عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(129): “Re-evaluation of the Amount of Diyah”

Date Added : 27-10-2015

 

Resolution No.(129),(7/2009): “Re-evaluation of the Amount of Diya”

Date: 1/8/1430 AH, corresponding to 23/7/2009 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 third session held on the above date, the Board of Iftaa reviewed the amount of Diya in light of the change in the value of camels in Jordanian currency, because twenty-one years passed over the last evaluation, which took place on 9/11/1408 AH, corresponding to 23/6/1988 AD.

 

After thorough studying and deliberating, the Board decided what follows:

 

First: In principle, the Diya is a hundred camels whose ages vary in accordance with the type of killing: premeditated murder, quasi-intentional murder, or accidental killing. In accidental killing, the Diya is a hundred camels: Thirty Bint Makkah, thirty Bint Labun, thirty Hiqqah and ten Bin Labun. This Diya is softened from three aspects: it is due on the killer`s Aqila (Male relatives of the killer from his father`s side), it is divided over three years, and the ages of the camels. In premeditated murder and quasi-intentional murder, the amount of the Diya is a hundred camels: thirty Hiqqah, thirty Bint Labun, and Khilfah. On the other hand, the Diya in quasi-intentional murder is softened from two aspects: it is due on the killer`s Aqila and divided over three years; whereas, it is more dense from one aspect, and that is the ages of the camels.

The Diya in premeditated murder is more dense from three aspects: due immediately, due from the killer`s wealth, and the ages of the camels.

The evaluation of Diya in a form other than camels relied on the value of camels. It was narrated from 'Amr bin Shu'aib, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever is killed by mistake, his ransom is one hundred camels: Thirty Bint Makkah, thirty Bint Labun, thirty Hiqqah and ten Bin Labun. "[1] The Messenger of Allah used to fix the value (of the Diya for accidental killing) among town-dwellers at four hundred Dinars or the equivalent value in silver. When he calculated the price in terms of people with camels (for Bedouin), it would vary from one time to another. When prices rose, the value in Dinars would rise, and when prices fell the value in Dinars would fall. At the time of the Messenger of Allah, the value was between four hundred and eight hundred Dinars, or the equivalent value in silver, eight thousand Dirhams. And the Messenger of Allah ruled that if a person's blood money was paid in cattle, among those who kept cattle, the amount was two hundred cows; and if a person's blood money was paid in sheep, among this who kept sheep, the value was two thousand sheep. The Messenger of Allah ruled that the blood money is part of the estate, to be divided among the heirs of the victim according to their allotted shares, and whatever is left over is for the 'Asabah. And the Messenger of Allah ruled that if a woman commits murder then he 'Asahah, whoever they may be, must pay the blood money, but they do not inherit anything except that which is left over from her heirs; if a woman is killed then her blood money is to be shared among her heirs, and they may kill her killer.” [Sunn Abu Dawood], [Sunn Al-Nisa'ee].

Second: As camels aren`t the common property of the people of Jordan, the Board believes that their prices should be estimated in Jordanian currency in order to facilitate for the people to pay the Diyah. The prices of camels can be obtained from the neighboring Islamic countries where camels are common.

Third: The Grand Mufti of Jordan has sent a message to the Chairman of the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Sudan inquiring about the prices of camels there. The latter has formed a committee to that end and informed the Grand Mufti about their prices. It was made clear to us that a hundred camels in addition to the transport fair equal twenty thousand Jordanian Dinars as regards the Diya in accidental killing, and twenty five thousand Jordanian Dinars for that in premeditated and Quasi-intentional killings. Therefore, the Board holds the view that the Diya of whoever is killed by mistake is twenty thousand Jordanian Dinars and twenty five thousand for whoever is killed intentionally or Quasi-intentionally.

Fourth: The Board stresses that the Diya in accidental and quasi-intentional killings is due on the killer`s Aqila; whereas, in premeditated murder it is due from the killer`s wealth.

Fifth: The Board stresses that it is impermissible for the family of the killed to demand both Qisas (Retaliation) and Diya. If Qisas was executed in case of premeditated murder, then no Diya is due on the killer.

Sixth: Recipients of the Diyah may waive their right to take it since Almighty Allah Has Urged Muslims to be forgiving. Whereas, He Says (What means): “And the remission (of the man’s half) is the nearest to righteousness.“ {Al-Baqara/237}. However, none may waive the right of minors in the Diya and such an act isn`t considered lawful.

Seventh: The Diya becomes part of the killed person`s estate and so it should be divided in accordance with the rulings of Sharia on inheritance. And Allah Knows Best.

 

The Grand Mufti of Jordan

                   Chairman of the Iftaa` Board,  Dr. Nooh al-Qhodat

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

                                   Sheikh Abdulkareem al-Khasawneh/ Member

         Sheikh Sa`eid Hijjawi/ Member

                        Dr. Muhammad Khair Al-'Eisa/Member

Judge Sari Attia/Member

              Dr. Abdul-Rahman Ibdah/Member

                           Dr. Muhammad Aiqla Al-Ibrahim/Member

                     Dr. Abdul Naser Abu Al-Basal/Member

                                               Executive Secretary of the Iftaa' Board Dr. Muhammad Al-Khalyla 

 

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Is a wife considered divorced if her husband refused to go to bed with her (for sexual intercourse) for two months?

