Ruling On Offering and Accepting Presents in Return For Intercessions

Refereed Study
Ruling on Offering and

Accepting Presents in Return
for Intercessions
Dr. Waleed bin Abdur-Rahmaan Al-Hamdaan*
* Member of Faculty, College of Teachers, Tabuk.

Ruling on Offering and Accepting Gifts for Intercessions
Foreword
All praise belongs to Allah; we praise Him and seek His assistance
and forgiveness; we seek refuge in Allah from the evil within ourselves
and from our evil deeds. Whomever Allah guides, there is no one to
misguide him; and whomever Allah misguides, there is no one to guide
him. I bear witness that none is worthy of worship except Allah alone,
without any partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant
and messenger.
Islam is the religion of justice; it has given everyone his due right
and guaranteed the rights of individuals and those of communities, the
rights of the ruler and those of his subjects, the rights of public servants
and those of the members of society who need their services, the rights
of the rich and those of the poor, the rights of those who have the
capability to serve the public and those who have no means whatsoever
to act on their own, the rights of husbands and those of wives, the rights
of partners and, last but not least, the rights of contracting parties. No
other secular law claims the merit of maintaining a balance between
duties and rights or providing the legal means to justice as Islam does.
Indeed, Islam is the sublime religion revealed to the Seal of Prophets,
may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, and is the last eternal
message preached to the whole world as asserted by Allah's statements:
"That is the right religion" (9:36); "Allah commands justice " (16:90) and
"…and when you judge between people, judge with justice." (4:58)
Among the facets of justice advocated by Islam is that it prohibits taking
the property of others unrightfully or jeopardizing the interests of
individuals and societies.
It has become a general plight these days that some people ask for
presents in return for any favour they do for those who need their help
to gain their due rights. Therefore, it has become necessary to discuss the
issue of giving and accepting presents in return for intercessions and to
elaborate on the different textual proofs, Sharee'ah provisions and
statements of jurists related to this vital issue. There is also an urgent
need to state the weightiest opinion as to whether it is lawful or
unlawful to give and accept presents in return for intercessions.
66 Al-Adl (35)
Dr. Waleed bin Abdur-Rahmaan Al-Hamdaan
This complex issue involves an intercessor (shaafi'), the person for

whom intercession is sought (mashfoo' lahu), the subject of intercession
(mashfoo' feehi) and the person with whom intercession is undertaken
(mashfoo' indahu). The core question of the present study is: if a person
intercedes for another person with a third person who can do him a
favour or help him regain his due right or remove an injustice he might
incur, is it lawful for the person interceded for to give the intercessor a
present and is it lawful for the intercessor to accept the said present in
return for his intercession?
Moreover, different relevant issues need to be considered by the
researcher for they have been amply discussed in numerous books of
jurisprudence. One main relevant issue is the crime of bribery, namely
when judges, rulers, officials or other public employees impose the
condition that members of the public should pay them for the services
they are required to render as part of their jobs. Another main issue is
the different opinions given as to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the
various types of services or favours whether associated with a
precondition of payment for them or not.
It goes without saying that any payment stipulated in return for a
certain service offered to a member of the public is an unlawful bribe
and a major sin for which Allah threatens those who commit a severe
punishment. Moreover, gifts given to rulers, judges, public employees
and the like—even without a precondition—are considered unlawful
under specific rules and circumstances.
However, a fee or a wage paid to a mediator who exerts an effort to
fulfil the needs of people through lawful channels is considered lawful
according to the opinion of the majority of scholars. Examples of this
include fees and charges paid to expeditors, lawyers and agents.
However, the mediator should not be a public employee whose main
duty under the law is to render required services to members of the
public for which he receives a wage. Therefore, any payment a public
servant may receive for such services is governed by the same rulings
applicable to the presents given to rulers, judges, public employees and
the like. This issue will be further elaborated on later in this paper.
This paper is divided into an introduction and two chapters:
Al-Adl (35) 67
The introduction explains the meaning of and the rulings on the

different kinds of gifts and presents as well as the meaning of and the
rulings on the different kinds of intercessions.
Chapter One cites the Prophet's statements (hadeeths) and other
textual proofs on the issue under study and provides ample discussion
of these hadeeths and other relevant textual proofs.
Chapter Two discusses the different statements and opinions of
jurists, the textual proofs they have quoted in support of their points of
view and comparisons among different statements and views as well as
the weightiest opinion in this regard.
68 Al-Adl (35)
Introduction
The introduction discusses two topics as follows:

Topic One: Linguistic and Legal Meanings of Gifts and
Presents:
The Arabic word "hadiyyah" is derived from the common root verb
"hadaya" which has two different meanings. The first one is "to guide"
and the second one is "to give".2 However, to distinguish between the
two meanings, two different words have been used. For the first
meaning, the verb "hadaa" is used and for the second meaning, the verb
"ahdaa" is used.3 The second meaning is very clear in the Qur'anic
statement: "I am sending them a present (hadiyyah)." (An-Naml: 35)
Different forms are derived from the above word to denote different
meanings. For example, the word "tahadee" means exchange of presents
and the emphatic form "mihdaa'" means a man who is in the habit giving
presents to others.4
However, the above term takes a more extended meaning to include
different kinds of gifts. Muslim jurists have discussed these different
types of gifts in separate parts of their books and elaborated on their
related rulings as far as transactions among people are concerned.
The Arabic word "hibah" is the gift, the "waahib" is the giver,
"mawhoobon lahu" is the person given the gift and the "mawhoob" is the
thing given as a gift or present. Technically speaking, the word "hibah"
means the thing given to someone for which no return is expected.5
However, Muslim jurists have drawn a clear distinction between a
hiba and a hadiyya6. An-Nawawee stated, "A hiba, a hadiyya and
2 Ibn Faris, Mu'jam Maqayeesul Lughah, p. 1067, Darul Fikr.

3 Ar-Raghib, al-Mufradaat, p. 538.
4 Lisanul Arab, 15/357-358; al-Misbaah al-Muneer, 2/636, Darul Baz and al-Mufradaat, pp.
541-542.
5 At-ta'reefaat by al-Jurjanee, p. 319; Aneesul Fuqaha', p. 255; Legal Journal, article 833 and
al-Mufradaat, p. 533.
6 Because the English equivalents for both hiba and hadiyyah are 'gifts' and 'presents',
which are both synonyms in English, these English equivalents will be used
interchangeably throughout the study. [Translator's Note]
Al-Adl (35) 69
voluntary charity (sadaqa) are variant types of charity that share the
notion of giving something without expecting something in return. If the
giver's intention is to please Allah by giving something to a needy
person, it is then a form of charity; if it is carried to the person to whom
it is to be given combined with appreciation and gratitude, it is then a
hadiyya; otherwise, it is a hiba."7
Ibn Hajar gave two meanings for the hiba as follows:
The first meaning is a general one which includes releasing someone
from a debt, charity which is given to seek Allah's reward in the
Hereafter and hadiyya which is given to express appreciation and respect
for the person to whom they are given.
The second meaning is a specific one and denotes anything given to
someone without expecting anything in return from him. This also
applies to a hiba which is defined as something given to a person
without asking for a reward.8
With respect to this latter specific meaning, some jurists have
defined the gift (hiba) as something given for no return or purpose.9
Some contemporary jurists noted another difference between a hiba
and a hadiyya. They have stated that a hiba is given to a person without
expecting anything in return from him as opposed to the hadiyya which
might be given for a certain purpose as is the general practice under
certain public norms. One of Allah's names is the Giver (Al-Wahhaab)
because His plentiful blessings on his creatures do not involve any
prospect of anything in return from them in any way reward
whatsoever.10
7 Al-Mutli' ala Abwaab al-Muqni', 291. In Sunan an-Nasaa'ee under No. 3757, on the
authority of Abdur-Rahmaan bin Alqamah ath-Thaqafee that a delegation from
Thaqeef visited the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and brought with them
a present. The Prophet asked, "Is it a present or charity? If it is a present, it is then
meant to be for the sake of the Prophet and if it is carity, it is then meant to be for the
sake of Allah." They replied that it was a present and thus the Prophet accepted it. Ibn
Taymiyah said, "The difference between the present and charity is that the latter is
better than the former unless the former is meant for something that makes it better
than the latter." Ibn Taymiyah, Majmu'l Fataawa, 31/269.
8 Fat-hul Baaree, 5/246.
9 Al-Lisaan, 1/804.
10 Abdur-Rahmaan Al-Maydanee, Islamic Ethics, 2/446.
70 Al-Adl (35)
2. The Ruling on Gifts

One of the core objectives that the Islamic Sharee'ah aims to realize is
to bring Muslims closer to each other; gifts are one of the means to
achieve this goal. Therefore, Islam encourages Muslims to give gifts to
each other in order to reinforce amity among members of the Muslim
community. In fact, the Qur'an and the Sunnah are replete with
examples in this connection.
In his Saheeh, Imaam Al-Bukhaaree mentions gifts under a special
chapter entitled: "Gifts and their Virtues."11
Al-Qurtubee said, "It is recommended to exchange gifts, for they
strengthen amity and remove enmity and grudges from the hearts of
Muslims. It is authentically narrated that the Prophet (peace and
blessings be upon him), whose example we should follow, accepted
gifts. A virtue of the gift is that it removes grudges from hearts and
gives a special meaning to the relationship between the giver and the
receiver of the gift."12
Hence, gifts are the acts of generous Muslims. Muslim scholars have
stated that Muslims should exchange gifts in all cases other than those
meant to bribe someone in order to make him give power to false claims
over rightful ones.13
Ibn Abdul Bar said, "We should follow in the footsteps of the
Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who used to give gifts to his
companions and who accepted gifts and rewarded those who gave gifts
to him as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said, 'I shall accept the
invitation even if I were invited to a meal of a sheep's trotter, and I shall
accept the gift even if it were an arm or a trotter of a sheep.'"14
As described hereinabove, giving gifts is a Sunnah, but it is not
obligatory (waajib) since the purpose of it is to create amity and remove
grudges from hearts. Indeed, people generally have a natural
disposition to give and accept gifts.15
11 Fat-hul Baaree 'Alaa Saheeh al-Bukharee, 5/246.

