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

What is the ruling on performing istinja' before every ablution?

Istinja' is not from the conditions for the validity of ablution. It is only obligatory for prayer when there is impurity from urine or stool on the private part, or if there is fear of the impurity spreading to the body or clothing. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on a Friday sermon in which the khaṭīb did not explicitly exhort the congregation to be conscious of Allah (taqwā) in both sermons, but sufficed with commanding them to obey Allah and refrain from disobeying Him?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
For the Friday sermon (khuṭbat al-Jumʿah) to be valid, certain essential pillars (arkān) must be fulfilled. Among these is the exhortation to be conscious of Allah (waṣiyyah bi-taqwā Allāh), which must be present in both sermons. Alongside this pillar, the praising of Allah (ḥamdallah) and the sending of blessings upon the Messenger of Allah ﷺ are equally required.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "These three are pillars in each of the two sermons, because each sermon is independent and separate from the other." [Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj,Vol.4/P.447]
It is not a condition that the exhortation be expressed in any specific wording, nor is it required that the word "taqwā" itself be used — such as saying "I exhort you to be conscious of Allah." Rather, this pillar is fulfilled by any expression that contains a command to obey Allah the Almighty and to abstain from what He has prohibited.
Imām al-Khaṭīb al-Sharbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "The third pillar is the exhortation to taqwā... The specific wording of this exhortation is not required, according to the most correct view, because the purpose is admonition and the urging of obedience to Allah the Almighty. Therefore, any expression that conveys admonition suffices — whether long or short — such as: 'Obey Allah and be ever mindful of Him.'" [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj,Vol.1/P.550]
Accordingly, what the khaṭīb has done — by commanding obedience to Allah and forbidding disobedience to Him in both sermons — is valid and sufficient. And Allah the 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.

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