عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

Iftaa` Department and the Irresponsible Media
Author : Prof. Abdulkodos AlKhodah
Date Added : 25-10-2022

Iftaa` Department and the Irresponsible Media

 

Two years ago, a research center in the Islamic Maghreb conducted an opinion poll about the most reliable House of Iftaa` from the point of view of the society. The result was in favor of Jordan`s Iftaa` Department and was commended by the virtuous scholars of that country where they supported this testimony of the people with a scholarly testimony.

I have remembered this at a time we are witnessing non-innocent attempts led by media trumpets, known for their dissatisfaction with virtue and whatever words and deeds reflecting it, to distort the beautiful image of this renowned institution. Their main concern was to offend this religious institution through intentional cherry picking of certain parts of fatwas to incite ridicule. 

The reality of the situation is that ridicule is an old-new tool recorded in the Quran about the people of Noah (What means): "Every time that the chiefs of his people passed by him, they threw ridicule on him". It was also recorded as a systematic approach against the calls for goodness, reform, and wisdom. For these individuals, reform doesn`t suit their agendas and hinders them from practicing their special patterns of living and values which don`t reflect the moderate Islam, its deeply rooted values, its provisions, and etiquettes.

This was also recorded in history when people wanted to reduce the influence of the clergy although this is valid in Christianity but not in Islam. Therefore, pokers and comic writers came to the front and highlighted the image of the clergy in a form that provoked laughter. In western societies, this was the first effective step to get rid of some religious values standing in the way of individual life in its current form.

Here, it is necessary to show that severing parts of a Fatwa to present it in a funny form undoubtedly falls under ridiculing religion, which, as we all know, poses danger to faith. 

On the other hand, attempting to defame a renowned, national, religious institution is an unfair rivalry because this institution is respected on the domestic and international levels, known for its credibility, wise leadership, dedicated and qualified staff. It has acquired reputation for organizing and issuing fatwas. This Department has opted for achieving the best interest of this country through propagating moderate Islam and responsible freedom.

The antagonists of this institution failed to notice that their attitude encourages what is called "The Chaos of Fatwas" which almost caused national disasters in different situations leading to undermining the social fabric and the economic dimensions. Will there be affirm stand against these childish acts?! 

 

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

Is it permissible to agree with a butcher to purchase the meat of an animal after it has been slaughtered — for instance, by buying the meat of a sheep at a price determined by the weight of its meat following slaughter, at a fixed rate per kilogram? And what is the ruling if the animal is being purchased with the intention of it being an uḍḥiyyah (sacrificial offering)?

 
 
 
 
 

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible to sell livestock in the manner of pricing each kilogram of meat after slaughter at a fixed rate, because the meat within the animal prior to slaughter is unseen and unknown. This leads to jahālah (ignorance of the subject matter) and gharar (contractual uncertainty), both of which are among the invalidating factors in sales transactions.
However, it is permissible for the buyer to issue a promise to purchase the meat of the animal after slaughter at a specified price per kilogram, with the actual sale being concluded at the time of weighing the meat — at which point both the quantity of the goods and the total price become known. There is no Sharī'ah objection to this arrangement.
The jurists have stipulated that for a sale to be valid, both countervalues must be present and observable. Al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states:
"It is valid to sell a heap of grain whose total measure is unknown to both contracting parties at a rate of one sā' per dirham. This sale is valid because the subject of sale is present and observable, and ignorance of the total price is not harmful since it is known in detail — and uncertainty is thereby lifted."— [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.355]
As for the uḍḥiyyah, the 'aqīqah, and vowed blood sacrifices (al-dam al-mandhūr) — full ownership of the animal must be established prior to slaughter. It is not valid for such animals to be slaughtered while still in the ownership of the butcher. Rather, the animal must be purchased alive and then slaughtered with the intention of uḍḥiyyah or the like. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Is vomit among the nullifiers of Wudu (ablution)?

Vomit does not nullify Wudu, but it is a Najaasah (impurity) that requires rinsing the mouth and washing whatever became dirty by it since the prayer becomes valid only after the removal of Najaasah. And Allah Knows Best.

My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on kissing while fasting?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is prohibitively disliked (makrūh taḥrīman) for a husband to engage in foreplay with or kiss his wife during the daylight hours of Ramaḍān if doing so stirs his desire. If pre-seminal fluid (madhī) is released as a result, the fast is not invalidated; however, if seminal fluid (manī) is released, the fast is broken.
Imām al-Khaṭīb al-Sharbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated: "It is prohibitively disliked to kiss — whether on the mouth or elsewhere — for one whose desire is stirred, whether man or woman, to the extent that he fears it may lead to intercourse or ejaculation. Embracing, touching, and similar acts without a barrier carry the same ruling as kissing in this regard, because such acts expose the act of worship to being corrupted — and as the two Ṣaḥīḥs record: 'Whoever circles around a protected boundary is liable to fall into it.'"
He further added: "It is preferable for one whose desire is not stirred — even if he is a young man — to refrain from such acts as well, so as to close the door entirely. For he may believe his desire has not been aroused when in fact it has. Moreover, it is Sunnah for the fasting person to abstain from all desires without exception." — Summarised with minor adaptation from [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

See More