عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(209): "The Administrative Fees Charged on UJ`s Staff Provident Fund"

Date Added : 05-10-2015

Resolution No.(209)(19/2014), by The Board of Iftaa', Researches and Islamic Studies:  

"The Administrative Fees Charged on UJ`s Staff Provident Fund"

Date: 30/ Zulqidah/1435 A.H, corresponding to 25/9/2014 A.D

 

All perfect praise be to Allah. Blessings and peace be upon Prophet Mohammad and upon his family and companions.

The Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies reviewed, in its twelfth session held on Thursday (30/ Zulqidah/1435 A.H)-(25/9/2014 A.D), the letter of His Excellency the President of Jordan University which reads as follows:

UJ`s staff provident fund committee decided, on its session No.(4/2014), to address the General Iftaa` Department so as to obtain their religious ruling on deducting (50)JDs. out of each (1000)JDs. from the sums given by the above Fund for the zero-interest loans, and it suggests that the administrative fees be within the following formula (charging (25)JDs. on each loan transaction regardless of the value, or the duration of that loan) ?

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

It is permissible to adjust the administrative fees charged on good-will loans so that they would become a fixed sum which is separated from the loan`s value, or duration, provided that this sum covers the administrative fees only, without any increase as a profit. And Allah Knows Best.

 

Head of the Iftaa` Board: The  Grand Mufti  of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan His Grace Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khassawwneh

Vice head of the Iftaa` Board: Prof. Ahmad Hilayel

Prof. Hayel Abdulhafeez/ Member

Prof. Abdulnasser Abu Al-Bassal

His Eminence Sheikh Sa`eed Hijjawi/ Member

Dr. Yahia Al-Bottoosh/Member

Prof. Mohammad Al-Qudah/Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Z`oubee/Member

Dr. Wassif Al-Bakhri/Member

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

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.

What is required of a traveler or a sick person if they broke their fast and then their excuse ceased?

If a traveler settles or a sick person recovers after having broken their fast, it is recommended for them to refrain from eating and drinking for the rest of the day, but it is not obligatory.

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 a suitor (khāṭib) going out alone with his fiancée before the marriage contract is concluded?

It is unlawful for a suitor, prior to the marriage contract , to do anything that would be unlawful for any non-maḥram man — including touching his fiancée, being secluded with her (khalwah), or seeing her without her complete sharī‘ah-compliant covering — even after the recitation of al-Fātiḥah (This is a cultural custom to seek Allah's blessing (barakah) and mark mutual consent) and the family's approval [of the engagement]. This is because the engagement, without the formal marriage contract, does not render unlawful matters permissible. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

See More