A man acted as an intermediary between a person with capital and a contracting company or other entity. Is it permissible for him to take a fee for this intermediation? And is this called brokerage?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : This listener, Muhammad al-Sayyid, is Egyptian and works in Saudi Arabia. He says: A man acted as an intermediary between a person with capital and a contracting company or other entity. Is it permissible for him to take a fee for this intermediation? And is this called brokerage?
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible for the one who acted as an intermediary to take from the money an amount equal to his wage. However, if he had stipulated this with the parties for whom he was the intermediary, the matter is clear. If he did not stipulate it, then if this man had established himself in this profession, he is entitled to a wage. If he had not established himself in it, then his work is considered a voluntary gift, because the parties do not understand from the intermediary anything other than a voluntary gift. If this man is known as a broker,
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : and he takes a wage, then he is entitled to the wage of his like. But if he was an ordinary man who exerted effort, the original ruling is that he is not entitled to anything unless there is a stipulation. The scrupulousness for him is not to take anything from them.
In summary, the answer is that if this intermediary agreed with the parties for whom he was the intermediary on a known amount before the intermediation, there is no doubt in its permissibility, because it falls under the category of hiring. If they did not agree, we look at the situation: if he had established himself in this work, like brokers and their like, he is entitled to the wage of his like, because he worked based on what was known about him as a professional. If he was not known for this work, then the scrupulousness is not to take anything. But if the parties for whom he was the intermediary gave him a gift, there is no blame on him in accepting it. Yes.
The questioner : May Allah bless you, O honorable Shaykh, and may He magnify your reward.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible for the one who acted as an intermediary to take from the money an amount equal to his wage. However, if he had stipulated this with the parties for whom he was the intermediary, the matter is clear. If he did not stipulate it, then if this man had established himself in this profession, he is entitled to a wage. If he had not established himself in it, then his work is considered a voluntary gift, because the parties do not understand from the intermediary anything other than a voluntary gift. If this man is known as a broker,
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : and he takes a wage, then he is entitled to the wage of his like. But if he was an ordinary man who exerted effort, the original ruling is that he is not entitled to anything unless there is a stipulation. The scrupulousness for him is not to take anything from them.
In summary, the answer is that if this intermediary agreed with the parties for whom he was the intermediary on a known amount before the intermediation, there is no doubt in its permissibility, because it falls under the category of hiring. If they did not agree, we look at the situation: if he had established himself in this work, like brokers and their like, he is entitled to the wage of his like, because he worked based on what was known about him as a professional. If he was not known for this work, then the scrupulousness is not to take anything. But if the parties for whom he was the intermediary gave him a gift, there is no blame on him in accepting it. Yes.
The questioner : May Allah bless you, O honorable Shaykh, and may He magnify your reward.