The Criterion for Assisting in Sin in Rulings Pertaining to Employment and Dealings with Conventional Banks
in the Fatwas of the General Iftaa` Department of Jordan
Researcher. Shiekh Hamza Mashoqah
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, and may His Peace and Blessings be upon our master Muhammad, his family, and his companions.
Islamic law (Sharia) has established clear boundaries between what is permissible (Halal) and what is forbidden (Haram), making it easy for a Mukallaf (A sane adult Muslim who must carry out religious obligations, avoid religious prohibitions, and is held responsible for the consequences of his/her actions.) to engage in lawful matters while strictly prohibiting the forbidden. It has also warned against the grey areas that lie between the two—matters of doubt. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "The lawful is clear, and the forbidden is clear, and between them are doubtful matters which many people do not know. So whoever avoids doubtful matters has absolved his religion and honor, but whoever falls into doubtful matters will eventually fall into the forbidden—like a shepherd grazing near a sanctuary, almost stepping into it." [Al-Bukhari].
The issue of assisting in sin is one of these doubtful matters that has been debated among scholars, with many laypeople either being overly strict or excessively lenient. This makes it necessary for those qualified to issue Fatwas to clarify the Islamic ruling on the matter. In our beloved country, the General Iftaa` Department is a recognized Sunni authority officially entrusted with issuing fatwas. It has issued numerous fatwas regarding assisting in sin, particularly concerning employment and dealings with conventional banks. This article seeks to examine these Fatwas to derive a comprehensive criterion, and Allah is The Granter of success.
The Criterion for Prohibited Assistance
Islamic legislation is founded on combating usury (Riba) and restricting its avenues. Allah The Exalted Says (What means): "O you who believe, fear Allah and give up what remains of usury, if you are true believers. But if you do not, then be warned of war from Allah and His Messenger." [Al-Baqarah/278-279]. Besides, Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "The curse of Allah is upon the one who consumes usury, the one who gives it, the one who records it, and the two who witness it." He added: "They are all the same (in sin)." [Moslim].
These texts demonstrate that Islamic law has closed all doors to usury, not merely prohibiting Riba-based contracts but also encompassing anything that facilitates it. However, the concept of assisting in usury is broad and requires precise definition: Does it apply only to what is explicitly mentioned in the texts (Quran & Sunnah), or does it extend to analogous cases based on shared underlying reasoning—especially since Islamic rulings are generally based on rationale (Ta`lil) rather than mere ritual (Ibadat)? If the latter is correct, what is the appropriate meaning that defines the concept of assistance?
It appears to this researcher that the most suitable meaning is enabling the commission of usury. Any action that is essential for the execution of a usurious transaction falls under the prohibition. This understanding aligns with the hadith: "He who prohibited its consumption also prohibited its sale." [Moslim]. This is because benefiting from alcohol is impossible without means of ownership, such as sale or gift. Thus, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited benefiting from alcohol, he also prohibited the means leading to it—namely, the transactions that grant ownership.
For this reason, scholars explain the hadith about the usurer: "The reason they were equated (the consumer of usury, the one who gives it, the scribe, and the witnesses) in being cursed is that the contract cannot be completed without all of them." [Fayd Al-Qadeer/vol.1/pp.54]. Further, Al-Khattabi said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) equated the one who consumes usury with the one who gives it because neither can attain it without the other’s assistance and participation. Thus, they are partners in sin just as they are partners in action." [Mirqat Al-Mafatih Sharih Mishkat Al-Masabeeh, Vol.5/P.1916].
This is the understanding of the majority of scholars from the Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali schools. Below are some of their statements:
In the Maliki School, some subsidiary rulings support this view. For example, in [Mawahib Al-Jaleel Fi Sharih Mokhtasar Al-Khalil/Vol.4/P.254]: "Al-Qurtubi and Al-Abi mentioned in their commentaries on Sahih Moslim, the prohibition of selling grapes to someone who will turn them into wine. Al-Abi stated that the principle here is blocking the means to sin (Sadd Al-Dhara’i), just as it is forbidden to sell weapons to someone known to intend highway robbery or inciting strife among Muslims. This was mentioned in the first narration of Ibn Al-Qasim from the book [Al-Muharibin Wa Al-Murtaddin], in the section on sales from Ashhab’s narration in the book [Al-Tijarah ila Ard al-Harb] and in the issues of debt and bankruptcy from Al-Burzuli, where a scholar was asked about selling a female slave to sinful people who are lenient toward corruption and lack moral restraint—those who consume haram wealth and feed her from it. He replied: "This is not permissible according to the school of Malik.' Similarly, a condition for the permissibility of a sale is that the seller must not know that the buyer intends to use the purchase for something impermissible. And Allah the Almighty knows best."