A wife doesn`t get divorced no matter for how long her husband refuses to have sex with her, and she had better go to court.

How to perform the witr prayer in terms of connection (wasl) and separation (fasl)?

 
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
The Witr prayer has several forms that vary in terms of virtue:
 
The First Form: Separating every two units (rak‘ah) with a Tashahhud and a Taslim (salutation). This is superior to connecting the units, even if it is only a single rak‘ah. This is based on the Hadith of ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her): 'The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray eleven units between the end of the ‘Isha prayer and dawn, performing the Taslim after every two units and performing Witr with a single unit.' (Related by al-Bukhari & Muslim).
 
The Second Form: Connecting the units with only one final Tashahhud at the very end.
 
The Third Form: Connecting with two Tashahhuds—meaning reciting the Tashahhud before the final unit without performing the Taslim, then standing to complete the final unit. This form is considered the lowest in rank so that the Witr prayer remains distinct from the obligatory Maghrib prayer, as stated in the Hadith: 'Do not make the Witr resemble the Maghrib prayer.' (Narrated by Al-Daraqutni, who stated its narrators are trustworthy).
 
It is stated in Bushra al-Karim Sharh al-Muqaddimah al-Hadramiyyah: 'It is permissible to connect [the Witr] with one Tashahhud in the final unit—which is better—or with two Tashahhuds in the last two units, as both methods are established in Sahih Muslim from the actions of the Prophet ﷺ. In the connected method, more than two Tashahhuds are prohibited. Furthermore, separating (al-Fasl) is better than connecting (al-Wasl) if the number of units is the same, because the Hadiths supporting it are more numerous and it involves more devotional actions.' And Allah the Exalted knows best."

The Jurisprudential Significance of the Ḥadīth: "Whoever says, at the conclusion of the Fajr Prayer, while crossing his legs, before speaking..."
"Whoever says, at the conclusion of the Fajr prayer, while crossing his legs, before speaking: 'Lā ilāha illā Allāh, waḥdahu lā sharīka lah, lahu al-mulku wa lahu al-ḥamdu yuḥyī wa yumītu wa huwa ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr' ten times — ten good deeds will be recorded for him, ten bad deeds will be erased from him, he will be raised ten levels, he will spend that day in protection from everything disliked and guarded from the devil, and no sin will be able to befall him on that day except associating partners with Allah" — does this noble ḥadīth apply to the imam, and what is meant by "extraneous speech"?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is recommended for both the imam and those praying behind him to recite, immediately after the final salām, the specific remembrance reported in the sunnah to be said before turning away from one's place of prayer. The imam then leaves his praying spot, and the act of "turning" is fulfilled when the imam faces the congregation — even without physically leaving his spot — by positioning his right side toward them and his left side toward the qiblah, and this applies even while he is engaged in supplication.
Al-ʿAllāmah Ibn Qāsim al-ʿAbbādī states in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Tuḥfah (Vol.2/P.105): "It is most virtuous for the imam, once he has given the salām, to rise from his place of prayer immediately afterward." He adds that an exception must be made for the remembrances that are specifically required to be recited before he turns away. He then notes, citing Sharḥ al-ʿUbāb: "Yes, an exception to this rising immediately after the salām applies to the Fajr prayer, due to the authentic report that the Prophet ﷺ, when he prayed Fajr, would remain seated until the sun rose." He further cites, from al-Khādim, the ḥadīth concerning one who recites, at the conclusion of the Fajr prayer while still in the position of crossing his leg to rise: "Lā ilāha illā Allāh, waḥdahu lā sharīka lah..." and the rest of the well-known ḥadīth. He comments that this makes explicit that this particular remembrance is to be recited before the worshipper turns his legs to leave, and the same applies to Maghrib and ʿAṣr, as reported in those contexts as well.
What is meant by "speech" in the relevant ḥadīth is extraneous worldly speech that is not called for after the prayer and for which there is no legitimate excuse. The remembrances reported to be recited upon concluding the prayer, however, do not fall under this category of extraneous speech, since they are themselves required by the sharīʿah.
Al-ʿAllāmah ʿAlī al-Shabrāmalsī states in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Nihāyah (Vol.1/P.551): "If someone greets a person with salām while he is occupied with reciting this remembrance [i.e., 'Lā ilāha illā Allāh...'], should he return the greeting — without this causing him to forfeit the promised reward, since he is engaged in an obligatory matter — or should he delay returning the greeting until he finishes, this being a legitimate excuse for the delay?" He continues: "I say: the more likely view is the former, and the prohibition on speech is to be understood as applying to extraneous speech for which there is no legitimate excuse. Based on this, should the worshipper give precedence to this remembrance ('Lā ilāha illā Allāh...') or to reciting Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ ('Qul huwa Allāhu aḥad')? This requires consideration, though it is not unlikely that the remembrance takes precedence, given that the Lawgiver urged hastening to it through his words 'while crossing his leg.' This is not considered ordinary speech, since it is not extraneous to what is required after the prayer."
Accordingly, it is recommended for both the imam and those praying behind him to recite this remembrance and to give it precedence over the other remembrances of the prayer, ensuring it is said before they move from their place. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

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.

See More