عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No. (319): "Ruling on Combining Wakalah for a Fee and a Loan in one Contract"

Date Added : 11-01-2023

 

Resolution No. (319), By The Board of Iftaa', Researches and Islamic Studies:

"Ruling on Combining Wakalah for a Fee and a Loan in one Contract"

Date: (21 Jumada al-Ula, 1444 AH), corresponding to (15/12/2022 AD).

 

Praise be to Allah the Lord of the Worlds. May His peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.

In its fifteenth meeting held on the above date, the Board of Iftaa` reviewed the referendum No.(190959) sent to the electronic website of the Iftaa` Department. It stated what follows: "A person authorized another to buy him a car that is worth 10,000 JDs in return for getting paid 100 JDs. However, the authorized will be paid a total of 10100 JDs after one year. In this case, there are two contracts in one. A contract of Wakalah (Agency agreement) for a fee and a loan contract. The question that arises here is that does the loan bring a benefit since the Wakalah fee (Ju`l) is considered a benefit resulting from the loan tied to it?

After deliberations. The Board arrived at the following decision:

This transaction is made up of two contracts: Wakalah for a fee and a loan contract. Simply, the principal/client authorizes the agent to buy him a car from his {Agent} own money in return for receiving a fee and functioning as an agent. 

The general rule is that it isn`t allowed for an agent to purchase, from his own money, a commodity for the principal/client since, according to the Shafi school of thought, he (Agent) is purchasing that commodity for himself. An-Nawawi said: "It isn`t allowed for an agent to buy, from his own money, a commodity for the principal/client and if he (Agent) does then he is buying that commodity for himself." {Rawdat At-Talibeen, Vol.4: 326}.

If the agent used his own money or borrowed money to buy a commodity for the principal/client, then it isn`t permissible to stipulate a contract of leasing (Ijarah) in a sale contract (Bay`). This is since the Messenger of Allah said: "The proviso of a loan combined with a sale is not allowable…." {Transmitted by Tirmithi}. This form of transaction involves the confusedness of usury. I.e. the fee collected by the agent lending the money to the principal/client is an excuse for the increase on the original amount of the loan. The Shafie scholar Al-Mawardi said: "In this sense, it isn`t permissible to purchase and lend. This is like when a person says to another: "I will buy this slave of yours for a hundred provided that you lend me that sum. Both the condition and the loan are invalid based on what we have mentioned earlier. In addition, Ijarah isn`t permissible with the condition of loaning." {Al-Hawi Al-Kabeer, Vol.5: pp.352}. It is stated in the Maliki book {Mawahib Al-Jaleel Fi Mokhtasar Khaleel, Vol.4/pp.314}: "The proviso of a loan combined with a sale is not allowable.."

In conclusion, it isn`t allowable to combine Wakalah for a fee and a loan in one contract. The solution out of this is that the agent buys the car from his own money, then sells it to the principal/client in the form of Murabah contract of sale. And Allah The Almighty Knows Best.

 

Grand Mufti of Jordan, Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/ Member

Prof. Mahmoud Al-Sartawi/ Member

Sheikh Sa`eid Hijjawi/ Member

Prof. Amjad Rasheed/ Member

Prof. Adam Nooh Al-Qhodah/ Member

Dr. Jameel Khatatbeh/ Member

Dr. Ahmad Al-Hasanat/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Younes al-Zou`bi/ Member

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What should someone do if they fasted for 30 days in their country, then traveled to a place where people are still fasting?

If a person completes 30 days of fasting in their country and then travels to another country where people are still fasting, they should continue fasting with them until they observe Eid. Even if they have already completed 30 days, he/she should abstain from eating and drinking and join the people of that country because he/she has now become part of that community.

Can someone who begins a voluntary fast break it?

It is preferable for someone who begins an act of worship not to break it.
Allah the Exalted has said {what means}: "and let not your [good] deeds come to nought!" [Muhammad/33].
However, if a person starts a voluntary fast (nafl) and needs to break it, they are going against what is preferable, but there is no sin upon them.

Is it permissible to purchase the Udhiyah on installments?

It is permissible to purchase the sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyyah) on installments or by borrowing its price. However, it is not recommended for the poor to do so, because they are not required to offer a sacrifice, and Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity. If doing so would lead to negligence in providing for one's dependents (nafaqah wājibah), then giving precedence to obligatory maintenance over borrowing to buy the sacrifice is appropriate. This is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "It is sufficient sin for a person to withhold food from those whom he is responsible to support."
 
Furthermore, the sacrifice is valid from one who has a debt, but it is preferable (awlā) to repay the debt first, especially if the debt is due immediately (ḥāll). And Allah Almighty knows best.

See More