Question:
There is an offer on an AMEX card, where a customer has the benefit of making transactions at 20 different shops for discounted prices. If they make a purchase at one shop, with an example amount of £16, the seller will be credited with £16, but the credit card charge will only be £10 for the customer. In this way, a customer can shop at up to 20 different shops with this benefit. Saving money on purchases. Is the usage of such a credit card permissible?
The Fatwa
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
The Answer
The Fiqh of the Answer
The use of Amex cards, which are essentially credit cards or charge cards, has been deemed permissible by contemporary scholars such as Shaykhul-Islām Muftī Taqī Ḥafidahullah, on the condition that one has a firm intention to repay within the stipulated time to ensure that no interest charges occur. The annual fees that one pays are considered service charges and are therefore permissible.
Rewards gained from credit cards such as Amex are not considered interest. This is because Ribā refers to the surplus amount that one party pays or receives over the principal amount of a loan or debt. Imām Ibn ‘Abidin (d.1252 AH), Imām Ibn Nujaym (d.970 AH), among many jurists, describe Ribā as the unjustified excess that one party claims entitlement to. Any loan that yields benefits beyond the capital amount is deemed usurious. This principle is widely recognized and documented in the chapters of lending. Furthermore, Imām al-Marghināni (d.593 AH) states that interest is the excess of a transaction, where one of the transacting parties assumes entitlement, either contractually, through customary practice, or by pre-agreement, without any tangible compensation.
In the context of rewards obtained from credit cards, these benefits are seen as gifts from the lender’s perspective. They function as incentives provided by the institution to encourage people to use their financial products. Consequently, redeeming these rewards is considered permissible and does not fall under the category of Ribā. This is because, in this scenario, Ribā does not originate from the lender’s side. When the lender chooses to offer additional benefits, it is not regarded as Ribā; rather, it is perceived as a voluntary gift.
This understanding is derived from the teachings of Imam al-Jaṣṣāṣ (d.270 AH), where he specifies that the prohibited Ribā is associated with a loan that includes a condition requiring the borrower to pay more. Therefore, if the situation is reversed, and the lender decides to provide more, it is considered a simple gift.
Shaykhul-Islam Muftī Taqī Uthmānī Ḥafidahullah explicitly asserts that if a lender offers the borrower anything extra, it will be deemed a gift and not classified as Ribā. This viewpoint aligns with the consensus of many contemporary jurists, including Muftī Raḍā ul-Ḥaq Ḥafidahullah and Muftī Ebrahim Desai (d.1442 AH).
Imam al-Atq̣ānī (d.758 AH) articulates a principle indicating that when a Ṣulḥ pertaining to a debt is made on the same genus as that which was originally owed, it is assumed that the individual has received part of the owed amount while renouncing their right to the remaining sum. It is crucial not to categorise it as a Muʿāwaḍah (mutual exchange). Labelling it as such would render the transaction invalid due to the inclusion of Ribā (usury), as the initial loan amount would exceed the sum repaid.
Instead, the presumption is that the creditor has received a portion of the owed amount and has forgone the remaining sum. This understanding is grounded in the principle that an individual has the authority to deduct and pardon their own rights. Since the owed money falls under their own Ḥuqūq, they possess the discretion to subtract any portion of it. Moreover, this aligns with a fundamental principle in Ḥanafī Fiq̣h as has been alluded to by Imam al-Marghīnānī (d.593 AH), where the statements and actions of a sane, mature person are assumed to be correct as much as possible.
In the specific scenario mentioned, where Amex has paid on behalf of the cardholder and subsequently agreed to reduce the owed amount, Amex has effectively waived part of their rights. This aligns with the principles outlined and renders the transaction permissible.
And Almighty Allah Alone Knows Best
Maulana Inaamul Hasan Chothia
Trainee Mufti
Reviewed and approved by
Mufti Faraz Adam
Darul Iftaa Muadh ibn Jabal
www.darulfiqh.com
DISCLAIMER:
The views and opinions expressed in this answer belong only to the author and do not in any way represent or reflect the views of any institutions to which he may be affiliated.
Arguments and ideas propounded in this answer are based on the juristic interpretations and reasoning of the author. Given that contemporary issues and interpretations of contemporary issues are subjective in nature, another Mufti may reach different conclusions to the one expressed by the author. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure total accuracy and soundness from a Shari’ah perspective, the author is open to any correction or juristic guidance. On the event of any juristic shortcomings, the author will retract any or all of the conclusions expressed within this answer.
