PROBLEM:- Withholding or hoarding food grains with evil intentions to sell it at higher and exorbitant rates in the days of scarcity due to drought or floods, cyclones etc (In Shariat Terminology known as Ehtikar) is forbidden and an act of severe divine displeasure and*wrath.

PROBLEM:- To store and hoard grain produce of one's own land is not hoarding in the penal sense nor it is forbidden. However if the intention behind hoarding is profiteering and earning immoral riches, then this very hoarding becomes curse. If the hoarders are intentions and activities become known and the people are in dire need of food grains facing near, famine conditions, then in such a situation the Qazi can force the hoarder (s) to release the food grains for the people or suffer hard penal punishment in default.

PROBLEM:- Fixing of prices as legally binding by the government

This is a intricate kind of business behaviour when some one not directly involved in the transaction happens to possess powers to interfere in the object of transaction in the rights of another person without the permission of the latter. Such a person is nicknamed as FUZ'LEE in the business deal. The strange fact is that this kind of self indulgence becomes regularized at the instance of the person who can declare it as in order (Jaiz). For the sake of common understanding we shall call the self indulging person as FUZ'ULEE and the person who declares/permits in indulgence (Tasarruf) as in order MUJAIYIZ (one who declares as Jaiz) correct, in order. Problems narrated under the above caption are limited in number and complexity. There fore these un-usual terminologies will not cause undue embarrassment.

PROBLEM:- The interference committed by the FUZULI shall become in order if the MUJAIYIZ (the man who can declare FUZULI'S action as correct) declares it as such. But the presence of the MUJAIYIZ is necessary at the time of transaction/deal. If the MUJAIYIZ is not present then the transaction can not be said to have taken place, and as such there is no role for the FUZULEE.

PROBLEM:- To declare the deal of FUZULI as correct it is essential that the object is present on the spot. Otherwise no regularization can take place. It is also necessary that both the partners of the deal namely the seller and the buyer should be on their stand (terms of transaction). If both of them cancel their own deal or if any one of them dies, then the deal not be regularized (through an act of FUZULI).

PROBLEM:- IF the owner okays the deal of the FUZULI, then the price which the FUZULI has received becomes the property of the owner and the money in the hands of the FUZULI becomes as a trust (Amanat) and the FUZULI himself become the vakil.

PROBLEM:- The FUZULI has also the right to cancel the deal which the owner has not so far declare as in order. IF the FUZULI has arranged a marriage deal (Nikah), then he can not annul it.

PROBLEM:- The FUZULI strikes a deal and the Malik or Mujaiyiz dies before okaying, then his inheritors can not okay it. Immediately on the death of the owner the deal no longer remains in vogue.

PROBLEM:- If the owner of a goods rebukes the usurper for having unlawful taken away his property. But he condones the unlawful possession and tells the unlawful possessor to sell the thing and give the price to the buyer as a gift. This is permissible whatever the words may have been used for condoning (which amounts to willingness or acceptance) or otherwise of the action of the Unlawful behaviour of an unauthorized person. (Here the usurper may be taken as a FUZULI under the above caption).

PROBLEM:- The FUZULI carries out the deal in the presence of the owner, but the owner says nothing and keeps silence, he also does not reject the deal. This silence does not amount to acceptance of the deal.

PROBLEM:- The thing which has been pledged (kept as pawn) or given on hire, its deal depends upon the permission of the man with whom the thing is pledged or given on hire. If they agree then the deal will be in order. But neither the pledge holder nor the man taking on hire has the right to cancel or reject the deal, not ever the man who kept thing on pledge nor the hirer (taking on hire) can reject the deal (because they don't possession the right of ownership). However the buyer can declare the deal as void subject to approval of the pledge keeper on\r the hire dealer. Suppose then two men had previously cancelled the deal, they the approved it. In that case the deal will be right.

PROBLEM:- If the thing which is on hire is given away as in deal to the hirer (on who takes things on hire), if (the deal) becomes effective at once, it does not require the permission of the owner.

PROBLEM:- When a thing lent on hire is sold out and the buyer knows that the thing he has purchased is on hire. He now agrees that till such as the term of hire lasts, the thing should remain with the man, and after the terms comes to an end it should be given in his (owner's) possession. In such a situation he can not demand the return of the thing unless the time for handing over possession comes.

PROBLEM:- A field is let out to a farmer on contract for a fixed time limit. Whether the farmer cultivates the field or not, its deal depends on the willingness of the farmer.

