Some people bring in workers from abroad to work for them, and when they arrive, they leave them to learn any job outside their jurisdiction.

The questioner : Some people bring in workers from abroad on the basis that they will work for them, but when they arrive, they do not work for them; instead, they leave them to learn any job outside their jurisdiction. Then, for example, they come every month with a specific amount of money they have agreed upon. This is one scenario. A second scenario is that a person from a specific country agrees with a person who is not from that country but is a resident there to open a shop; the shop is to be in the name of this resident, and the foreigner receives a specific amount of money for using this name. What is the ruling on these two cases?

The Shaykh : I do not see it as permissible, unless there are responsibilities and guarantees. If that tenant, or the one who took the shop in the name of the local owner, defaults, and if there are guarantees and sureties that might cause harm, then it is permissible. Otherwise, if it is merely a formal matter, it is, as we said earlier, a fictitious reason that does not justify the money they take.

The questioner : What are these guarantees, for example?

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : What are these guarantees, for example? What do you mean?

The Shaykh : I am speaking in general terms. For example, a surety: one person guarantees another. If the guaranteed person, for example, flees, the guarantor becomes liable; financially, or by imprisonment, or something similar. This is what I am referring to, if such things exist. Otherwise, the ruling is completely clear. Is there any of that in what I mentioned earlier?

The questioner : Yes, of course, it is widespread.

The Shaykh : No, I mean the surety?

The questioner: Yes.