12 Al-Jaami' li Ahkaamil Qur'an, 13/199.
13 Al-Bahrul Zakhkhaar, 4/131.
14 Reported by Ahmad in his Musnad, 2/424-479; al-Bukhaaree, Book of Gifts, Part on
Little Gifts, 2568 and 5178 and al-Baihaqee, 6/169, on the authority of Abu Hurairah.
15 Al-Istidhkaar, 26/155. See also Hashiyat al-Ramlee ala Rawdh al-Taalib, 4/300.
Al-Adl (35) 71
A'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet
(peace and blessings be upon him) used to accept gifts and reward for
them.16
Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the
Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Exchange presents, for
they instil mutual love into your hearts."17
Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) used to say, "O my sons!
Exchange gifts, for they create amity among you."18
Thus, this practice of giving and accepting gifts is lawful unless the
giver's intention is to receive something unlawful in return for a gift.
This theme will be explained in more detail hereinafter. 19
The giver may have purposes other than honouring the one
presented to. These include the following:
1. Giving a present in return for an intercession. This is the main
theme of this paper which we will discuss in the chapters following this
introduction.
2. Giving a present for something in return, like giving someone a
present expecting a similar one in return. This type of present has
triggered of difference of opinion among Muslim scholars. Maalik and
16 Reported by al-Bukhaaree, Book of Gifts, Part on Rewards for Gifts, 2585.

17 Reported by al-Bukhaaree in al-Adab al-Mufrad, 594 from Dhimaam bin Isma'eel from
Musaa bin Wardaan from Abu Hurairah. The same hadeeth is reported by al-Baihaqee
in his Sunan, 6/169. In At-Talkhees al-Habeer, 3/80, Ibn Hajar said, "It is of a good chain
of narrators." He also mentioned the difference about it. Ibn Uday considered it weak
because of Dhimaam. He said that his narrations are not narrated by any other
narrator; al-Kaamil, 5/167; Nasbur Rayah, 4/120; Ahmad reported a similar version of
the same hadeeth, Al-Musnad, 2/405, at-Tirmidhee, al-Jaami', 2130 from Abi Ma'shar
from Sa'eed on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Prophet (peace be upon him)
said, "Exchange gifts, for they remove grudges from hearts'; this is the version
reported by Ahmad. At-Tirmidhee said, "His version of the hadeeth is strange." Abu
Ma'shar was criticized by some scholars as to his capacity of memorization. Ibn al-
Qattaan said, "Abu Ma'shar is considered weak by some scholars and trustworthy by
others and that is why the hadeeth can be classified as good." Maalik reported it in al-
Muwatta' as a mursal hadeeth, al-Muwatta' with az-Zarqaanee, 4/334, # 1750 on the
authority of Attaa' bin Abi Muslim Abdullah al-Khurasaanee thus: "Shake hands to
remove grudges and exchange gifts to love each other and remove disputes." Attaa' is
a tabi'ee.
18 Reported by al-Bukhaaree in al-Adab al-Mufrad, 595, through an authentic chain or
narrators.
19 Chapter One, Topic 3.
72 Al-Adl (35)
Abu Haneefa considered it lawful while al-Shaafi'ee, Dawood and Abu

Thawr considered it unlawful. The scholars who considered it unlawful
classified it as a type of selling something for an unknown price.
However, Maalik is of the opinion that the public norm of giving
something in return for a present takes the rule of a precondition of
expecting something in return for a present. 20
3. Giving someone a present as a bribe: Umar bin Abdul Azeez said,
"At the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) the
present was a real one but these days it is a type of bribe."21 It is a bribe
when given to a judge to make him judge in favour of the giver.22
4. Giving presents to public employees like judges, governors and
other government officials: These presents are usually given to them for
the sole reason that they hold a certain post; and had they not been
public employees, they would not have been given to them. It is
narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said,
"Presents to public employees are bribes."23 Imaam Ahmad said, "He who
holds a public post should not accept any present."24 This issue has been
thoroughly discussed by Muslim scholars. 25
In his Sunan, Abu Dawood reported on the authority of Buraidah
(may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings
be upon him) said, "Whomever we employ for a pay, then whatever he
takes beyond that (i.e.his pay) is misappropriation (ghulul)."26
20 Bidayatul Mujtahid, 664-665.

21 Reported by al-Bukhaaree with a suspended chain of narrators in the Book of Gifts,
Part on Rejecting a Gift for a Justifiable Reason, al-Fath, 5/275.
22 Hashiyat Ibn Abideen, 5/362, al-Misbaahul Muneer, 1/228 and The Crime of Bribes in the
Islamic Sharee'ah by Dr. al-Turaiqi.

23 Reported by Ahmad in his Musnad, 5/24, al-Baihaqee, 10/138 on the authority of Ibn
Humaid from Ismaeel bin Ayyaash who is a weak narration; see Naylul Awtaar, 8/309.
However, the meaning of the hadeeth is consistent with what is reported in the two
authentic books of hadeeth on the authority of Ibn al-Tabiyyah as reported by al-
Bukhaaree in the Book of Rulings, Part on Gifts Given to Public Employees, #7174 and
Muslim in the Book of Governorship, Part on Forbidding Gifts to public Employees, #
1832.
24 Al-Insaaf with al-Muqni' and al-Sharh al-Kabeer, 28/359.
25 Naylul Awtaar, 8/309 and The Crime of Bribes in Islamic Sharee'ah, p. 67.
26 Reported by Abu Dawood in his Sunan, Book of Kharaaj, Part on Payments Made to
Public Employees, # 2943. It is an authentic hadeeth.
Al-Adl (35) 73
Muslim scholars have differentiated a present from a bribe by stating

that a bribe is the thing given on request while a present is the thing
given without being asked for it.27
It should be noted that it is lawful for a person to give a public
employee a present to regain a certain due right which he cannot regain
unless and until he gives him the said present . Ibn Taymiyah said, "If a
present is given to someone with the aim of stopping him from treating
the gift-giver with injustice or enabling the gift-receiver to help him
regain his due right, it is considered unlawful for the gift-taker but
lawful for the gift-giver to do so." He added that the Prophet (peace and
blessings be upon him) said, "Whoever asks me to give him something
[that he does not deserve to take] and leaves with it under his armpit, he
is then leaving with a piece of fire." Umar said, "O Messenger of Allah!
Why do you give them?" The Prophet replied, "They insist on asking me,
but Allah does not really accept for me to be a miser."28
Abdur Razzaaq reported that Al-Hassan said, "You will be rewarded
for anything you give from your money to protect your property and
life." The same is narrated by al-Thawree on the authority of Ibraheem. 29
5. Giving presents for the purpose of boasting and showing off is
objectionable.
6. Ibn Taymiyah said, "Giving money for the purpose of being
praised is objectionable."30
As has already been stated, accepting a present is a Sunnah because
the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) accepted it. However, if
the present is associated with an air of haughtiness, it is better not to
accept it.31 This is supported by the hadeeth narrated by Abu Huraira
(may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings
be upon him) said, "By Allah, from this day on, I will not accept any
present from anyone unless he is from Quraishi immigrants, Ansaar,
27 Al-Insaaf with al-Muqni' and al-Sharh al-Kabeer, 28/357.

28 Al-Fataawa, 31/86; the hadeeth is reported by Ahmad in his Musnad, 3/16 on the
authority of Abu Sa'eed al-Khudree through an authentic chain of narrators.
29 Mussannaf Abdur-Razzaq, 8/149, but with an interrupted chain of narrators.
30 Majmoo' Fataawaa Ibn Taymiyah, 11/111-112.
31 Az-Zarkaanee alal Muwatta', 4/333/
74 Al-Adl (35)
Dows or Thaqeef."32 The reason for this statement by the Prophet (peace
and blessings be upon him) is explained in the hadeeth narrated by Abu
Huraira that a Bedouin presented a she-camel to the Prophet and the
Prophet gave him six young she-camels in return, but the Bedouin was
not satisfied. When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was
informed of the Bedouin's dissatisfaction, he climbed the pulpit, and,
after praising Allah, said, "Someone gave me a she-camel as a present
and I gave him six young she-camels in return for his present but he was
not satisfied. I will not accept any present from anyone unless he is from
Quraish, Ansaar, Thaqeef or Dows."33
Topic Two: Meaning of and Ruling on Intercession
1. Meaning of Intercession
The Arabic noun Shafaa'a is derived from the root verb Shafa'a "to
intercede"; hence, the Shaafi' is the intercessor and the Mashfu' lahu is the
one interceded for. Therefore, the intercessor is the person who asks
another influential person to do a favour for a third person. Usually, the
intercessor is of a higher rank than the one interceded for and the former
usually intercedes with another person of a higher rank. In summary,
intercession is asking a favour from someone for the benefit of someone
else.34
2. Ruling on Intercession
Allah says, "Whoever intercedes in a good cause becomes a partner
therein; and whoever intercedes in an evil cause shares in its burden:
and Allah has power over all things." (an-Nisaa': 85)
It is clear from the above Qur'anic statement that intercession by
someone for the benefit of another one is of two types:35
The first type is intercession in a good cause, namely when someone
intercedes for another one to enable him to acquire a right due to him,
32 Reported by Abu Dawood in his Sunan, 3537. The chain of narrators includes
Muhammad bin Ishaaq from Sa'eed bin Abi Sa'ed Al-Makbaree who is weak.
33 Reported by at-Tirmidhee in al-Jaami', # 3945, Part on the Virtues of Thaqeef and Bani
Hanifah.
34 Lisaan al-Arab, 8/184; at-Ta'rifaat, 168; al-Misbaah al-Muneer, 1/317 and Al-Jaami' li
Ahkmil Qur'an, 5/295.

