[AbdulAziz_A]

Assalaamu Alaykum,

I wanted to know if Zakat can be payed in paper money?

jazakAllah

[faqir]

from the old guidinghelper site (Maliki)

> I would like to ask you concerning the matter of paper money. I find it
> a difficult matter when if is considered from the point of view of our
> fiqh. It can be categorized as fulus or factionary currency if we look at
> it as it is now. Or as a debt if we look at it from an historical point of
> view ant its genesis. In both cases it creates serious problems as far as
> the rulings of Zakat or Riba are concerned. Most of the ulama I have asked
> have a tendency to treat paper money as if it is gold or silver therefore
> they say that Zakat should be paid from it and it is riba to lend it in
> order to get benefit. I have noticed that this is also your position. But
> the fact of being flus or a debt changes the fiqh ruling on it. There is a
> fatwa from Shaikh ?Illish al-Maliki (the Sheikh of the Malikis of al-Azhar
> in his time and, by the way, a implacable enemy of Sh. Muhammad Abduh) in
> his collection of fatwas al-Fath al-Ali al-Malik where he says that zakat
> should not be paid on paper money because it is fulus (factionary currency
> made of copper or other material other than gold and silver) and zakat is
> not paid on fulus in the Maliki madhhab.
>
> I do understand both positions but I would like to know if you do have
> more thoughts on this subjet.

The position we narrate is taken our teachers who feel that one should
try one's best to practice the five pillars of Islam even if some
essentials and preconditions cannot be fully met due to one's
uncontrollable circumstances.

This is also the position of Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn `Abdullah ibn
al-Mubarak al-Fathi al-Marakishi al-Maliki al-Muwaqqat, a late scholar
of the last century who came up with this ruling after the French instated
paper currency in Morocco. He states in his Habl al-Matin:

fi mi'atay dirhamin shar`iyyatin aw `ishrina dinarin shar`iyyatin
fakthara aw ma yatanazzalu manzalatahuma min hadhihi al-awraqi
al-hadithah yajibu rub`u l-ushri fihima. wa ma zada `ala dhalika
wa in qalla fabihisabihi. wa yajuzu ikhraju dh-dhabi `an il-fiddati
wa l-fiddatu `an dh-dhahabi wa yajuzu ikhraju ma tatanazzalu
manzilatahuma `anhuma ya yu`tabaru fi dhalika sarfu z-zaman.

For every 200 dirhams (according to Shari`ah weight) or 20
dinars (according to Shari`ah weight) or *what is equivalent
in paper currency*, one forth of a tenth is due on them.

And it is permissible to pay gold for silver and silver for gold.
It is also permissible to pay what is equivalent [of paper currency]
for gold and silver. And one should regard in this matter what
is considered cash currency in one's time.

[HM: volume 1: page(s) 42-43: line(s) 23,1-3 :{explanation of
al-Murshid al-Mu`in, line 187 "`ishruna dinaran nisaban fi
dh-dhahab..."}]

And of course, you will find differences among the scholars
on this point. But, this seems to be the dominant position
of most of the scholars (e.g., Hanafi, Shafi`i, Maliki) present
today that teach legal rulings to the common man.


...............................................................................



Question: Please review the PROOF behind the idea that paper money is haraam.

I saw that u do not regard paper money as being haraam, but please respond to the following, in detail: Moulana Imran Hosein (who studied under Moulana Fazlur Rahman Ansari) says the following: 1. Modern paper money is a branch of riba. He gives the following reasons: A. Modern paper money is “fiat” money i.e. it is not redeemable for any precious metal (gold/silver) or other commodity. Therefore, the value assigned to it, e.g. R100, is not convertible into actual value – it can only be used to buy some other good or stored as useless paper. B. The international system of exchange rates allows certain individuals/companies/countries to devalue a currency within minutes i.e. speculatory attack on a currency. Also, exchange rates are set arbitrarily. This means that the value assigned to a paper note is constantly changing, and wealth can be created or destroyed merely by virtue of exchange rates. This facilitates the transfer of wealth from poor to rich, without any effort on the part of the rich, and paper money is a mechanism of riba. C. Paper money has no intrinsic value – value is arbitrarily assigned (unlike gold, which has historical, universal value).

Firstly, you use the word ‘proof’ in your question, yet there was no proof ever mentioned by the claimant that paper money is Haraam. By proof we mean Shar’ee proofs, not simply disadvantages. To make something Haraam one has to have Dalaa-il (sound shar’ee proofs).

