-
Technical Permissibility Of CFD Trading (Zero-Sum Structure Vs. Skill/Risk)
Assalamualaikum,
I have already gone through all the possibly available past threads on this matter but didn’t found my specific answer, i have a very technical concern regarding the permissibility of CFD trading,
The Question is:
While CFD trading is not purely a game of chance—as it requires technical analysis, informed decision-making, and risk management based on real-world price movements of underlying assets (currencies or commodities). Yet CFD’s underlying financial mechanics raise critical jurisprudence concerns:
Zero-Sum Structure: its core structure is a zero-sum game: every dollar I profit comes directly from someone else’s loss (whether that’s the broker, another trader, or a bank).
With this piece of information in mind, what is the permissibility of CFD trading? Will it be considered a pure Quranic Maysir or Gambling?
-
8 Replies
-
Technical Permissibility Of CFD Trading (Zero-Sum Structure Vs. Skill/Risk)
updated 2 weeks, 6 days ago
2 Members
·
8
Replies
-
For answer to Zero-Sum Structure, please refer to Dr. Shahzad Saleem’s answer in the following video from 28:27 to 32:14 and also from 33:31 to 34:19
-
The yt link is not working tried several times
-
Working fine on my side
-
-
-
“Alhamdulillah, I have gone through the video and conversation you referenced regarding this matter, and I am very thankful for your replies, Sir.
It would be great if you could also answer this last question I have:
Based on what Mr. Shehzad Saleem has said, can we conclude that:
1. A ‘zero-sum game based on chance’ is Maysir?
2. A ‘zero-sum game based on a transparent, analyzed, and clear mutual decision’ is not the Maysir mentioned in the Quran?”
-
This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by
Muhammad Sami.
-
This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by Muhammad Sami.
-
What Dr Saleem actually said was not what either proposition assumes.Both propositions take the form “a zero-sum game which is X…” — i.e. they concede that this is a game of chance, and then argue about which kind. That is not his move.
In 04.05.2025 Ask Dr Saleem at 30:11–30:31:
“This is how market value works. So you should not confuse it with the game of chance, normally in which one person’s gain is the expense of other person’s loss. That’s an entirely different thing — those are games of chance. This is not a game of chance. This is basically market forces.”
He is making a category correction, not a grading. He does not say “this is a game of chance with good features.” He says it is not in that category — and he does not accept the zero-sum characterisation either; when the questioner presses it, he reframes the case as ordinary commerce (a shortage arises, the price rises, someone gains).So neither proposition can be attributed to him as written, because both begin by granting a premise he declines.
-
This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by
-
Please reply sir… Looking forward to your response
-
JazakAllah for your response,
But the thing you have described in your last response is describing market-level price discovery, which is genuinely not zero-sum. When a whole market moves because of shortage, value is being created/destroyed by real supply-and-demand information, and it’s not one identifiable party’s loss funding another’s gain. And that’s not actually what happens in a CFD contract. A CFD is not “the market” — it’s a bilateral agreement between you and a specific counterparty (broker/liquidity provider) where the payoff is contractually defined: price moves up X, they owe you X; price moves down X, you owe them X. That’s not like “a shortage arose and someone gained” — that’s a fixed-sum transfer between two named parties, mechanically tied to a price movement…
So does rejecting “CFD trading is zero-sum” mean rejecting that the contract itself is zero-sum, or only that the underlying market is?
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks, 6 days ago by Muhammad Sami.
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks, 6 days ago by
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
