What is the ruling on working in banks? And the Shaykh’s comment on the fatwa of some scholars permitting it in accordance with the times.

The questioner : O our Shaykh, we truly wish to ask a question regarding the fatwas of some imams concerning Muslim youth working in institutions, financial companies, or banks. Consequently, people’s statements have differed and their opinions have varied. So, if only you, O Shaykh, could give us clarification on this specific issue.

The Shaykh : I will provide a clarification on the topic, but I want to draw your attention to something before that, which is: why do diverse answers multiply regarding a single issue? And why are the general public disturbed by these multiple answers?
The reason for that is one thing. The reason, which goes back to the muftis or the shaykhs, and the questioners or the general public, goes back to one thing, which is that ninety-nine out of a hundred of those who issue fatwas issue them, as I say, out of ignorance. And although I may say that sometimes, what I want to say is that they issue fatwas without relying on a legal proof from the Book of Allah or from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Rather, they present to the general public their opinions and their independent legal reasoning, if that is the correct term, that they are mujtahids. Consequently, these people hear an opinion from here and an opinion from there, and they fall into what? They fall into confusion, into wavering as it is said, and they do not know with which of these statements the ruling of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) lies. From the noble Qur'an in describing the Book of the Lord of the Worlds, He said: , meaning that this noble Qur'an, since it was revealed from Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, is pure and exalted from disagreement and disturbance in its statements, fatwas, and rulings. So, on the contrary, if our Shari'ah and our fatwas are derived from the Book and the Sunnah, they should be a single statement, not statements that are pulled apart, divergent, and distant. It is obligatory upon all Muslims, with no difference between the educated among them and the uneducated, between the student of Islamic knowledge and the student of other beneficial sciences, that they all must have this general awareness: to know what the ruling in Islam is. Is it the opinion of so-and-so or so-and-so? Or is it what Allah said and what the Messenger of Allah said? They must know this reality, meaning that the legal rulings are not like man-made laws, which are issued by individuals whose understandings differ, whose tastes differ, and whose surrounding circumstances differ. If, for example, one lives in a democratic atmosphere, the law corresponds to what they call democracy. If one is in a socialist atmosphere, it is the opposite. If one is in a communist atmosphere, it is the opposite.
The legal rulings in Islam are not like this. Muslims are obligated to worship Allah with what Allah has revealed in His Book and what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) clarified in his hadith. And thus, this awareness must be present in all Muslims: if they hear contradictory statements on a single issue, they should immediately say that Islam is free from this contradiction.

The questioner : This is what is required.

The Shaykh : Yes, ah, but this alone is not sufficient, but this is necessary as a preamble. In the sense that if the Muslim is saturated with this opinion, he is not confused in the sense that these multiple statements cannot all be correct, and that it is permissible for the Muslim to choose from them whatever he wishes. If he knows this reality, and that the ruling is one, in the name of Allah.
This must be a scientific reality firmly established in the heart of every Muslim, so that he then asks: where is the truth among these statements? At that point, the final stage comes, as Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
"Knowledge is: Allah said, His Messenger said, the Companions said; it is not deception.
What knowledge has placed you in the foolishness of disagreement Between the Messenger and the opinion of a jurist
Neither affirming the attributes nor denying them, out of fear of denial of the divine attributes and likening Allah to creation.
So when you hear an opinion from here and an opinion from there, but you find an opinion supported by "Allah said" and "the Messenger of Allah said," then bite down on it with your teeth and do not let it go; for it is the clear truth, and the other opinions are opposed to this. So here, as we mentioned regarding Ibn al-Qayyim:
"Knowledge is: Allah said, His Messenger said, the Companions said; it is not deception.
Knowledge does not make you a fool who opposes the Messenger with the opinion of a jurist."
So when we know "Allah said" and "the Messenger of Allah said," at that point you dismiss the statement of this jurist, no matter how much knowledge and status he has in your opinion. You dismiss it as if it were nothing, because you are not obligated except to follow the Book and follow the Sunnah. After this preamble, we return to the core of the topic, which you raised, and I felt that in your question there are actually several aspects, and therefore I cannot speak about all of them. It is necessary to separate one from the other. So you, separate for me, I will separate for you. Mention to me, for example, one of the points, such as working in banks.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, working in banks, and this is what I think I mentioned first. Please, may Allah have mercy on you.

