Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(63): “Ignorance of Spouses Regarding the Necessity of Renewing their Marriage Contract after Minor Revocable Divorce“

Date Added : 02-11-2015

 

Resolution No.(63): “Ignorance of Spouses Regarding the Necessity of Renewing their Marriage Contract after Minor Revocable Divorce“

Date: 5/3/1424 AH corresponding to 7/5/2003 AD.

 

The Board received the following question:

I made revocable divorce to my wife in return for absolution after the consummation of the marriage contract. Later on, I went to my wife and her family and showed remorse over what I have done. I expressed my wish to take her back and after prolonged discussions, I managed to convince them to do so. However, being ignorant of the Sharia ruling in this regard, I took her home without renewing our marriage contract and we lived together and had a number of children. We have recently realized that we should have renewed our marriage contract. Now, we are perplexed as to what we are supposed to do, would you please guide us to do what is right in our situation?

Answer: All success is due to Allah.

The Board is of the view that due to the ignorance of both spouses as regards the ruling of Sharia on their divorce and its consequences, they should make repentance and seek forgiveness for the period, which they spent without renewing their marriage contract. They should also renew their marriage contract, and the children born during that period are considered theirs because they begot them while being ignorant of the Sharia ruling in question. 

And Allah Knows Best.

Iftaa` Board

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

                Dr. Mohammad Abu Yahia     

    Dr. Ahmad Hilayil       

       Dr. Yousef Gheezaan   

Dr. Wasif Al-Bakhri

     Sheikh Saeid Hijjawi   

           Sheikh Naeim Mujahid      

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on mentioning Allah`s name upon slaughtering an animal?

In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is a Sunnah (prophetic tradition) for the person slaughtering to say: "Bismillah" (In the Name of Allah), though the most complete and perfect phrasing is to say: "Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim" (In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful). This is in accordance with the words of Allah Almighty: "So eat of that [meat] upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned." (Al-An'am/118)
 
However, pronouncing it is not an obligatory requirement (Wajib). If someone omits it—whether deliberately or out of forgetfulness—the meat remains entirely lawful (Halal) to eat, though purposely omitting it is considered disliked (Makruh). And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on obtaining financing from Islamic banks by bringing invoices in prior arrangement with the seller, then taking the cash after the financing is approved — with the purpose of settling debts and buying a car?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It appears from the transaction described that its underlying purpose is to obtain cash through resorting to a legal artifice (ḥīlah/tawarruq-style trick), and it is not permissible to engage in such trickery or to coordinate with the various parties merely to obtain liquidity. This is because such artifices bring the sale closer in reality to a ribā-based (usurious) transaction, even if it outwardly appears otherwise.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Do not commit what the Jews committed, thereby making lawful what Allah has made unlawful through the flimsiest of tricks." This was related by Ibn Baṭṭah in his book Ibṭāl al-Ḥiyal (p. 47), and many scholars have graded it as ḥasan (sound/acceptable).
We have already explained the impermissibility of engaging in such deceptive dealings with Islamic banks in Fatwa No. 516, so please refer to it. And Allah, the Exalted, 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.

If a traveler settles or a sick person recovers while fasting, is it permissible for them to break their fast?

● If a sick person starts the day fasting and then recovers during the day, they must complete their fast.
● If a traveler starts the day fasting and then settles (returns or stops traveling) during the day, they must also complete their fast.
● It is forbidden for both of them to break their fast because the concession (rukhsah) is no longer valid once its reason disappears.