PROBLEM:- The tenant or lessee comes to know the owner of the thing under deal has sold out to another person. The tenant request the buyer that since he has bought the thing while his agreement or lease is still current, he requests the buyer to allow him to stay till the recovery of rent paid by him is return to him. The new buyer agrees and the deal in question becomes operative.

PROBLEM:- The process of withdrawing or cancelling any agreement or deal is known as IQALAH (we shall use this terminology in enunciation "problem" under this caption). It may take place on personal move or on suggestion of others. It may include the return (pay back) of the price of thing sold or accept the some on behalf of others, IQALAH is not permissible in respect of Nikah, Talaq (divorce), Utaq (freeing slave or slave girl) and `Ibra' (absolving one self from any responsibility). If in any agreement between two persons, one desires Iqalah, the other should respond agreeably. This is an act of virtue worthy of Divine reward.

PROBLEM:- In `Iqalah' the consent of the other partner is essential. Along a person can not do it. It is also necessary that the Iqalah should take place in the sitting where both the persons are present. The absence of one or his not hearing the terms of Iqalah will not fulfill the demands of Iqalah. (The details of reasons against the legality of Iqalah mentioned in this `problem' are purely hypothetical.)

PROBLEM:- The conditions for the IQALAH are as under,

PROBLEM:- The thing (of deal) was present and intact at the time of Iqalah but before it could be returned it was destroyed/damaged beyond recognition the Iqalah to becomes obsolete.

PROBLEM:- `Iqalah' is permissible on the amount which is the price of the thing in question. The Iqalah on an amount more or less than the sale price of the thing will not be acceptable. It may be exact amount in the same currency or its equivalence in any currency as a legal tender.

PROBLEM:- On account of some defect after the sale the Iqalah is done on a lessor amount than the sale price, this is permissible. If however, the defect in removed later, then the buyer can take the amount from the seller which he got less on account of the defect in the thing in the first stage of Iqalah.

PROBLEM:- The soap was sold in fresh condition, but the Iqalah was done when the soap became dry. The buyer will have to give the same (dried) soap, on Iqalah.

PROBLEM:- Iqalah means the cancellation of the original deed between the original seller and buyer, but this Iqalah is the fresh deal for the other person. It means that if on account of the Iqalah the original deal can not be treated as cancelled, then the iqalah itself becomes false and inoperative. For example if after the deal of a slave girl (which not in vogue at the present time) or a pet animal, if a young one is born, then the Iqalah of the slave girl or the animal can not he done.

PROBLEM:- IF a part of the object of deal is destroyed while the remaining part is in contact, then the Iqalah of the remaining part can be done.

PROBLEM:- If the seller receive excess amount from the buyer and if the buyer desires to do Iqalah of the thing, there should be hitch in doing the Iqalah. (The excess amount received by the buyer is reasonable limit as a profit etc) then there is no need for the Iqalah. The buyer can straight away, cancel the deal.

PROBLEM:- IF a thing is given as a (free) gift to some one (in token of love, respect, affection etc) but the man receiving the gift sells as an object of deal, now the man presenting the gift can not get it back.

PROBLEM:- Just as the Iqalah of an object of deal can be done, in the same way the Iqalah of the (first) Iqalah can also be done. The Iqalah of the Iqalah cancels the first Iqalah which means the return of original deal (of sale). However if in `Bai-e-Salam (we shall deal with this later) the object of deal has not changed hands and its Iqalah has taken place then the Iqalah of this Iqalah is not permissible.

PROBLEM:- A thing bought a thing on certain price and offered for re-sale in the market. While fixing the price some time, the additional expenditures incurred on it are also added along with the intended profit or gain. This type of resale is termed as `MURABAHA' or sale with profit or simply SWP.

PROBLEM:- Murabaha (SWP) is not permissible in the rupee or Ashrafi (recognized currencies).

PROBLEM:- The basic condition for the Murbaha (SWP) and Tauliyah (SWNP) is that the thing which the first buyer has bought should be such that the buyer Two may exchange with another thing by fixing the price at a profitable level. If the thing can not be exchanged with the desired thing but by paying the price to the buyer of that thing of which he is also the owner. Otherwise the exchange/purchase will not possible, because of difference in the price or quality which demands higher price.

PROBLEM:- In the event of deal with intent of profit, it is necessary that the value nature of the desired thing as a profit be indirectly indicated. For example, the man may to say to another that the thing valued Rs.10/- (cost price) along with the thing he has with him (profit).