The questioner : Excuse me, Professor. What I specifically intended is that there are, as you mentioned and explained, some opinions of the imams, and they seem to be personal opinions. And even if they are personal opinions, they contradict what He (the Exalted) said, and what was transmitted from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). I mean, these opinions were not transmitted from ordinary people.

The Shaykh : That is correct.

The questioner : I mean, they were not transmitted except from people who are considered among the imams of the Muslims.

The Shaykh : That is correct.

The questioner : And consequently, their explanation and elaboration in explaining these topics puts people, as you also mentioned, into confusion about their affairs.

The Shaykh : Authentic

The questioner : I mean, what does it mean that we are now in the absence of the Islamic state?

The Shaykh : Correct.

The questioner : This Islamic state that stipulates the obligation of implementing the ruling of Allah...

The Shaykh : The ruling of the Shari'ah.

The questioner : And what was transmitted from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). They said that working in these banks, even if their institutions are based on usury or interest, and it is well known that the prohibition of usury or interest is absolute in Islam, there is no doubt in that. But in the absence of this Islamic state, it is permissible for Muslim youth to work, so that in the future, if this Islamic state is established, there will be trained cadres, cadres who are able to work in banking and financial matters. And consequently, they will preserve the affairs of the Muslims, and thus protect the wealth of the Muslims, develop it, and work in it.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : In accordance with the Shari'ah of Allah and His Messenger.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : So what I specifically intended is that these were not said by ignorant people or people like what we mentioned from the general Muslims, and consequently, no reliance is placed on their opinions. We are talking about people who are considered among the imams and, rather, among the jurists.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : Now my answer takes another turn. This other turn is a bit sensitive; because if your question were about a ruling where there was disagreement in the past among scholars, like the previous issue, for example, does a woman kissing break the ablution or not?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : I mean, if the issue now that you have specified the discussion on were of this nature, we would proceed with the answer as I envisioned. But now, the answer in my view needs to develop into something else. I do not now want to speak about the reasons for disagreement among the previous imams; because this is not your topic. Your topic is the topic of the hour. Yes, you are now hinting in your speech that this opinion did not come from and did not issue from ignorant people, and I say with you, likewise. But you say it came from scholars and jurists, and I do not say with you, likewise. And here is the problem. The problem, Professor, is that the Muslims lived for long centuries and it was placed, I forgot, what is it called, what is placed on a donkey or a horse...

The questioner : The bridle.

The Shaykh : No, not a bridle... it is not seen.

The questioner : The blinders.

