then it is all the more appropriate that providing wealth and benefits in return for compensation should be obligatory in certain circumstances. Indeed, obligations to enter into transactions for compensation are more numerous and greater than obligations to give without compensation; they are broader in both extent and nature. Whoever surveys the Sharia may come to see that a transaction for compensation becomes obligatory when Muslims need it, provided it causes no harm outweighing their need. In the absence of such need, however, and where the property owner’s need equals that of the person seeking the exchange, the owner has the stronger claim. Harm is not to be removed by inflicting harm, and a man has a greater right to his wealth than his child, his father, or anyone else.

“Begin with yourself, then those you support.”

This is a sound and fitting principle, supported by much evidence in the Sharia. With Allah Most High’s help, I shall mention some of that evidence.

Transactions for compensation fall into four main categories: exchanging property for property, as in sales; providing wealth in return for a benefit, as in contracts offering a reward for a task; providing a benefit in return for wealth, as in leases and hiring contracts; and providing a benefit in return for a benefit, as in partnerships, including capital-and-labour partnerships and the like, where one party contributes the use of his labour and the other the use of his wealth. Mutual assistance, mutual support, and similar arrangements also fall into this last category.

In short, making transactions for compensation obligatory is a necessity of both worldly life and religion. A person cannot secure his own welfare single-handedly, but must seek the assistance of his fellow human beings. For if human beings were not obliged to provide others with what they need, and others in turn to provide what