View Categories

(F 222) Sometimes we need to open a savings account to reduce the risk of theft by those who steal money unlawfully. We place the money in an interest-based account to protect it from these thieves… Does the ruling [of prohibited usury] change in this case?

There are two situations we discuss in actions: the situation of normality and the situation of necessity. Our discussion in the previous fatwā was about the ruling in the situation of normality.

As for the situation of necessity, what was prohibited becomes permissible to the extent necessary, whether unanimously agreed upon or disagreed upon.

Necessity is not left to people’s discretion but has general guidelines that we can refer to:

  1. The harm resulting from the prohibited act should be less than the harm resulting from the situation of necessity. For example, consuming carrion when facing imminent death is easier than sacrificing one’s life. Only violation of the prohibition is entailed, unlike when the necessity is to preserve one’s own life at the expense of another’s life, where there is no excuse to prioritize one’s life over another’s, as both are equally valuable. If one is ordered to unjustly kill an innocent, they either carry out the killing or are killed themselves; there is no consideration of necessity in such a case.
  2. The person in necessity should not exceed the use of necessity beyond what the necessity requires. For example, one who drinks alcohol due to thirst should drink only enough to quench their thirst, and one whose necessity is to look at some prohibited nudity should not exceed it by looking elsewhere beyond the place of necessity.
  3. There should be no alternative for this necessity, such as taking a loan from the bank when there is someone willing to lend without interest (ribā).
  4. Adherence to the time of necessity is required because the rule states: “When the preventive factor is removed, the prohibited act returns.”
  5. The necessity must be certain or highly probable to the point of being almost certain. Speculation and anticipation are not enough, meaning that the criterion must be stable in judging the necessity, and it has supportive evidence.

It is undeniable that people need to safeguard their money and savings in secure places like banks, in addition to the risks of not doing so. Also, the absence of secure banks in some areas encourages crime and theft, making the presence of banks a necessity in many cases, and depositing money in them has the same description. Therefore, there is no harm in putting money in a secure bank, even if it is interest-based, for the aforementioned considerations.

Fatwa issued by Dr. Khālid Naṣr