35 Al-Azkaar by al-Nawawee, 508; al-Jaami' li Ahkaam al-Qur'an, 5/295 and The Encyclopedia
of Islamic Jurisprudence, 26/131-132.
Al-Adl (35) 75
avert a harm that he may suffer or eliminate an unjust act he may

experience without causing harm or abusing a right due to another
person. The above and other similar types of intercession are an
embodiment of the principle of helping one another in piety and
righteousness, as enjoined by Allah in the Glorious Qur'an: "Help you
one another in piety and righteousness." (Al-Maa'idah: 2)
An-Nawawee said, "You should know that intercession with the
rulers and others to fulfil the rights of others is desirable."36 The rule
applicable in this regard is that intercession for a good cause is the one
offered for something which is deemed obligatory, permissible or
implicitly intended under the Islamic Sharee'ah. Te Prophet's Sunnah
asserts this principle as stated in the following hadeeths:
It is narrated in the two authentic hadeeth books (Al-Bukhaaree and
Muslim) and others on the authority of Abu Musa Al-Ash'aari (may
Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be
upon him) encouraged his companions to intercede for any one who
might ask for something he needed. He said, "Intercede and you will be
rewarded for your intercession, and Allah gives the verdict through His
Messenger's tongue whatever He likes most." This is the text of the
narration reported by Muslim.37 In Al-Bukhaaree, the word "likes" is
reported as "wills".38 However, according to Abu Dawood, the narration
goes thus: "Intercede with me and you will be rewarded for your
intercession and Allah will give the verdict through His Messenger's
tongue whatever He wills."39 The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon
him) translated this principle into action through his own deeds. Al-
Bukhaaree reported in his Saheeh on the authority of Ibn Abbaas (may
Allah be pleased with them) concerning the story of Bareerah who was
freed [from slavery] and whose husband wanted to keep her. The
Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked her to stay with her
husband. She asked the Prophet, "Are you instructing me to do so?" He
36 Al-Nawawee, Al-Adhkaar, p. 508.

37 Reported by Muslim in his Saheeh, # 2627, Book of Piety and Benevolence, Part on
Intercession in Unlawful Cause.
38 Reported by al-Bukhaaree in his Saheeh, # 6027, Book of Ethics, Part on the Qur'anic
Statement: "He who intercedes for a good cause."

39 Sunan Abu Dawood, # 5131.
76 Al-Adl (35)
replied, "No, I am only interceding." She then said, "I have no need to
stay with him."40
The second type is intercession in an evil cause, which takes the
following forms:
1. Interceding for dropping a punishment (hadd) after the crime had
been reported to the ruler. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon
him) rebuked Usama bin Zayd (may Allah be pleased with them)
saying, "Are you interceding against a divine hadd?"41 However, if the
crime is not yet reported to the ruler, there is no objection to intercede to
release the offender. The evidence to this is that az-Zubair bin al-
Awwaam (may Allah be pleased with him) interceded for a thief. Some
people objected to this act. He replied, "Yes, I do for he has not been
brought before the ruler yet. After he is brought before the ruler, may
Allah not forgive him (the ruler) if he releases him (the thief)!"42 The
Maalikees said that if the person interceded for is notorious for his
wicked deeds, it is unlawful to intercede for him.43
2. Interceding in an unlawful act.
3. Interceding in depriving someone from his due right or dropping
something which is illegitimate to drop.
4. Interceding for someone regarding something that may cause
harm to the whole nation or to any member of society.
The general rule in this respect is that intercession is unlawful
regarding something prohibited or warned against by the Legislator or
something the collective proofs of which imply that it is impermissible.
An-Nawawee stated, "These are all the types of intercession that the
intercessor should not undertake, that the person interceded for should
40 Reported by Al-Bukhaaree in his Saheeh, # 5283, Book of Divorce, Part on the Prophet's
Intercession for Bareerah's Husband.
41 Reported by Al-Bukhaaree in his Saheeh, # 6788, Book of Hudud, Part on Unlawful
Intercession in a Hadd if it is Reported to the Ruler and Muslim in his Saheeh, # 1688;
Book of Hudud, Part on Cutting off the Hand of the Thief as narrated by A'ishah (may
Allah be pleased with her).
42 Reported by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musannaf, 9/465, classified as a good hadeeth by
Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Baaree, 12/104, Book of Hudud, Part on Unlawful Intercession in
hudud.
43 Mawaahib al-Jaleel, 6/320 and The Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence, 226/131-132.
Al-Adl (35) 77
not accept and regarding which others should not mediate if they know
it to be unlawful."44
Allah says, "Whoever intercedes in a good cause becomes a partner
therein; and whoever intercedes in an evil cause shares in its burden:
and Allah has power over all things." (an-Nisaa': 85) Ibn Jareer said that
the word "burden" means part of the sin. 45 Al-Hassan said, "the good
cause is anything lawful according to the religion, and the evil cause is
anything unlawful according to the religion."46 Al-Qurtubee said, "This
is a comprehensive statement."47
Mujaahid, Al-Hassan, Ibn Zayd and other scholars commented on
the above Qur'anic statement thus: "It speaks about intercessions
undertaken by someone for another one regarding something the latter
needs. Therefore, he who intercedes for something good will receive a
reward for it, and he who intercedes regarding something evil will incur
part of the burden of the sin."48
44 Al-Adhkaar, p. 508.
45 Jaami' al-Bayaan, 4/188.
46 Al-Qurtubee, aj-Jaami', 5/295.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
78 Al-Adl (35)
Chapter One
Discussion of Relevant Hadeeths and Statements
This chapter covers three topics as follows:

Topic One: Hadeeths on Presents Given for Intercessions
Imaam Ahmad49 reported from Hassan from Ibn Lahee'ah from
Ubaidullah bin Abi Ja'far from Khaalid bin Imraan from al-Qaasim from
Abi Umaamah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace
and blessings be upon him) said, "Whoever intercedes for someone and
accepts a present for such an intercession is considered to have
approached a great door of usury."
In the Book of Sales, the part on giving a present in return for a
certain service, Abu Dawood50 reported from Ahmad bin Amr as-Sarh
from Wahb from Umar bin Maalik from Ubaidullah bin Ja'far from
Khaalid bin Abi Imraan from Al-Qaasim from Abi Umaamah (may
Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be
upon him) said, "Whoever intercedes for his brother and he gives a
present to him for it and he accepts it, he approaches a great door of
usury." At-Tabaraani51 reported the same hadeeth from Asad bin Musa
from Ibn Lahee'ah. It should be noted that this is the only marfoo' hadeeth
(a hadeeth that can be traced back to the Prophet) I have found through
this chain of narrators on this specific issue. Moreover, it should be
noted that I have not found any other narrations that support this
narration except for some statements which I will discuss under a
separate topic.
With regard to the chain of narrators of the above hadeeth, the above
chain of narrators is the only chain through which the above hadeeth is
narrated, namely the single narration of al-Qassim bin Abdur-Rahmaan
from Abu Umaamah. No other narrator reported the same hadeeth.
49 Al-Musnad, 5/261.
50 As-Sunan, # 3541.
51 Al-Kabeer, 8/284, # 7928.
Al-Adl (35) 79
Commenting on the Above Hadeeth

Some hadeeth scholars have classified the above hadeeth as 'good'
(hasan), but others criticized it.
Abu Dawood52 did not comment on it but some contemporary
hadeeth scholars like Al-Albaanee53 and Abdul Qaadir Al-Arna'oot54
considered it good.
Moreover, the statements of Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Rajab in al-
Qawaa'id and al-Shawkaani in Nailul Awtaar about the same hadeeth
signify that they considered the hadeeth as having authority55 because it
is supported by another statement.
However, some other scholars have criticized the chain of narrators
of the hadeeth. In al-Ilal al-Mutanaahiyah, Ibn Al-Jawzee said that
Ubaidullah bin Ja'far is 'weak' and that al-Qaasim is 'weaker than him'.56
The criticism directed to both Ubaidullah bin Ja'far and al-Qaasim will
be discussed hereinafter in more detail.
Al-Mundhiree said that al-Qaasim is Ibn Abdur-Rahman Abu
Abdur-Rahman al-Amawee from Damascus and is criticized by hadeeth
scholars.57 In Buloog al-Maraam, Ibn Hajar said that al-Qaasim's
narrations have been criticized by hadeeth scholars.58
Contemporary hadeeth scholars who have criticized him include
Shu'aib al-Arna'oot in his commentary on al-Musnad. He said that the
hadeeth is weak. He added that al-Qaasim bin Abdur-Rahman, though
trustworthy, has some single narrations, one of which is this hadeeth, as
no other narrator supported his narration. 59 He also criticized the very
text of the hadeeth because it contradicts another stronger marfoo' hadeeth,
namely the one narrated by Ibn Umar which reads: "He who offers you a
52 Sunan Abi Dawood, # 3541; Abu Dawood said in his treatise that any hadeeth that
receives no criticism is good but does not mean that it is authentic. He might mean
that it is good if supported by other narrations. This is the general practice of the early
Muslim scholars; see Ilal at-Termidhee by Ibn Rajab, 237.
53 Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh, as edited by al-Albaanee, 2/1109.
54 Jaami' al-Usool, as edited by al-Arna'oot, 11/614.
55 Al-Fataawaa, 31/286; al-Qawaa'id, 310 and Nailul Awtaar, 8/309.
56 Al-Ilal al-Mutanaahiyah, 2/753.
57 Awnul Ma'bood, 9/331.
58 Subul as-Salaam Sharh Buloog al-Maraam, 3/95-96.
59 Imaam Ahmad's Musnad, edited version.
80 Al-Adl (35)
favour, give him something in return for it." (Reported by Ahmad and
Abu Dawood)60
Hence, both the chain of narrators (isnaad) and the text of the hadeeth
(matn) have been criticized and objected to by the hadeeth scholars.
With regard to the chain of narrators, the criticism focuses on three
narrators: Ibn Lahee'ah, Ubaidullah bin Ja'far and al-Qaasim bin Abdur-
Rahman.
Ibn Lahee'ah is Abdullah bin Lahee'ah bin Uqbah, Abu Abdur-
Rahman, from Egypt, a jurist and a judge. The weightiest opinion of
hadeeth scholars about him is that he is good as a person but weak as a
narrator of hadeeth. The statements of hadeeth scholars support this point
of view. However, he is accepted as a narrator when other narrators
support his narrations.61 In Sunan Abi Dawood, his narration is supported
by that of Umar bin Maalik. This latter narrator is said to be a good
jurist. Ahmad bin Saalih al-Masree said he is trustworthy. Muslim
reported a hadeeth from him but in conjunction with another narrator.62
Ubaidullah bin Abi Ja'far al-Masree, Abu Bakr, is a jurist and is
considered a trustworthy narrator by Abu Haatim, an-Nasaa'ee, Ibn Sa'd
and al-Ujalee. The author of al-Meezaan reported that Ahmad said that
he was not 'strong', yet on another occasion he said that he was 'good'.63
Al-Qaasim bin Abdur-Rahman, Abu Abdur-Rahman al-Dimashqee
al-Umawee, is the one criticized by the hadeeth scholars who considered
the hadeeth 'weak'. Therefore, I need to talk about him in detail.
Concerning his narrations from Abu Umaamah, they are considered
authentic, as stated by al-Bukhaaree and others.64 However, concerning
his capability of memorization and precision, the hadeeth scholars
differed about him as follows:
The first group of scholars considered him 'weak'. Al-Ghallaabi said
that his narrations are unacceptabl;Ibn Sa'd said that some scholars
considered him 'weak' and Ibn Hibbaan said that he was of objectionable
60 Ahmad's Musnad, # 5356, ar-Risaalah Publications, Sunan Abi Dawood, #1672 and #
5109. Shu'aib al-Arna'oot classified its chain of narrators in the Musnad as authentic.
61 Tahdheebul Tahdheeb, 5/373-375.
62 Ibid, 7/494 and Taqreebul Tahdheeb, # 4961.
63 Ibid, 7/5-6 and Al-Meezaan, 5/5.
64 Siyar A'laamul Nubalaa', 5/194 and Tahdheebul Tahdheeb, 8/323.
Al-Adl (35) 81
narrations from the companions of the Prophet. 65 Ibn Al-Jawzee also

