Halal Risq - The Lawful Earning

Halal Rizq – the Lawful Earning

Halal Risq is approved earning. But the word Rizq is one word in the Arabic language, which like many other words in this language cannot be fully translated in the English language in its scopes of meaning. It can be sensed what its meaning implies if the mind is furnished with all the information related with the sustenance of the martyr, God’s promises, His responsibility towards His creation, and man’s provisions he receives in spite of his failures in denying himself of them and the word carries deeper, deeper meaning. This is a great issue. What is Halal Risq - the lawful earning! The difference between Halal and Haram can be as sharp and their separating distance as hair thin as the Pul-e Sirat - the bridge to be crossed with record of deeds of good and bad in the hand and evil a fraction greater than the good will drop one in the hell.

Halal Rizq is that which has been earned against that which is compulsory to do, but one that is not from a voluntary labour. Anything imperative on a man that he must discharge as his duty and he takes a payment for it is Haram. If eight hours of duty is the part of the contract and in this period someone does other business and earns for himself an earning that is Haram. If someone legitimately produces something through Halal procedures and sells it for the production of something that is not Halal the income through that transaction is Haram. But if someone deploys his talent and utilises his environmental facilities to earn profit through profitable transaction not hurting anyone and not encumbering him with any dues for it, that income is Halal. The selling of and rearing of pig is Haram, but selling of and rearing dog that is for the purpose of farming and hunting and used as guide is Halal. King Abdullah, then Crown Prince Abdullah Ibn Saud constructed the National Guard First Battalion Facility in Jeddah in 1984 at his seaside residence. The facility was built with a kennel for about forty hounds; they were to run round the palace boundary day and night to ensure security of the crown prince in addition to the battalion keeping the security intact of the palace. These dogs were brought some from France and some from England, and this involved their rearing and attendance to them and their training and an industry of such dogs was Halal.

The horse racing and betting on horse racing was Halal. The Prophet SAWW did not forbid racing, instead it had his blessing. According to Encyclopaedia of Islam (1965, 2.953), ‘The Prophet did not forbid racing, which encouraged breeding. The Prophet presented substantial prizes for races in Medina. The Prophet was indulgent towards betting on horse racing. It helped breed literature on the study of the habits of the horses, food and nourishment, care and training of the horses. And the Prophet blessed all the Sabiq – the winners and the fisskil – the loser. And the prophet SAWW said practice archery and horse riding and Islam forbade gambling- Maiser, but allowed placing of wagers on archery, foot racing and horse racing.

Hazrat Ali Als used to look after the arrangement of horse racing and devised rules for horse racing and the length of tracks were according to the age of the horses, long tracks for the older horses and shorter runs, two miles or so for the younger horses. He had appointed his deputy Surqa Bin Malik. The rules he had devised were:

1 Horses should be made to stand in a row (A long thread was drawn in front of the first row)

2 It should be thrice announced, if one has to set reign, check the strapping of the saddle or get the colt to accompany the mare, he should look at it at once.

3 The Takbeer should be cried three times and on the third Takbeer the horses should start off.

4 The animal’s ears should be considered decisive measures for determining the winner.

If someone is a mismatch to his job and his knowledge is lacking in the requisite and he is deliberately or under ignorance doing grievous harm of passing judgement based on fallacy, his earning is Haram. The sustenance he is drawing from the employer is void of legitimacy. Seventeen judges on the NRO judgement say:

“The code of Allah demands absolute equality of right between all people without any discrimination or favouritism between man and man and between man and woman on any count.”

And referring to a Quranic verse the judgement said vis a vis immunity claim by the President:

“This verse of Quran clearly establishes equality of all men and women on the basis of common parentage and as such discounts all claims of superiority or discrimination for any person or group of persons. There is no rational or logical ground for such claims and therefore it is unreal and unnatural to demand discrimination between man and man or between man and woman on any account.”

The learned judges say all men are equal, but the Quran specifically says all men are not equal. The beginning of the third Para, Aayet 2.253 starts with:

“All these messengers whom I have sent among them some have been given superior status over some, in them some are such with whom God conversed and raised others stations in different ways............”

It is obvious, the Munafiq is not equal to Momin, the Jahil is not equal to Aalim, The devoid of good deed (Fasiq –o- Fajir) is not equal to Muttaqi, and the Ummah is not equal to the Anmbia. And vague and generalised statement is unbecoming of a judge.

Further in Aayet 103, 1, 2, 3 God says:

1. By the declining day.
2. Man is in loss.
3. Except such who believe and do righteous deeds and between them do the exhorting for truth and the exhorting for patience.

