A man has a plot of land he wants to build on in a commercial area. Is it permissible for him to request the vacating of his shop so that he can build on his land?

The questioner : Let us suppose there is a commercial area with several shops and an empty plot of land, and the owner wants to build on it. In this case, does the ruling apply to him such that we consider it as if he has a shop and wants to rent it out, or does he not take a key money payment?

The Shaykh : You have already received the answer.

The questioner : He needs a key money payment to compensate for the value of the land in this expensive commercial area, for example, in the commercial area of Suf al-Sayl, which is one of the most expensive key money areas in the country.

The Shaykh : The answer has already been given. No matter how many scenarios you list, the principle covers all scenarios. Now you are presenting a scenario where a man has a property and a shop in a commercial area.

The questioner : An empty plot of land in an expensive commercial area, and he builds on it. You mentioned something about if he has a shop and wants to rent it out, and he is its owner, it is permissible for him to take key money from the tenant.

The Shaykh : That is not what I said. I said if a man is occupying a place, for example a shop, and it is the source of his livelihood, and he is doing well and does not think of leaving that place at all, then a skilled, experienced merchant comes and sees that this place is in a sensitive commercial area and he wants to open it for a business that perhaps has no equivalent there. He offers to have him vacate it for him, and they agree on a sum. But I am the owner of a property, and I have a plan in my mind for a plot of land in a sensitive commercial area, and I want to build on it.

The questioner : Was my question just now the same thing? Did it not differ?

The Shaykh : If it did not differ, what are you asking about?

The questioner : I mean that you mentioned this so that we consider this shop to be close to this land, meaning in the same sensitive area, and he wants to build on it. You say that if he wants to build on it, these shops are not allowed to take key money.

The Shaykh : That is not your question, Muhammad. The owner of the property who has a shop and has land he wants to build on.

The questioner : Yes, in the same commercial area.

The Shaykh : In the same area, he has land he wants to build on. Is your question that it is not permissible for him to request key money for his shop so that he can build on his land?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Is this not your question?

The questioner : Yes, this is my question, but I mean that this land is close to the same example.

The Shaykh : I do not care, my brother, about nearness or distance, nor does the Shari'ah look at this issue regarding this matter. This is a commercial matter; nearness and distance return to the same merchant for his benefit. There is no difference between a man who occupies this property and offers to vacate it and takes key money so that he can build on his land, and another man who is building and moving and closing his shop and writing on it "prepared for vacating for rent" and requests key money. There is no difference between the two. Why? Because key money did not come out of the blue for the person who occupied his property. A person who needed it came and said to him, "Vacate it for me." This is the scenario we said is permissible. But if he offers to people, "Come, take this shop, I want to vacate it," this is not a cycle and a turn. This is not permissible.

The questioner : When he goes to build shops, they will come to him. Perhaps he is not offering it to them; they will come and request the place from him and say, "We will pay the key money." This is the likely scenario: that they come to him, and it is not he who offers it to them. A person will come and say, "I want to buy this shop; I want to give you a sum of money."

The Shaykh : You are not dealing with reality; we are talking about reality. Allow me, you say "perhaps." This is not a fact. Perhaps this, perhaps that? This is not a fact. Everything that includes "perhaps this, perhaps that" is not a fact. We say that if a person is occupying the property and a person comes and says to him, "Vacate this for me," it is permissible for him to take [key money]. But if he vacates, or wants to vacate, and no one has come, then he is offering it. This is not permissible. The scenario, no matter how much you try to vary it, is one scenario. Either this place is occupied and you are doing well in it and you do not think of leaving it, and a person comes and says to you, "Vacate it for me," and you say to him, "I want key money." This is lawful key money. Or you are preparing to move, naturally, from the place to another place, whether you want to build or you want to rent. These details have no relation to the matter, so it is not permissible in this case.