In the Shafi`I School, Sheikh Al-Islam Zakariyya Al-Ansari said: "If someone sells grapes to a person who will turn them into wine—knowing or suspecting this—or sells a beardless youth to someone known for immoral conduct, or engages in any transaction that leads to sin (such as selling fresh dates to someone who will make them into wine, or selling a fighting rooster or a ram used for gambling), it is prohibited because it constitutes enabling sin. However, the transaction itself remains technically valid, as the prohibition pertains to the buyer’s intent rather than the sale’s intrinsic nature. Similarly, if one merely suspects such misuse, or sells weapons to rebels or highway robbers, or trades with someone whose wealth is mixed (halal and haram), it is discouraged (Makruh)." [Asna Al-Matalib Fi Sharih Rawd At-Talib/Vol.2/P.41].
In the Hanbali School, Al-Bahuti said: "It is invalid to sell something intended for sin, such as grapes or juice to someone who will turn them into alcohol." [Kashaf Al-Qina’/Vol.3/P.181].
As for the Hanafi School, it has a different perspective, which cannot be fully elaborated here. For further details, refer to [Tafseel Al-Kalam Fi Mas’alat Al-I’anah ‘Ala Al-Haram] by Sheikh Muhammad Shafi’ Al-Uthmani.
It should not be understood from these texts that this strictness extends to a blanket prohibition on dealing with those involved in usury in any form. Such rigidity is contrary to the balanced approach of Islam. In this regard, Al-Imam An-Nawawi As-Shafi’i (May Allah Have mercy on his soul) said: "The Prophet (peace be upon him) borrowed thirty measures of barley from a Jewish man named Abu Al-Shahm for his family after returning from the Battle of Tabuk, pledging his armor as collateral (worth four hundred dirhams)". This hadith contains several lessons, including the permissibility of dealing with those whose wealth contains both lawful and unlawful elements—as long as the lawful and unlawful portions are indistinguishable—since the Prophet (peace be upon him) dealt with a Jew, and it is known that Jews permit earnings from alcohol and engage in usury." [Al-Majmou’/Vol.13/P.178].
Similarly, in [Hashiyat Qalyubi] (a Shafi’i book): "Partnership is valid, though disliked, such as partnering with a non-Muslim or someone who consumes usury, or one whose wealth is mostly unlawful."
In the Hanbali school, Al-Mardawi (a Hanbali jurist) said:
"It is disliked to partner with someone whose wealth is mixed (Halal and Haram), according to the correct view of the school." [Al-Insaaf/Vol. 5/P.301].
In the Maliki school, Ibn Juzayy said: "Dealing with those involved in Haram is divided into two categories: First, if the Haram is still in their possession (e.g., stolen goods), it is impermissible to buy, sell, consume, wear, or accept as a gift. Second, if the Haram has left their possession and become a debt, there are three scenarios: (1) If most of their wealth is Halal, Ibn Al-Qasim permits dealings, while Asbagh forbids them. (2) If most is Haram, dealings are discouraged (Makruh) according to Ibn Al-Qasim and forbidden according to Asbagh. (3) If all their wealth is Haram, dealings are forbidden unless they previously had Halal wealth but later accumulated haram wealth exceeding it." [Al-Qawanin Al-Fiqhiyyah/p. 287].
From these juristic texts, the criterion for prohibited assistance is anything that directly enables sin. In clearer terms, any action that directly facilitates Haram is forbidden. As for actions that do not directly lead to sin or enable Haram directly, they remain permissible in principle, though they may be discouraged (Makruh) if they generally strengthen the sinner’s capacity to engage in Haram later.
Rulings on Employment and Dealings with Conventional Banks
Since conventional banks are financial intermediaries based on interest-based lending and borrowing (Riba, as established by contemporary scholars), while also engaging in some permissible activities like money transfers and currency exchange, the rulings on working in or dealing with them are as follows:
Ruling on Employment in Conventional Banks
In principle, a Muslim should avoid working in conventional banks altogether to avoid doubtful matters.
From a juristic perspective: Prohibited jobs are those that directly involve usury or other haram activities. Jobs that support the bank generally but do not directly facilitate usurious contracts are discouraged (Makruh).
1- Applications from the Fatwas of the General Iftaa` Department:
1. It is forbidden to work in auditing accounts involving interest, as ruled by the Iftaa` Board (Published Fatwa No.970).
2. It is forbidden to work as an accountant in riba-based financing companies (Published Fatwa No.911).
3. It is forbidden to work as a cashier in a riba-based institution (Fatwa dated 08/12/2014).
4. It is forbidden to work as a financial analyst for riba-based banks (Fatwa dated 18/01/2012).
5. It is permissible to work as a security guard or HR manager (Published Fatwa No.369).
6. Working in a central bank follows the same principles as conventional banks but includes additional permissible roles related to monetary policy (Fatwa No. 369/Published).
