عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(146): "Ruling on a Muslim Taking his Share of the Estate from a Usurious Bank

Date Added : 05-10-2015

Resolution  No. (146) (11/2010), By The Board of Iftaa', Research and Islamic Studies:

"Ruling on a Muslim Taking  his Share of the Estate from a Usurious Bank"

Date: 2/9/1431 A.H corresponding to 12/8/2010 A.D

 

All praise be to Allah, peace and blessings be upon Prophet Mohammad and upon  all of his family and companions:

The Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies reviewed, in its 9th session held on Thursday(2/9/1431A.H) corresponding to (12/8/2010 A.D), the following  question:

My father passed away, and left us a sum of money which our mother didn`t divide  amongst us, rather , she kept it deposited  in a usurious bank for  thirty years; is it permissible for me to take my share and what is the ruling on paying the  Zakah due on it ?

After careful study and deliberation, the Board decided what follows:

What the mother did is unlawful in Islamic law because once the father died, the money  is transferred to the possession of the heirs-each according to his/her share. The degree of unlawfulness as far as the mother`s act is concerned increases by her dealing in Riba (usury); therefore, she should seek repentance, ask for forgiveness, withdraw the money from that bank and divide it amongst the eligible heirs. On their part, the heirs must  get rid of the usurious amount in their shares  by giving  it up to charity, and Allah will reward them for doing so since He, The Most Exalted, Says (What means): “O ye who believe! Fear God, and give up what remains of your demand for usury, if ye are indeed believers. If ye do it not, Take notice of war from God and His Apostle: But if ye turn back, ye shall have your capital sums: Deal not unjustly, and ye shall not be dealt with unjustly.” {Al-Baqarah/278-279}.

The heirs are also obliged to give the Zakah due on their shares for one year in case each of them reached Nisaab (i.e. minimum amount of wealth liable for the payment of zakat). And Allah Knows Best.

 

 

Head of the Iftaa` Board, The Mufti General of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, His Grace Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh

Vice Head of the Iftaa` Board, Dr. Ahmad Hilayel

Dr. Yahia Al-Botoosh/ Member

His Eminence, Sheikh Sa`ied Hijjawi/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Khair Al-Essa

Judge Sarrie Attieh

Dr. Abdulrahman Ibbdah/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Oklah/ Member

Dr. Abduln`nassir Abu Al Bass`al/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Gharaibeh/ Member

Executive Secretary of the Iftaa` board, Dr. Ahmad Al-has`sanat

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

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.

If someone fasts on the White Days with the intention of making up for missed fasts (qada), will they receive the reward for both voluntary and obligatory fasting?

Making up missed obligatory fasts (qada) is mandatory, and the intention for qada must be specified.
If a person makes up their missed Ramadan fasts on the White Days, they must intend qada, but they may also intend to fast the White Days, and Allah willing, they will receive the reward for both.
This is similar to entering a mosque and praying an obligatory prayer, where the person also earns the reward of Tahiyyat al-Masjid (greeting the mosque) if they intend both.
● If the person missed their fasts due to a valid excuse, they may wait and fast on the White Days.
● However, if they missed the fasts without a valid excuse, they must make up the fasts immediately and should not delay them until the White Days.

Is the marriage, which lacks a valid legal contract, a guardian, and a court registration, valid?

It is incumbent that a valid marriage contract be concluded in the presence of a guardian and two trustful witnesses, and it should be registered in the court to protect the rights of the wife. Actually, a valid marriage contract is what differentiates between sound marriage and fornication.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

See More