The Shaykh : The blinders, ah, it is possible, but what is this called? The important thing is that you understood us. It is very clear that when the driver puts on the blinders, as our friend said, this is in the category of naming the desert "al-Mafazi" (open plains), because the blinders allow one to see the road, while they narrow his view... How did you see it? We have witnessed that centuries have passed for the Muslims, and blinders were placed before their eyes, such that what do they see? They see only a glimmer of light, while the bright light that Islam brought, they confined it and prevented it, not from the general Muslims, but from their elite, namely their scholars, when they imposed upon them something they called "closing the door of ijtihad." Of course, this is an introduction, and the crux of the matter is this phrase: "closing the door of ijtihad." What does "closing the door of ijtihad" mean? The four Imams, may Allah reward them with good, clarified the legal rulings, so people should follow them and submit to their opinions, and they no longer occupy themselves with the light that our Lord gave them to the extent He gave it to each person according to his capacity. No, they defined for them that you must be like this: a Hanafi, this one a Shafi'i, this one a Maliki, and this one a Hanbali, and you are not to lean to the right or the left, lest you be lost and suffer.
Ten centuries have passed for the Muslims, and they are thus confined. This confinement is like the confinement of a beast to this path that the driver imposes on it. When they closed the door of ijtihad upon themselves, it means they closed upon themselves understanding from Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). There are two sciences known as the principles of Islamic jurisprudence and the principles of hadith. The purpose of these two sciences is for the scholar to be able to know the scientific rules related to hadith on one hand, and the scientific rules related to jurisprudence on the other, so that when a verse or hadith passes by him, he can understand its implications and the rulings contained within it. As for a hadith, before treating it as he treats the Qur'an, that is, before trying to understand this hadith, before all that, he must apply the science of hadith to it: is this authentic? Is it established from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), or is it not established? If it is not established, we are relieved of it; there is no longer any need to think about its jurisprudence or its implications. It differs from what? From the Qur'an. The entire Qur'an is established by mass transmission, as is the consensus of the Muslims. In hadith, there is the authentic, the good, the weak, and the fabricated. For ten centuries, the door of ijtihad was closed upon them, which means, in the language of reality, and as they say, the language of reality is more eloquent than the language of speech: the meaning of closing the door of ijtihad is that you do not derive jurisprudence from the Book of Allah, nor do you understand the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and it does not concern you to distinguish the authentic from the weak; because this is not what occupied you, O scholars. I am speaking about the scholars, do you understand me? I am not speaking about the general Muslims; because they state in the books that have come to us from the later scholars that in the fourth century of the Hijrah, the door of ijtihad was closed, so only taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) remained. And one of them says: "And it is obligatory to follow a scholar from them." We are done, Professor? "It is obligatory to follow a scholar from them." What are you sleeping on? It is clear to you: "It is obligatory to follow a scholar from them." This is the obligation upon the Muslims: that they follow a scholar, meaning a scholar from the scholars of the four schools of jurisprudence: Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Ahmad. This is the obligation. As for , no, that is not your function now; it has ended. We have reached the present age. In this sequence, the science of jurisprudence came to us as: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali. But why did they differ? This is what I wanted to investigate: why did they differ? Why did this one say that touching a woman with desire does not break the wudu, while the second stood on the opposite side and said it does break it, and one stood in the middle and said if it is with desire it breaks it, and if it is without desire it does not break it? It has its reasons. But since the research remains in the present age, and the difference of opinions and fatwas regarding the issues that arise for people, this requires that there be scholars in the mold of the four Imams, meaning they should be scholars who are mujtahids (qualified to derive rulings), experienced in deriving legal rulings from their evidence, from the Book and the Sunnah. Where are they, when the door has been closed upon them, and blinders have been placed for them, and you do not see anything except in your own school, as one of their poets said: "So this is the truth, with no obscurity, so leave me to the intentions of the road."