The Shari’ah ruling given herein is based specifically on the scenario in question. The author bears no responsibility towards any party that acts or does not act on this answer and is exempted from any and all forms of loss or damage. This answer may not be used as evidence in any court of law without prior written consent from the author. Consideration is only given and is restricted to the specific links provided, the author does not endorse nor approve of any other content the website may contain.
واما الرِّبَا فِي الدّين فَهُوَ على وَجْهَيْن احدها ان يَبِيع رجلا مَتَاعا بِالنَّسِيئَةِ فَلَمَّا حل الاجل طَالبه رب الدّين فَقَالَ الْمَدْيُون زِدْنِي فِي الاجل ازدك فِي الدَّرَاهِم فَفعل فان ذَلِك رَبًّا وَالثَّانِي ان يَقُول رب الدّين للمديون قبل مَحل الاجل اعطني مَالِي فاحط عَنْك بَعْضًا من ديني فَفعل فان ذَلِك رَبًّا للمديون وَلَا يحل لَهُ ذَلِك (النتف في الفتاوى)
لأن الربا هو الفضل المستحق لأحد المتعاقدين في المعاوضة الخالي عن عوض شرط فيه، ولا يعتبر الوصف لأنه لا يعد تفاوتا عرفا، أو لأن في اعتباره سد باب البياعات (الهداية للمرغيناني)
قال مُحَمَّدٌ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى في كِتَابِ الصَّرْفِ إنَّ أَبَا حَنِيفَةَ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى كان يَكْرَهُ كُلُّ قَرْضٍ جَرَّ مَنْفَعَةٍ قال الْكَرْخِيُّ هذا إذَا كانت الْمَنْفَعَةُ مَشْرُوطَةً في الْعَقْدِ بِأَنْ أَقْرَضَ غَلَّةً لِيَرُدَّ عليه صِحَاحًا أو ما أَشْبَهَ ذلك فَإِنْ لم تَكُنْ الْمَنْفَعَةُ مَشْرُوطَةً في الْعَقْدِ فَأَعْطَاهُ الْمُسْتَقْرِضُ أَجْوَدَ مِمَّا عليه فَلَا بَأْسَ بِهِ وَكَذَلِكَ إذَا أَقْرَضَ رَجُلًا دَرَاهِمَ أو دَنَانِيرَ لِيَشْتَرِيَ الْمُسْتَقْرِضُ من الْمُقْرِضِ مَتَاعًا بِثَمَنٍ غَالٍ فَهُوَ مَكْرُوهٌ وَإِنْ لم يَكُنْ شِرَاءُ الْمَتَاعِ مَشْرُوطًا في الْقَرْضِ وَلَكِنَّ الْمُسْتَقْرِضَ اشْتَرَى من الْمُقْرِضِ بَعْدَ الْقَرْضِ بِثَمَنٍ غَالٍ فَعَلَى قَوْلِ الْكَرْخِيِّ لَا بَأْسَ بِهِ وَذَكَرَ الْخَصَّافُ في كِتَابِهِ وقال ما أُحِبُّ له ذلك وَذَكَرَ شَمْسُ الْأَئِمَّةِ الْحَلْوَانِيُّ أَنَّهُ حَرَامٌ وَذَكَرَ مُحَمَّدٌ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى في كِتَابِ الصَّرْفِ أَنَّ السَّلَفَ كَانُوا يَكْرَهُونَ ذلك (فتاوى الهندية)
وقال في الخانية وتكره السفتجة إلا أن يستقرض مطلقا ويوفي بعد ذلك في بلد أخرى من غير شرط ا هـ
مطلب كل قرض جر نفعا حرام قوله ( كل قرض جر نفعا حرام ) أي إذا كان مشروطا كما علم مما نقله عن البحر (حاشية ابن عابدين)
