The impermissibility of naming certain prohibited matters with terms that have become customary in modern times, such as calling riba (usury or interest) "profit."

The Shaykh : Before answering this question, it is necessary to draw attention to two matters. The first is that it is not permissible to name riba (usury or interest) with another term that has become customary in modern times, namely "profit." This is because this naming entails two harms: one linguistic, and the other semantic or legal in the Shari'ah. As for the linguistic harm, it is naming things with names that contradict the Shari'ah. For example, it is not permissible for us to nameThe questioner : the intoxicant, which is called khamr (intoxicants) in the language of the Shari'ah, "whiskey" or "champagne" or any other such names. This is because in this naming lies the second harm, which follows, in addition to its contradiction of the ruling established by the Lawgiver in many hadiths. The most comprehensive of these is His saying (peace and blessings be upon him): I hope that people will be aware of this harm and not think that it is purely formal. No, may Allah have mercy on you. Names have their effect, whether good or bad. We can feel with our own hands the concern of the wise Lawgiver for correcting many words, even if the one speaking them does not intend their meanings, but is merely uttering a word without aiming at the meaning that the word usually indicates. There are many hadiths in this regard, and praise be to Allah. However, there is no harm in providing examples from them by way of illustration, not by way of exhaustive listing. The most important of these words are those related to 'aqidah (creed) and tawhid (the oneness of Allah) in particular. For example, there are more than one hadith in which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade the Muslims in general from saying, "What Allah willed and you willed." He commanded us to say one of two phrases: either "What Allah willed alone," which is more decisive in cutting off the harm; or "What Allah willed, then you willed," which is for those who understand the difference between "and" (wa) and "then" (thumma). Naturally, most people do not know this, and so you find the great ones among them saying in their sermons, in the openings of their speeches and lectures, "In the name of Allah and the homeland." This is because they are people who do not understand and do not know their language before the Shari'ah; they do not understand. The point is that many people, even today, associate partners with Allah. We do not say that we are accusing all people of associating partners with Allah in belief when they say "What Allah willed and you willed" or "In the name of Allah and the homeland" or "the people" or "the nation" or similar phrases. The least that can be said about this is that it is linguistic shirk (associating partners with Allah), and this is the point. Among the hadiths that came in this regard is what Imam Ahmad narrated in al-Musnad with a valid chain from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) gave a sermon to the people one day, and a man stood up and said, "What Allah willed and you willed, O Messenger of Allah." He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: We know that such a Companion, however we imagine him to have been a recent convert to Islam, it is possible, and it is possible that he was higher and more elevated than that, having been a long-time Muslim. But even if we assume he was a recent convert to Islam, when he said, "I bear witness that there is no god but Allah," he understood the meaning of this word by virtue of being a pure Arab, to whom no foreignness had crept in, as is the case with many, indeed most, Arabs today, even among the Muslims who bear witness that there is no god but Allah and then contradict it with many of their deeds, thoughts, and beliefs. We cannot imagine such a deviation in thought in them, because they knew that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who called people to "There is no god but Allah," was objected to by his people, who were disbelievers and polytheists, because they knew the meaning of this good word. They knew that the meaning of it is that it is not permissible for the one who says it and believes in it to associate anything with Allah in any way. Therefore, they said: And in the verse there is another: Muslims today, especially the non-Arabs, do not consider it too much to say "There is no god but Allah," so they are Muslims. And as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: But in their starting point in their lives, they do the deeds of the polytheists. This is because they do not understand the meaning of this word and do not know its commitments. This Companion who said to the Messenger, "What Allah willed and you willed," did not mean to make him a partner with Allah in will and desire. But his tongue uttered it, so he (peace and blessings be upon him) did not approve of it, even though he knew from him more than we know from him, naturally, due to the soundness of his belief from shirk (associating partners with Allah) and kufr (disbelief). But all of this did not lead the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to erase this error and not pass over it. Rather, he said to him in the form of a rhetorical question of disapproval: There is another hadith, which is more amazing than this hadith, because it gives us an idea more than what this hadith gave us. This hadith concerns a man who made this mistake. But the following hadith gives us the idea that many of the Companions were saying such a word. It is the hadith of Hudhayfah, as I recall, or another of the Companions, that a man from among the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) saw in a dream that while he was walking on one of the roads of Madinah, he met a man from the Jews. He said to him, "You are a good people, O Jews, if only you did not associate partners with Allah by saying, 'Azir is the son of Allah.'" The Jew said to the Muslim, "This is in a dream": "And you are a good people, O Muslims, if only you did not associate partners with Allah." The address here in the dream is to the group, not the individual: "If only you did not associate partners with Allah by saying, 'What Allah willed and Muhammad willed.'" Then he went on walking until he met a man from the Christians. The Muslim said to him, "You are a good people, O Christians, if only you did not associate partners with Allah by saying, 'Jesus is the son of Allah.'" The Christian responded to him by saying, "You are a good people, O Muslims, if only you did not associate partners with Allah by saying, 'What Allah willed and Muhammad willed.'" When morning came and he related this dream to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), he said to him: ? He said, "No." So he stood up as a preacher and he (peace and blessings be upon him) said to them: In this hadith, we understand that there is a very strong indication, almost explicit, which is: that this matter is related to correcting words, not to correcting belief. This is because if the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had known that his Companions, whom he sometimes heard saying, like that man, "What Allah willed and Muhammad willed," believed that the will of the Messenger and the will of Allah are one, he would not have remained silent about them for a long time. But because he knew that this was among the words that they did not intend their meaning, he (peace and blessings be upon him) was shy to directly rebuke them when this incident occurred. And that is proof that the matter is as He (Glorified and Exalted is He) said: So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) admonished them and warned them against saying "What Allah willed and Muhammad willed." There are many hadiths, and I feel that I have strayed a little or a lot from the question itself that we were addressing. How about what I have mentioned now? But even so, I find myself compelled to mention another hadith for its awe-inspiring nature, beauty, and perfection in alerting Muslims to the necessity of caring for words. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And this matter is a reality today among the farmers, whether here or in Palestine or in Syria: "We went to the vineyard and we came from the vineyard."