PROBLEM:- By the cost price is meant the price at which the deal has been mutually agreed upon. Suppose the agreed price is Rs.10/ but the buyer gone the seller some other thing. In terms of `Murabaha' and `Tauliyah' the deal is in order. If the cost of the thing is more than Rs.10/- the deal is Murabaha and if its cost is equal to Rs.10/- then it Taulia. It will be assumed that the deal is of Rs.10/- Murabaha and not the among which the buyer himself paid.

PROBLEM:- There is a system in the market in respect of sale of a thing on the basis of 10-11 (Deh Yazdah). Which means the seller will receive one rupee profit for the sale price of every 10 rupees or its multiple in the upward order. This formula is applicable if instead of the cash cost price the demand may demand a horse on the 10-11 (Deh Yazdah) is understood. The exact price of the horse should be in the knowledge of the buyer, Then only the deal under this formula will be treated as in order. It is also necessary that the sale price should be declared in the same sitting in which the deal is being struck.

PROBLEM:- The capital or the Principle which is meant to be invested in the commercial back on the basis of Murabah and Tauliyah will enhance if the deal includes profit (Murabaha) and will remain unchanged (no profit) or Tauliyah. In the former case the additional expenditure by way of transport charges, brokerage etc, will be added to the capital.

PROBLEM:- The cost of repair of the house plastering, renewal and clearance, digging of the well etc, all incidental or essential charges including the brokerage etc will be added to the cost price of the house.

PROBLEM:- In a deal of Murabaha, if the buyer comes to know that the seller has committed a fraud or breach of trust and wrongfully enhanced the cost price by adding uncalled for items, then it is open for the buyer to pay the demanded price or reject it out right. The fraud or distrust can be assessed in three ways. (1) The seller himself admits the excess in the cost price (2) The buyer establishes his claim by producing witness (3) The buyer took the oath from the seller.

PROBLEM:- A fraud comes to notice in the deal of Morabaha and buyer wants to return the thing, but before doing so, the thing is lost or has suffered some damage which makes the return necessary, then in such a case the full cost price of the thing will be necessary to be paid before it can be retained by the buyer. It can not returned nor will be get any compensation for the damage.

PROBLEM:- On a thing received by way of compromise (as different for purchase or gift) there can be no dealing on murabaha.

PROBLEM:- A thing was purchased at a exorbitantly high price which no one is willing to pay. It is (morally) necessary to declare this situation in the deal of Murabaha or Tualiyah nature.

PROBLEM:- The thing is sold by way of Tauliyah but the buyer is kept in hard as to what is actual cost price, This is a faulty deal. Then if the buyer comes to know the price through the people (or any reliable way) the buyer may or may not take. If the real fact can not be ascertained even in the midst of people then there is no way to remove the fault. This is also true in the deal of Murabaha.

PROBLEM:- On purchasing an immovable property it is permissible to strike a deal on it, even before formally acquiring its possession, because it is very rare that it shall be destroyed/damaged. If however, such an immovable property (House) or any part of it be such that it may suffer damage, then before getting possession it can not be put on deal (for sale).

PROBLEM:- On purchasing a movable property, it can not be put for a commercial deal before getting possession, but it can be gifted, given in charity, keeping as pawn, lending or for temporary use.

PROBLEM:- IF a movable thing is given as a gift to the seller who accepts it, then the deal is no more remains extant. And if is sold to the seller as a deal, then this deal is not valid. The first deal is still existing.

PROBLEM:- The seller (on selling) himself does some alteration in the character of deal prior to giving it in possession of the buyer, then it can be done in two ways. The first is that the seller does so with the permission of the buyer and the second is that he did without the buyer's permission. If the seller gives the thing as gift, or gives on hire/rent with the buyer's consent, then this amounts to the buyers possession. Or, acting on his own (without buyer's approval) he pawns the thing, or gives on hire/rent or keeps it as a trust and the thing is damaged or destroyed, then the original deal no more remains operative. And if the seller gives it for temporary use, give as a gift or pawned is which the buyer approves, then too the possession of the buyer is established.

PROBLEM:- The buyer tells the seller to keep the thing with some person and he will get thing back later from that person. When he (the buyer) is in a position to pay the amount, the seller does so, this does not mean the possession of the buyer, the thing is still in legal possession of the seller. If that thing is destroyed (in this state) it is the loss of the seller.

