The Ruling on Commercial Competitions
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
regarding commercial competitions: Recently, certain practices have become widespread in commercial establishments, and we would like your eminence to clarify the ruling on them. These are the practices undertaken by a group of commercial establishments that offer a prize to whoever purchases from them. The method of obtaining the prize varies from one merchant to another. Some raise the price of the goods in exchange for the prize, while making the purchase mandatory to obtain the competition card. Some require you to purchase a specific amount to obtain the competition card, without raising the price. Some do not raise the price and do not require a purchase when taking the card. Some sell the competition card for a specific amount of money if one does not wish to make a purchase. Knowing that this will increase during the blessed month of Ramadan, we ask your eminence to clarify the ruling on this issue in as much detail as possible, given the large number of people asking about these and other forms. May Allah preserve you?
Some of these forms you mentioned are not permissible, and some are permissible.The permissible: It is for the merchant to offer a prize to whoever purchases from him for a certain amount.Let us say: If one purchases for one thousand riyals, he has the right to enter the competition. This is permissible, because the buyer is either safe or a winner. The price has not been raised on him, and he will buy this merchandise in any case, whether from him or from someone else. If he buys from someone else and then happens to win a prize, he is a winner. If he does not win, he is safe.
As for the case where the buyer is either a winner or a debtor, this is forbidden in all its forms.But if we assume: Some people have said: This ruins the market, confuses people, and perhaps a person will come from one end of the country to the other just to buy from this shop. This may disrupt traffic, especially in large cities. We see that if the state were to intervene in this and prohibit it, that would be good. However, if they remain as they are now, with specific individual merchants, it does not require prohibition.
So the summary now is that we have two perspectives in this issue: The first perspective: regarding the prohibition of these people.We say: As long as the matter has not spread to a great extent that causes market disruption and merchants competing to increase the prizes, there is no harm. However, if it leads to market disruption and merchants competing with prizes, such as one placing a car and another placing two cars, or one placing a thousand and another placing two thousand, for example, then it is obligatory for the state to prohibit it, so that manipulation does not occur.
The second perspective: In the case where we say it is permissible and not prohibited, we say: whoever buys while genuinely intending to buy, and no extra amount is taken from him above the price, and no price is charged for the card, there is no harm.
Some of these forms you mentioned are not permissible, and some are permissible.The permissible: It is for the merchant to offer a prize to whoever purchases from him for a certain amount.Let us say: If one purchases for one thousand riyals, he has the right to enter the competition. This is permissible, because the buyer is either safe or a winner. The price has not been raised on him, and he will buy this merchandise in any case, whether from him or from someone else. If he buys from someone else and then happens to win a prize, he is a winner. If he does not win, he is safe.
As for the case where the buyer is either a winner or a debtor, this is forbidden in all its forms.But if we assume: Some people have said: This ruins the market, confuses people, and perhaps a person will come from one end of the country to the other just to buy from this shop. This may disrupt traffic, especially in large cities. We see that if the state were to intervene in this and prohibit it, that would be good. However, if they remain as they are now, with specific individual merchants, it does not require prohibition.
So the summary now is that we have two perspectives in this issue: The first perspective: regarding the prohibition of these people.We say: As long as the matter has not spread to a great extent that causes market disruption and merchants competing to increase the prizes, there is no harm. However, if it leads to market disruption and merchants competing with prizes, such as one placing a car and another placing two cars, or one placing a thousand and another placing two thousand, for example, then it is obligatory for the state to prohibit it, so that manipulation does not occur.
The second perspective: In the case where we say it is permissible and not prohibited, we say: whoever buys while genuinely intending to buy, and no extra amount is taken from him above the price, and no price is charged for the card, there is no harm.