The questioner : Even in Algeria.

The Shaykh : Even in Algeria, likewise, if the calamity is widespread. The Companions of the Messenger (peace be upon him) were in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance in clear error, and there is no doubt about this. They used to drink intoxicants, and we all know how many verses were revealed and how the divine ruling progressed in compelling them to abandon drinking intoxicants. One of the means of compelling them and cutting the relationship between the Muslims, whom Allah had forbidden from drinking intoxicants, was that He also forbade them—and I mean what I say—He forbade them to utter a word that would remind them of the pre-Islamic age of ignorance, in which they used to call the grapevine a *karam* (vine). Because the addicts of intoxicants, to this day, believe with great arrogance that those who drink intoxicants become *karam* (generous), meaning their nature becomes the nature of the generous. So he (peace be upon him) said: "A trellis and trellises of grapes." Now, Islam names what the general public and many Muslims, even the guides among them, and even the preachers and orators, are swept along with, using a word that is a translation of a foreign phrase. They call *riba* (usury or interest) "profit." This is not permissible for one who knows this Islamic principle, that Islam cares about refining words as well, and not just correcting belief and ideas. So it is not permissible for us to call *riba* (usury or interest) "profit." If so, the question should be corrected, but there is something else in the question, which is: if there is no one from this depositor of his money in the bank, and the bank is a non-Muslim bank, as you expressed it,The questioner : what profit does he take or give? So we accept, as a first principle, as long asThe questioner : it is a Muslim, meaning he does not take *riba* (usury or interest). This profit that he calls it, he does not take *riba* (usury or interest). But he is mistaken when he says he does not take profit and does not give profit. How is that? He deposits his money in a bank, and every bank, we know the reality of its composition, is based on the funds of the clients with this bank. So if we imagine, as it is said in old Arabic usage, on a moonless night, all the clients gather to withdraw their money from one of these banks; what becomes of the bank? It becomes bankrupt, because its capital is based on these funds deposited in the bank. So how do we say in the case of the question that, knowing that the depositor of the money does not take profit and does not give profit? If he were taking profit, he would give more than he takes of the profit. Because the bank uses this money in that profit which is called *riba* (usury or interest) in the Shari'ah. Therefore, before answering the question, I said earlier that attention should be drawn to these two facts. Here is a verbal error and an error in this specific question when he says that he does not give profit. I know that he means he does not give a specific profit. But what is important? The important thing is that he gives profit to the bank, more than the specific profit that he intended with this question. We should not be deceived into thinking that if we deposit our money in the bank and do not take *riba* (usury or interest) on it, that our conscience is clear and that we have not disobeyed our Lord. Why? Because we did not take profit and we do not give profit, we did not eat *riba* (usury or interest) and we were not made to eat *riba* (usury or interest). It is not so. And this is explicit in his (peace be upon him) statement explaining a verse in the Qur'an, where he (peace be upon him) said: So the one who gives his money to the bank, its price in the Shari'ah is the price of the bank itself. The bank eats *riba* (usury or interest), and the depositor of his money in it feeds *riba* (usury or interest). And without him, there would be no bank in the world at all. Do you have something?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : Do you imagine a merchant dealing with a bank without depositing money? How is this imagined?
Al-Halabi : This is almost impossible.

The Shaykh : So make your comment in another message.
Al-Halabi : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you, because I really imagine that merchants are afflicted with a severe affliction.

The questioner : I ask your permission, I have a question, or is there still more after this?

The Shaykh : Ah, there is a lot after this. These are our brothers from Algeria, and they are our guests from dear Algeria, and they are traveling. As for you, you are residents. So we prefer the traveling person who is in a hurry, whom the Shari'ah has permitted to combine and shorten, over the resident.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : The dealings of merchants, my brother, with banks, if the matter stopped without depositing money in the banks, and it was just a matter of transfer, for example, the matter would be easy. But what I understand from the many questions that have come to us and we have discussed, and I am not a merchant, is that the merchant must have capital in the bank for his transactions to proceed. And so I directed the conversation to this deposit, because there is a connection between the two that cannot be separated.