These contemporary people are like many students who study mechanical sciences, for example, theoretically, and then they enter life and work in a job that has absolutely no relation to the science they studied. So the science they studied does not benefit them at all, because it is theoretical and not applied practically. And so it is with the science we spoke of, the two principles: the principles of jurisprudence and the principles of hadith. They study it theoretically, like this, it is inherited, but practically, none of them applies it. Why? Because "it is obligatory to follow a scholar from them." You are not permitted to exercise ijtihad. For example, I, the one speaking, Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, I grew up Hanafi in Syria, from a Hanafi father and a distinguished scholar as a follower of the school. But Allah (Mighty and Majestic) removed some of the blinders from me and widened them a bit for me, so I began to see what they do not see. I began to say that what you are doing is wrong and contrary to the Sunnah. And I give a real example, first related to what we are discussing, and secondly for the sake of knowledge: In many mosques in Syria, in Egypt, in Pakistan, in India, and so on, scholars and righteous people are buried. And we have in Damascus, the capital of the Umayyads, the Great Mosque, the Mosque of the Banu Umayyah, where they claim Yahya (peace be upon him) is buried. There is a grave there, and people come from the farthest parts of the land to seek blessing from it, call for aid from it, make vows to it, and so on. After Allah revealed this insight to me somewhat, I knew that praying in any mosque that contains a grave is forbidden. So I stopped praying there. While I was young, my father (may Allah have mercy on him) would take me by the hand and I would go pray with him in this mosque. Why? Because this mosque is old, and there are some explanations in Hanafi jurisprudence that praying in the Mosque of the Banu Umayyah is like seventy thousand prayers. Seventy thousand prayers means it is close to the Mosque of Mecca, and better than the Mosque of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). What about the Farthest Mosque? The Mosque of the Messenger is a thousand prayers, but there it is seventy thousand prayers. I read this with my own eyes in a book that I still have, titled "Radd al-Muhtar fi Sharh al-Durr al-Mukhtar" by Muhammad ibn 'Abidin al-Dimashqi. And at that time I read in this commentary: "Ibn 'Asakir narrated from Sufyan al-Thawri: 'Praying in the Mosque of the Banu Umayyah is like seventy thousand prayers.'" Glory be to Allah! I said to myself, while my beard was still small... how is this recorded in a book, and they mention in their books how the Mosque of the Banu Umayyah is, and it is a later construction after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him); because you all know this was for the Romans. After that, I advanced a little in knowledge and reached the history of Ibn 'Asakir, and I found this report in it, and its chain of narration is full of unknowns. Its chain of narration is full of unknowns up to Sufyan al-Thawri. And even if it were authentic from Sufyan al-Thawri, it would be one of the puzzles; because he did not say: The Messenger of Allah said. What is its value? In any case, I left praying in this mosque. The people's uproar rose against me; the language of their reality, some of them the language of their speech, they said: We have not heard of this from our forefathers. Where are our sheikhs? They mean praying in this mosque. And this is your father? They mean praying in this mosque. You are now coming at the end of time claiming that praying in this mosque is not permissible. Behind all that, I later, when I became a bit stronger and more established, wrote a book that was printed several times, and praise be to Allah, titled "Tahdhir al-Sajid min Itti'adh al-Qubur Masajid" (Warning the Prostrator from Taking Graves as Mosques). And I had a sheikh whom I had studied Hanafi jurisprudence with, and I had studied some grammar and some rhetoric from some contemporary authors with him. I said to myself: Before I enter this labor, I will take the pulse.The Shaykh : I followed up with him regarding his opinion on this matter. I had written out some points for him and quoted from some of the Hanafi scholars themselves. I gave them to him, as I recall, early in Ramadan. He said, "Leave them with me so I can study the issue." I went back to him after a long time. He smiled at me and said, "These opinions you have brought are not considered by us." I said to him, "What? I am quoting from our Hanafi scholars." He said, "Our fiqh is limited to *Maraqi al-Falah* and the *Hashiyah* of Ibn 'Abidin alone. This fiqh that we inherited in hundreds of books, or even thousands, of commentaries on hadith and fiqh, has actually been confined to two books in the minds of some of the contemporary scholars on whom I studied fiqh. The point is, if such a scholar wants to exercise independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), where would he exercise it from? He has confined his knowledge to these two books, and both books are nothing but following a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid) upon following a scholar without knowing his evidence, and they contain disasters that do not weigh in the balance, whether by scale or by measure."
In summary: There is now truly an Islamic awakening among the Muslim youth, and the Muslims have become aware, after a very long period of heedlessness, that it is obligatory for Muslims to return to their religion first. We are facing old differences that we have inherited, so we must perform a process of purification. We must worship Allah according to the school of jurisprudence (madhhab) or according to another school, regarding whether touching a woman and kissing her, or the discharge of blood, and so on, invalidates the prayer or not. This is related to every act of worship a Muslim performs. In addition to that, new issues have arisen that were not known before. So where can the scholar take the answers to these scholarly legal rulings (fatwas) from the Book and the Sunnah? Why? Because the Book and the Sunnah are a revelation from the All-Knowing, the Wise, who provided texts for the people of the future so that they can derive rulings from them later, even if they are new rulings. I give an example of this that happened to me: how this rigid person who confined his knowledge found himself compelled to exercise independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), while he denies independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), and this is among the things they are blamed for. In the history of my life, I moved the call (da'wah) to a town in northern Syria called "Idlib," which is west of Aleppo. Naturally, the call was progressing and covering the country, but the caller's circle is limited; he moves from town to town, from Damascus to Homs to Hama to