Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(124): “The Penalty Clause in Debts“

Date Added : 27-10-2015

 

Resolution No.(124),(11/2008): “The Penalty Clause in Debts“

Date:29/11/1429 AH, corresponding to 27/11/2008 AD.

 

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.

During its seventh session held on the above given date, the Iftaa` Board reviewed the penalty clause stated in some of the contracts that it had reviewed.

After thorough study and deliberation, the Board decided the following:

Giving the creditor the power to receive pecuniary charge and to claim it in case the debtor failed to repay him is called the penalty clause. This provision is invalid and renders the contract invalid, because it is from the Riba (usury/interest) of Jahilliyaah (the days and traditions of ignorance), and it is forbidden as stated in the Holy Quran. Whereas, Allah Says (what means): “but God hath permitted trade and forbidden usury.” (Al-Baqarah/275).

Receiving a pecuniary charge from the debtor in case of delay in payment is tantamount to stipulating it upon the conclusion of the contract. This is because it is the kind of Riba that the Arabs used to have at that time. They used to tell a debtor, “You either settle the debt, or add an interest.” {Kindly refer to Tafseer At-Tabari vol.3, pp.275}.

The penalty clause is an increase on the original value of the debt against delay in repayment. This increase is forbidden and invalid, whether it was stipulated in the contract such as the penalty clause, or was stipulated upon the deadline of the repayment.

Therefore, the penalty clause pertaining to debt settlement is parallel to acknowledging Riba upon concluding the contract, and this is forbidden in Islamic Sharia. And Allah Knows Best.

 

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, the Grand Mufti of Jordan/ Dr. Nooh Al-Qodat

Vice Chairman of  the Iftaa` Board, Dr. Ahmad Hilayel/ Member

Sheikh Abdul-Kareem Al-Khsawneh/Member

Dr. Sa`eid Hijjawi/  Member

                   Dr. Mohammad Khair Al-Essa/ Member

                                                              Judge Sari Attieh/ Member

          Dr. Abdurahman Ibdaah/ Member

       Dr. Mohammad Oklah/ Member

               Dr. Abdunnasser Abulbasal/ Member

                                            Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/ Executive Secretary of the Iftaa Board        

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

 
What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks thinking that the sun has set, then realizes that it has not yet set?

Whoever eats or drinks believing that the sun has set, then later discovers that it has not yet set, their fast is invalid, and they must make up that day after Ramadan. It is not permissible to break the fast before confirming sunset—either by seeing it, through personal reasoning, or by relying on the statement of someone trustworthy in their religious commitment.

What is the ruling on fasting only on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday?

In voluntary fasting (nafl), it is disliked (makruh) to fast only on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.
However:
● If one fasts a day before or after Friday, then that is permissible.
● The same applies to Saturday and Sunday—fasting them along with another day removes the dislike.
● Fasting all three days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) together is not disliked.
If any of these days coincide with a recommended fasting day, such as Arafah or Ashura, then fasting it alone is not disliked.

What is the ruling on giving Zakah (obligatory charity) to one`s relatives?

It is impermissible to pay Zakah to one`s origins (parents and grandparents) because providing for them is an obligation on their branches (sons and daughters) if they were poor, but it is permissible to give some of the Zakah money to relatives whose provision isn`t due on the giver of the Zakah.

Is it permissible for a guardian (Big brother) to unlawfully stop his sister from getting married?

If the guardian denies her right in getting married for an unlawful reason, she should go to court in order to settle that matter, and the guardian is considered sinful in this case.