عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(55): “Ruling on Receiving a Financial Compensation against Procrastination in Payment“

Date Added : 28-10-2015

 

Resolution No.(55): “Ruling on Receiving a Financial Compensation against Procrastination in Payment“

Date: 22/8/1422 AH corresponding to 7/11/2001 AD.

 

Question:

The Municipality of Irbid took possession of a plot from the lands of Irbid in 1987, owned by the Orphans` Fund Development Foundation for a price estimated at that time with (82215) JDs. (51215) JDs of that sum were paid to the Foundation and (31000) JDs remained due on the Municipality until 31/12/1999, when the Foundation filed a suit to collect the remaining amount. Later on, a court order was issued whereby the municipality was forced to pay off the price of the land (31000) JDs in addition to the statutory interests estimated at (32355) JDs and (600) fils, and so the Municipality did settle all the due sums during January 2000. However, the Orphans` Fund deposited the interests in the above plot`s bank account temporarily.

Please clarify the Sharia ruling as regards disposing of these interests, taking into consideration that article(4) of the Orphans` Foundation`s law No.(20) for the year 1972 states: “The Foundation aims at developing orphans` funds by investing them in legitimate businesses that don`t violate the rules of  Islamic Sharia “?

Answer: All success is due to Allah.

The procrastination on the part of Irbid`s Municipality in paying the remaining sum of the land`s price is considered a violation to the funds of the orphans and an act of injustice against them for the Prophet (PBUH) said in this regard: “Procrastination (delay) in paying debts by a wealthy man is injustice. So, if your debt is transferred from your debtor to a rich debtor, you should agree. “ {Al-Bukhari}. In addition, the Messenger of Allah said: "if one who can afford it delay repayment, his honor and punishment become permissible." {Muslim}. 

Therefore, the Municipality`s procrastination hindered the development of the orphans` funds through legitimate businesses decreed by the law-giver for the Prophet (PBUH) said in this regard {what means}: “One who becomes the guardian of an orphan, who owns property, must trade on his behalf and not leave it (saved and unused) until it is all eaten up by Zakah (which is paid yearly).” {Related by At-Tirmidhi and Ad-Daraqutni with a weak chain of narrators...}.

Therefore, the Board is of the view that a suitable compensation must be estimated in light of the harm done to the orphans` funds during the delay period, and to be paid in accordance with the average of the profits distributed on the orphans deposits during that period.

For example, if the average was 5%, then the amount due to the orphans is this average multiplied by the number of delayed years. These profits are permissible from the view point of Islamic Sharia and aren`t considered from the usurious interests because they are a compensation against  the harm done to the orphans` funds resulting from delay in payment on the part of the debtor, which impeded developing and investing them in legitimate businesses. 

The extra amount of profit that remains after giving the orphans their due shares is unlawful money (according to many scholars), and must be given to the poor and for charity. The Board also deems that this extra money must be deposited in the reserve account stated in clause (G), article (14) of the Orphans` Fund Development Foundation, and reads as follows: “The Board may dedicate more than 25% of the reserve earnings of the Islamic institutions or give cash assistance to underage orphans and needy Muslim students.” And Allah Knows Best.

 

Iftaa` Board

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, Chief Justice, Izz Al-Deen Al-Tamimi

            Dr. Mohammad Abu Yahia

           Dr. Abdulsalam Al-Abbadi

    Dr. Yousef Gheezaan

Dr. Wasif Al-Bakhri

         Dr. Abdulaziz Al-Khayaat

  Sheikh Saeid Hijjawi

      Sheikh Na`eim Mojahid

               Sheikh Mahmoud Shwayyaat

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Is Zakah (obligatory charity) due on the Zakah money received by a poor person, and reached a Nissab (minimum amount liable for Zakah), and a whole lunar year had lapsed over having it in his possession?

Yes, the poor who possessed a Nissab for a whole lunar year is obliged to pay the Zakah due on that money even if it was given to him as a Zakah money in the first place. And Allah Knows Best.

Is it permissible to divide a single Sa‘ of Zakat al-Fitr—or its equivalent value in cash—among more than one poor person?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Zakat al-Fitr is estimated at one Sa‘ per person, but the number of people to whom this Sa‘ can be given has not been specified. For this reason, it is permissible to distribute a single Sa‘ among more than one poor person. And Allah the Exalted knows best.

A man led the people in prayer as imam, and at the end of the prayer he performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because he had omitted a short *sūrah* after al-Fātiḥah. What is the ruling on his prayer and that of those praying behind him?

 

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
According to the Shāfiʿī school, it is sunnah to recite a sūrah after al-Fātiḥah in the prayer. One who omits it has a valid prayer, and no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw) is prescribed for omitting it. If someone performs sujūd al-sahw for its omission while knowing the ruling and remembering it, his prayer is invalidated. But one who is ignorant of the ruling, or who did so out of forgetfulness, his prayer is not invalidated, because this is among the matters that are obscure to people, and ignorance of it is not restricted to those who recently entered Islam.
Shaykh al-Islām al-Shams al-Ramlī said in Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj ilā Sharḥ al-Minhāj (Vol.2/p.70): “The remaining sunnahs are not compensated for by prostration, such as the remembrances (adhkār) of bowing and prostration, that is, the opening supplication (duʿāʾ al-iftitāḥ) and the sūrah, in accordance with the base rule, because they are not of the same nature as what has been reported [as compensable]. If one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to ignorance. As for the objection raised that the ignorant person does not know that sujūd al-sahw is prescribed, and whoever knows it knows its place, this is refuted by denying such a necessary connection, for the ignorant person may hear only that sujūd al-sahw is prescribed before the salām, and so assume that it applies to every sunnah and is not restricted to its prescribed place.”
This is among the matters that are obscure, in which the mukallaf is excused for ignorance, as stated by al-Shabrāmallisī in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.70).
However, if the imam prostrates, and the follower (maʾmūm) presumes that his imam’s prostration is for a reason for which one does not prostrate, it is not permissible to follow him in it, so long as the follower knows the ruling.
Accordingly, the prayer of one who did not recite a sūrah after al-Fātiḥah is valid, and sujūd al-sahw is not prescribed for it. Whoever prostrates out of ignorance or forgetfulness, his prayer is valid, because this is among the issues hidden from the general public. But whoever prostrates while knowing the ruling and remembering it, his prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.

See More