这类公司的股份是一种代表公司价值的票据，它所代表的是公司在评估时的价值，而不是公司成立时的资本。股份是公司实体中不可分割的一部分，并不是公司资本的一部分。它是一种代表公司资产价值的有价证券。股份的价值并不固定，会随着公司的盈利或亏损而变化。它不是每年都固定不变的，而是可以变动的。因此，股票所代表的不是公司成立时所缴纳的资本，而是在某一时刻出售时公司的资本。它就像纸币或银行券一样，市场下跌时其价值下降，市场上涨时其价值上升。因此，股份在公司开始运营之后便不再是资本，而是成为一种具有一定价值的货币票据。

The shares of this type of company are currency notes which represent the value of the company at the time of its evaluation not the capital of the company at the time of its establishment. The share is an indivisible part of the entity of the company and it is not a part of its capital. It is a form of security paper representing the value of the company’s assets. The value of the shares is not fixed and can change according to the profits or losses of the company. It is not fixed for all years but can change. The share stocks do not therefore represent the capital paid at the time of the establishment of the company but the capital of the company at the time of selling at a certain time. It is like the currency paper or bank note whose value falls when the market declines and rises when the share market rises. The share thus ceases to be capital after the company starts its work; rather it becomes a currency note which has a certain value.

关于纸币的教法裁定（Hukm Shar’i）必须加以考察。如果它们是代表合法财产的证券票据，例如以等值的金或银或类似物作为担保的纸币，那么买卖它们是允许的（Halal），因为其所包含的财产是合法的。然而，如果它们是代表非法财产的证券票据，例如以高利贷投资其财产的债券，或银行股票之类，那么买卖它们是被禁止的（Haram），因为其所代表的财产是非法的。 股份公司的股票是包含合法资本与非法利润混合金额的证券票据，这些利润是通过在沙里亚中被视为无效的合同与交易而获得的，且不区分原始财产与利润。每张证券票据都代表该无效公司资产中一股的价值。这些资产是通过沙里亚所禁止的无效交易而获得的，因此这些财产是非法的。因此，股份公司的股票包含非法财产的金额。由此，作为股份的这些纸币属于非法财产，禁止出售、购买或进行交易。

The divine law (Hukm Shar’i) with regard to currency notes must be examined. If they are security notes which include sums of Halal money like the currency notes which are backed by an equivalent amount of gold or silver or the like, then buying or selling them is allowed (Halal) because the property they include is Halal. However, if they were security notes that represent sums of Haram property like bonds of debt in which the property is invested by usury, or bank stocks and the like, then their trade is prohibited (Haram) as the property they represent is Haram. The shares of the stock companies are security notes which include mixed sums of Halal capital and Haram profit through a contract and transactions which are considered invalid in Shar’a, without any distinction between the original property and the profit. Each security note represents the value of a share from the assets of the invalid company. These assets have been earned by an invalid transaction forbidden by Shar’a, so this property is Haram. The stocks of the share stock company, thus, include sums of Haram property. Consequently these currency notes which are shares, are Haram property, and are forbidden to be sold, purchased or dealt in.

以上讨论引出了一些问题:那些购买这些公司股份、参与设立这些公司,或因认购这些公司而持有股份的穆斯林,他们的行为是否属于哈拉姆(禁止的),即便他们在认购时不了解相关的沙里亚律例(Hukm Shar'i)?又或者,如果某些不理解股份制公司实质的学者曾给他们颁发允许的教令(fatwa),那么他们所拥有的这些股票和股份是否属于哈拉勒(合法)的财产,尽管它们是通过沙里亚中无效的交易而获得的?还是说它们是哈拉姆的,因而不能合法地归他们所有?他们是否允许将这些股份卖给他人?

The above discussion raises questions about the Muslims who buy shares of these companies, associate in establishing them, or hold shares due to their subscription in such companies. Was their action Haram, even though they were ignorant of the divine law (Hukm Shar’i) at the time of their subscription into these companies? Or if some scholars, who did not understand the reality of the share stock company, gave them a fatwa (of permission) with regards to them, are these stocks and shares which are owned by them Halal properties, even though they were earned by a void transaction in Shar’a? Or are they Haram, and accordingly not legally owned by them? And are they allowed to sell these shares to other people or not?

不知道伊斯兰教法（Hukm Shar’i）并不能作为借口，因为每位穆斯林都有义务学习其生活中所需要的伊斯兰教律（Ahkam Shari’ah），以便依照教法完成自己的一切行为。如果某条律例是这类人通常不知道的，那么他不因该行为受到责备，该行为对他而言也是有效的，尽管按照沙里亚它是无效的。这是因为有这样一段圣训：“先知（愿主福安之）听见穆阿维叶·本·哈凯姆在礼拜中为打喷嚏的人祈祷。礼毕后，安拉的使者（愿主福安之）教导他，礼拜中说话会使礼拜无效，为打喷嚏的人祈祷也会使礼拜无效，但他（安拉的使者）并没有命令他重新礼拜。”这是穆斯林和奈萨仪根据阿塔·本·雅萨尔所传述的圣训的含义。这是因为礼拜中不可说话这一规定通常是这类人所不知道的，所以安拉的使者（愿主福安之）原谅了他，并认定他的礼拜有效。从沙里亚的角度看，禁止股份制公司是许多穆斯林所不知道的一类规定，因此他们的无知可以被原谅。参与这些公司的人的行为被视为有效，尽管公司本身是无效的，正如穆阿维叶·本·哈凯姆的礼拜被视为有效，尽管他做了使礼拜无效的事，因为他不知道礼拜中说话会使礼拜无效。学者所作的教法裁决，对于求教者而言同样适用无知原则。然而，给出裁决的学者不能被原谅，因为他在作出裁决之前，没有竭尽努力去理解股份制公司的实际情况。 关于股东持有股份的所有权，这是一种有效的所有权，只要沙里尔（Shar'a）判定其行为有效，这些股份就是合法的财产。由于他们对其无效性的无知而得到宽恕，所以这种所有权并非无效。然而，将这些股份卖给穆斯林是不允许的，因为在沙里尔看来，它们是无效的货币票据，而允许其所有权只是附带的，即基于对所宽恕之律例的无知。当关于此事的天启法律为人所知之后，它便成为一种哈拉姆（Haram）财产，既不允许买卖，也不能委托其他穆斯林代为出售。

