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

What is the ruling on making up missed prayers during prohibited times?

 

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is permissible to make up (qada’) missed prayers at any time, even during the periods when prayer is generally prohibited. The prayers that are forbidden and considered invalid during these times are 'absolute voluntary prayers' (nafl mutlaq)—which have no specific cause—and voluntary prayers whose cause follows the prayer itself, such as the Sunnah of entering Ihram or the Sunnah of the Istikharah prayer. Furthermore, no prayer is considered disliked (makruh) during these prohibited times when performed within the Meccan Sanctuary (Makkah al-Mukarramah).
 
It is stated in Bushra al-Karim (Vol.1/P.181), one of the Shafi’i texts: 'It is not forbidden to perform prayers that have a cause that is not delayed (i.e., the cause is preceding), such as making up a missed prayer (fa’itah)—even if it was a voluntary one—and the funeral prayer (janazah); or a cause that is simultaneous, such as the prayer for rain (istisqa’) or the eclipse prayer (kusuf)... and the Sunnah of wudu, the greeting of the mosque (tahiyyat al-masjid), the Sunnah of circumambulation (tawaf), the Sunnah of arrival, and the prostrations of recitation (tilawah) or thankfulness (shukr). These mentioned prayers and their like are not forbidden provided that one does not specifically intend (ta'ammud) to perform them during the disliked time because it is a disliked time. If one does so intentionally, it becomes forbidden, even if it is a mandatory makeup prayer that is due immediately; because in that case, one is acting in defiance of the Sharia. This is in contrast to when one does not specifically seek out that time, even if the prayer happens to fall within it, or if one seeks it for another purpose—such as delaying a funeral prayer to that time so that a larger number of people may pray over the deceased; in such cases, it is permissible and valid... And it is forbidden to perform prayers with no cause at all, like absolute nafl, or those with a delayed cause, such as the Istikharah prayer, the prayer for Ihram, the prayer for a need (hajah), the prayer before leaving the house, or the prayer before execution; because their causes occur after the prayer itself.' And Allah the Exalted knows best."

What is the ruling on a person in a state of major impurity (junub) or a menstruating woman (ha'id) reciting the Quran from memory?

It is not permissible for a menstruating woman, a postpartum woman, or a person in a state of major impurity to recite anything from the Quran, whether from memory, from the Quran, from a phone, or a computer. It is also not permissible for them to touch the Quran, based on what was reported from Ali bin Abi Talib that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not prevented from anything regarding the Quran except major impurity (janabah). (Reported by al-Tirmidhi who said it is a hasan sahih hadith). Menstruation and postpartum bleeding are analogous to major impurity (janabah) as they are all major impurities (hadath akbar).
For those mentioned, it is permissible to mention Allah and supplicate even with verses from the Quran, provided they do not intend them as recitation of the Quran, but intend them as remembrance (dhikr) or supplication (du'a). And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on forgoing the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) for one who is financially able to offer it?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is disliked (makrūh) for one for whom the uḍḥiyah (sacrifice) is recommended (Sunnah) to forgo offering it, on account of the scholarly disagreement regarding whether it is obligatory. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.