Q. I read your articles about making Madinah the first tobacco-free city in the world. What bothers me is that despite the fact that we know how great is the damage to human health tobacco causes, the world leaders still do not take some drastic action to eradicate this scourge altogether from the face of the earth. Why should some vested interests be able to manipulate national and international policy and continue to promote their harmful product to fatten their pockets still further?
Shuja Khan
A. You have touched a raw nerve. Unfortunately those with vested interests prevent the adoption of the right policies in many fields. A person endowed with insight once explained in a television interview that the world is controlled by five types of mafia: Drugs, arms, tobacco, medicines, and food. It is often the case that legislation, in most countries, serves the interests of these mafias, rather than those of the people.
Take the case of medicines for example. According to the World Health Organization, 95 percent of illnesses in any country can be effectively treated with a limited number of substances, making a list of about 450 essential drugs or medicines. The remaining diseases vary from one area to another and need to be catered for separately. Yet walk into any pharmacy, particularly in countries that are well off, and you find so many medicines using the same substance, but sold under different names and with widely different prices.
I once read a report mentioning that in a certain country there were no less than 29 different medicines that pertain to treat the common cold. They use no more than two essential substances, and have different variations here and there to justify their brand names. Faced with this choice, the consumer is at a loss and unlikely to receive sound advice. Moreover, the amount of money spent on these makes it difficult to procure treatment for other illnesses. Furthermore, this state of affairs drives prices of all medicines up and puts treatment beyond the reach of the poor. Yet it is very difficult to put in place a sound national policy limiting the availability to the approved list of essential drugs, because pharmaceutical companies are able to bring great pressure to bear on ministries of health and national governments.
The same is the case with tobacco. It is very difficult to put in place an effective policy to eradicate tobacco smoking at a national level. You have first the resistance of smokers, who are addicted to tobacco and find it very difficult to quit the habit. If governments were to promulgate a law banning smoking altogether, they will be faced with a smuggling problem that requires extensive resources to combat. In some countries, the manufacture of tobacco is an important industry, while in others tobacco growing is important to farmers. Moreover, ministries of finance are often opposed to any policy to combat the tobacco epidemic, because the taxation on tobacco often provides a substantial share of the state revenue. And then you have the multinational tobacco tycoons who spend billions of dollars every year on promoting their foul product.
Despite all this, combating the smoking epidemic at a national or worldwide level is possible, but requires a clear long-term policy with well-defined objectives and well-planned stages. When we think on a global level so as to rid humanity of this serious risk to world health, we need international cooperation at the highest level. Ten years ago, the World Health Organization started a program called the Tobacco-Free Initiative and gave it high priority. It aimed to make international cooperation in the fight against tobacco a real priority. Its efforts culminated in the recent signing of an international treaty called a Framework Convention to control tobacco. It has been signed by most countries of the world. It is hoped that this convention will work toward the eradication of the tobacco epidemic. However, it adopts a gradual policy toward reducing tobacco consumption and its eventual eradication.
Some people suggest that this keeps the problem with us for a long time and its solution requires more drastic action. There is no doubt that more serious efforts can be made in the short term to achieve much better results. The case of Madinah and freeing the entire city of tobacco is a good example that should be followed. But such a program requires great collaborative efforts on the part of the state, local authorities, social institutions, voluntary associations and individuals. We must not forget that the enemy, which is the tobacco industry, is very powerful indeed and has unlimited resources, compared with what the anti-smoking organizations can command. But the fight must go on, and the efforts must be continued until we rid our world of the scourge of tobacco, which is a poison to human health and a killer of mankind.
I applaud your enthusiasm and hope that we will see more determined efforts in all parts of the Muslim world.
Rented Property and Zakah
Q. I am retired and live on the income I receive from some property that I let out. How do I pay my zakah? Some people suggest that rent is the same as interest. Is this correct? Suppose that I have to sell a flat to meet some family emergency, how does this affect my zakah liability?
S. R. Khan
A. To suggest that the rent received from letting property is the same as interest received from banks, which most people equate with usury that is categorically forbidden, is certainly absurd. Rent is paid in return for a benefit one receives. If you let out a house or a flat, or indeed a room, or a shop, then the person renting it is using the property for living or to carry out a business. Similarly, when we rent a car we use it to travel or to transport luggage or goods. All these are benefits or services we receive when we rent something, and therefore we should pay a rent to the owner. This is perfectly legitimate and the money we receive is perfectly halal, or lawful to have. The rent we receive is an income that is liable to zakah. However, the value of the rented property is not liable to zakah. Thus, if you let a house, you do not pay any zakah on the value of the house, but on the rent you receive from letting it. You deduct all expenses you incur with the rental and add the net income to your other monies for the calculation of your zakah liability. On your zakah date, you add up what you have and if it is above the threshold of zakah, then you pay zakah on the whole amount at the relevant rate. The standard rate is 2.5 percent but certain types of income carry a higher rate.
Undivided Inheritance
Q. My parents passed away, leaving behind four sons and three daughters. They left behind the family house, some agricultural land, money and jewelry as well as some other articles. The land was bought by us, i.e. their sons, and registered in our mother’s name. How should we divide this inheritance?
A. Hassan, Malaysia
A. There are two points to make before I discuss the division of the property. The first is that children inherit in the same way from either one of their parents. The second is that the two parents did not die at the same time, which means that the one who died later had a share of the property left by the other. This certainly affects the shares of the other heirs, namely their children. However, the fact that the sharing out did not take place until now and the other parent has also died allows that the property could be dealt with as if it was a single inheritance received from one parent.
The division is easy, since there are no other heirs. The entire property left by both parents is divided into 11 shares, with one share given to each of the three daughters, while the four sons get two shares each. There remains, however, the question of the land registered in the mother’s name. The reader says that it was bought by the four sons. The question here is about the intention of the sons when they bought the land and registered it in the their mother’s name. Was this merely a procedure of convenience while everyone in the family understood that the land belonged to the four sons? Or was it registered in the mother’s name as a gesture of dutifulness, giving the mother full ownership and intending the land to benefit the whole family? In the first case, the land should be given to those who bought it and divided among them according to the shares of the price they paid for its purchase. In the second case, the land belonged to the mother and should be divided among all siblings in the manner mentioned above.