What the Sura emphasizes was that the majority of men had placed themselves at a loss, except a minority that had faith and did good deeds, prompted each other to take to righteousness, and observed patience - in face of taunting, tyranny and violation of treaty.

But look at the sarcasm in the judgement showing the prejudicial mind of the judge. The soul of the judge is in torment running into sarcasm and slighting and verging on to bickering. They are referring to immunity as one of the reasons for corruption and say:

“The anti corruption and panel laws have remained ineffective due to their inherent defect in adequately meeting the fast multitudinous growth of corruption and bribery. Corruption in high places has remained unearthed leading to a popular belief that immunity is attached to them. To combat corruption the whole process and procedure will have to be made effective and institutionalised.”

Such sarcasm, generalization and incompetency in expression are not expected from learned judges especially when they are forming a panel of 17 judges. And then their judgement says:

“Besides all human beings are servants (ibid) of Allah and therefore equal. They are created by Allah and all are his servants alone. As such they are all equal and enjoy equal rights in all areas of life. In His service and obedience, all humans are equal and stand on the same level without any discrimination, all as one race and one people before Him, no one claiming any special privileges and honours.”

The judgement says all men are equal, but the Quran says all men are not equal. ..............and such fallacies in judgement make the judgement null and void.

The NRO judgement in its contents was explaining of the equality of men and on the accountability in a system quoted the example of the 2nd Caliph Hazrat Umar, to emphasize that no one was above law. It said:

‘The second Caliph Hazrat Umar had a shirt in which he had used more cloth than the share he drew from the Baaitul Mal. This made a questioner raise a question about the excess cloth he was using. He explained to the questioner, he has used the cloth of his son to make the shirt longer to suit to his size.’

The lack of the application of intellect with consequential poor administration is no excuse to lay waste the Baaitul Mal property, the cloth in the first place should have been issued to the recipients in right size. If it was not sufficient to be distributed to all, others could have taken their turn in the next distribution schedule. And the Baaitul-Mal distributed by Hazrat Umar, lacking application of intelligence in distribution is no bliss to the people.

And the judges should not have quoted that utterly unsuited example. As the chief driving idea behind the distribution of short pieces of cloth was not the forerunner of the idea of suitability but rather miserliness, with the consequential, not maximal use of the Baaitul Mal was made. And misappropriation in the Baaitul-mal is Haram. Khalifa Usman Ibn Affan is known to have drawn Baaitul Mal asset from the state treasury to favour his favourites that is Haram. He gave 500,000 Dinar to Marwan Bin Hakam who was married to his daughter and gave him the land of Fidak also, which Caliph Abu Bakr had snatched from Bibi Fatimah Zahra SUA. And Hazrat Usman also gave 200,000 Dirham to Abu Sufyan, father of Ameer Muawiya from the Baaitul Mal.

And illegal inclusion of Mal or land in the state property is Haram. Khalifa Abu Bakr Abdullah ibn Abi Qahafa confiscated Fidak from Bibi Fatimah Zehra SUA and made it state property that was Haram. The police of Punjab in modern times in 2009 protected the attackers on the Church (reports Sherry Rehman); the salary they drew as policemen was Haram such are the hair thin difference in the fallacies of the duty that make a Halal into Haram.

The judges are the most crucial servants of the society; they must be forced to remain humble. They cannot be left to wager in judgement. They have got to be corrected; their intellectual guidance must be provided from the highest source in Islam by the Aayetullah in Najaf and Qum. And they should know the Fiqah, the Hanafi as well as the Jaferi both. If judges know only one kind of the law of the jurisprudences; they are half judges and should cease to be judges. The judge is that absolute power who is above party politics, above Maslaki edicts, above personal likes and dislikes; he is only servant of justice – servant of God.

And wholly aligning himself to the example of the shirt of the Caliph Hazrat Umar, Justice Chaudhary Ijaz Ahmad in the NRO case judgement says: “This is the kind of accountability which we have to follow to save the nation to put on the right path”.

Justice Chaudhari Ijaz Ahmad perhaps was unaware of the more suited accountability example to be taken from the precept of Hazrat Ali Als that he could quote in the judgement. Hazrat Ali Als bought two shirts one for himself and one for his servant Qambar. When Hazrat Qambar RA brought the shirts from the market, one turned out to be finer than the other. One of them was for his servant Qambar and one for him. He gave the finer shirt to Qambar, saying that will suit him better he is younger and took the courser shirt for himself. The judges should be aware to quote such examples of piety where accountability is seen licking dust and virtuousness is dominating the scene. It is easy to be misled; carry the big name of the Justice but not the character of the Justice. And let the 17 judges either amend their NRO judgement or withdraw their judgement observing my submissions.

