What is the ruling on giving some money to customs and the like in order to preserve one’s goods?

The questioner: O Shaykh, this is a very common matter. Some people, meaning now in Islamic and non-Islamic countries, take what is called the *atawwah* (tribute), and what is now called customs duties and the like. Some say that if a merchant, for example, faces a necessity to give, for example, if they force the taking of his goods or he gives, for example, what is called— they say it is not a bribe, but he gives money to save his goods, that is, his right, because as a Muslim and by the Shari'ah, it is permissible for him to trade freely . So, if this is correct in its absolute sense, meaning that a person expands on this, so that whenever he wants to trade, for example, he gives money to these customs officials or customs officers? Do you understand my question? This is my question: Is this matter permissible in its absolute sense?

The Shaykh: Yes.

Another questioner: I will add clarification to the issue.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner: In the brother’s question, the issue of giving money to preserve trade occurs in two ways in our countries, and this is what the brother did not clarify. The first way: he goes out, travels, and returns, and they want to take the money, that is, his trade, so he gives money to preserve his money. The second way: before he goes out, he agrees with one of the customs officials or one of the employees, saying to him, “We will bring in the goods, and I will give you half of it, or a third of it, or a sum of...” So the issue lies between these two.

Another questioner: And they make this... they consider it permissible in every... so this matter... we must pay attention to this...

The questioner: Yes, indeed, but from the perspective of necessity, meaning the increase...

The Shaykh: Is the increase possible? Okay.

The questioner: Before, meaning he does not agree, meaning with customs, meaning the first time, meaning it increased, as we say in..., and a second time, meaning if he did not, meaning...

The Shaykh: He gives him.

The questioner: He gives him money, meaning he increased beyond what he was taking from the beginning, meaning this, meaning he commits to it if, meaning it reached with customs, meaning it is permissible to... that amount.

The Shaykh: Meaning the money is paid the first time, then in the second and subsequent times, he may not pay anything.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh: ... he attracts more and more goods, is that what you mean?

The questioner: Several times... third and fourth.

The Shaykh: Yes, it is undoubted that what is called today customs, which are taxes, these are not prescribed, and the matter does not require research. But here there are two things. The first thing is that if a Muslim has a right with some people, a right whose validity is certain.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: And it is not a relative right, but this certain right belonging to its owner is accompanied by the fact that the one holding it is an oppressor, a rebel, an aggressor who does not release this right—go, boy, boy—, and it is not possible to reach this right except by the way of giving money; at that time, we believe that presenting this money from the owner of the right to the oppressor holding it is permissible for the owner of the money to give this, and it is not a bribe in his right. Rather, that oppressor, if he takes it to release the right to its owner, it is haram and a bribe for him. Is this picture clear, I believe?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: So the starting point in understanding such an issue is our observation of the meaning of a bribe; for a bribe is giving money to invalidate a right—pardon me—to invalidate a right or to establish a falsehood.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: So the picture we mentioned earlier does not contain any of this, but rather it is reaching the suppressed right; so this is not a bribe for the giver, but it is a bribe for the taker. Is this clear here?

The questioner : Is that clear?

The Shaykh: Okay; now we come to addressing the existing problem in this time, which is some systems and laws, including customs imposed on the goods of Muslims, where they are treated as if they were non-Muslims... meaning; so these—without doubt, as I mentioned earlier—are not among the prescribed matters. But here the subject goes beyond the previous example; for there is no right held by a person that the owner of this right wants to reach by the way of giving a bribe; it is a bribe for the taker and not a bribe for the giver. The issue here is not like that, but rather the issue is to escape from this oppressive system. There are employees, as you described and enumerated the pictures, and they all revolve around a point that differs completely from the previous point; which is giving employees bribes in order for them to violate the existing system. We do not approve of this existing system regarding this specific part, and we do not want to speak loosely; for there may be systems that do not contradict Islam, even if they are recent; such as the traffic system, for example, and the like; so I qualified the speech and I say: when we open the door of giving bribes to these employees so that we can use our freedom in trade contrary to the established system, here the issue goes beyond what I mentioned earlier to the issue of habituating employees to taking bribes, and not to reach a suppressed right, but to a delusional right, which he may reach or may not reach; yes, indeed, for that reason, what we see as correct is not what they are doing today. This is from one side.
In other pictures: one of them may bring in some goods to his country by the way of his 'Umrah, for example, returning from 'Umrah or Hajj; there, customs impose the known tax on them. This, of course, differs in form from some of the pictures you mentioned earlier, clearly. So here a question arises—also raised: Is it permissible for a Muslim to hide these goods and pass them into his country so that the employee there does not see them and impose customs or taxes on him? In this picture, we say: if the person who wants to pass this need is from the people of knowledge or religion, such that if his matter is discovered and his hiding of that need is discovered, the religion may be affected because of him; then at that time, we see it from this door, the door of sadd al-dhara'i' (blocking the means to harm), that he should not engage in this hiding. Is this clear?
And if it is a man from the general public, such that Islam is not affected because of his violation; then there is no harm if he does that from the door of escaping from the injustice that will befall him if they discover his hidden goods. Is it clear then, if Allah wills?

The questioner : Yes, it is clear.

The Shaykh: This is what I have of opinion.

The questioner: This last statement you mentioned in the Emirati questions, which is feared for, if it is in it, it is feared that Islam may be affected because of it.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner: You have performed; so may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And beware of that.