The Orphans Fund Development Foundation has Canceled the Penalty Clause

| | عربي

Home

Articles

Summarized Fatawaa

Is a person who is in a state of Janabah (major ritual impurity due to having a marital intercourse, ejaculation, menstruation, and post-delivery impurities) sinful if he/she goes about his/her daily life activities in that state i.e. without making Ghusl (ritual bath)?

It goes without saying that a Muslim should always be in a state of ritual purity so as to be able to perform prayers and recite Quran. It is from Sunnah (Prophetic tradition) that a Muslim hastens to make Ghusl from Janabah, but he/she is not sinful in case he/she delayed that provided that he/she doesn`t miss prayers. However, it is permissible for him/her to go about their daily activities while in a state of Janabah, but had better bathe in order not to miss any prayer.

What is the ruling on X-ray imaging while fasting in Ramadan?

X-ray imaging itself does not break the fast. However, if a person ingests a contrast agent or medication to enhance the imaging process through an open passage to the body cavity (jauf)—such as the mouth or rectum—then their fast is invalidated.

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.

What is the ruling on purchasing sacrificial animals and authorizing their slaughter via telephone?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.

It is preferable for the one offering a sacrifice (udhiyah) to slaughter the animal himself, in adherence to the Sunnah, or to be present at the slaughter if possible.

It is valid to authorize a butcher to purchase a sacrificial animal on his behalf and slaughter it, regardless of whether the animal is owned by the butcher or the butcher is acting as an agent in its sale—according to the Hanbali school—provided that the butcher specifically designates and purchases the animal for the person offering the sacrifice before slaughtering it. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Send Your Question

Zakaat Account

Articles

The Orphans Fund Development Foundation has Canceled the Penalty Clause

Author : The General Iftaa` Department

Date Added : 05-07-2023

The Orphans Fund Development Foundation has Canceled the Penalty Clause

In reference to what was published on the website of the General Iftaa` Department and the fatwas it issued prohibiting the penalty clause in Murabaha contracts, the Orphans Fund Development Foundation has responded by deleting the sixth clause from its Murabaha contracts, which include the penalty clause. This was included in a letter from the Director of the Foundation Dr. Faisal Al-Hiary- (Number MA / 1/4/2290), (1st of June, 2009)-addressed to the Grand Mufti. The letter reads as follows:

"Since the sixth clause in the Murabaha contract used by the Foundation has not been activated from the time the Foundation started providing Murabaha services in 1988, and in order to avoid any ambiguity that may arise in the Murabaha contract, I would like to inform you that the management of the Foundation has decided to delete the sixth clause and adhere to the general rules stipulated in the Civil Code, in this regard."

The Grand Mufti thanked the Director of the Foundation, saying:

"I thank you for deleting the sixth clause from the Murabaha contract used at your institution, and I hope that Allah will reward you well for that. You have removed an obstacle for those who deal with your noble institution, which is keen on earning halal/lawful profits. Your institution is the first among institutions to take into account the provisions of Islamic Law, and I hope that other financial institutions will follow your example, and to you is the reward of being the first good doer in this regard."

Afterwards, the Director of the Foundation attached a copy of the new Murabaha contract to his letter, which showed that it was free of the penalty clause and was acceptable from the standpoint of Sharia. However, the employee in charge of executing the Murabaha contract is responsible for applying the Sharia conditions and not neglecting them. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author

• The General Iftaa` Department Commends the Decisive Security Operation: Jordan is Impervious to Terrorism and Terrorists

• Rabī‘ al-Awwal: The Month of the Prophetic Sīrah and the Season of Emulating the Loftiest Example

• The Obligation to Honor the Prophetic Station and to Uphold Complete Etiquette toward His Noble Rank

• An Official Statement from the General Iftaa' Department

• Regarding Women Driving Cars

• Dr. Zaid Ibrahim Al-Kilani Appointed as the Secretary-General of the General Iftaa` Department

• Launching the General Iftaa Department's Channel on Whatsapp

• A Royal Decree Appoints Hasanat as Grand Mufti

• Announcement of the Passing of the Esteemed Sheikh Kamel Khatatbeh

• Caution and Verification are behind the Delay in Issuing Fatwa

>>> 1 2 3 4 5 <<<

Comments

Name

E. mail Address

Country

Comment Title

Comment

Enter the number shown on the image

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 swearing an oath by the Prophet ﷺ, and does such an oath take effect according to Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, requiring expiation upon its breach?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

Swearing an oath by a created being is disliked (makrūh) in our Shāfiʿī school. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Swearing by a created being is disliked — such as swearing by the Prophet, the Kaʿbah, Jibrīl, the Companions, or the Prophet's family. Al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: 'I fear that swearing by other than Allah the Almighty may constitute an act of disobedience.' The scholars of the school explained this to mean: that is, something forbidden and sinful — indicating that he had some hesitation in the matter. Al-Imām stated: the established position of the school is that it is categorically not forbidden, but rather disliked. Furthermore, whoever swears by a created being, his oath does not take effect and no expiation (kaffārah) is required if he breaks it." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa ʿUmdat al-Muftīn, Vol. 11/P.6]

According to the Ḥanbalī school, however, expiation becomes obligatory upon one who swears by our master the Prophet ﷺ and then breaks his oath. Imām al-Bahūtī al-Ḥanbalī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "No expiation is required for swearing by other than Allah the Almighty, even if the oath is broken — because expiation was made obligatory for swearing by Allah and His attributes, out of reverence for His names, and nothing else is equal to Him in this regard... except in the case of swearing by our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, for expiation becomes obligatory when one swears by him and then breaks the oath. This was explicitly stated in the narration of Abū Ṭālib, because he is one of the two conditions of the two testimonies of faith by which a disbeliever becomes a Muslim. Ibn ʿAqīl held the view that swearing by any of the other prophets, peace and blessings be upon them all, carries the same ruling." [Sharḥ Muntahā al-Irādāt, Vol. 3/P.441]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on the cessation of blood after (40) days from delivery, but later continued sporadically during two days of Ramadan?

Once postpartum bleeding (Nifas) ceases, and the woman is certain that it won`t reoccur, then she becomes ritually pure and so she is free to make Ghusl (purificatory bath), pray, and fast. If the bleeding reoccurs before fifteen days from its cessation, and before the end of (60) days after delivery, then the ruling on postpartum bleeding is effective, and her fasting and prayer are null and void, thus she must make up the fasting that she missed and not the prayer during those particular days.

What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks while uncertain about the arrival of dawn, then later finds out that dawn had not yet broken?

If a person does this, their fast remains valid, as it is confirmed that they ate during the night. Similarly, if someone eats while uncertain and remains unsure whether they ate before or after dawn, their fast is still valid. This is based on the maxim of Sharia Law, which states: "Certainty is not removed by doubt." Certainty, here, is the presence of night, and the doubt concerns the arrival of dawn. Therefore, one relies on certainty and disregards doubt.

"If the fidyah becomes obligatory upon a pregnant or nursing woman because she broke her fast out of fear for her child, is it obligatory from her own wealth, or from her husband's wealth?"

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

The fidyah (ransom/compensation payment for breaking the fast) is obligatory from the wife's own wealth, and is not obligatory upon the husband unless he voluntarily chooses to pay it on her behalf.

It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/P.174): "If the two [the pregnant woman and the nursing mother] fear for the child alone — such as a pregnant woman fearing miscarriage, or a nursing mother fearing that her milk supply would decrease, thereby endangering the child — then both the qaḍā' (making up the missed fast) and the fidyah become obligatory upon them, to be paid from their own wealth." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.