Aleppo, and so on. But the call was progressing because of travel and the movement of the call, and so on. I finally decided to go to "Idlib" for the first time. We went there and were received by a man from whom we had heard good news, and who was prepared to accept the call that we call the Salafi call, meaning the call of the Book and the Sunnah upon the methodology of the pious predecessors (Salaf). May Allah reward this man with good, and I understand that he is still alive. He received us with the best reception, but I found the room full of people coming to meetThe Shaykh : Al-Albani. The mufti of the town came, and officers from the intelligence and others came, and so on. In our region in the Levant, there are old halls in old buildings. This room and that room, and a wider one, were all full. In summary, the mufti's name was Hasan al-Kiyali—may Allah have mercy on him—he has passed away. He welcomed us and [recited]: "O our guest, if you had visited us, you would have found us the guests, and you the master of the house."
He received me with this poem. I was on my guard because sweet talk usually has something behind it. He said to me, "It has reached us that you claim independent legal reasoning (ijtihad)." I said to him, "No, I claim following (the Sunnah)." And we entered into a discussion that is not relevant now. We reached the sensitive point. I said to him, "Just this, Professor: I believe that a person cannot remain rigid in his school of jurisprudence (madhhab), because you find issues for which we do not find an answer in the books of the early scholars." He said, "Like what?" I said to him, "Bless you, many issues. I encountered an issue where a man had a son. His teeth were extracted and filled, and years passed. By Allah's grace, he renewed his teeth and his health was good. But the son rebelled against his father, and his father was a scholar of fiqh. They told him that his son had filled his teeth, and you tell people that the one who fills his teeth has no valid prayer. The one who says this has no valid prayer is a Hanafi, and he says, following the Byzantine sequence, what is logical? He says our school of jurisprudence states that rinsing the mouth and sniffing water into the nose are obligatory in the full ritual bath (ghusl) for major ritual impurity (janabah). And I say, "The evidence says so," but he goes on to say, "If the tooth is extracted, the place is exposed, and it becomes obligatory to reach water to it. So if this person comes and fills it, it means he prevented water from reaching that place. Therefore, he has not performed the ghusl, because it is obligatory to reach water to the entire mouth, and this place is exposed, so it must be reached. Therefore, he is in a state of major ritual impurity (janabah) and has no valid prayer." This is how he used to talk among people. And the one who slandered him said to him that his son was doing this. He asked his son, and the son said, "Yes, it is true." And I felt the need to dictate to him. He said to him, "Either you pull out your teeth to live with me, or you get out of here." I told the story to the mufti, the mufti of the country in Damascus at that time, the mufti of the republic. It is a long story that is not relevant here... I myself said to him, "So-and-so came to you and wanted a scholarly legal ruling (fatwa) to reconcile the father and son. You gave him a ruling in the sense that it is permissible, but you did not give him an official fatwa, because this rigid father said, 'I want a fatwa from the authority in Syria, so I can take it with me in my shroud and not be responsible before my Lord for my son.'" I say that the mufti issued a ruling. When the intermediary came, the mufti did not give an official fatwa. I went in my turn, and there was a question and answer, and so on. He said, "We do not give an official fatwa." We said, "What are you giving? An oral fatwa?" He said, "Yes." I said, "On what did you base this fatwa?" He said, "It is in the school of jurisprudence—just control yourselves, do not laugh as Abu Ayyub laughed at that moment, no." He said, "It is in the school of jurisprudence: 'And it is permissible to fill the cracks in the feet in winter with wax to prevent the harm of cold water on the feet.'" The great mufti said that by analogy (qiyas) of filling the tooth to filling the foot, it is permissible. (The student brothers are laughing). Well, this statement, Professor, write it down for us. No, why? He said, "We are bound by an oath from whom? From the one in authority (wali al-amr), that it is not permissible to issue fatwas except by quoting from a book. And since filling the tooth did not exist in the early time, there is no text in the book, so they do not give an official fatwa. O Glorified is Allah, you say it but do not write it. Why? By Allah, they say in the Levant an expression I do not know what to call it, "ka'ayna," meaning we are tired. He was tired with giving us a paper like this and his signature; he did not give it to us. We told the mufti of "Idlib" what happened. We said to him, "This is an example, and this is the answer, because we told him he did not give us a solution to the problem between the father and son, and the son was expelled." We presented a second example. We said to the mufti of Idlib, "Now, is prayer on a ship permissible?" He said, "Of course, it is permissible." I said to him, "Why?" He said, "By analogy of prayer on an airplane to prayer on a ship." The philosophy of prayer on a ship is as follows: It is good that he did not say it is not permissible. Did he say? He said, "Just as the ship is connected to the earth by water, so the airplane is connected to the earth by air." Is this statement correct from the perspective of what? Scientific geography. I said to him, "You have hit the mark, O Master Mufti, in the very place where you erred." He said, "How?" I said to him, "Because you first exercised independent legal reasoning (ijtihad)." He said, "How did I exercise independent legal reasoning?" I said, "Because you analogized something not found in the books to something found in them. The ship, the airplane, this..."