We accept that paper money is not the Islamically ideal means of exchange. It definitely has its elements of deception, and has been easily manipulated by western powers to subjugate economically weaker nations. The ideal would be to deal in gold and silver, which have real and intrinsic value. Therefore it would be the duty of a true Islamic State to revert to gold and silver as the standard means of exchange, which could then be represented by paper money.

However, it does not follow that under the present circumstances it is Haraam to use paper money. Islam is a practical way of life, and the Fuqahaa (jurists) of Islam have laid down guidelines by means of which we can practice on this Deen in every age. They have explained that if any commodity becomes the means of exchange in any society, and this is the norm, then value will be attributed to that commodity based on the norm of that society. A simple example would be that in some societies in the past shells were used as the standard means of exchange. Although shells in themselves do not hold intrinsic value, since the society attributed value to it, such items may be used as a means of exchange.

The fact that paper money has been manipulated by certain powers, and they have designed their system of Riba around it, does not render paper money Haraam. It is the transaction of Riba and the act of manipulation that are Haraam, and not the currency itself. If tomorrow they design their schemes around metals, are we then going to say that dealing in metals is Haraam. Certainly not! In fact, one who is aware of the detail rules of Riba would be aware that gold and silver are more susceptible to the contract of Riba than currencies are.

On a practical level, one can understand that it would be virtually impossible to do without paper money. Now that this so called Maulana considers paper money as Haraam, one wonders what he would do if, for example, he had to go for Hajj. Does he take trunks full of coins along because paper money is Haraam. One has to be realistic.

For details on the development of paper money, and the Shar’ee rulings of its usage, refer to “Al Qadhaayah al fiqhiyyah al muaasirah” by Mufti Taqi Uthmaani Saheb. This is an excellent work on the subject.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Moulana Imraan Vawda
FATWA DEPT.

http://www.islam.tc/...view.php?q=7936

[Ansari UK]

All our Ulema declare paper money as haram and impermissable for Zakat except under the extreme circumstance of Darura (forced necessity) and one must do their utmost to try and get out of it.

We have gone one step further and minted the dinar and dirham Alhamdulilah. Once other Muslims catch on we can get rid of this evil method of exchange employed by the Kuffar.

It was paper money which destroyed the Ottoman Sultanate. Not militarily.

Shaykh ilish (ra) was the Mufti of Al Azhar in the early 20th century, a maliki - when the colonialists imposed it and declared it as haram and not to be used. Unfortunately Mohammad Abduh the freemason was appointed head of al Azhar by Lord Baring of the banking family (paper money, think about it????) and he led his notorious fatwah saying interest is permissable therby fooling the Muslims.

If you read any fatwahs that ignore the history of paper money, its implementation and why the kuffar did it i suggest you ignore them as like anything they do not have the full picture.

Further reading:

Fatwah on Paper Money

Paper Money: A Legal Ruling

Finally, just to say im not preaching without practise, i paid my Zakat last year in Gold Dirhams, circumventing this bida. So it can be done. You just have to ask Allah to will it for you and have a good intention.

Masalaam

[Ahmad-Qadri]

Sidi, could you qualify what you mean by "all our Ulama"?

Does it refer to all Maliki Ulama or all Ulama of the Ummah?

As I know theres more than one scholar from more than one community and more than one madhabwho have validated this practice although I'm not sure about their comments on darura aspects of it.

Insha Allah some other brothers can also provide their input.

[Ansari UK]

Attari, on Jul 17 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

Sidi, could you qualify what you mean by "all our Ulama"?

Does it refer to all Maliki Ulama or all Ulama of the Ummah?

As I know theres more than one scholar from more than one community and more than one madhabwho have validated this practice although I'm not sure about their comments on darura aspects of it.

Insha Allah some other brothers can also provide their input.

Sorry i meant the Ulema i visit. Mostly Malikis and their is a network of Muslims from other Madhabs who agree with us. Their are two kinds of fatwah brother you can choose.

1) Which legalises paper money and says nothing wrong with it, carry on as before.

2) Which declares it haram (but forced under darurah) and the proof they classify it as darurah is the minting of Dinar and Dirham.

Do you not think Allah may say to us "OK it was Darurah, forced on you - what did you do to get out of it"?

Most ulema do agree paper money is haram however the technicality they use to get around it is the ruling in Hanafi fiqh stating fulus (spare coinage/surplus small change) can have zakat paid on it. In this case then paper as it is a commodity i think they declare it as fulus.

However, the only way to do this would be to utterly ignore its Usuric nature. Created as a debt and then sold on. The fulus of old in the time of the Sultans was allowed as it was classified as "paper" (writing books/scribes etc.... paper as in the commodity) not as in a medium of exchange born out of Usury.

The foundation of a bank is Usury yes? Who prints paper money?

