عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(124): “The Penalty Clause in Debts“

Date Added : 27-10-2015

 

Resolution No.(124),(11/2008): “The Penalty Clause in Debts“

Date:29/11/1429 AH, corresponding to 27/11/2008 AD.

 

All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of The Worlds; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.

During its seventh session held on the above given date, the Iftaa` Board reviewed the penalty clause stated in some of the contracts that it had reviewed.

After thorough study and deliberation, the Board decided the following:

Giving the creditor the power to receive pecuniary charge and to claim it in case the debtor failed to repay him is called the penalty clause. This provision is invalid and renders the contract invalid, because it is from the Riba (usury/interest) of Jahilliyaah (the days and traditions of ignorance), and it is forbidden as stated in the Holy Quran. Whereas, Allah Says (what means): “but God hath permitted trade and forbidden usury.” (Al-Baqarah/275).

Receiving a pecuniary charge from the debtor in case of delay in payment is tantamount to stipulating it upon the conclusion of the contract. This is because it is the kind of Riba that the Arabs used to have at that time. They used to tell a debtor, “You either settle the debt, or add an interest.” {Kindly refer to Tafseer At-Tabari vol.3, pp.275}.

The penalty clause is an increase on the original value of the debt against delay in repayment. This increase is forbidden and invalid, whether it was stipulated in the contract such as the penalty clause, or was stipulated upon the deadline of the repayment.

Therefore, the penalty clause pertaining to debt settlement is parallel to acknowledging Riba upon concluding the contract, and this is forbidden in Islamic Sharia. And Allah Knows Best.

 

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, the Grand Mufti of Jordan/ Dr. Nooh Al-Qodat

Vice Chairman of  the Iftaa` Board, Dr. Ahmad Hilayel/ Member

Sheikh Abdul-Kareem Al-Khsawneh/Member

Dr. Sa`eid Hijjawi/  Member

                   Dr. Mohammad Khair Al-Essa/ Member

                                                              Judge Sari Attieh/ Member

          Dr. Abdurahman Ibdaah/ Member

       Dr. Mohammad Oklah/ Member

               Dr. Abdunnasser Abulbasal/ Member

                                            Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/ Executive Secretary of the Iftaa Board        

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on one who slept while firmly seated on the ground, regarding nullification of ablution?

The default ruling regarding sleep is that it nullifies ablution. An exception to this is one who slept while firmly seated on the ground; his ablution is not nullified by sleep if he wakes up while still firmly seated on the ground. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on wiping the front of the head beneath the ḥijāb, and is it permissible to wipe over the ḥijāb if it was put on while in a state of purification (wudu`)?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is permissible to wipe the front portion of the head (nāṣiyah) with the fingertips. It is likewise sufficient to place a wet hand over a head covering (ḥijāb), provided the moisture actually reaches the hair beneath it — if it does not, it does not suffice. A head covering is not treated in the same manner as leather socks (khuff) and may not be wiped over in lieu of the head itself.
Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Majmūʿ (Vol.1/P.407): "If a person is wearing a turban and does not wish to remove it — whether for a valid reason or otherwise — he should wipe the entire front portion of the head... The same ruling applies to whatever a woman wears on her head. If, however, he confines himself to wiping over the turban without wiping any part of the head itself, this does not suffice — and there is no disagreement among us on this point." He further states: "A woman is like a man in the manner of wiping the head... She should insert her hand beneath her head covering so that the wiping falls upon the hair itself. If she places her wet hand over her head covering, our scholars stated: if the moisture does not reach the hair, it does not suffice her." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, and is it permissible to slaughter the ewe if one knows it is pregnant?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, the fetus becomes lawful (ḥalāl) by virtue of its mother's slaughter (tabaʿan li-ummihā).
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/P.158): "A fetus found dead [after the mother's slaughter], or found alive but in a state resembling that of a slaughtered animal [i.e., dying shortly after], becomes lawful — whether or not it had grown fur — provided it is found in the womb of a mother that was lawfully slaughtered, whether her slaughter was by cutting the throat, or by an arrow or hunting dog sent after her. This is based on the ḥadīth: 'The slaughtering of the fetus is [effected by] the slaughtering of its mother' [narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan, and by Ibn Ḥibbān, who graded it ṣaḥīḥ] — meaning that the slaughter which rendered the mother lawful renders the fetus lawful as well, by virtue of following her; and because the fetus is one of her constituent parts, and her slaughter renders lawful all of her parts."
This ruling differs, however, from the case of one who knows from the outset that the ewe is pregnant [and intends to sacrifice her specifically as the udḥiyah while pregnant] — in which case, according to the Shāfi'ī school, she does not fulfill the requirement of a valid sacrifice.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī 'alā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.4/P.335): "A pregnant animal does not fulfill the requirement [of a valid sacrifice], and this is the authoritative position (al-mu'tamad), because pregnancy diminishes the quality of the meat. As for why such an animal is nevertheless counted as complete [i.e., fully valid] in matters of zakāh, that is because the intent there is reproduction (nasl), not the quality of the meat.". And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on someone who wakes up in a state of janābah (major ritual impurity) near the very end of the prayer's designated time, during cold weather — should he heat water in order to perform ghusl, even though the prayer's time will expire as a result, or should he perform tayammum instead?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
If the water is cold, and cannot be used due to fear of harm that is not ordinarily tolerable, or that would result in illness, then in this case it becomes obligatory to heat the water — even if heating it causes the time for Fajr to expire — and no sin is incurred in doing so, due to his valid excuse. He may not resort to tayammum (dry ablution) instead, since water remains available [and merely needs to be heated].
Imam Shihāb ad-Dīn Aḥmad ar-Ramlī (raḥimahullāh) said: "He was asked regarding a person who, if he were to use cold water, would experience harm that permits tayammum, and who has access to something with which he could heat the water — but if he heats it, the prayer's time will expire. Is it obligatory for him to heat it even if the time expires, or should he pray with tayammum within the prescribed time? He answered that it is obligatory for him to heat the water, even if the time for that particular obligatory prayer expires." [Fatāwā ar-Ramlī, Vol.1/P.98]
Imam al-Bājūrī (raḥimahullāh) said in his Ḥāshiyah on Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim (Vol.1/P.173): "And if he fears [harm] from using cold water, and is currently unable to heat it, but knows of a place where firewood is available, such that if he were to go there he would not return until after the prescribed time has expired — what appears [to be the correct position] is that it is obligatory for him to go and seek the firewood, even if the time expires as a result, as this is the position ultimately settled upon by ar-Ramlī, and as related from him by Ibn Qāsim." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

See More