PROBLEM:- A thing was bought, but before its possession by the buyer, the seller sells it some person at a higher price, which the buyer approves. Even this is not correct since it was done before the buyer took possession it.

PROBLEM:- Some one purchased things (1) by measurement (2) by weight and (3) by numbers (counting). Now unless is checked in measure, in weight or in numbers, its sale or personal use is not permissible. Or if it is purchased by guess or approximation and the thing in question is present, when the deal is settled, there is no need for its checking. If however these things have been received as gift, inheritance or through execution of a will (deceased's) or was grown in the field, then there is no need even for its measurement, weighing or counting.

PROBLEM:- After the deal if the thing was measured or weighed in the presence of the buyer, then there is no need for the buyer to do so again. However if the thing was measured/weighed in his presence but before the deal was settled or the seller weighed / measured the thing after the deal but in buyer's absence, then it is not enough. It is not permissible, for the buyer to make use of the thing without measuring/weighing again.

PROBLEM:- The seller had weighed the thing before selling. After this, the man in whose presence the thing was weighed, bought that thing without weighing it and struck a deal with it and handed it over to the buyer after weighing it. This is not correct nor permissible as the deal was done before weighing it.

PROBLEM:- If the thing is bought as a package' on a settled price for the entire package. If is permissible. However if the necessary to calculate the total cost/weight etc before taking possession. In case of lump sum right for example in the deal of metal where breaking in pieces is not possible, it is permissible to agree on any process of commercial before taking possession and after paying the cost.

PROBLEM:- Any alteration or change in price usage etc before taking possession if permissible, it can be sold, given in gift, monopoly, sadaqah, or will (wasiyat) every thing byway of Tasarruf (handling, usage) is allowed. Deal in prices is of two natures. Sometimes in terms of down cash, where the deal so does is open to all sorts of manipulatalion by the buyer. The second nature of price is mentioned by way of settled rate where the amount/price is not present. In such a case the thing in deal can not be handled by one except the buyer.

PROBLEM:- The cost of the thing in deal is of two kinds. One is that is fixed by way of weight or measurement where no alteration or manipulation is permissible. And the second norm of price deal is that even after fixing the mode of payment the exact nature of payment remains unsettle or unfixed (as by way of currency in exchange of cash price). For example a thing priced at Rs.100/- does not mean that the entire amount must be in one currency. It may be a 100/- rupee note, 10 notes of Rs.10/- each etc. But in case of a thing priced in exchanged of another object or animal the payable price shall not be other than that particular object.

PROBLEM:- The buyer raises the price for the sake of seller or the seller increase the object of sale. This is permissible. The increase in the article of deal or increase in its price in any shape or form, in the same sitting or after becomes binding. If the buyer repents afterwards as to why he took to raising the price or the quantum of the articles, it will be of no avail.

PROBLEM:- If the buyer increase the price, then to make this increase binding it is necessary that the seller accepts the increase in the same sitting and not afterwards or in another sitting. It is also necessary that the object under deal should be present. An increase after the destruction of the article is not admissible.

PROBLEM:- The seller can refuse the price of the thing for the sake of the buyer, for this the presence of the thing is not necessary. This decrease in the price is permissible even after taking possession of the object.

PROBLEM:- This increase or decrease even if accepted afterwards becomes part of the agreement of deal and it will be take as such for all subsequent processes. The price in any degree will have to remain. The price in total can not be dropped. No commercial deal is valid without the mention of the price howsoever little or reduced it may be.

PROBLEM:- The increase or decrease when made part of he agreement will enable the subsequent Murabaha or Tauliyah (with or without profit) being based in this agreement. The original price or the object will not be taken into account.

PROBLEM:- If the buyer wants to make a reduction decrease in the object, it will be permissible if the object/thing is of merchandise nature, subject to variation in the market that is it is of a fixed nature and not open to change, then no decrease will be admissible.

PROBLEM:- If the seller fixes a time limit for the buyer for the payment of price, after the initial agreement in which no time limit was mentioned then this time limit becomes obligatory for the seller. He can not demand payment of the price earlier then the time limit.

PROBLEM:- The time limit of a repayable deal (loan etc) can also be made subject to certain conditions. For example, A man owes Rs.1000/- to another payable under fixed time limit. The money lender can tell the indebtor that if he pays Rs.500/- by a certain date, the rest 500/- may be paid six months late than the agreed time limit.

PROBLEM:- What ever is given or taken as loan should have the like of it (for return in the same commodity), either it may be in the nature of measurement, weighing or counting in numbers. Normally high priced things are not given or taken on loan, like animal, house, land etc. Loan dealing in such commodities is not desirable.

