Fatwa Explorer

Fatwa #2802611 January 2014South Africa

Is it permissible to work as a till operator/cashier in a shop where Harām items are sold?

Question

Is it permissible to work as a checkout/till operator in a big supermarket?

I have to handle Alchohol/Pork/Haraam Chicken and Beef to scan these items. I hold the very tips of the meat products so that I touch the least amount as possible. 

I have tried my best, my very very very best to look for alternative work but I just cannot find anything else. I have just started this work and after 3 months I can apply to change my role. I ask Allaah to forgive me if I am doing wrong but this is the only success I have had job wise.

Answer

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.

Your attitude in resenting Harām items is an expression of your Imānī conscience. You should maintain that attitude. Your mere contact with the Harām items is part of your job and unavoidable and is not sinful. Your income is Halāl. [1]

And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best

Nabeel Valli

Student Darul Iftaa
Lusaka, Zambia

Checked and Approved by,
Mufti Ebrahim Desai.

www.daruliftaa.net



[1]   الاختيار لتعليل المختار (4/ 134) [الرسالة العالمية]

قَالَ: (وَمِنْ حَمَلَ خَمْرًا لِذِمِّيٍّ طَابَ لَهُ الْأَجْرُ) وَقَالَا: يُكْرَهُ لِأَنَّهُ أَعَانَهُ عَلَى الْمَعْصِيَةِ. وَفِي الْحَدِيثِ: «لَعَنَ اللَّهُ فِي الْخَمْرِ عَشْرًا " وَعَدَّ مِنْهُمْ " حَامِلَهَا» وَلَهُ أَنَّ الْمَعْصِيَةَ شُرْبُهَا، وَلَيْسَ مِنْ ضَرُورَاتِ الْحَمْلِ وَهُوَ فِعْلُ فَاعِلٍ مُخْتَارٍ، وَمَحْمَلُ الْحَدِيثِ الْحَمْلُ لِقَصْدِ الْمَعْصِيَةِ حَتَّى لَوْ حَمَلَهَا يُرِيقُهَا أَوْ لِيُخَلِّلُهَا جَازَ

تبيين الحقائق شرح كنز الدقائق وحاشية الشلبي (6/ 29) [مكتبة إمدادية]

(وَحَمْلُ خَمْرٍ لِذِمِّيٍّ بِأَجْرٍ) أَيْ جَازَ ذَلِكَ أَيْضًا، وَهَذَا عِنْدَ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ - رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ -، وَقَالَا هُوَ مَكْرُوهٌ؛ لِأَنَّهُ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - لَعَنَ فِي الْخَمْرِ عَشَرَةً، وَعَدَّ مِنْهَا حَامِلَهَا، وَلَهُ أَنَّ الْإِجَارَةَ عَلَى الْحَمْلِ، وَهُوَ لَيْسَ بِمَعْصِيَةٍ، وَلَا تَسَبُّبٍ لَهَا، وَإِنَّمَا تَحْصُلُ الْمَعْصِيَةُ بِفِعْلِ فَاعِلٍ مُخْتَارٍ، وَلَيْسَ الشُّرْبُ مِنْ ضَرُورَاتِ الْحَمْلِ؛ لِأَنَّ حَمْلَهَا قَدْ يَكُونُ لِلْإِرَاقَةِ أَوْ التَّخْلِيلِ فَصَارَ كَمَا لَوْ اسْتَأْجَرَهُ لِعَصْرِ الْعِنَبِ أَوْ قَطْفِهِ، وَالْحَدِيثُ مَحْمُولٌ عَلَى الْحَمْلِ الْمَقْرُونِ بِقَصْدِ الْمَعْصِيَةِ

Something wrong with this record?

Report a problem

This goes to whoever maintains the archive, not to Askimam.org. For a question about the ruling itself, use the link to the original above.

Sent anonymously. No account needed, and nothing identifies you.