So In Madinah a debt for a debt in trading (paper money) was declared Haram by Umar ibn al Khattab radhiallo anh. Likewise when Marwan (ra) used Sukukun (receipts) to pay for goods in the market the Sahaba confronted him and said "Do you make Halal what Allah has made Haram"? He replied "I seek refuge with Allah from that", then went round every stall and took his paper money (sukukun) back.

Look at a five pound note, does it not say "I Promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of"?? So if the Sahaba disallowed paper money for normal trade, what do you think about using it for payment of one of the 5 pillars of Islam (Zakat)?

However you can see that the only difference between our paper money and Marwans Sukukun is:

1) Modern paper money is born as a debt. Debt for debt trading is not allowed in Islam. To my mind only 1 on 1 individuals can do it in a private transaction and even then it is disliked. You certainly cant allow everyone in society to exchange debts.
2) It is physically forced onto Muslims by the Kafir IMF and World Bank and Governments, entering the realm of Darurah yes?

The fundamental difference between our fatwahs and others is that we recognise that in a forest one must eat pig meat if it is a matter of life and death but it it obligatory to look for herbs, water, chicken, foul, dates (other foods) and do ones utmost to replace the pig meat and only eat enough of it just to survive to reach the next town.

Other fatwahs say "OK you are in a desert, now breed a pig farm".

Look at the difference....

Masalaam

[Mossy]

Ansari UK, on Aug 15 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

Salafi Aqeedah allows: Paper money (says its OK not haram)

The permissibility of paper (fiat ) money is a question of fiqh, not aqeedah according to the majority of scholars .

[Ansari UK]

Mossy, on Aug 18 2008, 12:28 AM, said:

The permissibility of paper (fiat ) money is a question of fiqh, not aqeedah according to the majority of scholars .

Asalam Alaykum,

Incorrect. The first stage of modernist Ulema was to seperate this from the Aqeedah of Muslims. Saudi Aqeedah being so busy trying to prove a diety sat high in a chair up in the sky, they forgot it also means their is no power nor strength except with Allah. Or in laymans terms even if we did say the Saudi Aqeedah was correct and i went in their mosque and was indoctrinated, if i then walked out and gorged on a Pork Chop, would you say my Aqeedah was correct? Would you say it is a quesiton of Fiqh?

The Muwatta of Imam Malik rahimahu Allah records all transactions of Madinah of the Sahaba. Whilst other books like Bukhari and Muslim are usefull for fiqh on transactions. No book of the Sunnah has financial transactions listed as much as the Muwatta. So it is folly to go claiming the proofs of other books not as Sahih. However we are not religous puritans and one-sided, we accept other fiqhs and how they arrive at their conclusion, however not at the expense of equating their judgements with the correct one (bearing in mind a Mujtahid making a correct stance gets 2 rewards, and the incorrect one gets one).

The Prophet salalahu alayhi wasalaam when he emigrated to Madinah made a Mosque and a Market. Showing that the Deen was all encompassing in both spheres. Again the Modernists talk about the Mosque and forget the Marketplace and thus abandon the true Aqeedah of Madinah. To then claim it is a question of Fiqh (and not Aqeedah)is incorrect, as having the Shariah of Allah prevailing in Mosque and Market is the correct Aqeedah of the Muslims. You cant claim to be on the correct Aqeedah if you apply one and ignore the other (bearing in mind Muslim guidance is based on what one is capable of understanding, we are not declaring blanket takfir or anything silly as some people do).

Receipts werent allowed full stop . during the time of the Salaf as Saleh. They were deemed Riba (Usury) and banned. So if you want the Aqeedah of the Sahaba in Madinah, take it and follow it. If you want to follow Islam as it evolved and lost some of its pristine make-up then you can do so. However, dont claim it is the Islam of Madinah because it isnt. If, on the other hand you deem it Halal then you fall in the same trap as Rida, Abduh and Afghani.

Are you clever brother? Lets quite the religious talk and use intelligence.... Al Afghani was made mufti of Al Azhar by Lord Cromer, ]the founder of Barings Bank. Appointed by a Kaffir Banker during colonialism, he declares Riba as Halal ("its not Aqeedah its Fiqh, and Usury is allowed as its not interest but profit"). Would you seriously take your Aqeedah from the likes of him and his followers????? Remember many Ulema wasnt aware of this fact in the 1920s and 30s when it happened, which is why you didnt see as much of them denounce it as you may think. Alhamdulilah we know different now.

Accepting Paper Money as darurah in fiqh is another stance which we acknowledge, however not at the expense people think Paper Money is thus Halal. Its not, it is still a pork chop. If you see it as a pork chop then your Aqeedah is correct.

