I wrote a significant part of this article quite a while ago, but didn’t have a chance to complete it. Now that I have completed it, I hope it benefits people.
It’s that time of year again, students have completed their courses in various establishments of Further Education, whether it is A Levels, BTECs, Level 3 courses, Apprenticeships etc. They have passed their course and have gained entry into university for Undergraduate courses. In order to pursue their degree they need to pay University Fees which in current times are excessive at £9250 (This figure tripled in 2002). It means that nearly all students need a form of loan in order to continue their studies. But if they happen to be Muslims, many of them face an added dilemma – they want to pursue their studies, to establish a career with the by-product that they are gaining knowledge, but as practising Muslims they are told that it is Haraam (impermissible) to take out a student loan. The issue has caused the utmost damage, harm and unnecessary guilt. The common understanding amongst Muslims is that it is prohibited because it is Riba (Usury). However, due to the need to study many continue onto university but with the burden of guilt that they are living in sin until they pay off their loan. I have lost track of the number of questions and requests I receive about this issue. It truly is heart rendering to see. Muslims are already one of if not the most impoverished communities in the UK.
Not only are Muslims one of the poorest communities in the UK, but we know that such impoverishment has a tremendous impact on educational opportunities, especially for those going on to higher education and this impact has increased since the introduction of the ever increasing student fees. Put simply, studies like the one above from the University of Birmingham, show that poorer people are far less likely to go to university in the first place and in any case are more debt averse and thus less likely to be willing to undertake debts to finance their education. Muslims face the added hurdle of being ‘guilt tripped’ about going to university using a Student Loan, which the vast majority of Muslims will need if they are to ever have a chance of going to university. I wonder if the scholars who parrot each other’s harsh and baseless statements on this subject have any clue about the impoverishment that Muslims even in First World countries such as the UK find themselves in. I think most of them are more concerned with what is happening with their supporters and paymasters in Saudi or Qatar than the fact that many gifted Muslim students in the UK fail to go on to university. We already saw in the issue of mortgages the cosy links between ‘Muslim’ governments, banks and certain scholars.
What transpires from this situation is that the layperson is living in hardship thinking that the majority of what God created in the world is prohibited. If we are honest, many innocent and practising Muslims are characterised by their paranoia towards many things which they, through no fault of their own, have been told are ‘haraam’ (outright forbidden) or ‘doubtful’. It makes me very sad to see lay people expending so much secular and spiritual effort on these fields when many of them were not problematic in the first place. It causes further problems with Muslims not going to certain fields within the financial, legal or governance sector as they think it is Haraam. This means that we don’t find Muslims in influential sectors due to them feeling that they are betraying God. A powerful illustration of this was the issue of mortgages being spuriously declared Haraam and causing tremendous difficulty for Muslims with their finances and housing. It transpired that practically all of the scholars claiming this ‘haraamness’ of mortgages had plagiarised the already rather sloppy research of a senior member of the Deobandi sect, Mufti Taqi Usmani.
It is also a more serious issue with new converts, many of whom are instantly turned off when they go from what they thought Islam was (usually the correct Islam) to what Muslims tell them Islam is (usually this Salafi ‘haraam fest’ that is not real Islam). The biggest problem is that when some genuine scholar conducts deep research and comes to the conclusion that something is permissible, lazy ”scholars” create a panic to hide their ignorance in the fear of losing their reputation (which itself is largely based on showing how pious and knowledgeable they are by declaring all and sundry to be ‘haraam’). The irony is that give these same scholars a few years and they not only accept the position, they give rulings on it and even write books about the legitimacy of the very same issue that they had initially declared Haraam.
In Islam we have rules that are taken from Fiqh (jurisprudence), which are derived from Usul (Legal Principles) or these rules are based on tools such as legal maxims. An important maxim we have in religion is that what matters in an interaction is what is happening in reality as opposed to what we name those acts. An example of this would be: let’s say a person was to give you a glass of wine and said to you ‘drink this water’ the fact that he named it ‘water’ is irrelevant, it would still not be permissible to drink it because the most important thing within a transaction is what is happening in reality as opposed to what you merely name something. This point has relevance to the issue of mortgages, student loans and other related financial transactions. Just because the bank or the Student Loans Company decide to call something ‘interest’ does not mean that it is ‘riba’ according to the Fiqhy (jurisprudential) definition. Instead it requires a person to analyse the specifics of the transaction and compare each aspect of the transaction to the legal, jurisprudential rules.
