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 are the legal and religious consequences for a charitable organization in the event that a sacrificial animal is damaged or spoiled after slaughter?

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Charitable organizations entrusted with slaughtering sacrificial animals (uḍḥiyyah) and distributing their meat on behalf of their owners are obligated to safeguard the meat from spoilage, damage, theft, and any other harm. This is because such organizations act as agents (wukalā') on behalf of those offering the sacrifice, and an agent holds what is entrusted to them in trust (amānah) — whether they receive a wage for their work or act on a voluntary basis.
If the sacrificial animal is damaged after slaughter during the processes of packaging, transportation, or storage due to negligence or oversight — whether on the part of the organization's own staff overseeing the operation, or on the part of third parties contracted by the organization such as transport or shipping companies — then liability falls upon the negligent party, who is required to compensate for the value of the sacrifice. It is not permissible to cover such compensation from the organization's other donor funds.
However, if the damage to the sacrificial animal occurs without any negligence in its preservation and storage on the part of any party involved in the transportation, shipping, or storage process, and is instead attributable to force majeure circumstances beyond their control, then no financial liability is borne by any party in such a case. And Allah Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on omitting the prostration of recitation?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
The prostration of recitation (Sajdat al-Tilawah) is a Sunnah for both the reader and the listener. There is no sin in omitting it, though doing so results in missing a great reward. Muslim narrated from Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet ﷺ said: 'When the son of Adam recites a verse of prostration and prostrates, Shaytan withdraws weeping, saying: "Woe to him! (and in the narration of Abu Kuraib: "Woe to me!") The son of Adam was commanded to prostrate and he prostrated, so Paradise is his; and I was commanded to prostrate and I refused, so the Fire is mine."'
 
Sheikh al-Islam Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) stated: 'It is recommended to prostrate immediately after reciting or hearing a verse of prostration. If one delays it but the interval is short, he may still prostrate. However, if the interval is long, the opportunity is missed.' [Rawdat al-Talibin Vol.1/P.323].
 
Furthermore, the prostration of recitation becomes obligatory (Wajib) in congregational prayer if the Imam prostrates, out of the necessity of following him. And Allah the Exalted knows best.

Is it permissible for a pious Muslim woman to stay with her husband who had quit praying out of laziness?

Quitting prayer is one of the major grave sins that come after disbelieving in Allah, but the wife of such a person isn`t considered divorced, rather, she should exert all her efforts in order to bring him back to the way of Islam. However, if his sin is likely to lure her from the way of Islam, then she had better separate from him by lawful means such as Mokhal`aa (When a wife pays a compensation for her husband in return for divorcing her). Moreover, if she exercises patience, and remains steadfast on her faith, then there is no harm in doing that.

Is it permissible for one who sacrifices on behalf of another, with the latter's permission, to eat from the sacrifice?

It is permissible for someone who sacrificed on behalf of another with their permission to eat from it with their permission, and they stand in their place (act as their representative) in distributing it.
 
It is stated in Nihayat al-Muhtaj ila Sharh al-Minhaj (Vol.8/P.141): "And he—meaning the one sacrificing on his own behalf, provided he has not apostatized—has the right to eat from a voluntary sacrifice and his sacrificial gift; rather, it is recommended. As for an obligatory sacrifice, it is forbidden for him to eat from it, whether it was designated as such initially or as a liability in his dhimmah. And excluded by what has preceded is if he sacrifices on behalf of another, or if he apostatized, then it is not permissible for him to eat from it, just as it is absolutely impermissible to feed a disbeliever from it."(The text I found indicates the impermissibility of eating) ???
 
And it is stated in Hashiyat al-Jamal ‘ala Sharh al-Manhaj (Vol.5/P.262): "If a person offers a sacrifice on behalf of a living person with their permission, does he act as their representative in distributing it—on the grounds that permission to sacrifice is permission to distribute it—or does it depend on their explicit permission? This requires consideration, but the first view is not far-fetched." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

See More