Masalaam and Allah knows best.

This post has been edited by Ansari UK: 18 August 2008 - 02:25 PM

[Mossy]

Wa salam,

Before I write a longer reply, could I get a clarification insh'Allah..

Those who say that it is permissible to use paper money for transactional purposes for muslims have defective aqeedah? If so, may I ask to what level of defectiveness?

Ta

[Ansari UK]

Those are good links, inshAllah i will check them later.

Mossy, on Aug 18 2008, 04:41 PM, said:

Wa salam,

Before I write a longer reply, could I get a clarification insh'Allah..

Those who say that it is permissible to use paper money for transactional purposes for muslims have defective aqeedah? If so, may I ask to what level of defectiveness?

Ta

Asalam Alaykum,

Now you have explained better, my peice indicated no opposition to the above position in the sense that the Ulema of Fiqh have declared it Darurah, meaning temporary allowability. I used paper money today, i would be a hypocrite otherwise would i not if this wasnt the ruling?

However, the key thing to remember is that Muslims have not discussed this at length like now, so it has become virtually Halal to them, and they do not know it, so it is defective if not at the very least weak Aqeedah on behalf of Ahlus Sunnah, whom admittedly have been asleep on this issue.

My comments were also directed specifically at Salafi Aqeedah. Look the Ulema of Nejd can release a fatwah tommorow on Paper money in Fiqh and educate the masses, like they do with their propaganda. However they dont do they? (unless someone can show me evidence)???

They know the minute they do, the King would oust them and replace them if they asked for Gold and Metal currency, thereby alleviating Millions of Muslims out of this Darurah position. It is like a pact with the Devil.
To stay in power they cant do anything about it but to do it means they lose their infleunce.

My point? Classical Athari texts, scholars or people of influence of the past would immediately denounce this as their Aqeedah was more in line with Ahlus Sunnah.

Remember Shaykh iliyish rahimahu Allah, declared Abduh (or Afghani, one of them i cant remember) a Non Muslim. This is coming from the highest Maliki Faqih of Al Azhar (not some tinpot tom dick and harry), as Shaykh ilish said this person had inadvertently destroyed the Shariah, Zakat, Financial power of Muslims (the Khilafah) and therefore enslaved the Ummah to Aramco/Bankers et al.

So if our Maliki Ulema, called a section of these reformers as "Non Muslims" (due to their axe against the tree of Shariah) beleive me it is:

1) To do with their Aqeedah (using Fiqh)
2) NOT Athari Aqeedah of yesteryear thereby answering the original posters question are the two Aqeedahs the same, but that the latter (salafi) is the new Freemasonic Invented Salafism by Rashid Rida and Muhammad Abduh and Jamal ad Din al Afghani. If they invented Salafism how can Athari and Salafi Aqeedah be the same?

Why isnt History ever taught in Salafi circles?

and Allah knows best.

This post has been edited by Ansari UK: 19 August 2008 - 09:56 PM

[Hamoudeh]

Assalamu `alaykum wa-rahmatullah

Sidi Ansari (UK), you offered us your opinion on the topic at hand, while referring to the opinions of scholars you visit and Umar Vadillo. In other words, you have basically offered us the opinions of the Murabitun. In doing so, you have made a very serious accusation against Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama`ah, for you have claimed that their creed is very weak if not defective, due to Muslims not discussing the topic [of paper currency], being asleep on the issue, and virtually considering it permissible because of it. One might say apologetically, that your comments only concerns the laymen. Whether intended or not, this accusation confirms something different.

It seems that this entire discussion - which is split from one thread, and merged with another for practical reasons - is more about the particular views of the Murabitun than it is about the opinions of traditional scholars - including the Malikis – not only on the topic of paper currency, but on other financial topics as well, and even topics that exceed the field of economists and include matters of creed, herisiology, politics, jurisprudential methodology and indeed, history. By garmenting the latter’s views as Maliki, or Athari, or as those of the the Salaf al-Salih and Ahl al-Madina, while pushing opposite views into the dark corners of al-Afghani, `Abduh, Rida, the Sa`udis, or Salafism as a whole, someone less familiar with these topics may be inclined to take the opinions of the Murabitun as those of traditional scholars. The reality, however, is rather the opposite of that. Indeed, the sectarianism in this difference of opinion lies not with Salafism, but with the Murabitun instead.

