عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(21): "Is the Killer (Inheritor) Entitled to Inherit the Person whom he had Killed (Inheritee)"

Date Added : 29-11-2015

Resolution No.(21) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:
"Is the Killer (Inheritor) Entitled to Inherit the Person whom he had Killed (Inheritee)"
Date: 30/7/1411 AH, corresponding to 14/2/1991.

All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of The Worlds; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.

On the above date, the Board reviewed the verdict issued by the High Court of Justiciary whereby  (Mr. X) wasn`t found criminally responsible for his father`s death because of his mental and psychotic state, as confirmed by the reports of specialized doctors.

Article (183) of the Jordanian Civil Status Law obligates enforcing the preponderant opinion of the Hanafite School of Thought in both the judiciary and Sharia systems. This article reads as follows: "An inheritor who kills his inheritee while being in a state of insanity or suffering from a mental illness that makes him unaware of his actions, enjoys the right to inherit him."

Based on article (586), from the Jordanian Civil Status Law, which reads as follows: "If he has killed the inheritee out of Qisas (Retribution), as a (Had) prescribed penalty, in self-defense, was an indirect cause, or he (killer) hasn`t reached the age of puberty or was insane, then he is entitled to inherit him".

In conclusion, the Iftaa` Board rules that the above murderer is entitled to receive a share from the estate of the murdered (his father). And Allah Knows Best.

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, Chief Justice Mohammad Mohailan
The Grand Mufti of Jordan, Izzaldeen At-tamimi
Dr. Abdullahlim Ar-ramahi
Dr. Abdusallam Al-Abbadi
Dr. Ahmad Helayel
Dr. Yaseen Daradkeh
Dr. Abdulahaleem Al-Ramahi
Dr. Mohammad Al-Qhodat
Sheikh Ibrahim Khashan

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Is it permissible for someone who is unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, due to his own poverty?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is not permissible, nor does it fulfill the obligation, for a sick person who is currently and permanently unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, since it is a financial obligation owed by him, established as a standing debt upon him — much like any other debt he owes. If he were to pay it to himself, it would not thereby be discharged. So if he cannot find [anyone eligible to] pay it to, it remains a standing obligation upon him, and is not thereby waived. If Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, later grants him wealth, it becomes obligatory upon him to pay it out to the poor and needy.
Imam al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "There is no difference in the obligation of the fidyah between the wealthy and the poor person; its benefit lies in its remaining established as a standing debt upon the poor person [until he is able to pay it] — and this is the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ), as indicated by the wording of ar-Rawḍah and its source text." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.174]
Accordingly: it is not permissible for a Muslim to pay the fidyah to himself while he remains poor. If the sick person is poor, he is not obligated to pay the fidyah immediately, and it remains a standing debt upon him until a time when he has sufficient means and wealth. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on eating from one`s Udhiyah?

In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
The Udhiyah (sacrificial offering) is divided into two categories: the vowed sacrifice (Al-Mandhurah) and the voluntary sacrifice (Al-Tatawwu').
 
First: The Vowed Sacrifice (Al-Mandhurah)
This refers to a sacrifice that has become strictly obligatory due to a formal vow (Nadr). It is completely impermissible for the person offering it, or any members of their family whom they are financially obligated to maintain, to eat any of its meat or fat. Furthermore, it is unlawful for them to personally benefit from its hide, wool, or any other part of it. If they happen to eat any portion of it, the offerer is legally obligated to give an equivalent amount of meat or its monetary value to charity. (As noted in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj by Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami,Vol. 9/P.364).
 
Second: The Voluntary Sacrifice (Al-Tatawwu’)
This is a recommended, non-obligatory sacrifice. The person offering it is fully permitted to eat from its meat, distribute portions as charity to the poor, and give pieces as gifts to those who are well-off. However, it remains a mandatory requirement to donate at least a minor portion of it to charity; this should not be less than approximately half a kilogram of raw, uncooked meat. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

Is it permissible to participate in an Udhiyah?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Regarding the sacrificial offering (Udhiyah), if it is a sheep or a goat, it only avails for one person. However, if it is a cow or a camel, it avails for seven people. It is permissible for the seven participants to have different intentions; for example, some may intend the sacrifice (Udhiyah), some the ’Aqiqah (sacrifice for a newborn), and others may simply intend to obtain meat.
 
It is stated in Hashiyat Qalyubi ‘ala Sharh al-Mahalli (Vol.4/P.256) and in Bushra al-Karim (p. 706):
 
"If one slaughters a camel or a cow on behalf of seven... it is permissible. Likewise, it is permissible if some of them intend their seventh for meat, and others intend their seventh for ’Aqiqah." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on eating or drinking forgetfully during the day in Ramadan or during voluntary fasting?

Whoever eats or drinks forgetfully while fasting, whether in an obligatory or voluntary fast, should continue their fast, for it is Allah who has provided them with food and drink. There is no difference between obligatory and voluntary fasting in this ruling.

See More