We will attempt to analyse the permissibility of Student Loans based on classical Islamic texts. I hope the people who have read my articles on the permissibility of Mortgages, from my polite initial enquiry to those decreeing them to be haraam, to when my hand was forced to pen a robust article by their continued posturing and arrogance as well as repeated insults as opposed to academic engagement, are already suitably empowered to not take these ‘scholars’ prohibitions at face value and will already have their doubts and questions about Student Loans being ‘haraam’. Since they failed in the bigger issue of mortgages, it is not wise to blindly trust them (nor me) on the relatively smaller issue.
The Student Loans Company (SLC) pay the University up to the amount of £9250, which is a Tuition Fee Loan, they then provide the student with a further Maintenance Loan for living costs, which depending on the students personal circumstances can be anything up to £11,354. The Tuition Fee is paid directly to the university whereas the maintenance Loan is paid to the student.
The onus of course is on the student and not the University to repay the loan. Interest is applied on the loan as soon as the student begins studying and the rate of interest is: RPI (Retail Prices Index – also known as headline rate of inflation) + 3%. On completion of the course, the student is then charged RPI (Currently 3.3%) where their income is less than £25,725 and this increases on a sliding scale to a maximum of RPI + 3% where the income of the graduate is £46,305 or more.
In terms of repayment, a student does not need to begin repaying their student loan until they are earning above £25,000 per year. 9% of any amount earned above £25,000 is repaid to the Student Loans Company for the repayment of their loan.
Your loan is wiped when you have repaid the entirety of your debt, or after thirty years from the April after graduation or in case of permanent disability which results in the student being unfit for work or due to death.
Riba (Prohibited Interest)
Riba being impermissible is mentioned in the Quran, so why is there even a question about the permissibility of interest in Islam? The reason for this is that interest and Riba are not synonymous terms, despite the fact that scholars have led the lay person to believe that they are the same. As the well-known statement goes “All Riba is interest but not all interest is Riba”.
According to the Hanafi School, the underlying principle is that the acts of a person will be considered permissible as much as possible. Quduri says: “If someone sells two dirhams and one dinar for two dinars and one dirham, it will be valid. And it will be considered that each of currencies was exchanged for opposite one. Anyone sells eleven dirhams for ten dirhams and one dinar, it will be valid. And it will be considered that ten dirhams is exchanged for ten dirhams, and one extra dirham for one dinar…” There are many examples of this principle in the books of Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), which proves that we try to consider the action valid as a default.
The definition of Riba according to Sharia law is a “conditional extra charged levied when exchanging two commodities which are exactly the same that are measured either by weight or volume.” Riba is prohibited in any commodity which is measurable by weight or volume if it is exchanged by exactly the same commodity. It is only when both of these conditions are present, namely measurability in the same units as well the commodity being the same from both sides that it falls into the condition of Riba. So for example I exchange 10kg of Gold for 12kg of Gold. Gold is measurable – in this instance by weight – and it is exchanged with the exact same commodity which is Gold, and one of the two parties is receiving extra, which makes this transaction impermissible.
Now an important thing to consider at this point is that for the transaction to be considered as Riba the ‘extra condition’ must be something that is included within the contract. If it is not stipulated in the contract then quite interestingly it is considered a recommended act. An example of this would be that Person A borrows £10 from Person B without any conditions of paying an extra amount, and on repayment he decides to pay Person B £12, the extra £2 being a gift, this is not only permissible but recommended within the school.
The ‘two commodities must be the exactly the same’, therefore if one where to exchange two commodities that are different such as the exchange of milk for bread this would not fall under the definition of Riba. ‘That are measured either by weight or volume’ – this means that there is no Riba in commodities that are measured by other units such as length, pieces or units, and an example of this would be if one were to exchange one mobile for ten mobiles of the exact same brand, model and year.
It is important to understand that the definitions and examples provided are based on the Hanafi School, so for example the definition of Riba according to the Shafi School is “a conditional extra charge in food, commodities or currency”. This would mean that if one where to exchange 10 kg of iron for 30kg of iron this would be considered Riba according to the Hanafi but not Riba according to the Shafi School. On the other Hand exchanging one mobile for ten mobile phones is Riba according to the Shafi School but it is not Riba according to the Hanafi School.
