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 someone who possesses gold with the intention of saving/hoarding it, and owns nothing else — is he obligated to sell a portion of it in order to pay the zakāh due on it?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Zakāh becomes immediately obligatory on cash, and likewise on gold — that which is not designated for a woman's personal adornment— once both reach the niṣāb (minimum threshold liable for zakah) and a full ḥawl (lunar year) has passed over them. It is not permissible to delay payment when it is genuinely possible to pay — meaning, when the wealth and the eligible recipients are both available. It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.129): "Zakāh is obligatory immediately once it becomes feasible to pay it, meaning when the wealth and the eligible recipients are both present."
The one paying zakāh must discharge the obligatory zakāh due on saved (hoarded) gold either from the gold itself, or from its equivalent monetary value, in the event that no other funds are available — since paying from the gold itself is the original default (al-aṣl). It becomes permissible to pay from other funds instead only because zakāh is built upon the principle of ease and leniency, as stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib (Vol.1/p.366): "When a full ḥawl has elapsed on wealth other than trade goods... zakāh attaches to the actual asset itself (al-‘ayn), and the poor effectively become partners in it — even, for example, [becoming partners] in camels through the value of a sheep [owed as zakāh on them]... Paying from other wealth is permitted only because zakāh is built upon the principle of ease and leniency."
Accordingly: the one paying zakāh must discharge it either from the actual saved gold itself, or by selling a portion of the gold equal to the amount of zakāh owed. He may also borrow money to pay the zakāh, or pay the zakāh in installments before the ḥawl is complete [as an advance payment]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on one who wiped over his leather socks (*khuff*) while resident and then traveled, or wiped while traveling and then became resident? And likewise, what is the ruling on one who incurred a minor ritual impurity (*ḥadath aṣghar*) while resident, then traveled and wiped while traveling?

 

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever wipes over his leather socks (khuffayn) while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, before a day and a night have passed in both cases, completes the wiping period of a resident. If he wipes while resident and then travels after a day and a night have passed, he must remove the socks, because the period has ended. Likewise, if he wipes while traveling and then becomes resident after a day and a night have passed, he must remove them as well.
Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ while resident and then wipes while traveling takes the ruling of a traveler as regards the duration of wiping, so long as he does not become resident. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik wa ʿUddat al-Nāsik (Vol.1/p.15): “If he wipes over both [socks] or one of them while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, or doubts whether he began the wiping while traveling or while resident, he completes only the wiping period of a resident. But if he broke his wuḍūʾ while resident and wiped while traveling, he completes the period of a traveler, whether or not the full time of a prayer had passed over him while resident.” And Allah Almighty knows best.

Is it permissible to offer an Udhiyah on behalf of the deceased?

In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Offering an Udhiyah (sacrificial animal) on behalf of a deceased person is permissible. This is the official position of the Hanbali school (as stated in Kashshaf al-Qina’ by al-Bahuti,Vol.6/P.428) and was also upheld by the prominent Shafi'i scholar Al-’Abbadi (mentioned in Bidayat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Qadi Shuhbah,Vol. 4/P.358). It has likewise been narrated as a valid view among some Maliki and Hanafi scholars.
 
In fact, Imam Abu Dawud dedicated an entire chapter in his Sunan collection entitled, "Chapter on Sacrificing on Behalf of the Deceased." In it, he recorded a narration from Hanash, who said: "I saw 'Ali sacrificing two rams, so I asked him, 'What is this?' He replied, 'The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded me to offer a sacrifice on his behalf, so I am sacrificing on his behalf.'"
 
Imam Abu Dawud also narrated from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "O Allah, this is from You, for You, and on behalf of Muhammad and his Ummah (community). In the Name of Allah, and Allah is the Greatest," and he then slaughtered the animal.
 
The textual evidence here lies in the fact that our Master, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), offered a sacrifice on behalf of his entire community—and it is well-established that his community includes those who have already passed away.
 
Furthermore, there is an abundance of sacred texts demonstrating that the rewards of righteous deeds reach the deceased. For instance, it is permissible to fast on behalf of a deceased person who passed away with missed obligatory fasts, and it is equally permissible to perform Hajj on their behalf, both of which are firmly established in authentic Hadiths. Therefore, if the reward of fasting (which is a purely physical act of worship) and Hajj (which is a joint physical and financial act of worship) can reach the deceased, then the reward of an Udhiyah reaches them with greater reason (by way of A Fortiori argument). This is because it is a purely financial act of worship, falling under the general category of charity (Sadaqah).
 
Additionally, scholars have reached a consensus (Ijma') that the rewards of charity reach the deceased, and since the Udhiyah is inherently an act of charity, it falls under the same ruling. Consequently, based on all the aforementioned evidence, we hold the view that offering a sacrifice on behalf of the deceased is entirely permissible. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

Does the fast become invalid if water from rinsing the mouth reaches the stomach while performing ablution?

If water reaches the stomach without the fasting person exceeding normal rinsing or being excessive, their fast remains valid.
However, if they exceed the normal practice or exaggerate in rinsing, causing water to enter the stomach, their fast is invalid.
This is because excessiveness in rinsing is prohibited for a fasting person, as the Prophetﷺ said: "Exaggerate inhaling water during ablution, except when you are fasting." [Narrated by the Four Imams]
Transgression (Ta‘addi) refers to rinsing the mouth more than three times, while exaggeration (Mubalaghah) includes gargling, drawing water deep into the nasal passages, or filling the mouth with water in an unusual manner.

See More