considered him 'weak'.66
Moreover, several statements by Ahmad apparently indicate that he
is weak. These statements include the following:
Ja'far bin Muhammad bin Abaan al-Harraanee said that he had
heard Ahmad bin Hanbal commenting on a hadeeth narrated by al-
Qaasim bin Abdur-Rahmaan, stating that narrations are rejected',
adding that the key problem with the said hadeeth was with al-Qaasim.
In another statement, Ahmad said that al-Qaasim's narrations were
considered 'rejected'.67
The second group of hadeeth scholars considered him trustworthy,
namely that all their statements indicate that he is a trustworthy
narrator. These scholars include Ya'qoub bin Sufyaan, at-Tirmidhee,
Ya'qoub bin Shaibah, Abu Ishaaq al-Harbee and Abu Ishaaq Al-
Jawzaanee.68 However, al-Ujalee considered him a trustworthy narrator
but not a strong one.69
The third group of hadeeth scholars said that some of his narrations
are strong but some others are weak and unacceptable. These scholars
include al-Bukhaaree, Ibn Ma'een, Abu Haatim and others. Ya'qoub Ibn
Shaibah said that hadeeth scholars differed about him.70 Hence, it can be
said that the hadeeth scholars classified his narrations into two types: 71
The first type is that his narrations are reported by trustworthy
narrators after him. Al-Bukhaaree mentioned some of them like al-Alaa'
bin al-Haarith, Ibn Jaabir, Katheer bin al-Haarith, Yahya bin al-Haarith
and Sulaiman bin Abdur-Rahman. Ibn Ma'een said that trustworthy
narrators reported his narrations. Abu Haatim also said that the
narrations reported by trustworthy narrators from him are good.

66 Al-'Ilal al-Mutanaahiya, 2/753.
67 Tahdheebul Tahdheeb, 8/323 and Imaam Ahmad's Statements Encyclopedia, 3/164-165.
69 Tahdheebul Tahdheeb, 8/324.
70 Ibid.
71 Tahdheebul Tahdheeb, 8/323-324; Siyar A'laamul Nubalaa', 5/194 and Imaam Ahmad's
Statements Encyclopedia, 3/164-165.
82 Al-Adl (35)
The second type is that his narrations are reported by weak or

unacceptable narrators after him. Al-Bukhaaree mentioned some of
them like Ja'far bin az-Zubair, Bishr bin Numair and Ali bin Zayd.
Ahmad did not accept the hadeeths narrated by Ali, Ja'far and Bishr
from al-Qaasim as noted by al-Athram. Abu Dawood also said that he
heard Ahmad criticizing al-Qaasim as narrating rejected hadeeths
through Ja'far bin az-Zubair in Basra and hence the scholars of hadeeth
did not accept his narrations. He was followed by Bishr bin Numair who
narrated some of these hadeeth but the people of Basra rejected his
narrations.
The question that arises here is: Is the problem with al-Qaasim or
those who reported his narrations? According to the above statements
by Ahmad, the problem was actually with al-Qaasim himself but all the
examples he gave of weak and rejected narrations belong to those who
reported al-Qaasim's narrations. Even Haatim said that only weak
narrators make his narrations weak. Ibn Ma'een was quoted as saying
the same thing about his narrations.
Therefore, it should be said that Ahmad's statements should be
considered in the light of the statements given by the above scholars of
hadeeth since all of them, including Ahmad, gave examples of narrators
who classified al-Qaasim's narrations as 'weak'. Hence, it is apparent
that Ahmad holds the view of the first group of scholars about al-
Qaasim.
To sum up, it can be said that al-Qaasim sometimes reported weak
hadeeths and at other times reported good hadeeths.72 As such, the
statements of the third group of scholars about him are the weightiest
and the fairest view regarding him; Allah knows best.
The reason why I consider the opinion of the third group of scholars
to be the weightiest is that several trustworthy narrators reported his
narrations. For example, Khaalid bin Abi Imraan was categorised as
'good' by Abu Haatim and 'trustworthy' by Ibn Sa'd and al-Ujalee.
Moreover, Ibn Hibbaan mentioned his name among the trustworthy
narrators and Ibn Yunus said that he was the jurist and muftee acceptable
to the people of Egypt and Morocco73. Therefore, this hadeeth is of the
72 Ibn Hajar described him in Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb as honest but with many strange
narrations, # 5470.
Al-Adl (35) 83
type reported by trustworthy narrators and can be classified as a good

one.
As for the text of the hadeeth, some elements in the hadeeth make it
closer to the state of weakness. These elements include the following:
1. The narrator is not a subject of consensus among the scholars of
hadeeth because he narrated some reports that are deemed 'rejected' by
hadeeth scholars. They have differed as to whetherthe problem lies with
him or with those who reported his narrations. Moreover, the text he
narrated is not supported by any other narrator or by another
approximate narration. This was the way of evaluating a hadeeth
followed by the predecessor scholars of hadeeth: they would consider the
narration 'rejected' if they found that the text contained something
unacceptable.
2. The warning given in the text of the hadeeth is exaggerated; it
considers the one who takes a present in return for intercession equal to
the one who takes usury. The latter is warned of severe punishment and
the curse of Allah according to the statements of the Qur'an and the
Sunnah. Allah says, "O you who believe! Observe your duty to Allah,
and give up what remains [due to you] from usury, if you are [in truth]
believers. And if you do not, then be warned of war [against you] from
Allah and His Messenger." (Al-Baqara: 278-279)
3. The text of the hadeeth apparently contradicts the texts of other
hadeeths, all of which indicate that a present given for a favour is
legitimate, and intercession is a type of favour.
Therefore, some scholars of hadeeth did not accept the text of the
hadeeth and considered it weak while others considered it good because
other proofs supported it, as will be discussed hereinafter. The latter
group of scholars argued that the other proofs signify that the text of the
hadeeth is originally reliable and hence considered it good.
I am of the opinion that those who accepted the hadeeth are fairer as
far as the validity and reliability of the original text of the hadeeth are
concerned, yet the warning mentioned in it is controversial and thus
makes the hadeeth closer to weakness.
Topic Two: Other Proofs Supporting the Above Hadeeth
Ibn Jareer commented on the Qur'anic statement: "They are avid
listeners to lies, and avid devourers of the suht (the unlawful) " (Al-
Maa'idah: 42) thus: "Ibn Al-Muthanna reported from Muhammad bin
84 Al-Adl (35)
Ja'far from Shu'bah from Ammaar al-Duhnee from Salim bin Abi al-Ja'd
on the authority of Masrooq that he asked Abdullah bin Mas'ood about
the word "suht" [in the verse] and he said, "It is when a man asks another
man a favour and the former gives the latter a present for it and the
latter accepts it."74
The same statement is reported through another chain of narrators
as follows: Ibn Jareer reported from Hannaad from Ubaidah from
Ammar from Muslim bin Subaih on the authority of Masrooq that he
asked Abdullah bin Mas'ood if "suht" is when someone bribes a judge to
make him unjustly judge in his favour and that Ibn Mas'ood replied, "It
is not this because judging against the revelation is a form of disbelief,
injustice and wickedness. Suht is when someone asks you to help him
recover his right and you help him and thus he gives you a present for
this favour and you accept it."75
Al-Baihaqee reported the same statement in his Sunan from Sa'eed
bin Mansour from Sufyaan from Ammaar al-Duhnee from Saalim bin
Abi al-Ja'd on the authority of Masrooq.76
Ibn Jareer reported from al-Qaasim from al-Hussain from Hajjaaj
from al-Mas'oodee from Bukair bin Abi Bukair from Muslim bin Subaih
that Masrooq interceded for a man regarding something the man needed
and the man presented him with a slave maid. Masrooq got very angry
and said to the man, "Had I known that you would do this, I would not
have interceded for you, and I will not intercede for you in the future. I
have heard Ibn Mas'ood saying, 'He who undertakes to intercede [for
someone] to regain a right or to remove an injustice and he is given a
present for that and he accepts it, this is indeed suht.' Someone said to
him that they thought that this ruling applied to those who accepted
presents for unfair judgments in their favour. He replied, 'accepting a
present for an unfair judgment is disbelief.'"77
Abdur-Razzaaq reported from Mu'ammar and Al-Thawree from
Mansour from Saalim bin Abi Al-Ja'd from Masrooq that a man from his
locality asked Masrooq's help to regain his right from Ibn Ziyaad and
that Masrooq helped him. The man brought him a slave maid as a
74 Jaami' al-Bayaan, 4/580, # 11955.

