◈ Prohibited Form of Car Sale Through Installments Using Legal Tricks (Ḥīlah) ◈
❖ The Scenario:
A car arrives at a showroom. The showroom owner sells it to a person, who then sells it on installments to a third party. Eventually, the same car returns to the showroom, sometimes repeatedly.
❖ The Sharʿi Ruling:
This form of transaction is ḥarām and invalid, as it is a clear example of ḥīlah (deceptive legal maneuver) to legitimize usury (ribā).
The case typically unfolds as follows:
- A needy person approaches a trader and says:
“I want to buy a car on installments.”
- The trader says:
“Go to the showroom and choose any car you like.”
- The buyer chooses the car and informs the trader.
- The trader purchases the car from the showroom and sells it on installments to the buyer — despite knowing the buyer doesn’t actually want the car itself, but only needs money or financial gain.
❖ Why This Is Ḥarām:
✔ This arrangement is not a genuine sale, but a disguised loan:
- The trader buys the car for 50,000,
- Sells it to the customer for 70,000 in installments,
- The buyer immediately sells it back to the showroom or someone else,
- The actual goal is to receive cash, not the car.
This is identical in essence to ribā, as it involves:
- Exchange of money for more money,
- With deferment and interest,
- Under the false guise of a sale.
❖ Stronger Than Clear Ribā:
Shaykh Ibn ʿUthaymīn رحمه الله explains:
Deceptive transactions using ḥīlah to justify ribā are worse than openly consuming interest, because:
- The open sinner feels guilt and may repent,
- While the one using ḥīlah believes it is permissible, continues the act, and is not remorseful.
Such actions are akin to imitating the Jews, whom the Prophet ﷺ warned against:
“Do not do what the Jews did: they used tricks to make what Allah made ḥarām appear ḥalāl.”
📚 (Ḍaʿīf: Ghāyat al-Marām, Ḥadīth 11)
❖ Example of Jewish Trickery:
When animal fat (churbī) was prohibited, they melted it, sold it, and consumed the proceeds, not the fat itself.
Yet, even that trick was less severe than the modern-day ḥīlah used in these sales.
❖ Final Verdict:
✔ This form of transaction is ḥarām and invalid.
✔ If one were forced to eat camel’s feet out of hunger, it would still be better than indulging in this deceptive sale.
✖ Widespread practice among people is not a valid Sharʿi justification.
“Most people doing something does not make it right in the eyes of Allah.”
📚 Ibn ʿUthaymīn – Nūr ʿala al-Darb 18/205