PROBLEM:- The broad principle in this respect is that whatever is proposed to be taken on loan, it should have its like in the market. Things of which similar ones are not available, to give such things on loan is not desirable. The thing which is considered out of the way in respect of giving as loan, if some one gets such a thing on loan he will become its owner as immediately on taking its possession, but it is not permissible for him to derive monetary benefit from it. But if he put is on commercial deal (sale) he will not be committing wrong.

PROBLEM:- Breads can be taken on loan by counting or by weighing. Meat should be taken on loan only by weighing it.

PROBLEM:- Raw or hard baked breads can be given or taken on loan if there is not much different in their cost.

PROBLEM:- To buy ice by weighing is in order. The price of ice purchased can be paid in winter, if it be mutually agreed. If there is any dispute in this behalf the matter can be settled, even with the intervention/decision by the Qazi, if dispute becomes of that acuteness.

PROBLEM:- Loan taken in cash and should be repaid in the same currency. If the currency then in vogue becomes absolute due to government. policy, then the loan should be in the new currency at the exchange rate.

PROBLEM:- In the matte of repayment of the loan, the fluctuation the rates of things taken on loan is of no concern. The loaned commodity should be repaid at the time of repayment, in cash or in commodity as the case may be.

PROBLEM:- Grain purchased in one city should be repaid at the cost value in another city if the lender demands repayments at the latter place if both men happen to he there. The indebter can not argue to repay at the place when grain was taken on loan.

PROBLEM:- IF the repayment of the grain is demanded at the cost of grain is higher, while the debtor wants to repay at his place of loan, then an assurance shall be obtained form the debtor that he would pay the debt at his place.

PROBLEM:- A thing taken on loan becomes the property of the debtor, he can have a deal with the creditor. However if the creditor desires a deal of his own thing (which he has given on loan) will the debtor, he can not do so because he doesn't possess the right of ownership.

PROBLEM:- Loan should not be given to slaves even if he a trader or purchased on writ (Makati'b). Underage, lunatic, insane, nor can the be pressed if given a load and they refuse to payback.

PROBLEM:- A man takes loan in cash, the debtor comes to the creditor with money in hand to repay the loan, but the creditor under some reason till, the man to throw the money in the water which he does. But the real suffer is the debtor because be has not given possession (repayment) to the creditor. And if the seller brings the object of deal to the buyer or the trustee brings the thing of trust (Amanat) to the owner and they say to throw away the things, the loss in these cases will be that of the purchaser and the owner (because each ordered to throw away their object in their position of being the owners).

PROBLEM:- The debtor given something by way of gift or presentation (nazrana) to the creditor. If it is not under the impact of the loan but as gesture of mutual regard, then its acceptance is quite in order. However extra care is necessary in acceptance or rejection of such gifts or even invitation, because a slight inclination of self projection or under objection will not be in keeping with the dignity of such mannerisms.

PROBLEM:- The debtor is a habitual defaulter. If he persists in his non-payment of debt then creditor to take away any thing of the debtor of the kind which was given in loan. He can even snatch away the like things as repayment of his loan/debt. Other kind of thing or things he can not take without the debtor's consent.

PROBLEM:- To hand over a piece of land, on loan in return of a loan received from the land owner, who gives permission to the creditor to tilt and cultivate the land and make use of the produce, is not permissible in shariat. This is a manipulated way of giving things on interest (S'ud, usury)

PROBLEM:- The thing which is permissible to be given on loan, if it is taken on a limit period for use, (to be return in its original condition) if amounts to taking loan, and a thing which is forbidden to be given on loan, if it is for a short period, it becomes a borrowed article (to be return in original)

PROBLEM:- To return a loan given in rupees the debtor gives the creditor higher valid foreign currency telling to have it exchanged in rupee notes, take the amount of his loan and return the remainder to the debtor. If the foreign currency gets lost before being exchanged (from which the creditor would have taken his loan which he could not do) the loss will be tat of the debtor. If the foreign currency was exchanged was lost after its exchange in rupee currency, then the question to be decided will be (1) whether he has received his loan. If he has not taken the loan amount the loss is still that of the debtor. However if he has drawn the amount which was lost, along with the remainder then the loss will be of the creditor. If the debtor handed the foreign currency to the creditor asking to take his amount of loan, the loan will be taken as repaid. And the loss will be of the creditor.