75 Ibid, 4/581, # 11968.
76 Sunan al-Baihaqee, 10/139.
77 Jaami' al-Bayaan, 4/580, # 11966.
Al-Adl (35) 85
present, but Masrooq returned it and said, "I heard Abdullah saying,
'This is suht.'"78
The above statements are reported from Abdullah bin Mas'ood (may
Allah be pleased with him) through reliable chains of narrators,
especially Masrooq bin Abi al-Ja'd al-Ashja'ee who is a trustworthy
tabi'ee.79 The same statement is reported from Saalim by Ammaar bin
Mu'awiyah al-Duhnee who is also a trustworthy narrator80 and by
Mansour bin al-Mu'tamir who is a trustworthy scholar81 and those who
followed him are also trustworthy scholars.
The same statement is also reported from Masrooq by Muslim bin
Subaih al-Hamadaanee who is a trustworthy tabi'ee82, and from the latter
it is reported by Ammaar al-Duhnee who is mentioned hereinabove.
As the above statement is authentically reported from Abdullah bin
Mas'ood, I find myself obliged to discuss it in more detail.
1. The statement is reported through more than one chain of
trustworthy narrators.
2. Ibn Mas'ood stressed the ruling in his statement and Masrooq
followed suit.
3. Ibn Mas'ood's statement is an interpretation of the Qur'anic
statement quoted above. Ibn Ma'sood also interpreted the term "suht" in
other more general statements as bribery in matters related to religion as
well as matters related to judgments. 83
4. I have not found any other ruling by the Prophet's companions or
tabi'een contradicting the one issued by Ibn Mas'ood.
Hence, this ruling has been issued by one of the Prophet's
companions, the authority of whose ruling is subject to difference
among scholars. Therefore, I would briefly state here the weightiest
opinion about the issue of the authority of the Prophet's companion's
statement (qawlus Sahaabi):
If the Prophet's companion's statement is not traced back "hadeeth
marfoo'" to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) or fulfils the
78 Al-Musannaf, 8/148.
80 Ibid, 7/406.
81 Ibid, 10/312.
82 Ibid, 10/132.
83 Jaami' al-Bayaan, 4/580.
86 Al-Adl (35)
rules of the hadeeth traced back to the Prophet, if it is not known to

scholars (for if it is known to scholars, it would be subject to silent
consensus among scholars) and if it does not contradict any statement in
the Qur'an and the Sunnah, would it be considered as having authority
or not? Scholars expressed two different opinions on this issue as
follows:84
1. The new Shaafi'ee school, Ahmad in a statement chosen by Abul
Khattaab and al-Karkhee and the majority of logicians contend that the
Prophet's companion's statement does not have authority as a ruling.
2. The Malikee school, some Hanafees, a statement by al-Shaafi'ee
and the majority of Hanbalees contend that the Prophet's companion's
statement has authority as a ruling.
This is the difference among scholars of religion.
However, other scholars have a different point of view: Ibn
Taymiyah said that the second argument is supported by the majority of
scholars including Abu Haneefa, Maalik, Ahmad and a statement by al-
Shaafi'ee. He added that al-Shaafi'ee mentioned this view many times in
his new books even though some scholars contended that this had been
his former opinion.85
Ibn Al-Qayyim supported the above view stating that this was the
view of the majority of Hanafees, as expressed by Muhammad bin al-
Hassan and as put in verbatim by Abu Haneefa. It is also the contention
advocated by Maalik and his students, as expressed in his book Al-
Muwatta', the view held by Ishaaq bin Rahawayh and Abi Ubaid, the
view voiced by Ahmad on more than one occasion, as his students
asserted, and the view of al-Shaafi'ee in his old and new statements; the
old statements being admitted by his students even though they contend
that his new statements indicate that he argued that the Prophet's
companion's statement does not have authority, yet the new statements
never mentioned that the companion's statement has any authority and
hence they relied on that he, in his new statements, contradicts some
rulings given by the Prophet's companions, which, if had authority, he
would not contradict them. However, such an argument is very weak.
84 Al-Faqeeh wal Mutafaqih, 1/437; Al-Ahkaam by al-Amidee, 4/149; Sharh Mukhtasar ar-
Rawdhah, 3/185 and Ash-Shanqitee's Fundamentals of Jurisprudence as Commentary on ar-
Rawdhah, 295.
85 Fataawaa Ibn Taymiyah, 20/14.
Al-Adl (35) 87
He added that al-Shaafi'ee, as reported by al-Rabee', explicitly stated

in his new views that the Prophet's companions' statements have
authority. He gives several examples from the very statements by al-
Shaafi'ee, indicating that the weightiest opinion that the Shaafi'ees
adopted was that the Prophet's companion's statement has authority.86
Al-Shanqeeti reiterated the same statement. 87
Ibn Taymiyah said, "I have carefully studied this issue and found out
that the companions of the Prophet were the most discreet and
knowledgeable scholars of religion. I have also stated in my books that
the Prophet's companions' statements are the most authoritative as to
judgment and analogy, as supported by the Qur'an, the Sunnah and
explicit analogy."
He added, "Up to this moment, I have never known a statement
unanimously agreed to among the companions of the Prophet that goes
against analogy. Knowledge of valid and invalid analogy is only meant
for scientific discussion, and only those who are expert in the
implications and intentions of the Sharee'ah, which includes sublime
features beyond count, are aware of this fact."88
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the weightiest point of view is
that the Prophet's companion's statement has authority, and Allah
knows best.
Topic Three: General Textual Proofs of the Legitimacy of a Reward
Given for a Favour
The purpose of citing the following textual proofs is to discuss the
views of some scholars who argue that they contradict the above hadeeth
and statement. However, I will discuss the views of the scholars who
support the authenticity of the above hadeeth and statement. These
textual proofs include the following:
1. A'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) said, "The Prophet (peace
and blessings be upon him) used to accept gifts and give something in
return for them."89
2. Jaabir (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet
(peace and blessings be upon him) said, "He who is given a gift should
86 A'lamul Muwaqi'een, 4/92-93 and al-Faqeeh wal Mutafaqih, 1/437.

87 Fundamentals of Jurisprudence, p. 297.
88 Fataawaa Ibn Taymiyah, 20/582-583.
89 Reported by al-Bukhaaree # 2585.
88 Al-Adl (35)
give something in return for it; if he has nothing to give in return, he

should thank the giver; for the one who thanks for a gift has shown
gratefulness to the giver, but whoever keeps silent has shown
ungrateful… ."90
3. Usaamah bin Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that
the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "He who receives a
favour and says to his benefactor, 'Jazaak-Allaahu khairan (may Allah
reward you well) has indeed praised [the benefactor] satisfactorily."91
4. Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the
Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "He who does not
thank people does not in actual fact thank Allah."92
5. Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) narrated that the
Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "… and whoever does
you a favour, reward him.'93
The above are some statements by the Prophet (peace and blessings
be upon him) on this issue. These statements are supported by the
Prophet's actual acts. Raafi' bin Khadeej reported that the Prophet (peace
and blessings be upon him) borrowed a male camel from a man. As soon
as he received some camels, he ordered Abu Raafi' to give a she-camel to
the man in return. Abu Raafi' told the Prophet that he only found a
camel better than the one borrowed by the Prophet. The Prophet bade
him give the man the better camel and said, "The best among people are
those who give the best in return."94
Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Prophet
(peace and blessings be upon him) borrowed a camel and gave back an
extra camel with it in return and said, "The best among you are the ones
who give the best in return."95
90 Reported by Abu Dawood in his Sunan, #4813 and at-Tirmidhee in Al-Jaami', # 2034.
91 Reported by at-Tirmidhee in aAl-Jaa'mi' # 2035.
92 Reported by Ahmad in al-Musnad, 2/258 and at-Tirmidhee, # 1955.
93 Reported by Ahmad in al-Musnad, 2/68; Abu Dawood, # 1672 and an-Nasaa'ee, #
2568.
94 Reported by Muslim, # 1600.
95 Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, Book of Borrowings, Part on Borrowing Camels, # 2305 and Saheeh
Muslim, Book of Irrigation, Part on Borrowing Something and Giving back a

Something better in Return, # 1601.
Al-Adl (35) 89
Chapter II
Statements and Proofs Given by Jurists
This chapter includes the following topics:

Topic One: Statements of Jurists
Before discussing the statements of jurists on the issue of accepting
presents for intercessions, I need to solve some problematic issues which
seem to be the subject of difference among scholars. The above issue
takes one of two forms as follows:
1. When somebody gives a present for an intercession in a prohibited
matter like requesting the intercessor to do something unlawful, to deny
a right that belongs to another person, to help him wrong another
person or to give him priority to a post over others who have more
entitled to the post, it is then it is strictly forbidden to give the present,
as expressed by the consensus opinion of scholars. Moreover, it is
unlawful for the intercessor to accept such a present, as is also expressed
by the consensus opinion of scholars 96 because the intercession is
undertaken regarding a matter which is considered unlawful, and thus
any end based on an unlawful means is equally unlawful; likewise,
anything prohibited to take is prohibited to give.
2. When the intercession is undertaken regarding a lawful or
permissible (mubaah) matter like delivering what is the due right of
somebody, relieving him from an injustice, enabling him to occupy a
post he deserves, giving him from the money endowed to the poor to
which he is entitled or undertaking any other form of intercession to
help people regain their due rights or alleviate harm that they may incur
can be classified into the following forms:
a. If the requestor of intercession cannot obtain what he deserves
unless he gives a present to the intercessor who is capable of helping
him, then this is more proximate to legitimacy than a case where a bribe
96 Fataawaa Ibn Taymiyah, 31/286; Haashiyat Ibn Abideen, 8/35; al-Fataawaa al-Hindiyah,
3/331; az-Zawaajir an Iktiraafil Kabaa'ir, 2/190; Haashiyatul al-Rahoonee, 7/313;
Hashiyatur Ramlee ala Rawdh al-Taalib, 34/300; Subul as-Salaam, 3/95-96; Naylul Awtaar,
8/309; Tawdheehul Ahkaam, 4/40 and The Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence, 26/134.
90 Al-Adl (35)
is given to someone in order to regain a certain due right or to remove a