There are two types of Riba:
Tafadhul means one of the buyers or sellers having extra on his side and this could be in the quantity, quality or value of the commodity. It involves the exchange of one commodity for the same commodity but for a different amount. For example Person A exchanging 10kg of dates with Person B who is exchanging 12 kg of dates in one session.
‘Nasaa’ means delaying and doing something later. In this context it means either the buyer or the seller releasing the commodity later. It is a type of Riba transaction that benefits one of the parties in terms of an extra amount due to a delay. So Person A borrows £10 from Person B with the condition that he will pay him back £12 at a later date.
The first type is when you exchange, for example 20 grams of gold for 25 grams of gold. The second is when you barter commodities which are measured in the same way, but not at the same time, for example you buy 20 grams of gold for 20 grams of silver but not at the same time. In order to avoid this type of Usury you have to exchange at the same time. This is applicable on anything which is measured either by kg (weight) or litres (volume). Debt of course is mainly related to the first type of Usury.
If both of these two conditions (i.e. measurability in the same units, and the commodity being the same from both sides) are found to be missing, Tafadhul and Nasaa will become permissible. If only one of the two conditions is present, then Tafadhul will be permissible but not Nasaa. (As above, if neither of the two conditions are present then both of Tafadhul and Nasaa will be permissible).
Riba and Currency
In the Hanafi School, Gold and Silver are considered ‘primary currency’. All other types of currency are classified as secondary and their purpose is to support the primary currency of Gold and Silver. What this means is that they don’t have the same legal status as the primary currencies. Based on this principle, in the Hanafi School if you want to exchange gold for gold it has to be equal weight even if there is a difference in the quality of the product. So for example if you were to exchange 24 Carat of Gold for 18 Carat of gold then it has to be of equal weight. Also if you were buying a 200 year old antique 8 gram 20 carat golden ring for new gold then that also has to be 8 grams of gold. (I realise that it doesn’t make logical sense and I am merely laying out the law according to the Hanafi School and the result of enacting that law). If you want to exchange gold for silver then it can be different in quantity and weight but you have to exchange it at the same time to avoid it becoming a Riba involving transaction.
Fuloos (Secondary Currency)
In Islamic Jurisprudence, currency which is not gold or silver is called ‘Fuloos’. Fuloos initially was a currency that would support silver, just as silver supports gold. Gold money in the classical Hanafi texts is called ‘Dinar’, and silver money is called ‘Dirham’.
Between one Dinar and two Dinars there are several Dirhams (for example 12 Dirhams). Similarly between one dirham and two dirhams there are several fuloos (8 in some places and 10 in some). So, Fuloos is a currency that supports silver. It is mainly made from iron or other cheap metals, like our coins today. In most markets they wouldn’t accept 16 Fuloos instead of 2 Dirhams, but sometimes they would. From here we understand that Fuloos was not an independent currency that has its own (intrinsic) value as gold and silver do.
Also in terms of fuloos, they have their own rulings and principles in the Hanafi School. For instance, there is a well-known disagreement within the Hanafi School with Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Abu Yusuf on one side and Imam Muhammad on the other side. Imam Abu Hanifa argued that there is no usury in Fuloos, so you can exchange 6 Fuloos for 10 Fuloos. Imam Muhammad on the other hand argued that such a transaction would result in Riba. We know that there is an agreement between all Hanafi senior scholars that it is not permissible to exchange 10 grams of gold for 11 grams of gold, but as we have seen there is a disagreement about the exchanging of Fuloos.
As we have seen, gold and silver are different to Fuloos, as the first two have their own intrinsic value irrespective of the institute that is issuing them. But Fuloos on the other hand don’t have their own inherent value, and will be devalued if the institute that supports it (say, a national bank in today’s economies) collapses. Based on that, I would argue that banknotes are a contemporary version of Fuloos.
In the classical Hanafi texts there are many issues and principles related to the transaction of Fuloos. In my previous article I have explained the Hanafi stance on buying a commodity using Fuloos, then it losing its value or becoming cheaper, for example due to hyperinflation or some other cause of devaluation of the currency or withdrawal of that currency. We saw previously that Hanafis go with its value rather than its actual agreed amount. (Please read it here: https://sulaimanahmed.com/2017/07/28/mortgages-part-2/).
