Q221 :I used to support a regular amount of money to
a bank in my home country and the bank added to it a netmission on a
regular basis. Had I retained all the amounts with me and transferred
them now, I would have got much more in my home currency because of the
difference in exchange rates over the years. Would the netmission the
bank credited to me be acceptable in the circumstances?
A221 : Numerous are the situations, practices and
transactions that people may have to encounter in our sophisticated
mode of living and for which they do not find an Islamic answer ready.
Often people do not stop to think about the legality or otherwise of a
particular situation or practice. They get involved in it but after the
passage of a period of time, they start to think, “Is it permissible or
not?” If they receive a negative answer they find it difficult to
accept because the practice or the situation has benete too familiar to
them and they cannot do without it. If it is beneficial to them, they
ask a scholar about it, trying to get from him a favorable answer. If
they cannot, then they may go to another scholar or they may try to
justify that practice for themselves. What we have to remember is that
Islam cannot be tailored according to our own desires. Modern
civilization has invented numerous financial practices without
reference to Islam. Islam cannot, therefore, be expected to sanction
every single one of these practices. It has its own values which shape
the sort of society it aims to create. Therefore, if we wish to lead a
life which is acceptable to Islam, we must abide by Islamic values. We
cannot try to modify these values, in order to sanction certain
benefits which we receive from un-Islamic practices. Moreover, modern
civilization has established a world monetary system which is sometimes
grossly unfair, particularly to poor people. Take, for examples, the
parity of currencies. Sometimes, you feel that there is no logic or
system which governs this parity. I will give you the example of two of
the strongest currencies in the world, the American dollar and the
British pound. In the late-seventies the pound lost much in value and
went so low that at one point, a pound was worth only a few cents above
one dollar. Nowadays, a pound fetches nearly two dollars. If you have
to deal in these currencies, and you transfer money from one to the
other, you are bound to either make heavy losses or substantial gains
through no effort on your part other than the timing of exchanging your
currency. The first question relates to such changes. My reader wishes
he had not transferred any amount of money over the last few years. He
would have received more by transferring them now. In order to
netpensate his loss, he seeks to legitimize the netmission given to him
by the bank. This is no excuse for accepting something which is not
permissible in the first place. If this netmission is halal, or
permissible, it is not accepted by the rate of transfer. If it is
forbidden to take, the rate of exchange does not alter that
prohibition. Hence, we should look at the netmission separately whether
it is permissible or not. What is questionable, in this particular
case, is the netmission paid by the bank. Is it simply interest given
another name? If so, then it is not permissible for my reader to take.
He may, however, give it away to poor people or to charitable society
or put it to some use which is beneficial to the whole society. On the
other hand, if the bank uses the money transferred by my reader and
gives a portion of the returns on the investment to its client, then
this netmission is permissible to take, provided that it is not
guaranteed before hand at a particular rate. In other words, it should
be related to the performance of the bank. If it is so, then it benetes
permissible regardless of the rates of exchange. The same ruling
applies to all money deposited in a bank.
Our Dialogue ( Source : Arab News – Jeddah )