certain harm which cannot be otherwise removed except through the
payment of a bribe because payment of a bribe is unanimously agreed to
be unlawful while giving a present for the same purpose is a subject of
disagreement, as will be discussed hereinafter. However, the majority of
scholars agree that it is lawful to pay a bribe to regain a due right or to
remove a harm which cannot be removed except through the payment
of such a bribe. They also argue that the bribe-taker is the one who
actually assumes the burden of the sin but not the briber. This is the
point of view held by Attaa', Jaabir bin Zayd and al-Hasan.97
Al-Baihaqee reported from Wakee' from Abu al-'Umays from al-
Qaasim bin Abdur-Rahmaan that when Abdullah bin Mas'ood (may
Allah be pleased with him) was detained in Abyssinia, he paid a bribe of
two dinars for his release.98 Al-Qurtubee reported the same statement as
follows: "It is reported that Abdullah bin Mas'ood was [detained] in
Abyssinia and he paid two dinars as a bribe for his release.99 He said,
"The sin falls upon the bribe-taker and not on the payer."100
Al-Baihaqee also reported that Wahb bin Munnabih said, "The
money that is paid to save one's property and life is not considered a
bribe for which one commits a sin; the bribe for which one commits a sin
is the one paid to acquire something to which one is not entitled."101
Abdur-Razzaaq reported from Mu'ammar from Al-Hassan that he
said, "You will certainly be rewarded for anything you give for the
protection of your property and life." Al-Thawri also reported this
narration from Ibraheem.102

98 Hashiyat Ibn Abideen, 8/35; al-Fataawaa al-Hindiyah, 3/331; ash-Sharhul Kabeer, 8/354-
355, Kashaaf al-Qinaa', 6/316; aj-Jaami' li Ahkaamil Qur'an, 6/183; Mawaahib jl-Jaleel,
6/121; al-Muhalla by Ibn Hazm, 9/157 and Subulus Salaam, 3/97. Ash-Shawkaanee
tends to consider it unlawful because the hadeeth is general and there is no other
hadeeth that limits this generality.
99 Sunan al-Baihaqee, 10/235. It is of an authentic chain of narrators but a mursal
hadeeth because al-Qaasim bin Abdur Rahman bin Abdullah bin Mas'ood did not
meet with his grandfather, Abdullah bin Mas'ood, Tahdheebul Tahdheeb, 8/321.
100 Aj-Jaami' li Ahkaamil Qur'an, 6/184.
101 Sunan al-Baihaqee, 10/235.
102 Musannaf Abdur-Razzaq, 8/149 and al-Muhalla by Ibn Hazm, 9/158.
Al-Adl (35) 91
Abdur-Razzaaq also reported from Jaabir bin Zaid that he said,

"There was nothing more beneficial to people than bribery during the
rule of Ziyaad or [maybe he said] Ibn Ziyaad."103
Abul Laith al-Samarkandee said, "This is the rule we apply. There is
no objection for someone to pay a bribe to protect his life and
property."104
Ibn Taymiyah said, "If he gives him a present to avert his injustice or
to regain a right due to him, the said present is unlawful for the taker to
accept but it is lawful for the giver to give as the Prophet (peace and
blessings be upon him) said, 'Whoever asks me to give him something
[that he does not deserve to take] and leaves with it under his armpit, he
is then leaving with a piece of fire.' Umar said, 'O Messenger of Allah!
Why do you give them?' The Prophet replied, 'They insist on asking me,
but Allah does not really accept for me to be a miser.'105 This same rule
applies to giving presents to those who treat people with injustice."106
He also added, "The giver may pay anything that enables him to
regain his due right or to avoid harm. This is the opinion reported from
our predecessors and senior scholars."107
b. If he can regain the right due to him or avert a certain harm that
he may incur without giving a present but he gives it as a reward for the
intercessor, the case includes two issues:
i. If the intercessor imposes the condition that he should be given a
present in return for his intercession, then it is unlawful to give it or to
accept it, according to the opinion of the majority of scholars.108
However, some Hanafees argue that it is lawful to give it but unlawful
to accept it. In al-Fataawaa al-Hindiya we read: "This is the most reliable
103 Musannaf Abdur-Razzaq, 8/149.

104 Al-Jaami' li Ahkaamil Qur'an, 6/184.
105 Op. Cit.
106 Fataawaa Ibn Taymiyah, 31/286
107 Fataawaa Ibn Taymiyah, 31/287; Hashiyat Ibn Abideen, 8/35 and al-Fataawaa al-Hindiyah,
3/331.
108 Al-Muhalla by Ibn Hazm, 9/158; Hashiyatu Ramlee ala Rawdh at-Taalib, 4/300; Hashiyat
Ibn Abideen, 8/35 and al-Fataawaa al-Hindiyah, 3/331; Kashaaf al-Qinaa', 2/190 and The
Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence, 26/134.
92 Al-Adl (35)
opinion."109 Some Shaafi'ees argue that if the giver tells the intercessor
that the present is meant as a reward for his intercession, then it is
definitely unlawful for the intercessor to accept it.110
ii. If the intercessor does not lay down a condition that he should be
given a present in return for his intercession but the present is given to
him as a reward for his favour, scholars have expressed different
opinions as follows:
1. It is lawful for the giver to give the present and for the intercessor
to accept it. Ibn Hazm said, "If someone helps another person to regain
his due right or to remove an injustice he may sustain without
stipulating a gift for that and the latter gives him a present, it is
something good which we do not dislike."111 This is the general opinion
of the Hanafees. They also argue that if both the intercessor and the
person interceded for used to give gifts to each other before the
intercession is undertaken, then it is certainly a reward for a favour.112
This is the same opinion held by some Shaafi'ees who considered it a
wage. Some other Shaafi'ees even considered this view as the general
rule applicable according to their school of jurisprudence. 113 Imaam an-
Nawawee ruled that if a person is imprisoned for an unjust reason and
he pays money to someone who could intercede for his release, then
such a wage is certainly lawful. He reported this ruling from a group of
scholars and said, "It is a job that is compensated for with a wage
according to the prevailing norms."114
Based on this view, it can be said that they considered the condition
set by the intercessor to have a present in return for his intercession as
lawful because a wage for a certain job is normally based on prior
mutual agreement to receive a wage for the work done.
The Shaafi'ees' statement that the use of good offices for a wage is
lawful will be discussed in the textual proofs hereinafter.
109 Al-Fataawaa al-Hindiyah, 3/331-332. However, they restricted this case to giving the
gift before the intercession is undertaken. If he gives the gift after the intercession, it is
lawful for both the giver and the taker.
110 Hashiyatu Ramlee ala Rawdh at-Taalib, 4/300 as reported from Ibn ar-Rif'ah summing
up the statements of al-Maawardee.

111 Al-Muhallaa, 9/158.
112 Hashiyat Ibn Abideen, 8/35 and al-Fataawaa al-Hindiyah, 3/332.
113 Az-Zawaajir, 2/1190.
114 Sharhul Muhadhab, 15/120.
Al-Adl (35) 93
However, some other Shaafi'ees have elaborated on the case thus: If

he used to give him gifts before the intercession was undertaken, it is
not disliked for him to take it, but if the case is not as such, it is disliked
for him to accept it unless the intercessor gives the giver something in
return for the present, in which case it is not disliked to accept the
present.115
2. They also differentiated between an intercession undertaken
regarding an obligatory act like interceding with the ruler to save a
wronged person from an unjust man, in which case it is unlawful to
accept the present for the intercession and the intercession regarding
something that is not an obligatory act but permissible, which, according
to them, it is lawful to accept the present. Al-Sana'aani said, "I think it is
lawful."116 Ibn Bassaam, a contemporary Hanbalee jurist, said, "It
appears to me that accepting the present in this case is not unlawful."117
3. They consider it unlawful for the intercessor to accept the present
and for the giver to offer it. This is the opinion al-Qurtubee ascribed to
Maalik.118 It is also the opinion of the Hanbalees, as stated by al-Qaadhee
and admitted by Ahmad119 and some Hanafees.120 This opinion was
advocated by Ibn Taymiyah121, al-Shawkaanee122 and Ibn Si'dee.123
However, some Shaafi'ees have considered such an act as a major sin.124
115 Hashiyatu Ramlee ala Rawdh at-Taalib, 4/300 as reported from Ibn ar-Rif'ah summing
up the statements of al-Maawardee
116 Subul as-Salaam, 3/95-96.
117 Tawdheehul Ahkaam min Buloog al-Maraam, 4/40.
118 As ascribed by al-Haitamee to az-Zawaajir, but I have not found it in the said book,
2/190. See also Hashiyat ar-Rahoonee ala Sharh az-Zarqaanee. Ar-Rahoonee said, "The
presents taken by those in power for removing injustices and serving people are bribes
because removing injustices is an obligatory duty on all those who can do it. See also
Mawaahib aj-Jaleel, 6/121.
119 Al-Qawaa'id by Ibn Raja, 310; al-Insaaf and ash-Sharhul Kabeer, 28/360 and Kashaaf al-
Qinaa', 6/317.
120 Al-Fataawaa al-Hindiyah, 3/331; however, no express statement is given if it is meant to
be unlawful or disliked.
122 Nailul Awtaar, 8/309.
123 Al-Ikhtiyaarat aj-Jaliyyah with Nailul Ma'aarib by Ibn Bassaam, 4/557.
94 Al-Adl (35)
These are the main opinions expressed by different jurists on this