The answer to these questions is that ignorance of the divine law (Hukm Shar’i) is not an excuse, because it is compulsory upon every Muslim to learn about that which He needs in his life of the divine laws (Ahkam Shari’ah) so that He can carry out all his actions according to the divine law. If that law is one of those laws which are usually unknown for such persons, then He is not blamed for that action and it would be a valid action for him, even though it is invalid in Shar’a. This is because of the narration: “the Messenger (pbuh) heard Mu’awiya ibn Al-Hakam praying for someone who sneezed while He was in prayer. After they finished the prayer, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) taught Him that speaking during the prayer would nullify it, and praying for the one who sneezes nullifies the prayer, but He (Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not order Him to perform the prayer again.” This is the meaning of what was narrated by Muslim and An-Nisai from `Ata’a ibn Yasar. This is because the rule (not talking during the prayer) was usually unknown to such a person and so the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) excused Him and considered his prayer valid. The prohibition of the share stock companies in view of the Shar’a is one of the rules whose like is unknown to many Muslims and so their ignorance can be excused. The action of those who took partnership in them is considered valid, though the companies are invalid, like the prayer of Mu’awiya ibn al-Hakam which is considered valid though He did something in it that invalidates it, as He did not know that talking during prayer invalidates it. The fatwa given by the scholars also takes the rule of ignorance with respect to the one who seeks the opinion. However, the scholar who gives the opinion is not excused because He did not exhaust his effort to understand the reality of the share stock companies before He gave an opinion about them. With regard to the ownership of the shares by the shareholders, it is a valid ownership and these shares are Halal properties so long as Shar’a judged that their action was valid. It is not invalid as they are excused for being ignorant of its invalidity. Selling these shares to Muslims, however, is not allowed, because in Shar’a they are invalid currency notes and the allowance of their ownership is incidental, i.e. based upon ignorance of the hukm that was excused. When the divine law about it becomes known, then it becomes a Haram property that is not allowed to be sold or bought, nor can one delegate other Muslims to sell it for him.

处置这些因不知伊斯兰教法而持有的股份，方法是解散该公司，或将其转变为伊斯兰公司。另外，也可以找一位认为股份制股份公司的股票是允许的非穆斯林，委托他代为出售股份，然后收取随后所得的款项。 据苏瓦伊德·伊本·哈弗莱传述：“比拉勒对欧麦尔·伊本·哈塔卜说：‘你的官员（‘Ummal）收取葡萄酒和猪作为哈拉只（Kharaj）。’他说：‘不要从他们那里收取这些东西，而是委托他们出售，然后收取其价款。’”此段由艾布·欧拜德在《财产》（Al-Amwal）中记载。欧麦尔没有否认这一做法，而如果此做法与沙里亚相悖，他必定会否认，因此它成为了公议（Ijma'）。葡萄酒和猪属于齐米人（Dhimmis）的财产，不能成为穆斯林的财产。当他们想用这些东西来抵偿吉兹亚（Jizya）而交给穆斯林时，欧麦尔命令穆斯林不要接受，而是委托他们出售并收取所得。 由于股份属于资本家的财产，不能成为穆斯林的财产，而它们已经转到了穆斯林手中，因此穆斯林接受它们是不合法的。相反，他们必须委托这些人代为出售。正如穆斯林在吉兹亚和哈拉只中的权利已通过葡萄酒和猪得到确认，欧麦尔也允许他们让齐米人代为出售，穆斯林在这些股份上同样有权委托齐米人为他们出售股份。

The way to dispose of these shares which were owned due to the ignorance of the divine law is to dissolve the company or transform it into an Islamic company. Alternately one can find a non-Muslim who considers the shares of the share stock company allowed and delegate Him to sell the shares on his behalf and then receive the subsequent proceeds. It was reported from Suwaid ibn Ghafala “that Bilal said to ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab: “Your administrators (‘Ummal) take wine and pigs as Kharaj.” He said, “Don’t take (these things) from them, but delegate them to sell them and take their price” narrated by Abu ‘Ubayd in Al- Amwal. No one denied this action from ‘Umar, though it would have been denied if it disagreed with Shar’a, so it became Ijma’a. Wine and pigs are of the properties of the Dhimmis and cannot be properties for Muslims. When they wanted to give them to Muslims in exchange for Jizya, ‘Umar ordered Muslims not to accept them, but to delegate them to sell them and take the proceedings. Since shares are of the Capitalists’ properties and cannot be of the properties of Muslims, and they were passed to Muslims hands, so it is not valid for Muslims to take them. Instead they have to delegate to them their sale. Just like the right of Muslims in Jizya and Kharaj has been confirmed in wine and pigs, and ‘Umar allowed them to let the Dhimmis sell them on their behalf, it is also the right of Muslims in these shares that they are allowed to delegate the Dhimmis to sell the shares for them.