In order to clarify this, let us begin with the first and foremost topic of paper currency, it being the main topic of this thread. Paper currency has so far been approached from three angles. The first discusses whether zakat is payable in paper currency. The second discusses whether paper currency is in itself – and not out of necessity – permissible to be used for financial transactions in general. The third revolves around the fundamental question whether the use of paper currency is a matter of creed, or a matter of jurisprudence. For the Murabitun, so it seems, they all come down to the same thing: accepting paper currency in itself – and not out of necessity – is a creedal defect, impermissible to be used for zakat or anything else – lest it is out of necessity.

First, we have to differentiate between creed and jurisprudence. Creed is concerned with the fundamentals of Islam, and it can only be defective if it contains innovation, heresy or disbelief. So, it is clear that we are not speaking of matters of ijtihad, as is the case when speaking of jurisprudence. If, however, we speak of a matter of ijtihad, then opinions can be differed upon, and remain within the realm of acceptability without tabdi`, tadlil or takfir. Sidi Ansari, you mention not to be religious puritans and one sided, and that you accept the views of other schools. Yet, you speak of creedal defects, consensus, sects and other fundamental matters that indicate otherwise. Sidi Mossy mentioned that according to the majority, it is a matter of jurisprudence. You believe it is a matter of creed while “using fiqh”, and it is clear to me what you mean by that. So let me be puritanical then, and direct my question to both you and Sidi Mossy: who is this minority or majority, whichever way you call it, other than the Murabitun?

Shaykh `Ilish rahimahullah was mentioned in this regard. In fact, he was already mentioned by the questioner on the old guidinghelper website – which was posted earlier – as considering zakat not to be payable in paper currency, because it is to be considered flus and zakat cannot be paid in flus in the Maliki school. This is in fact contradicts what you have mentioned him for, as him considering it flus avoids the entire question of creed and might in fact indicate that he consider paper currency in itself permissible as flus is in itself permissible. If you however believe that Shaykh `Ilish considered the use of paper currency in itself impermissible, or that he considered it a matter of creed and the opposing opinion a creedal defect, or that he refuted or even gave the fatwa of kufr to `Abduh on this basis, then so far it is your word against that what can be discerned from the words of the questioner. As he is not here to provide proof for his statements, this can only be asked of you. So, please provide a quote, or at least a proper reference so that it can be verified in his writings. Otherwise, he is not even the first(!) of those to be mentioned belonging any majority or minority of scholars that considered the matter one of creed rather than jurisprudence, nor of those who deemed paper currency to be impermissible. No further scholars have been mentioned, other than those of the Murabitun, for as far as the creedal question is concerned. I have never heard of one single scholar – other than those of the Murabitun – having considered this topic to be one of creed and the fundamentals of religion, nor that others of opposing views have a defective creed, though I have tried hard to find them as far as I was capable. So, Sidi, enlighten us please! Instead of doing so, you have provided three arguments which are as follows.

Ansari UK said:

Or in laymans terms even if we did say the Saudi Aqeedah was correct and i went in their mosque and was indoctrinated, if i then walked out and gorged on a Pork Chop, would you say my Aqeedah was correct? Would you say it is a quesiton of Fiqh? ... Accepting Paper Money as darurah in fiqh is another stance which we acknowledge, however not at the expense people think Paper Money is thus Halal. Its not, it is still a pork chop. If you see it as a pork chop then your Aqeedah is correct.

1. The analogy with pork is based on an assumption, and not fact. This is because it assumes that the ruling regarding pork and the ruling regarding paper currency are the same and of the same kind. The ruling regarding pork is clear: there are decisive texts on the matter, and the kind of consensus there is upon it is clear. Where are the texts and consensus regarding the impermissibility of paper currency? There are none, because it is a matter of ijtihad in which differences of opinion are permitted.

Ansari UK said:

The Prophet salalahu alayhi wasalaam when he emigrated to Madinah made a Mosque and a Market. Showing that the Deen was all encompassing in both spheres. Again the Modernists talk about the Mosque and forget the Marketplace and thus abandon the true Aqeedah of Madinah. To then claim it is a question of Fiqh (and not Aqeedah)is incorrect, as having the Shariah of Allah prevailing in Mosque and Market is the correct Aqeedah of the Muslims. You cant claim to be on the correct Aqeedah if you apply one and ignore the other (bearing in mind Muslim guidance is based on what one is capable of understanding, we are not declaring blanket takfir or anything silly as some people do).

2. The Market of Madina proves that Shari`ah comprises both, and more even! So, it is clear that in Islam, economy is regulated by the Shari`ah. What it does not prove in the slightest bit is the obligation of using gold and silver as currency, or the prohibition to use anything else instead, let alone that this would be a matter of creed!

