عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

Statement on the Stabbing of the Tourists
Author : The General Iftaa` Department
Date Added : 02-07-2023

Statement on the Stabbing of the Tourists

 

All perfect praise be to Allah the Lord of the Worlds. May His peace and blessings be upon Prophet Mohammad, his family and noble companions.

 

Attacking tourists is a heinous crime that contradicts the teachings of our Islamic religion, which commands honoring the guest and preserving the sanctity of human beings. 

Neither custom nor religion condone such crime and it is not related to our inherent Arab Islamic morality in this blessed country of safety and security.

 

We ask Allah to protect Jordan to remain an oasis of security and stability. The General Iftaa` Department

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




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to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication.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

What is the ruling on using snuff, inhaled vapor, or menthol rub (Vicks) during the day in Ramadan?

Using snuff, inhaled vapor, or menthol rub (Vicks) invalidates the fast because these substances enter the lungs through inhalation, and the lungs are considered part of the body cavity (jauf).
Whoever uses them must refrain from eating and drinking for the rest of the day out of respect for the sacred month and make up for that day after Ramadan.
However, if it is merely a scent and none of its substance reaches the body cavity, it does not break the fast.

What is the ruling on discharging one's zakāh obligation through the provision of a specific benefit (manfa‘ah) — such as performing a surgical operation for a patient, or providing housing to a tenant, and counting the value of this service as zakāh?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is obligatory to pay zakāh from the actual asset (‘ayn al-māl) upon which zakāh is due, except in the case of zakāh on trade goods ('urūḍ at-tijārah), which is paid based on their monetary value. In all cases, zakāh must be given in the form of tamlīk (a full transfer of ownership), based on the words of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic (which mean): "Zakāh expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy, and for those employed to collect [zakāh], and for bringing hearts together [for Islam], and for freeing captives [or slaves], and for those in debt, and for the cause of Allah, and for the [stranded] traveler — an obligation [imposed] by Allah. And Allah is Knowing and Wise" [at-Tawbah/60]. The letter "lām" (لِ) in this verse — as in "lil-fuqarā'" ("for the poor") — indicates possession/ownership (lām al-milk).
It is not permissible to fulfill one's zakāh obligation by providing a benefit or service (manfa‘ah) — such as housing, education, or medical treatment — in place of the zakāh itself. This is because zakāh must be paid as wealth (māl) that is transferred into the ownership of the poor recipient, whereas such services are intangible benefits that are not, in themselves, capable of being formally transferred in ownership (ghayr qābilah lit-tamlīk). And Allah, the Exalted, 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.

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.

See More