The rule that governs giving and taking is governed by the principle: *“What is haram to take is haram to give”.
As a corollary of the above, another rule is that **“What is (52)haram to do is haram to demand”.

The rule alongwith its corollary is relevant not only for financial transactions like taking of interest, and illegal gratifications etc., but also for non-financial transactions like adopting professions that are rejected in the Sharia. The import of these rules is clear for individuals but requires some elaboration in regard to actions and policies of the government. It may be argued that the injunctions of the Sharia are addressed to individuals and have no effect on corporate bodies and government. Thus what is obligatory for the Muslim individuals is not binding on Muslim governments. For example, Muslims are required to offer prayers, pay Zakat and perform hajj but the government as such is not supposed to do nor can it do all that. Similarly it is the individuals who are required to refrain from engaging in interest but not the government or other legal persons. But the argument can be rejected on ground of the following Quranic verses:

Those who, if We give them power in the land, establish worship and pay Zakat and enjoin virtue (maruj) and forbid iniquity (munkar) (22:41).

All hath promised such of you as believe and do good works that He will surely make them to succeed (the present rulers) in the earth even as He caused those who were before them to succeed (others); and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He hath approved for them, and will give them, in exchange safety after fear. They serve Me. They ascribe nothing as partner unto Me. Those who disbelieve henceforth, they are the miscreants. Establish worship and pay Zakat and obey the messenger that haply ye may find mercy. (24:55, 56).

These verses not only point out the obligatory functions of an Islamic state but also emphasise the importance of making religious norms and values prevail in the human life. An Islamic government, for obvious reasons, may not be able to perform the
rites of worship. It is, however, under the obligation to establish institutions that are conducive to their performance by all those Muslims who are capable of so' doing. Moreover, its duty is to ensure that virtue, maruf is enjoined and vice, munkar is being forbidden (Q. 22:41). Hence the government may not legalize for itself an act which it prevents under its jurisdiction. This is what has been laid down in the above quoted rules. The Quran and the Hadith disapprove incomes arising out of interest, illegal gratification, or obscene professions, and of all those acts that are prohibited. As a consequence, it is obligatory for the Islamic state to ban the sources of such incomes. In case the government bans these incomes and professions for individuals, but exempts itself from doing so, the ultimate benefit and effect of the same will directly and indirectly pass on to those individuals because the government expends its incomes on their welfare. This will be in addition to creating the undesirable moral, spiritual and social effects that such practices are likely to bring about.

It needs to be pointed out that the above mentioned rules lay down the practical scope of the unlawful items and acts. In case of lawful acts, however, a distinction has to be made between the rights and powers of the government (Imam) and those of individuals. It is the prerogative of the Islamic government only to levy and collect taxes but not of individuals. The (Imam) alone can declare Jihad against an enemy but not an individual. Hudud can be enforced only by an Islamic government, not by individuals.