Based on this, the following question comes to mind: What happens if a person borrows 5000 Fuloos for 5 years, but after one year the value of the Fuloos drops and becomes cheaper (i.e loses its value, as the Pound is doing after ‘Brexit’)? For example when I borrow 5000, the price of a BMW was 3000, and after one year the price of the car is 20,000 because the currency of that country has become devalued. By the end of 5 years the price of the car becomes 500,000 Fuloos, so the currency became ‘cheaper’ by 1000%. Do I have to pay back 5000 Fuloos (which is worth practically nothing now) or its value, which is 500,000 Fuloos?
I know that according to a lot of people and most of the ‘Ulema’ (Islamic scholars) would say that I have to payback 5000 Fuloos. The problem with this stance, which is not found in the Hanafi School, is that in current times the value of money fluctuates and that in the UK due to Brexit and various other factors money is losing its value. If one were to then follow this opinion then no one would lend to another person over a long period of time. That is why the Hanafi School is a lot more practical as it deals with real life issues on a real world basis. According to the Hanafi school if you borrow Fuloos (banknote, pound, dollar etc), and then it loses its value, you have to pay it back according to its value on the day when you took it into your possession.
The same is applicable if the value of Fuloos increases, for example you borrow 5000 Fuloos for which you could buy one loaf of bread. Then by the time when you have to pay them back, 5000 Fuloos will have the value of 100 loaves of bread (I am using extreme examples but remember the extreme devaluation of currency during the Weimar Republic). So, you don’t have to payback 5000 Fuloos now, but their value on the day when you first took possession of them.
As we explored before, Fuloos were a currency that would support silver coins, as silver would support gold coinage. That is why the top scholars from that century such as Qadhikhan said that we should evaluate Fuloos against silver. I know that banknotes in our time are not supported by or pegged to gold or silver. Some countries claim to peg the value of their currency to land whilst other countries claim to peg it to oil or some other such commodity. However, currency will be evaluated relative to some intrinsically valuable commodity. In the economy of each country there is a commodity which is taken as the main ‘evaluating scale’. Nowadays, this seems to be oil in most places and when they say the Dollar has hit its lowest value etc. they mean it is losing its buying strength vis-a-vis oil. Anyway, this is something that financial institutions of the countries will decide. It is not something that the Quran or Sunnah or Abu Hanifa clarified by naming one or a few commodities by which Faloos are evaluated.
Debt according to the Sharia terminology is Mithliy (meaning a commodity that is measurable by litres or kg etc) commodity that you borrow and demand back. Its legal ruling is that the person who is taking the debt will own it once he has received it according to Abu Hanifa and Muhammad.
Thus, debt is the borrowing of an item from someone for certain period of time under the condition of returning. The ownership of the borrowed item will be transferred to the person who is taking it, which necessitates that he is free to do with it as he wants – the person who is lending it out has no right to dictate what he can and cannot do with it.
Issues Related to Tawkeel and Transactions
At this juncture there is a need to recap some of the important aspects of a transaction that were mentioned in the previous mortgage article. In the Hanafi School an important principle to remember is that all transactions except for bloodshed, sexual acts and issues related to worship have the initial status of permissibility.  It is important to remember the legal device of Takweel (Representing), where a person defers control over the transaction to a representative. We know that one does not need to explicitly state that he is deferring over control to his representative and this has been shown by examples provided by the Fuqaha (Legal scholars). As such, the important thing here is that there has been an indication that someone has been made a representative (that can be done by the transaction) and can be mentioned implicitly which is based on Usul (Legal Principles). It is permissible for the person who has been made the representative to benefit in some way from the transaction and this benefit can include financial remuneration. It is possible for one commodity to have two different prices and those prices may vary depending on the nature and specifics of the transaction, which includes when the date of the repayment is. For a more a comprehensive analysis of the rules of Fiqh (jurisprudence) in this paragraph, see my previous article.
Student Loans according to Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence)
In terms of student loans there are a number of factors that mean that they don’t fall into the remit of Riba and become a prohibited transaction. There are two aspects to the student loan, the Student Loan Fee and the Maintenance Loan. In terms of the student loan the transaction is similar to the description of the premise of mortgages – you apply to the Student Loans Company (SLC) for the tuition fee, the SLC then pay the fees to the University directly and you do not have full ownership of that money as you are not able to spend that money wherever you want without restriction. The SLC won’t allow the student to do anything with it except pay for the specific course for which he or she is registered. This is not called ‘debt’ because Islamically at least, in the case of a ‘debt’ a person can do with the money as they wishe. But in the issue of a Student Loan the person is not free to do anything other than pay for that specific course.