The questioner : ...is a modern thing that did not exist previously.

The Shaykh : When we were young children, we learned a poem that goes: "The ship of the air flies in the space..." and so on. We were small. The point is, he said this airplane is connected to the earth by air, and the ship is connected to the earth by water. We said to him: Good, but you made a mistake in the very place where you were right. He said: How? I said to him: You exerted independent legal reasoning (ijtihad); because you performed analogical reasoning (qiyas), and qiyas is the function of the scholar qualified to derive rulings (mujtahid), not the function of one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence (taqlid). So now you want to give us a scholarly legal ruling (fatwa) from the book you are issuing rulings from. He said: That was not available. I said to him: This is my argument. How do we want to give answers to things that exist now, which did not exist in the past? But you made a second mistake; you contradicted the explicit text of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), and this was truly excellent for the one who follows a scholar without knowing his evidence. He said: What is it? I said to him: Al-Rafi'i said: "If a man prays on a swing that is not suspended from the ceiling nor supported from the ground, his prayer is invalid." And the airplane itself is exactly that. The brothers are laughing. How did you contradict the text? I mean the text of Islamic jurisprudence. How did you contradict the text? He said: I did not see this text. I said to him: Go back to Al-Rafi'i's great commentary on Al-Ghazali's book Al-Wajiz. And so we went a long way with him in the discussion, and we proved to him the necessity of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) in the present age. But where is the point? The carpenter or blacksmith who took theoretical lessons but did not apply them practically is going to ruin the work; he is going to ruin the carpentry and the blacksmithing, and so on. This is exactly like us in this age. You find a scholar who issues fatwas or a judge sitting and exerting independent legal reasoning on a very modern case. If you say to him: Professor, the matter is disputed for me; some people say the prayer is valid, and some people say it is not valid, and so on. What is the correct position in that? He cannot produce an answer for you. Why? Because he is not practiced in preferring one opinion over another by referring to what? The two preceding sciences: the principles of jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh) and the principles of hadith. So how do they exert independent legal reasoning now? They exert it with their own opinions, not with what was legislated for them. They say: Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said. But when they return to opinions, they become like the Westerners, no offense intended; everyone gives an opinion, everyone lays down a law, and you find the laws are what? Extremely confused. Why? Because there is no goal that restrains them. But the Muslims, their goal is: Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said. So if they do not return to "Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said," disagreement arises among them, as you are witnessing now. Therefore, we advise that any Muslim who wants to know a ruling of the Shari'ah must keep in mind the preceding rule: that the ruling of the Shari'ah is "Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said." It is not just one person saying to you: This is forbidden, not permissible; this is lawful, permissible; or this is obligatory (fard); or any ruling from the five rulings of the Shari'ah. And then you accept it completely. No. The one we accept is the Messenger of Allah alone. So we want to make the scholars who claim to have studied the Shari'ah study the Shari'ah from its pure sources. By Allah, I studied the Hanafi school, so I am a Hanafi; I studied the Shafi'i school, so I am a Shafi'i. We used to see many of the scholars (shaykhs) when a person seeking a ruling (mustafti) would come to ask him about an issue, and he would say to him: Are you a Hanafi or a Shafi'i? And he would say, for example: Hanafi. And he would say to him: So and so. And if he said: Shafi'i. He would say to him: So and so. If that person seeking a ruling had awareness, he would say to him: O Shaykh, you have lost me. I did not know. I have so and so with me. Do not tell me now whether my wife is divorced or not divorced, whether my prayer is valid or not valid. You tell me the Hanafi school says it is valid, and the Shafi'i school says it is not valid. By Allah, these are very confusing cases. For example, in what they call personal status in the Hanafi school, an unmarried girl, when she reaches the age of maturity, marries herself without the permission of her guardian (wali), and this suits what happens today in the West, and what happens of licentiousness here. But the Shafi'i school says: No, this marriage is invalid. This is what Imam Al-Shafi'i invalidates, and Imam Al-Hanafi permits. So the one who judges between people in personal status, if he is a Hanafi, the matter proceeds, and if he is a Shafi'i, he invalidates it. But does he know why? He does not know why. Everyone is following the school that was imposed on him, from his father, from his grandfather, from whom, and so on. But "Allah said: " there is nothing of this. All the opinions you hear, very rarely, very rarely, do you find one who takes this scientific approach, meaning based on the saying of Allah so and so, and the saying of the Messenger of Allah so and so, so and so is not permissible. Our previous example, which you mentioned in your speech, and it became clear finally that this is your current aim. Many of the scholars say to you, as you said previously, that there is no harm now for a person to be employed in a bank until he knows the style of dealing, and so on, until the Islamic state is established, and so on... This cliché, this is, I seek refuge in Allah, misguidance upon misguidance. I mean, does the Islamic state rise upon obedience to Allah and obedience to the Messenger of Allah, or upon contradicting them?