Notably, the Iftaa` Department did not differentiate in its ruling on working in commercial insurance companies (unlike banks), prohibiting it outright (Fatwa No. 665/Published). However, a more nuanced approach would have been preferable, given scholarly differences on commercial insurance.
Regarding working in insurance regulatory bodies, the ruling is similar to central banks: If the job directly supports haram activities (e.g., regulating haram insurance companies), it is prohibited. However, if there is no direct facilitation of haram (Published Fatwa No. 463), it is permissible.
The criterion for employment in conventional banks is as follows: Positions that directly involve interest-based transactions - including loan facilitation, credit services, financial guarantees, or technical roles supporting riba-based systems -constitute direct participation in unlawful activities.
However, administrative and support roles that maintain the bank's general operations without involvement in interest-based transactions - such as human resources, administrative oversight, or security personnel – don`t constitute direct participation in unlawful activities.
2. Ruling on Dealings with Conventional Banks
Conventional banks are like individuals with mixed (halal and haram) wealth. Scholars permit dealings with them, provided the transaction does not directly assist in haram—balancing the prohibition of facilitating sin with the permissibility of general interactions, as seen in the Prophet’s dealings with Jews who engaged in usury.
Applications from the Fatwas of the General Iftaa` Department on transactions that directly assist in sin:
1. Renting out land to be used as the headquarters of a usurious bank (Published Fatwa No. 406). It may be argued that renting the land to a usurious bank does not constitute direct assistance in prohibited transactions. The response to this is that it is evident that when the bank rents the land, it is as if it declares that the building will be used for prohibited transactions. It is no secret that the criterion in this matter is subtle and requires contemplation, which is why scholarly opinions may differ regarding it.
2. Selling software used for interest-based transactions (Published Fatwa No. 2037).
3. Prohibition of investing money in riba-based banks (Published Fatwa No. 741).
4. Prohibition of owning shares in riba-based banks (Published Fatwa No. 664).
5. Prohibition of delaying salary withdrawal from a riba-based account (Published Fatwa No. 811).
6. Permissibility of selling a property to a buyer who will pay the price using funds from a usurious bank; because the sin (of dealing with usury) is attached to the liability of the buyer and is not inherent in the money itself. However, if the usurious loan requires the seller to become a party to the transaction, then this is considered forbidden assistance (in sin). (Fatwa issued on: 24/6/2014)
7. Permissibility of leasing an ATM to a usurious bank (Fatwa issued on 23/06/2014), despite the existence of a published fatwa contradicting this one, which prohibits leasing an ATM to a usurious bank (Published Fatwa No. 2824). The objection raised concerning this issue is the same as that raised concerning the issue of leasing land to a usurious bank.
8. Permissibility of withdrawing money from an Islamic bank via a conventional bank’s ATM (Published Fatwa No. 3294).
9. Permissibility of buying online shopping cards from a riba-based bank (Published Fatwa No. 2793).
10. Permissibility of providing air-conditioning services to riba-based banks (Published Fatwa No. 1970).
The governing criterion in transactions with conventional banks is that any dealing which directly enables the bank to practice what is prohibited is considered forbidden assistance (in sin). An example of this is depositing money into a current account. Conversely, there is no prohibition regarding permissible dealings from which the bank does not directly benefit in its unlawful activities. Examples include selling internet purchase cards or a depositor at an Islamic bank withdrawing their money from an ATM owned by a usurious bank.
Finally, it is important to note that some issues related to assisting in sin can be ambiguous and complex, such as leasing land or an ATM to a usurious bank. Differences of scholarly opinion in such matters are valid from a jurisprudential theoretical perspective. However, it is more prudent for a scholar to adopt a cautious approach in these ambiguous matters, leaning towards the position of prohibition. A fatwa is an influential instrument in advocacy and in changing the reality of Muslim societies. The widespread proliferation of usurious banks in our countries is a deplorable situation that requires the concerted efforts of scholars and preachers to warn against them and to encourage Islamic banks as a viable alternative.
Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi stated: "However, the status of usury (riba) is no longer confined to a bank employee or a clerk in a company. It has become integrated into the very structure of our economic system and our entire financial apparatus. The affliction has become universal, just as the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, prophesied: "There will come a time when there will be no one left who does not consume usury (interest), and whoever does not consume it will nevertheless be affected by it." [Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah].
A situation like this will not be changed or diminished by an employee refraining from working in a bank or company. Rather, it will be changed by the conviction of the people—whose affairs are now in their own hands and who govern themselves—that this system, imported from exploitative capitalism, is corrupt. They must then endeavor to change it gradually and patiently to avoid causing a severe crisis. This was the methodology followed in the initial prohibition of usury, just as it was followed in the prohibition of intoxicants and other matters.
This concludes his statement, quoted from the Islam Online fatwa website.
And our final supplication is: All praise is due to Allah, The Lord of The Worlds.