The different topics that I have mentioned necessitate that Student Loan Fee is Tawkeel and not a debt because a Student Loan happens as follows:
- The Student makes an application to the SLC
- The SLC follows the necessary procedure, it then appoints the student to purchase the product, in this instance it is the university course on behalf of the SLC with the money he gets from the SLC.
- He then purchases the course from the SLC by installments over a period of time
This is the practical and technical explanation of the contractual agreement. This is because the meaning is the most important thing in transactions and not what one says (i.e. it is about what you do and not what you say).
Thus, when the SLC says to the student; ‘this is a debt we are lending you so that you can purchase the course, and you have to pay it back to us’, this statement is incorrect literally but yet is correct by Iqtidha (Iqtidha al-nass is a part of sentence which is not mentioned verbally instead it is implicit, but the sentence cannot be understood without this extra piece of information). That is because the SLC doesn’t give ownership of the money to the student – the SLC will block you from using this money for anything besides buying that specific course – and that is not called lending but rather ‘tawkeel’. This is not any type of Riba, because the SLC does not give away the money to the student. Therefore the ‘customer’ deals with the SLC twice:
- When he represents the SLC to purchase the course.
- When he buys the course from the SLC.
As for the price not being fixed but differing based on the time of paying it back, as we said, it is permissible according to the two students of Abu Hanifa without any conditions. It is also permissible according to Abu Hanifa with the condition that I explained above (i.e. for the late payment he has to pay a ‘standard price’, and the ‘standard price’ is what is known by custom).
Also in relation to the RPI (Retail Prices Index – also known as headline rate of inflation), as we saw, not only is a transaction based on inflation permissible but in fact it is recommended so that there is no burden placed on the lender. The amount of interest that will be applied has been laid out on a sliding scale and depending on when you pay it back the amount is different and it has been shown that a commodity having more than one price is permissible in the Hanafi School.
Now in terms of the second aspect of a student loan which is the Maintenance Loan, the transaction is different to the Student Loan Fee as this money is given directly to the student and they use this for their living costs as well as support whilst studying at university. The money that is given is not real ‘debt’ according to the sharia and this applies to both the Student Fee Loan as well as the Maintenance Loan. The reason for this is that firstly you don’t have to pay the money back until you are earning £25,000 per year, and if you never earned this money, you would not have to pay the money back at all. Also, your loan is cancelled after thirty years from the April after graduation or due to permanent disability which results in the student being unfit for work or due to death. Once again this doesn’t fall within the legal Islamic parameters of debt according to Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence). If someone never earned £25,000 per year for 30 years it would mean that they never paid anything towards this so called ‘debt’.
Based on all of the abovementioned statements, proofs and information, we understood that there are two types of Student Loan. The Student Loan Fee is permissible due to a number of reasons mentioned and the Maintenance Loan is permissible as it doesn’t fall within the parameters of real Islamic ‘debt’.
Now the positon I have presented is based on the Hanafi School, quite fortunately nearly all of the Muslims in the UK where free higher education has been withdrawn, are Hanafi. To say nothing of this being the oldest and most widely followed of the Sunni schools of Islamic Law (we shall overlook the largely successful attempts by Deobandis, Salafis and others to hijack and subvert this school in our time however).
Keep in mind Islam doesn’t oppress you for you helping people by lending out money. Unfortunately, a lot of Muslim ‘scholars’ stand up to defend one who borrows money against the people who are lending money. But they never try to assume the hardship and oppression that falls on the people who are lending the money. I know that there are a lot of non-qualified ‘muftis’ and scholars who will create a public panic as usual to hide their own poor research and ideological bias. You shouldn’t look at the obfuscation insults they generate – please just look at my points, proofs and arguments then look at their ‘responses’.