Ansari UK said:

Receipts werent allowed full stop . during the time of the Salaf as Saleh. They were deemed Riba (Usury) and banned. So if you want the Aqeedah of the Sahaba in Madinah, take it and follow it. If you want to follow Islam as it evolved and lost some of its pristine make-up then you can do so. However, dont claim it is the Islam of Madinah because it isnt. If, on the other hand you deem it Halal then you fall in the same trap as Rida, Abduh and Afghani.

3. First, paper currency and receipts are not the same. Secondly, the consensus of the Salaf al-Saleh on this matter is a claim, and claims cannot be considered proof lest they are proved to be true themselves first.

In conclusion, I cannot but consider all three arguments void, for they are either no proof of what you claim, or require of us to make all sorts of assumptions in order to consider them as proof. In fact, the following argument mentioned in a paper I will link later is more apt than all three arguments put together:

Sayyidna `Umar b. al-Khattab radiAllahu `anhu wished to use the leather of camels as currency, but was disagreed upon by other Sahaba radiAllahu `anhum because it might create a shortage in camels. This proves that it is not a matter of creed, for if it was, he would not wish to do it. It also indicates that other materials aside of gold and silver can be used, for if this was not the case, then there would be no need to disagree on the basis of a camel shortage. We could discuss this topic for many pages to come on the basis of evidences, but in the end it is for scholars to draw conclusions from them and not us.

Secondly, there is no proof that the majority of scholars would consider the use of paper currency in itself – and not out of necessity – impermissible to be used in general. The only scholar mentioned in this regard was Shaykh `Ilish, but the proof for ascribing such opinions to him is lacking thus far. No further scholars have been mentioned, other than those of the Murabitun. There may be scholars who hold such a view, but it is not my job to provide the proof for claims others have made. So, again Sidi, please enlighten us! In the meantime, I will offer you the contrary opinion from leading contemporary scholars of different traditional schools, beginning with the Malikis.

According to Shaykh Jalal `Ali `Amer [admin of Aslein], expert in Maliki jurisprudence and the Ash`ari creed, has told me that in his opinion, the use of paper currency is permissible in itself, with or without there being any necessity for it. The fact that it is to be considered flus is an argument for it. He is, of course, not alone in this view.

Eminent and leading scholars of our times hold the same opinion, because they consider paper currency to be thaman (price). This is the view of Mufti Taqi Usmani, one of the leading Hanafi authorities in the field of finance and economics. I am aware that he has been opposed for his views by scholars of the Murabitun. In fact, Sidi Ansari you have raised the issue concerning Islamic Finance elsewhere. Yet, I have heard of no other Hanafi scholar of similar calibre having differed with him, at the very least on this matter of paper currency.

On the contrary, scholars of his calibre such as Shaykh Wahba al-Zuhayli, an authority in the principles and jurisprudence of the Hanafi and Shafi`i schools, a leading specialist in the fields of finance and economics, and author of the masterpiece in comparative jurisprudence, fiqh al-islami wa-adillatuh, agrees with him. Its volume on finance has been translated into English as ‘Financial Transactions in Islamic Jurisprudence’, and topics revolving thaman and currency have been discussed therein from the perspectives of all four respective Madhhabs. He states: “Money measured in gold, silver, or commonly accepted currencies, 13 if it is compensation for the object of sale, is considered a price.” When we look at footnote 13 that is being referred to, we find: “Including both coins and paper currency.”[vol.1. p.54 of the English translations]. In discussing riba, the Shaykh also says:

Quote

Some have displayed extremely low levels of knowledge and thought by arguing that fiat paper monies are not measured by weight, and thus are not eligible for riba. Some have thus argued that such monies should be treated the same as non-ribawi goods, including the classical example of copper coins, which may be treated in different quantities. This statement displays clear ignorance of the nature of monies, which are conventional monetary numeraires for the specification of prices. In this regard, may be made of metals or any other materials. In this regard, the classical treatment of copper coins as goods rather than monies was based on the fact that they were insignificant (thus trading one copper coin for two was treated the same as trading one apple for two). Thus, this classical permission was not meant to restrict monies to gold and silver, but to facilitate trading in trivial amounts of various goods

The relationship with riba is of fundamental importance here, not because the origin of paper currency lies in banking as stated by the Murabitun, but because dismissing it as valid currency due to its nature opens the door for massive engagement in riba, which is the exact opposite of the aims of the Murabitun! Is it not said that paper currency is usury itself? Is it not said that the use of paper currency, is due to it being darura in our times? Is it not so, that the exact same may logically apply to any other banking products of usury such as loans on interest, mortgages on interest, and so on? Two economics from the university of Malaysia and Jordan respectively, Muhammad Aslam Haneef and Emad Rafiq Barakat, have written an interesting paper (Must Money Be Limited to Only Gold and Silver?)on the various opinions in fiqh that may relate to the permissibility of paper currency and the restriction to gold and silver. They have considered the work of Ibrahim Vadillo, and list the references, arguments and proofs of both sides of the debate. They state as one of the arguments of those who deem paper currency permissible:

Quote

Accepting other than gold and silver i.e. fiat money that is in practice now, will facilitate continuance in observing shari‘ah obligation such as paying zakah and avoiding riba, If only gold and silver are seen as money, people may stop paying zakah on their money wealth and may also get involved in riba since these items will not be seen as constituting ‘money’.