The selling of the sugar cane to the wine maker to make wine is Haram. The selling of Dates to the wine maker is Haram and the income out of such transaction is Haram. Any goods bought and sold, whose consumption is forbidden and Haram, that transaction is Haram. The profession of caretakers in the eyes of the Shariat is Haram. Since this service is Wajib Kafa-ee, that is compulsory on all men as a group till one of them discharges it free of charge and exonerates the entire group of that responsibility. The forbidden profession of woman sitting in the market to sell their services for sexual gratification is Haram. Any party hired to do Gheebat; the backbiting of a revered person is Haram. Gheebat is only Halal in one condition, if the expected courtesy in hosting by a host was not met. In this case the guest can do Gheebat, criticising the host not meeting his responsibility of hosting and not carrying out the worship that was due on him as a host.

The profession of the Journalism is service to God, but using that facility to tell lies and do propaganda and do character assassination and do Gheebat of someone innocent is Haram. The profession of Journalism is clean service to God and the profession of politics is training and coaching of the Ummah, a service to the public. If the politicians does not do that and exploits and befools the public through various means, even withholding information, that is Haram. It the judge knowingly frees the accused taking plea of the conditionality; the witnesses were not produced and the overwhelming and reliable evidence of truth said he did commit crime that freeing of the accused is Haram. Sayed Faisal Raza Abedi, Senator and the Political Advisor of the President of Pakistan, says on 1st of September 2010 in Wasim Badami programme, 11th Hour that 111 terrorists presented by the police to the High Court were freed.

This obnoxiousness associated with the judiciary is a punishable crime in the eyes of the Sharia. The constitution of the country says if the accused are not acceptable hang them. And no doubt the law would be in motion seeking suitable moments to punish the act of the judiciary, since they are indirectly murderers of the Shia in Lahore and Quetta and Karachi. In this programme on the 1st of September the other participant Siddique Al Farooq of the PML N continued to play politics and was angling to defend the terrorists and accusing the central government with words; ‘Logoan Ko Qanoon Apnay Haathh Mein Lena Na Sikhaein’ – they should not teach people to take law in their hands. This was not nabbing terrorism, but criticising Faisal Raza Abedi for his raising voice to pressure the judiciary to hang the terrorists.

No terrorist has been hanged by the judiciary of Pakistan and instead Rana Sana Ullah holding the post of the Law Minister of Punjab roams with them in Punjab and the Chief Minister gives political statements, indirectly encouraging them. And this is a case of straight Sunniism supporting the Sunni terrorist. Pakistan was made by the Shia-Will also, and no Munafiq in Pakistan should be allowed to damage its inception and existence.

Maula-e Muttaqiyan Hazrat Ali Ibn Abi Talib Als says if a person is sitting on the seat of power and is in a position to exercise justice and he accepts a present then he is an embezzler. And if a person is holding the seat to give justice and accepts bribe then he is a Mushrik – worst than the infidel. But if there is a person who is holding an office of prominence and takes commission, then as long as the commission he has taken does not hurt the interest of the nation and the work against which he takes commission is over and above his call of duty and is basically the fruit of his talent and is innovative and advantageous to the third party – that is the country, then it is Halal, be it 10% or 20 %. And it is immoral to denigrate Zardari. The world will have to appropriately redefine the transaction of commission.

Only the person taking the commission has to decide the morality involved in his taking that commission and the state law should recognise that right. About March 2010, the deposits of President Asif Ali Zardari in the Swiss Bank were much under discussion. If the amount under scrutiny was taken as commission under the terms of legitimacy and it has benefited the country and the people then it should not be questioned. And if the money has been deposited through transfer from one country to another, it should not be considered illegal. The terms money laundering are futile words invented to limit movement of men and the free transaction of assets which is an impinging on the freedom of man.

The definition of Halal earning should include a commission taken by the talented, who is creating asset for himself and as well benefiting his countrymen and the general people through it. And the world must correct its ideas about morality. Morality does not mean vindictiveness of others and doing as the will of the beguiled demands. Let the world be progressive and look into the reflexes of the issues.

The sanctions are illegal and are the ways of the heretics and the infidels as they did with the party of the Prophet SAWW in the 7th year of the Besat in Makka. The Prophet’s household and some of his supporters were confined and socially boycotted in the Shaib Abi Talib where they had to spend three years under hunger and trials. And God showed disapproval of this boycott by the display of the supernatural, when the Prophet SAWW prophesied that the document of the infidel’s pact, made between them except the name of Allah has been eaten up by the termites and so it was. And convinced of the righteousness of the Prophet SAWW the blockade was lifted by the infidels.