And be careful about issues such as Student Loans or going to university that can have a big impact on your future life and prospects. Research carefully and use your God-given intellect. Don’t follow blindly, and that applies to what I say equally. At the end of the day, Muslims are already severely curtailed in the opportunities that they have financially and educationally (as we saw from the University of Birmingham study). Sometimes I feel that the scholars and imams of our community are not bothered by this at all, as poor and educationally weak people are easier to manipulate and control. However, if Muslims do get to university, they are accosted by Salafi controlled ISOCS, HT extremists and all sorts of other hardships. It seems to be they are either in the proverbial frying pan or the fire, but it is the duty of scholars to serve the people, especially the students who are trying to improve their and their families’ lot in life and not to multiply their financial difficulties beyond what is necessary in Islam by inflicting spurious fatwas which guilt trip already cash strapped students about completely permissible financial assistance.
I know many young people who did not take out Student Loans that they and their families desperately needed, because they sincerely fear God. When these people find out the truth, they often come to resent ‘Islam’, which is a great tragedy. It is sad that these people are victimised due to their own sincerity and strong faith, and by people who are often themselves very unscrupulous about from where and from whom they take their own funding and support from.
The most heart-breaking aspect of this is that within the Muslim community we find the highest level or poverty, they are the most poorly educated and they lack the skills to be successful in the modern World. This is a microcosm of the wider world, where we see that Muslims are classed as second class citizens. A good example of this is the recent statements of Boris Johnson where he felt that he was well within his rights to insult Muslim women who wear the niqaab (Note that I don’t believe that the niqaab is Islamic, in fact it’s an un-Islamic cultural phenomenon that has been integrated into Islam) without any fear of being reprimanded, whilst on the other hand Jeremy Corbyn has been attacked for alleged anti-Semitism within his party. The reason why these double standards can occur is due to people from the Jewish community being well educated and more affluent which in turn allows them to flex their muscles and stop anyone who could make an offensive statement against them. It demonstrates the clear problem in current modern liberal society where certain minorities are protected from ‘Free Speech’ whilst other minorities can be ridiculed and insulted. Free Speech means ‘we can insult some’ but throw a tantrum if one of our protected minorities are insulted. And I can assure you that the reason why Muslims are not a protected minority is due to a lack of education and poverty. But these Moulanas don’t care about that and nor do they fathom the damage they are doing, the response to these types of problems as far as they are concerned is to join a rally on a weekend, something which they can attend due to the vast amount of free time they have due to their own lack of education. And then for the few that are educated then for them its a double standard rule where they think it was okay for them to have a student loan, but not for their flock. Obviously an uneducated flock is an easy to control flock.
Then there are some who believe that it is a sin but still move on to study at university, ‘as they have no alternative’ to provide hope for their family and what this results in is them studying and then believing that they live in sin. As I have mentioned in quite a few of my previous articles this concept of living in sin, despite having Christian origins is quite common amongst Muslims.
 Fatawa Shaamia, Ibn Abideen, Volume 3, Page 125
 Ibid, Imam Abi al-Husain Ahmed al-Quduri, Mukhtasar al-Qaduri, Page 87
 Imam Abi al-Husain Ahmed al-Quduri, Mukhtasar al-Qaduri, Page 87
 Imam Zain ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-Ra’iq Sharh Kanz ad-Daqaiq,
 Fatawa Shaamia, Ibn Abideen, (Darul Kotob Ilmiyah, Beirut, Lebanon, 2nd Edition, 2003), Volume 7, Page 388
 Ibid Page 392
 Ibn Abidin ash-Shami, Radd al-Muhtar ala ad-Dur al-Mukhtar Volume 1, Page 105, Volume 4 Page 161, Volume 6 Page 458. Also see Quran, Surah Baqarah, Verse 29 and Verse 168
 Fatawa Shaamia, Ibn Abideen, (Darul Kotob Ilmiyah, Beirut, Lebanon, 2nd Edition, 2003), Volume 3, Page 519
 Abu Al-Barakat Al-Nasafi, Kashf al-Asrar, (Darul Kotob Ilmiyah), Volume 1, Page 395
 This is known as Iqtidha al-nass is which is part of sentence which is not mentioned verbally instead it is implicit, but the sentence cannot be understood without this extra piece of information.
 See examples mentioned in ‘Al-Muheet al-Burhani’ as well as the example in Surah Kahf of the Quran where the People of the Cave sent someone to make a transaction related to food from which he undoubtedly would have benefited.
 Imam Abi al-Husain Ahmed al-Quduri, Mukhtasar al-Qaduri, Page 86 and 103
 For a detailed explanation of Tawkeel see: https://sulaimanahmed.com/2017/07/28/mortgages-part-2/