The questioner : Obedience.

The Shaykh : If any person from these were asked, what would they say except upon obedience? Okay, but you are now saying an answer contrary to this. You are saying: No problem, we must learn how to deal in banks, and so on, until the Muslim state is established, so we know how to act in banks in the Shari'ah way.
The Shaykh: "Sa'd brought it, and Sa'd was wrapped up. This is not, O Sa'd, how you bring the camels."
The Shaykh: If these people were saturated with "Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said," they would not dare to say this speech. Why? Because he himself is saturated with His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He) first: , and with His saying (peace and blessings be upon him): . How can it be said: Go, work in the bank, and be an employee? I say: The manager of the bank and the janitor who collects the garbage in the bank, both are equal in the burden; because without the first, the last, and what is between them, there would be no bank in the world at all. And this is a reality that every person who thinks a little knows. So these people who deposit their money in banks, if they were to agree on one day and withdraw their money from the bank, what would happen to the bank? It would go bankrupt. So without these people, the bank would not exist. But there is a wisdom, perhaps its origin is from Europe, no harm in benefiting from it: Necessity is the mother of invention. So when it occurs to us that this ruling is forbidden and we feel that we need a solution for our commercial problems, necessity is the mother of invention. Therefore, you now, ten years ago, for example, or a little more or less, did you hear of Islamic banks? You did not hear. Okay, what made the name at least be repeated on the tongues of people now? I do not care about the meaning now; because they felt

The questioner : The people became aware.

The Shaykh : Yes, that people are now beginning to wake up, and they want an Islamic bank, so signs appeared in existence: Islamic bank here, Islamic bank there, and so on. Then consequently, fatwas appeared to smooth out these banks with their crookedness and their straightness. And the last thing you heard was a fatwa from this Egyptian permitting riba (usury or interest) in the name of savings and in the name of what? Assisting the rulers. It means a purely Jewish operation. We now, through some of the famous scholars of knowledge in some lands, make lawful what Allah has forbidden, and we do as the Jews did before us, as if they want to realize in us the saying of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): They said: O Messenger of Allah, the Jews and the Christians? He said: So we are doing today what the Jews and the Christians do: we make lawful what Allah has forbidden, with the slightest of tricks. And praise be to Allah, and with this amount is sufficient, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good and bless you.

The Shaykh : And you.