Is it not at the very least fascinating, that those portrayed by the Murabitun as their greatest opponents, namely the followers of `Abduh and al-Afghani, are using the exact same argument used by the Murabitun themselves, for the exact opposite purpose, yet resulting in the same practice? I have one simple question left:

Do the scholars of the Murabitun permit their followers in the West to make use of interest based loans, mortgages, and other interest based products offered by capitalist banks, on the basis of darura, like they permit them to use paper monies and other ghayr shari`i currency on the basis of darura?

Wassalam

[sunnistudent]

Salam alaykum.

For those who can understand Urdu , there is online book " paper currency ke masail" ( The issues of paper currency) written by Imam Ahmed Raza Khan Barelwi ( Rh).

Imam Ahmed Raza Khan (rh) has proved from the priciples of Fiqh that it is mubah ( permissible) to use paper currency.

It is a detail book on this topic and those interested in Fiqh will like it.

[Hamoudeh]

An important discussion took place between brother Ansari [not to confuse with brother Ansari UK] and Shaykh Abdussamad on SF some time ago. The topic was Declaration of 'Ulama on the Gold Dinar and I have compiled it and formatted it for a good overview. I will quote it below, and later comment on it [as well on the views of others] insha'Allah.

Ansari said:

"Muhammad al-'Amraawi, member of the Association of Moroccan Ulama, Rissaani, Tafilet, Morocco
- Al-Khammar al-Baqqaali, Imam, The Hague, Holland"

I have met these 2 Alims personally, and questions were asked about this meeting by another brother. It was very clear that these Ulama have nothing to do with the narrow and harsh, Murabitun ideology on topics such as banking and paper money, let alone other innovative stances such as niqab being a bid'a.

Abdassamad Clarke said:

Which has greater weight, a document which an 'alim draws up in Arabic and which a group of other known 'ulama sign their names to, or hearsay of a very vague nature of which we have no record and for which we only have your word?

Ansari said:

Is there any contradiction between the Arabic document posted here [ http://www.islamidag...lamaongold.html ] and what was confirmed by them? Totally not. Even in the English article it says: "Imam Abu Sayf and Muhammad 'Amrawi both cautioned against putting the Muslims in the difficult position of telling them that the transactions they make using paper money are incorrect or that the mode in which they pay their zakat is incorrect"

Abdassamad Clarke said:

The point they were making is that it is incorrect, but not to put people in a difficult situation since they are following the ruling of darurah, not at least until the halal alternative is in place.

Ansari said:

Nothing of what you just said, is cited in the Arabic document. And this is what you can actually title as 'hearsay' since you are assuming that he made a 'point' while they clearly did not state that paper money is incorrect to use for us. Nothing was mentioned about being allowed out of necessity.

Ansari said:

It was not hearsay, but questions directly posed to them, face to face, with witnesses present, such as Ustadh Jalal Ali al-Jihani (administrator on aslein.net) and the brother behind Sunni Publications. And if that would not be enough, you can call them up or even e-mail Sh. Amrawi if you don't believe us.

Abdassamad Clarke said:

Well, nevertheless, whatever it is you understood from him, he wrote down and signed what he did. It is very clear. What you are basically saying is, "He agrees with me," but we do not have the words used, nor the question asked of him, not even verbally, and we do not have it in writing. As against this document, that does not stand.