issue. However, the opinion under (2) above is a mix of the two known
opinions of the early Muslim scholars, albeit not found in their books.
Topic Two: Arguments Given by Jurists
I have already mentioned a number of textual proofs in the first
chapter where I have concentrated my attention on collecting various
proofs and on discussing the various narrations of these textual proofs.
Here, I am going to discuss the authority of these statements and the
relevant textual proofs that support them. It should be noted, however,
that I will only refer to these textual proofs without mentioning their full
texts to avoid unnecessary repetition.
I. Arguments Furnished by Scholars Who Consider Giving and
Accepting Presents in Return for Intercession Lawful
1. The present offered by the person for whom intercession is
undertaken is tantamount to any other gift which the textual proofs
consider legitimate unless an authentic proof explicitly indicates
otherwise. The person whom intercession is undertaken has offered it of
his own free will without any prior conditions on the part of the
intercessor. Hence, it is originally legitimate and lawful to pay any
amount of money for a legitimate and lawful cause. In the introduction,
I have already discussed the textual proofs supporting the legitimacy of
offering gifts.
2. A present offered for intercession is a reward for a favour. The
intercessor has used his good offices and helped the person interceded
for. This is a favour for which the Sharee'ah has exhorted Muslims to
give something in return. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon
him) accepted gifts and gave something in return for them and
encouraged Muslims to reward those who do favour to them even by
praying for them. Therefore, whoever intercedes to bring about
something good or to avert something harmful, he is then entitled to be
rewarded for such an intercession.
3. Nothing in the fundamental principles of religion, textual proofs
and the ultimate goals of the Sharee'ah indicates that offering a present
for intercession is unlawful, and those who object to this opinion have to
give proofs supporting their opinion.
4. The Shaafi'ees contend that the wage for a certain job forms part of
transactions among people: it is an amount of money paid by the
employer to the employee. Hence, offering a present for intercession is
Al-Adl (35) 95
similar to a wage for some work done for the person interceded for,
whether such work is material or moral. Consequently, it is a work that
should be paid for. Imaam an-Nawawee, whose opinion was adopted by
the Shaafi'ee scholars who came after him, gave a fatwa that makes it
lawful for the person imprisoned to pay an amount of money to another
person to intercede for his release; in fact, such an amount of money is a
lawful wage.125
II. Arguments Given by Scholars Who Consider Giving and
Accepting Presents in Return for Intercessions Unlawful
1. Scholars who advocate this view contend that the aformeentioned
hadeeth reported by Abu Umaamah explicitly signifies that giving a
present for intercession is unlawful. They also argue that the said hadeeth
is an explicit proof criminalizing such an act as "a great door to usury",
an act which is originally undoubtedly prohibited and deserves a severe
punishment. Allah says, "Allah has made trade permissible and usury
impermissible." (Al-Baqara: 275) He also says, "O you who believe!
Observe your duty to Allah and give up what remains [due to you] from
usury, if you are [in truth] believers. And if you do not, then be warned
of war [against you] from Allah and His Messenger." (Al-Baqara: 278-
279). Usury is a major sin and those who practise it are cursed by
Allah.126
They added that the hadeeth is an explicit textual proof on this issue
and hence it cannot be refuted or otherwise interpreted. They also
argued that a bona fide intercession is good and might be obligatory,
and that taking something in return for it forfeits its reward in the same
as usury forfeits the lawful return of trade.127
They also noted that describing presents for intercessions as usury is
a metaphor, as the two are similar to each other: usury is an amount
extra to the principal and the present offered for intercession takes the
same rule.128
This interpretation is consistent with the explicit text and the
ultimate goals of the Sharee'ah. A hadeeth states, "The most prevalent
125 Az-Zawaajir, 2/190 and al-Majmoo' Sharhul Muhadhab, 15/120.

126 Reported by Muslim in his Saheeh, #1597, Book of Irrigation, Part on "Allah curses the
eater of usury and the one who gives it."
127 Awnul Ma'bood Sharh Sunan Abi Dawood, 9/331.
128 Subul as-Salaam Sharh Buloog al-Maraam, 3/95.
96 Al-Adl (35)
kind of usury is going to lengths in talking unjustly against a Muslim's

honour."129
2. Ibn Mas'ood's statement on the prohibition of giving a present for
intercession which he described as "suht", namely unlawful is clear and
explicit. Ka'b bin Ujrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that
the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Flesh that grows
out of suht (unlawful food) is bound to be burned in Hellfire."130
The majority of scholars consider the Prophet's companion's
statement as having authority, as has already been discussed.
3. They argue that intercession is a type of public interest through
which people help one another for no return. Giving a present for such
intercession makes it a wage, which is unlawful to accept as long as the
intercession is a duty if required for a public interest. Hence, it is
unlawful to accept a wage for intercession.131
Ibn Taymiyah said, "This deed is part of public interests which can
either be an individual duty or even a collective duty.132 This statement
will be discussed in more detail hereinafter.
4. They stress that accepting a present for intercession leads to taking
bribes. The actual practice in real life conditions is a clear indication of
the great danger that evolves as a result of such practices. When people
consider it legitimate to offer presents for intercession, this practice will
prevail and become something normal in society. Consequently, no one
would feel ashamed to ask for a bribe for doing a favour to someone else
which is unanimously prohibited as already stated. The rule states that
means are subject to the same rulings of ends. Moreover, the Islamic
Sharee'ah states that means to unlawful practices should be blocked133 if
the means often lead to forbidden ends. Therefore, it is better to block
the way to such practices.
129 Sunan Abu Dawood, #4876 and Sunan al-Baihaqee, 10/241.

130 At-Tirmidhee, # 614, Sahih Ibn Hibbaan, # 1723 and Mustadrak al-Haakim, 4/141.
131 Al-Qawaa'id by Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalee, 311.
132 Ibn Taymiyah, Majmu'l Fataawaa, 31/287.
133 Al-Muwafakaat by al-Shaatibee, 4/143 and I'laamul Muwaqi'een by Ibn al-Aayyim,
3/108.
Al-Adl (35) 97
III. Arguments Given by Scholars Who Differentiate between

Types of Intercessions
Scholars who argue that there is a difference between intercession
regarding an obligatory duty for which accepting a present is unlawful
and intercession regarding a permissible matter for which accepting a
present is lawful advance the following arguments:134
1. They contend that the proofs given by the scholars who consider it
unlawful to accept a present for intercession apply to intercession
regarding an obligatory duty. They also argue that this type of
intercession should be undertaken by a Muslim in support of the rights
of his Muslim brother as part of enjoining what is right and forbidding
what is wrong, a duty which is unlawful to take a compensation for.
2. They contend that the proofs given by scholars who consider it
lawful to accept a present for intercession apply to any intercession
regarding a permissible cause. They also argue that the present in this
case is a reward for a favour that the intercessor is not obliged to do
under the provisions of Sharee'ah.
IV. Refutation of the Arguments Given by Scholars Who Consider
Accepting Presents in Return for Intercessions Unlawful
Scholars who consider it lawful to accept a present for intercession
refute the arguments given by those who consider it unlawful to do so
as follows:
1. The hadeeth given as a textual proof that it is unlawful to accept a
present for intercession is weak and hence has no authority in this
respect;
2. Presuming that the hadeeth is authentic, it is a single narration from
al-Qaasim, an event that is unlikely to take place considering the
importance of this issue. In addition, it contradicts other general
provisions that have been discussed hereinabove.
3. Presuming that the authenticity and the single narration of the
hadeeth are accepted, it should be applied to accepting a present for an
intercession regarding an unlawful matter135 so that the different proofs
134 Subulus-Salaam, 3/95 and Tawdheehul Ahkaam, 4/40.

98 Al-Adl (35)
can be made consistent with each other: the rule states that establishing
consistency between proofs is better than dropping any of them.
4. The statements cited in support of this point of view were not
accepted by Ibn Hazm because of "the lack of any proof that prohibits
it".136 Some Shaafi'ees do not accept the Prophet's companion's statement
as having authority as they quoted al-Shaafi'ee's view according to his
new school.137
5. Some Hanafees consider Ibn Mas'ood's statement of prohibiting
the acceptance of a present for intercession as a type of stringent piety
which does not imply general prohibition of legitimate acts.
V. Refutation of the Arguments Given by Scholars Who Consider
Accepting Presents in Return for Intercessions Lawful
1. Their argument that giving gifts of one's own free will is legitimate
is not a subject of difference. However, this general rule does not apply
to the specific issue in case which is no longer a general rule but a
specific case governed by the relevant explicit textual proofs which we
have already mentioned.
2. Moreover, the general textual proofs they have given as to the
legitimacy of giving a reward for a favour are also not a subject of
difference. However, the proofs given as to the prohibition of this
specific case are express as to this specific form as the case with the
return given for a loan: "Every loan incurs an extra benefit is a form of
usury", for the loan is also a type of favour. Moreover, stipulating taking
a present for intercession is invariably prohibited, and though it is a
reward for a favour, it is not permissible according to the point of view
of those who consider it lawful to give a present for intercession.
3. The statement that giving and accepting presents for intercessions
does not contradict the ultimate lofty goals of the Sharee'ah which imply
that anyone can dispose of his money the way he likes including giving
presents for intercessions, as the case in paying a wage for work can be
refuted by Sheikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyah's statement on this issue
presented in verbatim as follows: "Some recent jurists have argued that
giving a present for intercession is as lawful as paying a wage for a
136 Al-Muhalla, 9/158.

