَرْجِعُ الْمُشْتَرِي عَلَى الْبَائِعِ بِالثَّمَنِ
"If a person’s property is stolen, or if he loses property and finds it in the possession of a specific man, he has more right to it, and the buyer may go back to the seller for the price."
This is a text stating that stolen property is returned to its owner.
Since the wealth your mother set aside for you before your Islam resulted from a financial transaction other than usurpation or theft, it is therefore lawful for you after your conversion.
- As for after your conversion, if the financial transaction is of a nature that is typically unknown to someone in your position, it is lawful for you as long as you did not know it was prohibited. Once you know it is prohibited, you must stop dealing with it immediately. Since you did not know that stocks were prohibited until 2015—about five years after your conversion—and since the prohibition of stocks is something that might be unknown to someone in your situation, it has been lawful for you from the time you embraced Islam in 2010 until you learned of the prohibition in 2015. You must determine the month in 2015 in which you learned that stocks were prohibited; they are lawful for you up to that date.
The evidence that someone is excused for what is typically unknown until they gain knowledge is that if a Sharia ruling is unknown to a person like the doer, he is not held accountable for the action, and his action is considered valid, even if the Sharia ruling regarding it is that it is void. This is because the Messenger (saw) heard Muawiyah bin al-Hakam say "May Allah have mercy on you" (YarhamukAllah) to someone who sneezed while in prayer. After they finished the prayer, the Messenger taught him that speaking invalidates the prayer and saying "May Allah have mercy on you" invalidates the prayer, but he did not order him to repeat the prayer.
Muslim narrated in his Sahih from Muawiyah bin al-Hakam al-Sulami who said: "While I was praying with the Messenger of Allah (saw), a man among the people sneezed. I said: 'May Allah have mercy on you.' The people stared at me. I said: 'Woe to me! What is the matter with you, looking at me?' They started striking their thighs with their hands. When I saw them silencing me, I became quiet. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) finished the prayer—may my father and mother be sacrificed for him, I have never seen a teacher before him or after him better than him—by Allah, he did not rebuke me, strike me, or insult me. He said:
إِنَّ هَذِهِ الصَّلَاةَ لَا يَصْلُحُ فِيهَا شَيْءٌ مِنْ كَلَامِ النَّاسِ، إِنَّمَا هُوَ التَّسْبِيحُ وَالتَّكْبِيرُ وَقِرَاءَةُ الْقُرْآنِ
'Indeed, this prayer is not the right place for any of the people's speech; it is only for tasbeeh, takbeer, and the recitation of the Qur'an.'" (Or as the Messenger of Allah said). Al-Nasa'i narrated something similar. The fact that speaking invalidates the prayer was something usually unknown to such a person, so the Messenger (saw) excused him and considered his prayer valid. The fact that shareholding companies are prohibited by Sharia is one of the rulings unknown to many Muslims; therefore, ignorance is excused. Thus, the actions of those who participated are considered valid, even if the companies themselves are void—much like the prayer of Muawiyah bin al-Hakam was valid even though he did something that invalidates prayer, because he was ignorant of the fact that speaking invalidates it.
Of course, muftis and scholars are not excused regarding stocks because this ruling is not unknown to people like them if they were to exert effort in understanding the reality of shareholding companies and the relevant Sharia evidences to derive the ruling; they are not excused. As for the general public of Muslims, as we said, this ruling is unknown to people like them, so they are excused. When they learn the ruling, they must dispose of those stocks according to what Sharia prescribes...
- The duty upon a person when they learn the Sharia ruling that stocks are void is to dispose of them. This is done by authorizing someone who considers these stocks permissible—namely, a disbeliever—to sell them to other disbelievers. The proxy then receives the price and gives it to the owner of the stocks, and this price is lawful for him because he did not know the stocks were prohibited, and such a ruling was unknown to someone like him. The evidence for this is that when land tax (kharaj) was due from the Ahl al-Dhimmah (non-Muslim citizens), they used to pay the value of the tax in wine and pigs. The Muslims did not take these items directly; instead, they authorized the non-Muslims to sell them and then took the price. Abu Ubayd al-Qasim bin Sallam mentioned from Suwayd bin Ghaflah that Bilal said to Umar bin al-Khattab: "Your workers take wine and pigs as kharaj." Umar said:
لَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُمْ، وَلَكِنْ وَلُّوهُمْ بَيْعَهَا، وَخُذُوا أَنْتُمْ مِنَ الثَّمَنِ
"Do not take them from them, but let them sell them and you take the price."
This is because wine and pigs are property among the property of the Ahl al-Dhimmah, but they are not property for Muslims... Accordingly, if the wealth is originally prohibited for a Muslim, and then a Sharia reason occurs that makes that wealth owned by the Muslim, it is permissible to authorize someone who considers it permissible to sell it to those who consider it permissible, and the Muslim receives the price. It becomes lawful for him as long as he owned it through that legitimate reason.
Thus, if a Muslim's ownership of stocks occurs while he is ignorant of their ruling, their price becomes lawful for him if he authorizes someone who considers them permissible to sell them, in the same manner that Umar commanded regarding the Ahl al-Dhimmah paying the land tax from wine and pigs.
- Since you authorized your mother—who is a disbeliever—to sell the stocks to disbelieving banks, the price is lawful for you. This applies if you authorized your mother on the same date you learned that stocks are prohibited. As an illustrative example:
If you learned that stocks are prohibited in January 2015, for instance, and you authorized your mother to sell them on that same date, the entire price is lawful for you.
If you learned that stocks are prohibited in January 2015, but you authorized your mother to sell them in July 2015, the entire price is lawful for you except for the profit earned by the stocks during the months of February, March, April, May, and June. You must dispose of the stock profits from these five months by putting them toward the interests of Islam and the Muslims.
- The conclusion is that the stocks and their profits that your mother set aside for you are lawful for you if you authorized your mother to sell them on the same date you learned of the prohibition of stocks. If there was a delay in the authorization—such as authorizing her two or three months after you learned of the prohibition—then the profits of those stocks during those two or three months are not lawful for you.
In conclusion, I send you my greetings and commend your concern for the lawful and prohibited. I pray for your well-being. Allah is with you.
Your brother, Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Google Plus page