وَهُوَ الْقَرْضُ الْمَشْرُوطُ فِيهِ الْأَجَلُ وَزِيَادَةُ مَالٍ عَلَى الْمُسْتَقْرِضِ. )أحكام القرآن جصاص(
وأما الربا، فإنَّه يتحقق بإعطاء زيادة من المستقرض إلى مرض، وليس في العكس، فلو أعطى مقرض شيئاً للمستقرض، علاوة على القرض، فإنه تبرع محض لا يلزم منه الربا (بحوث في قضايا فقهية معاصرة)
وَإِذَا أَقْرَضَ الرَّجُلُ الرَّجُلَ الدَّرَاهِمَ ثُمَّ صَالَحَهُ مِنْهَا عَلَى أَقَلَّ مِنْ وَزْنِهَا فَهُوَ جَائِزٌ؛ لِأَنَّهُ قَبَضَ الْبَعْضَ وَأَبْرَأَهُ عَنْ الْبَعْضِ وَكُلُّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا صَحِيحٌ فِي الْكُلِّ فَكَذَلِكَ فِي الْبَعْضِ فَإِنْ فَارَقَهُ قَبْلَ أَنْ يُعْطِيَهَا لَمْ يَبْطُلْ الصُّلْحُ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَتَمَكَّنُ فِي هَذَا التَّصَرُّفِ مَعْنَى الْمُبَادَلَةِ وَصِحَّةُ الْإِبْرَاءِ لَا تَسْتَدْعِي الْقَبْضَ ( المبسوط للسرخسي)
وَكُلُّ شَيْءٍ وَقَعَ عَلَيْهِ الصُّلْحُ ، وَهُوَ مُسْتَحَقُّ بِعَقْدِ الْمُدَايَنَةِ ؛ لَمْ يُحْمَلْ عَلَى الْمُعَاوَضَةِ ، وَإِنَّمَا يُحْمَلُ عَلَى أَنَّهُ اسْتَوْفَى بَعْضَ حَقِّهِ ، وَأَسْقَطَ بَاقِيَهُ ، كَمَنْ لَهُ عَلَى آخَرَ أَلْفُ دِرْهَمٍ فَصَالَحَهُ عَلَى خَمْسِمَائَةٍ ، وَكَمَنْ لَهُ عَلَى آخَرَ أَلْفُ دِرْهَمٍ جِيَادٍ فَصَالَحَهُ عَلَى خَمْسِمَائَةٍ زُيُوفٍ جَازَ ، وَكَأَنَّهُ أَبْرَأَهُ عَنْ بَعْضِ حَقِّهِ وَهَذَا لِأَنَّ تَصَرُّفَ الْعَاقِلِ يَتَحَرَّى تَصْحِيحَهُ مَا أَمْكَن (الهداية للمرغيناني)
والأصلُ في هذا: أن أمورَ المسلمين محمولةٌ على الصحَّةِ والسَّلامةِ والجوازِ ما أمْكَنَ، فما وُجِدَ للصُّلْح الذي دخَلا فيه وَجْةٌ للصحَّةِ؛ يَجِبُ حمْلُه عليه.
وفي مسألتِنا: إذا وَقَع الصَّلْحُ على ما هو مُسْتَحقَّ بعَقْدِ المُدَايَنةِ؛ لا يُمْكِنُ حمْلُه على المُعَاوضةِ؛ لِمَا فيه مِن الرِّبا، فيُحْمَلُ على أنه أسقَط بعضَ حقِّه،وحقُّه في القَدْرِ والجودةِ، فصحَّ ذاك على هذا الوجهِ.
وأصلُ هذا: أن الصُّلْحَ متى وَقَع على جنسِ ما هو المُسْتَحقُّ بعَقْدِ المُدَاينةِ؛ يُجْعَلُ اسْتِيفَاءً، فإنْ لم يُمْكِنْ أنْ يُجْعَلَ اسْتِيفَاءً؛ يَكُونُ صَرْفًا، فيُشْتَرطُ فيه شرائطُ الصَّرْفِ. (غاية البيان للأتقاني)
بینک والے اور کمپنی والے کارڈ ہولڈر کو جو انعامات دیتے ہیں، ان کا لیتا اور استعمال کرتا جاتا ہے کیونکه بینک کی حیثیت مقرض کی ہے، اور مقرض اپنے مقروض کو کوئی انعام دے تو اس کا لینا مقروض کے لیے جائز ہے. ہاں مقروض اگر قرض خواہ کو ( قرض کی وجہ سے ) کوئی ہدیہ، انعام وغیرہ دے تو اس کا لینا درست نہیں ہے۔ (فتاوى دار العلوم زكريا)