Ansari said:

Again, even I would have signed that document since I agree (like most of us) that gold is better and safer to use as a currency since it involves less risks. And as Sh. Amrawi he himself said on the phone, the gathering was NOT about paper money being incorrect or not. He merely gave a lecture on the book ahkam al-suq (which can be find found here with his introduction and a foreword to the edition of the text by Shaykh Jalal) You can *not* prove from that Arabic document that he agrees with the Murabitun stance. He has no problems with paper money being used. And not even with Islamic banking and designing contracts through the banks of non-muslims, fulfilling the Islamic criteria. He trusts Shaykh Jalal on this issue and agrees with it! Shaykh Muhammad Ta'wil, the expert on Maliki fiqh in Morocco, also said this on phone that contracts according to the shariah in non-muslim banks are fine and thus they agree with banking. The same Shaykh Muhammad Ta'wil about which Shaykh Amrawi said in an e-mail to Ustadh Jalal: شيخنا العلامة الدكتور سيدي محمد التاويل حفظه الله (OUR shaykh, the Allama) The same can be said about Imam Bakkali. They totally don't make a problem out of paper money. These 3 Imams (Jalal, Bakkali and Amrawi) are well-known in the Dutch community who set up an organisation of Imams, and as I said, never acted like the Murabitun and deem paper money as totally fine. All three Imams also encouraged the making of a dutch website on Aqida, Fiqh and Tasawwuf and supported it and wrote written declarations in support for it. All of them don't have a problem with paying zakat with paper money. This can also be said regards to paying zakat to an 'Amir' about which Ustadh Jalal said it is not a condition of it in all 4 schools of law, and certainly not in the Maliki madhhab. In these days without a leader it is certainly not a point of discussion and zakat can be perfectly payed directly to those who are entitled to it. Nor can one call himself an Amir when he is not even authorised by the people and demand that zakat should be payed to him. Perhaps if you would have told them about the Murabitun agenda, and how they are hijacking the Maliki madhhab with their intolerant stances on paper money, banking, paying zakat to an amir, niqab etc. things would be quite different.

Ansari said:

Actually, today Ustadh Jalal called Shaykh Amrawi again in connection with the publication of a book on inheritance by Shaykh Muhammad Ta'wil, and again the question of paper money was posed, and he clearly refuted the Murabit stance of paper money nog being allowed. We can agree that paper money in some cases might not be the ideal solution, but they never called it haram nor wrong.

Abdassamad Clarke said:

Again, this is hearsay through a rather long isnad. I was present and I signed the document that he wrote, and he wrote it under no coercion or prompting from me or from anyone else.

Ansari said:

What 'longer isnad' is there when this was confirmed directly on the phone by reliable people? Which sanad do you have? If you wan't to talk about ilm al-rijjaal, perhaps your words on this topic about these shuyukh can be disqualified, since you are biased, sitting in the camp of the Murabitun? The document says nothing since we agree that riba is haram and we agree that gold is a better and consistent currency to use.

Ansari said:

Now if you don't want to believe this, that is up to you, but even in the English article they have refuted the excessive stance propagated by some Murabitun.

Abdassamad Clarke said:

"Refutation" is quite excessive language here. They did not refute anything in my presence nor in writing. Rather, they gave a welcome counsel as to how one proceeds. Now please read the document again, because it was written by an 'alim with a very careful choice of words. Read how he calls for the restoration of gold and silver coinage. I was present when Hajj Asadullah Yate outlined many of these matters, and Shaykh al-'Amraawi said, "None of us disagree with you about any of these things," and when he said it, none of the other 'ulama present contradicted him. Read the document carefully. It was written by an 'alim.

Ansari said:

It does refute it since we have followers of the Murabitun declaring that our zakat is somehow incorrect and these Imams are saying that you are not even supposed to say that the transactions with paper money are incorrect! How much clarity do you want more? As I said before. The document doesn't contradicts the statements of these scholars since we can agree on the fact that gold is better, that in our business dealings the shariah is taken into account, that in an Islamic state the Amir is supposed to pick up the zakat etc. And surely you can say that the words chosen for the declaration were used carefully, since everybody would agree with it. Who would not agree with riba being haram? That muslims should learn the fiqh of their business dealings? These people are all maliki in fiqh whom we have spoken personally and clearly contradict many of the Murabitun stances which they claim is 'Maliki fiqh.' InshaAllah I will ask them to write something on paper about this gathering and their true stances, since their names are being misused.

[Talibah]

Assalamu Alikum,

How have other scholars (I know shaykh Imran Hosein's) interpreted the following hadith:

Abu Bakr ibn Abi Maryam reported that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: "A time is certainly coming over mankind in which there will be nothing (left) that will be of use (or benefit) save a Dinar (i.e., a gold coin) and a Dirham (i.e., a silver coin).”
(Musnad, Ahmad)

wassalam

[IrfanibnIsmail]

assalaamu alaikum


moulana Imran Hosein's views on the subject can be read here :

http://www.imranhose...e-of-money.html


and from the video here:

http://www.imranhose...e-of-money.html

This post has been edited by IrfanibnIsmail: 03 December 2008 - 07:04 AM

[IrfanibnIsmail]

check this out :


http://www.sunnahmoney.com/