Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(298) (1/2021): "Demolishing an Old Praying Place to Replace it with New One"

Date Added : 23-02-2021

Resolution No. (298) (1/2021), By The Board of Iftaa', Researches and Islamic Studies:

"Demolishing an Old Praying Place to Replace it with New One"

Date: (14th of Jumada Al-Akhirah, 1442AH), corresponding to (28/1/2021AD).

In its 1st meeting held on the above date, the Board of Iftaa` reviewed the letter No.4/2/3/9928 sent from His Excellency, the Minister of Awqaf, Holy Sites and Islamic Affairs Dr.Mohammad Al-Khalayleh. It stated as follows: We would like your Excellency to clarify the ruling of demolishing a praying place which is built on a part of an endowed land No. (81/Southern Quarter/Al-Mafraq), due to the fact that it is an old building and a new one is to be built instead on a different part of the same land, as it was donated unconditionally in the first place intended as a public endowment. Besides, the old one won't be demolished save after the new praying place is built in order to observe the purpose for which the land was endowed as well to invest the land itself. And Allah Knows Best.

            

Grand Mufti of Jordan,

Dr. Abdulkareem al-Khasawneh

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh, Member      Dr. Majed al-Darawsheh, Member

Sheikh Sa`eid Al-Hijjawi, Member

Judge Khalid Woraikat, Member         Prof. Adam Nooh Al-Qhodaat/Member

Dr. Amjad Rasheed, Member

Dr. Jamil Khatatbeh, Member             Dr. Ahmad al-Hasanat, Member

Dr. Mohammad Younis Al-Zou`bi, Member

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the Islamic ruling on smearing the head of the newborn with the blood of the `Aqiqah?

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is disliked (makrūh) to smear the head of the newborn with the blood of the 'aqīqah, as this is a practice that belongs to the customs of the pre-Islamic era of ignorance (Jāhiliyyah). What is Sunnah instead is to anoint the newborn's head with saffron or another pleasant fragrance. And Allah Almighty 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.

If someone starts the day sick or traveling while fasting, is it permissible for them to break their fast?

● A sick person who finds fasting difficult is allowed to break their fast, whether they began the day fasting or not.
● As for a traveler:
○ If they were still at home at dawn and then traveled after Fajr (dawn), they must continue fasting unless they experience extreme hardship, in which case they may break their fast.
○ However, if they were already traveling when dawn broke—meaning they had left their town before Fajr—then they are permitted to break their fast. This is what the Prophetﷺ did during the year of the conquest (of Makkah).

A man led the people in prayer as imam, and at the end of the prayer he performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because he had omitted a short *sūrah* after al-Fātiḥah. What is the ruling on his prayer and that of those praying behind him?

 

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
According to the Shāfiʿī school, it is sunnah to recite a sūrah after al-Fātiḥah in the prayer. One who omits it has a valid prayer, and no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw) is prescribed for omitting it. If someone performs sujūd al-sahw for its omission while knowing the ruling and remembering it, his prayer is invalidated. But one who is ignorant of the ruling, or who did so out of forgetfulness, his prayer is not invalidated, because this is among the matters that are obscure to people, and ignorance of it is not restricted to those who recently entered Islam.
Shaykh al-Islām al-Shams al-Ramlī said in Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj ilā Sharḥ al-Minhāj (Vol.2/p.70): “The remaining sunnahs are not compensated for by prostration, such as the remembrances (adhkār) of bowing and prostration, that is, the opening supplication (duʿāʾ al-iftitāḥ) and the sūrah, in accordance with the base rule, because they are not of the same nature as what has been reported [as compensable]. If one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to ignorance. As for the objection raised that the ignorant person does not know that sujūd al-sahw is prescribed, and whoever knows it knows its place, this is refuted by denying such a necessary connection, for the ignorant person may hear only that sujūd al-sahw is prescribed before the salām, and so assume that it applies to every sunnah and is not restricted to its prescribed place.”
This is among the matters that are obscure, in which the mukallaf is excused for ignorance, as stated by al-Shabrāmallisī in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.70).
However, if the imam prostrates, and the follower (maʾmūm) presumes that his imam’s prostration is for a reason for which one does not prostrate, it is not permissible to follow him in it, so long as the follower knows the ruling.
Accordingly, the prayer of one who did not recite a sūrah after al-Fātiḥah is valid, and sujūd al-sahw is not prescribed for it. Whoever prostrates out of ignorance or forgetfulness, his prayer is valid, because this is among the issues hidden from the general public. But whoever prostrates while knowing the ruling and remembering it, his prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.