These quotes are meant to say excesses of any kind are prohibiting to the honest and good living. The simplest of the motto for all the religions should be that of the Zoroastrians following the Zarathustra religion, its followers are the oldest monotheists in the world save the philosophy of Islam in monotheism. The motto of the Zoroastrians is:

Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds.

The least in the stringencies of the Halal and Haram are the above motto; a good act is Halal and a bad Haram. In the presence of the Prophet SAWW the adaptation of slogan ‘Quran is enough for us’ is Haram. The student excelling the teacher is Halal, but Qias – estimations, intuitions and approximations of the student against the factuality presented by the teacher and then he God appointed, is beyond Haram. It is Halal and wajib – compulsory to harmonise faith and adapt to the nearest corrective related Fiqah and that is the Fiqah-e Jafaria.

And let not hate and doubt prohibiting us, prohibit wholly to take to Halal and God help us!


Sayed Athar Husain

Afkaar-e Shia (Shia Thought)


4 September, 2010

Comments 6 comments

SB 5 years ago

shia's, crazy as usual. You have the audacity to insult Umar (ra) intelligence when you have been inflicting mental and physical pains on yourself for nothing (maatam). Furthermore, you promote prostituting your women in the form of temporary marriage. Wake up and join the majority of the Ummah in being brothers.

SayedAthar Husain profile image

SayedAthar Husain 5 years ago from London Author

It was not only Hazrat Umar that did something wrong, Abu Bakr and Usman also did wrongs. The commentator is partial and not faithful to his religion and the later two and not defended them like in the language he did for Umar Ibn al Khattab, whose excesses he can read in my other hubs and open his heart and eyes and be civil, not only a foul tongued Sunni.

Mutah - the temporary marriage was permitted by God and the Prophet SAWW, and the Shias follow God and the Prophet SAWW, not the prohibition brought in by Umar Ibn al Khattab. He had no right to making laws for Islam.

SayedAthar Husain profile image

SayedAthar Husain 5 years ago from London Author

The Sunni Commentator

Further to the comment of our Sunni commentator SB, the Shias will note Umar Ibn al Khattab has cast quite a spell on the Sunnis and the Sunni faith revolves round the adoration of this figure, although he was more lethal and has done greatest damage to the faith of the Sunni Muslims.

The Shias have to politely educate the Sunnis to condemn Umar for all his avowals he made against the Prophet SAWW of calling him ‘gone delirious’ and declaring that ‘Quran is enough for them’.

It is a matter of great concern for the Muslims – the Shias and the Sunnis to note that this figure who was installed as the Caliph had accepted only half of the faith of Islam, since he had rejected the authority or the suzerainty of the Aehlebaait – please refer to violation by him of the Hadis –e Saqlain. And this violation he had to do to gain his foothold on the Khilafat. Without doing that violation and disobeying the Prophet SAWW he could not become Caliph. And this figure had introduced politics in Islam in a wrong way – sacrificing faith for power.


Sayed Athar Husain

Shia Afkar (Shia Thought)


SayedAthar Husain profile image

SayedAthar Husain 5 years ago from London Author

The Sunni Commentator

Comment (III)

By supporting Umar Ibn al Khattab and not allowing any scrutiny to be conducted into his mannerism towards the Muslims that how much damage he has done to Islam and to the harmonious progress towards ethics and cordialities between the races of the world, the Sunnis indicate that they want to act crooked and remain crooked and this is drive which is based on enmity with the House of the Prophet SAWW.

It is more romantic and adventurous for them to support and propagate the views of the opponents of the Aehlebaait and they want to register their untainted sympathies with the outright enemies of the Aehlebaait. It is called perversion of mind.


Sayed Athar Husain

Afkar-e Shia (Shia Thought)


usman 5 years ago

syed athar abbas sahab.....can you tell me one thing that...when hazrat Umer R.A went to palestine....to get the keys of palestine...whom did he made acting caliph?

SayedAthar Husain profile image

SayedAthar Husain 5 years ago from London Author

To Mr Usman: I did not see your question till today; Here is what I think Hazrat Umar ought have done. In Islam the authority is not distributable, the authority wears the person and the person wears the authority. Virtue of any kind cannot be tagged on anyone.Hazrat Umar carried his authority of caliphate and would have to issue instructions as and when it was implementable. No edicts were of any authority if issued in his absence by any deputy Caliph. He though had unsolicited Shuara.


Sayed Athar Husain

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article