137 Already discussed under the Topic of Textual Proofs.
Al-Adl (35) 99
certain job. However, this contradicts the Prophet's Sunnah and the
statements of the Prophet's companions and leading scholars. It is a
flagrant mistake to consider this present permissible because
intercession is required by public interests which are obligatory to do
either by all or some members of the [Muslim] community. If it is made
legitimate to accept a wage for such intercession, the same rule should
apply to interceding for posts, booties, alms, etc. and should also apply
to removing any injustice that the giver may have sustained. As a result,
those who are not able to give presents will not be provided with posts
or helped to remove any injustice that they may suffer. The intercession
undertaken in this regard is not meant to help a specific person but
actually to help all Muslims. Therefore, taking a wage from a specific
person for such a duty will eventually lead to the practice that members
of the [Muslim] nation will ask for a wage for such intercessions."138
VI. Refutation of the Arguments Given by Scholars Who
Differentiate Between Cases of Presents in Return for Intercessions
These scholars have differentiated between accepting presents for
intercessions in cases of obligatory duties which they contend are
unlawful to accept and accepting presents for intercessions in cases of
permissible matters which they contend are lawful to accept.
These proofs can be refuted as follows:
1. Scholars who consider it permissible can argue that the difference
between the borders between what is "obligatory" and what is
"permissible" are controversial. They can also say that they mean the
present offered in return for intercession, the latter being considered
'commendable' to do. However, the cause of intercession is something
else. Although the cause of intercession is obligatory, this does not mean
that it is obligatory on the part of the intercessor to undertake it because
the matter is related to the person for whom intercession is undertaken
who can respond positively or negatively to the intercession.
Intercession is a mere means which might or might not help realize the
matter for which intercession is undertaken. Supporting the intercessor
is part of cooperation in matters of righteousness and piety and is a
favour done by the intercessor whether the matter for which intercession
is undertaken is permissible or obligatory. Moreover, intercession is
138 Ibn Taymiyah, Majmu'l Fataawaa, 31/287-288.
100 Al-Adl (35)

lawful regarding obligatory and permissible matters, and accepting a

reward for such intercession is lawful in both cases.
2. However, scholars who consider it unlawful can give the same
argument mentioned above. Therefore, there is basically no difference
whatsoever. It is recommended to undertake intercession regarding
permissible needs of people so that they can regain their rights,
something that is not limited to realizing a right or removing injustice.
There is no doubt that if it is obligatory, it is all the more unlawful to
accept something in return.
Topic Three: Which Point of View is Weightier?
I am of the opinion that accepting a present in return for intercession
is unlawful for the following reasons:
1. The third point of view is excluded. In fact, I have not found any
early Muslim scholar holding the same view. The differentiation created
by these scholars does not rely on any textual proof. The matter is
related to intercession which is lawful and the present given for
intercession rather than for the cause for which intercession is
undertaken. Here I need to state three elements:
a. The cause for which intercession is undertaken is either obligatory,
desirable or permissible,
b. The intercession is undertaken by the intercessor to realize the
goal of the intercession, and
c. The present is given for the intercession by the person for whom
intercession is undertaken.
An in-depth analysis of the above three elements leads us to the fact
that such a differentiation does no apply because it is related to the
object of intercession, i.e. the first element, whereas the case under
discussion here is related to the intercession, i.e. the second element, for
which the present is given in return.
2. The argument of prohibition is supported by specific textual
proofs. The controversy revolves around the authenticity and authority
of the textual proof which allows no room for generalities and intentions
unless and until the controversy on the said specific textual proof is
resolved, after which we can consider whether it contradicts
fundamentals and intentions or not. Although the hadeeth narrated by
Abu Umaamah as evidence of prohibition is a narration by a single
Al-Adl (35) 101

narrator (al-Qaasim bin Abdur-Rahman) for which some scholars

consider the hadeeth 'weak', and such weakness is mainly based on the
narrator's weak memory and not on his untrustworthiness, let alone the
fact that some scholars argued that he was a trustworthy narrator. In
other words, the hadeeth can be considered weak if narrated by weak
narrators from the original narrator. However, this narration is
supported by the statement of the companion of the Prophet and thus
has full authority as proof as to the prohibition of giving presents in
return for intercessions.
Moreover, although some of the Shaafi'ees hold the view that the
Prophet's companion's statement has no authority based on al-Shaafi'ee's
view according to the new version of his school of jurisprudence, some
scholars contend that this is not the authentic opinion of al-Shaafi'ee
because al-Shaafi'ee actually accepted narrations with an interruption in
the chain of narrators (mursal), a type of weak hadeeth according to the
majority of hadeeth scholars139 if the said mursal hadeeth is supported by
the Prophet's companion's statement in cases where the narrator is a
senior tabi'ee, when the narrator is described as trustworthy and when
other trustworthy narrators share the same narration with him. 140
Ibn Taymiyah said, "If the mursal hadeeth is supported by a
companion's statement, it will acquire authority, according to the
unanimous opinion of scholars."141
The hadeeth narrated by Abu Umaamah is stronger than a musral
hadeeth because it is supported by the companion's statement. I have
already considered the companion's statement as having authority if not
contravened by another statement. Therefore, the ruling of prohibition is
weightier even in the absence of the said hadeeth.
The argument that it is a matter of piety is also invalid because
Abdullah bin Mas'ood considered it a great sin "a suht" which Masrooq
was quite sure of and hence considered it a great sin.
However, I have to note that I have a reservation against the
punishment mentioned in the hadeeth: "a great door to usury" because it
139 Imaam Muslim said that the mursal narrations according to our view and that of the
scholars of narrations are not reliable. See the introduction to Sahih Muslim, 1.90.
140 Ar-Risaalah, Imaam al-Shaafi'ee, paragraph 1264, p. 461.
141 Sharhul Umdah fi Bayaan Manaasik al-Hajj wal Umrah, 2/214.
102 Al-Adl (35)

was a statement made by a single narrator (Al-Qaasim bin Abdur-

Rahmaan), yet the ruling of prohibition remains valid.
3. The fundamentals and ultimate goals of the Sharee'ah support
rather than reject the opinion that this act is unlawful for the following
reasons:
a. Giving and accepting presents in return for intercessions can be a
gateway to corruption in several administrative and moral aspects. It
may lead to dishonesty, avarice and selfishness, which may eventually
pave the way to corrupt practices in matters related to public interests.
b. Accepting a gift is not similar to taking a wage. Intercession is
related to the interests of the Muslim nation, while the wage taken for a
specific job is related to the interest of an individual, hence the big
difference.
c. This practice is proximate to bribery, in which casewhoever pays
more gets more, at the expense of public interests.
d. This practice will open the door to preference of money over duty.
Thus, jobs will be assigned to the wrong people who do not perform
them well.
5. Islam is a comprehensive religion; it takes into account the
interests of individuals as well as those of the Muslim community as a
whole. It also guarantees the sound building of the nation's political,
economic, social and moral aspects. The interests of the Muslim nation,
and the interests of the community should be given preference over
those of the individual.
Therefore, accepting presents in return for intercessions changes the
principles of cooperation and help that should be offered for all those
who need it into a means of pursuing worldly benefits and selfish
personal gains. As a result, people will eventually lose two great
privileges:
1. Pure intercession, sincere help, bona fide advice and transparent,
sincere counselling, and
2. Selecting the right person for the right job.
This is what I have managed to compile on this very important issue.
Any positive points I have contributed should only be attributed to the
help of Allah for which I thank Him, and any errors I have made are
Al-Adl (35) 103

only the outcome of my weak self for which I pray Allah to forgive.
What makes me feel at rest is that everyone who exerts a good effort will
be rewarded for it by Allah. Anyone who finds out any error in this
study is kindly requested to help correct it. Allah is the one who guides
to the right path and He is the Most Wise, to whom all praise belongs.
104 Al-Adl (35)

Ruling On Offering and Accepting Presents in Return For Intercessions

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ruling On Offering and Accepting Presents in Return For Intercessions

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Refereed Study

Ruling on Offering and

Dr. Waleed bin Abdur-Rahmaan Al-Hamdaan*

* Member of Faculty, College of Teachers, Tabuk.

This complex issue involves an intercessor (shaafi'), the person for

The introduction explains the meaning of and the rulings on the

The introduction discusses two topics as follows:

2 Ibn Faris, Mu'jam Maqayeesul Lughah, p. 1067, Darul Fikr.

2. The Ruling on Gifts

11 Fat-hul Baaree 'Alaa Saheeh al-Bukharee, 5/246.

16 Reported by al-Bukhaaree, Book of Gifts, Part on Rewards for Gifts, 2585.

Abu Haneefa considered it lawful while al-Shaafi'ee, Dawood and Abu

20 Bidayatul Mujtahid, 664-665.

Islamic Sharee'ah by Dr. al-Turaiqi.

Public Employees, # 2943. It is an authentic hadeeth.

Muslim scholars have differentiated a present from a bribe by stating

27 Al-Insaaf with al-Muqni' and al-Sharh al-Kabeer, 28/357.

Ahkmil Qur'an, 5/295.

of Islamic Jurisprudence, 26/131-132.

avert a harm that he may suffer or eliminate an unjust act he may

36 Al-Nawawee, Al-Adhkaar, p. 508.

Statement: "He who intercedes for a good cause."

This chapter covers three topics as follows:

Commenting on the Above Hadeeth

narrations from the companions of the Prophet. 65 Ibn Al-Jawzee also

65 Siyar A'laamul Nubalaa', 5/194 and Tahdheebul Tahdheeb, 8/324.

Statements Encyclopedia, 3/164-165.

The second type is that his narrations are reported by weak or

type reported by trustworthy narrators and can be classified as a good

74 Jaami' al-Bayaan, 4/580, # 11955.

rules of the hadeeth traced back to the Prophet, if it is not known to

He added that al-Shaafi'ee, as reported by al-Rabee', explicitly stated

86 A'lamul Muwaqi'een, 4/92-93 and al-Faqeeh wal Mutafaqih, 1/437.

give something in return for it; if he has nothing to give in return, he

Muslim, Book of Irrigation, Part on Borrowing Something and Giving back a

This chapter includes the following topics:

is given to someone in order to regain a certain due right or to remove a

97 Fataawaa Ibn Taymiyah, 31/286-287.

Abdur-Razzaaq also reported from Jaabir bin Zaid that he said,

103 Musannaf Abdur-Razzaq, 8/149.

up the statements of al-Maawardee.

However, some other Shaafi'ees have elaborated on the case thus: If

These are the main opinions expressed by different jurists on this

125 Az-Zawaajir, 2/190 and al-Majmoo' Sharhul Muhadhab, 15/120.

kind of usury is going to lengths in talking unjustly against a Muslim's

129 Sunan Abu Dawood, #4876 and Sunan al-Baihaqee, 10/241.

III. Arguments Given by Scholars Who Differentiate between

134 Subulus-Salaam, 3/95 and Tawdheehul Ahkaam, 4/40.

136 Al-Muhalla, 9/158.

138 Ibn Taymiyah, Majmu'l Fataawaa, 31/287-288.

100 Al-Adl (35)

lawful regarding obligatory and permissible matters, and accepting a

Al-Adl (35) 101

narrator (al-Qaasim bin Abdur-Rahman) for which some scholars

102 Al-Adl (35)

was a statement made by a single narrator (Al-Qaasim bin Abdur-

Al-Adl (35) 103

104 Al-Adl (35)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi