Islamic Revival

The following is a  translation of a Q&A from the time of Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom (raheemullah): Question: Is it allowed for my father to divide his land between his sons to the exclusion of his daughters before his death? Answer:  The one who divided his wealth (land) between his sons before his death and he is of sound mind and did not give anything to his daughters he has sinned twice: First: when he divided his wealth before his death to deprive his daughters from inheritance after his death.. The reality one can see from the question indicates this. Second: during his life he gave his wealth to some of his children to the exclusion of others. Both are Haraam. As for the inheritance Allah (swt) has defined and divided it for boys and girls the ayahs pertaining to this are clear. As for giving the wealth to some children and not to others this also contradicts the hadith of the Messenger of Allah which stipulates the following: Nu’man b. al-Basheer nar

The following are Q&A from the time of Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom (raheemullah): Question: Are we allowed do deal with share companies (PLCs) owned by Muslims? Answer:  Having dealings with share companies belonging to Muslims is void (batil) because they cannot be contracted in Islam i.e. they do not exist as a necessary party in the contract of sale and purchase… in order to have offer and acceptance with the other side with whom the deal is made. Question: As Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) is a Muslim owned share company, are we allowed to buy from them and if not why not? Answer:  Share companies (PLCs) are invalid in Islam. This is because they are not contracted and they are not considered to be an existing party in a contract between the Muslims. Therefore, it is not allowed to have dealings, in terms of sale and purchase etc. with share companies whose owners are Muslims, because they have not been contracted between them for they are invalid in I

Assalamualaikum, Some follow up questions regarding the bitcoin Q&A My question on majhool is- what do you mean the source of Bitcoins in unknown. Do you mean that the mining is done by unknown entities or that the actual founders of Bitcoin (i.e. Satoshi) was anonymous? Answer To reiterate what we said in the QnA previously as well, cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin are ‘assets’ issued by an unknown (majhool) source which have no real value and no real backing and Majhool here is related to the subject of the issuing the currency. The shari view towards the issuance of currency is that It should be issued by a centralized authority which undertakes the responsibility of issuing the currency (dirhams and dinars) i.e it is a known body and not unknown (majhool). This is one of the major problems with cyptocurrencies such as bitcoin. So Majhool is not linked to Satoshi or one particular miner, rather it is linked to the whole mining community which is an unknown entity

Question  by:  SchukranJaan Bismillah Ar-Rahaman Ar-Rahim, Dear honourable Sheikh. We hope this finds you in the best health. We greet you with the warmest and noblest of all greetings: Assalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Wa Barakatuhu. A brother and I were talking about the Hukm regarding the buying and selling of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Dash, Ripple etc.) We both read the ijtihad by Ustadh Abu Khaled al-Hejazi but we weren’t quite content with what the sheikh had deduced. We have some problems with how the sheikh analyzed the reality of cryptocurrencies and the comment section under the article too is filled with brothers disagreeing and discussing about how  tahqeeq al-manaat was not completely correct. We would like to know the Hukm regarding selling and buying of cryptocurrencies. Could you bring light into this subject, because it still doesn’t seem clear for us. Wajazaakumullah khairan May Allah strengthen us all on his path and let us be

Download the book  The Transition Introductory Remarks In his tract on monetary reform, John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as a barbarous relic, whose rigidity had fettered the world from economic freedom and prosperity. He spoke at a time when the Occident were suffering from macroeconomic anaemia and were yearning for a solution. In sheer desperation, fiat money became the drug that gave growth-addicts what they craved for in the short-run. However, years after its introduction, the fiat system has induced far more volatility than it sought to resolve. In truth, Keynes failed to realise that barbarity was a trait not of gold but of fiat, insofar as it has plagued the world with monetary anarchy. In fact, the very system he consigned to history has never been more relevant than it is today. Islam’s imminent arrival as a political entity has necessitated a vital discourse, in which its ability to purge the world of its monetary woes by way of bimetallism must be explicated.