Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(110): “Ruling on the Slaughtering Method Used by the Indian Company (M.K over Seas)”

Date Added : 02-11-2015

 

Resolution No.(110): “Ruling on the Slaughtering  Method Used by the Indian Company (M.K over Seas)”

Date: 2/6/1426 AH, corresponding to 28/6/2006 AD.

 

The Board received the following question:
What is the Sharia ruling on the slaughtering method used by the Indian company (M.K over Seas)?
Answer: All success is due to Allah
After reviewing the slaughtering mechanism, the personnel doing the slaughtering and those supervising it, the Iftaa Board has decided the following:
The slaughtering is in accordance with the rulings of Sharia, the personnel carrying out the slaughtering are Muslims and the aforesaid company is overseen by a specialized Muslim overseer who makes sure that the slaughtering is carried out in accordance with the rulings of Islamic Sharia. And Allah Knows Best.  

 

Chairman of The Iftaa' Board/Cheif Justice/ Dr. Ahmad Hilayeel
      Dr. Yousef Ali Ghythan
                            Dr. Abd-Al-Majeed Al- Salaheen       
Dr. Wasif Al Bakhri
                             Sheikh Abd-Al-Kareem Al-Khsawneh
     Sheikh Sa'eed Hijjawi
          Sheikh. Na'eem Mojahed

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on water present on the floor of a toilet/bathroom?

The default ruling is the purity of this water present on the bathroom floor. If one is certain or strongly suspects its impurity, then one washes whatever part of the body or clothing this impure water has touched. If one doubts its impurity, the default is purity, and we do not rule it impure based on mere doubt. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

 
What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks while uncertain about the arrival of dawn, then later finds out that dawn had not yet broken?

If a person does this, their fast remains valid, as it is confirmed that they ate during the night. Similarly, if someone eats while uncertain and remains unsure whether they ate before or after dawn, their fast is still valid. This is based on the maxim of Sharia Law, which states: "Certainty is not removed by doubt." Certainty, here, is the presence of night, and the doubt concerns the arrival of dawn. Therefore, one relies on certainty and disregards doubt.

A man wishes to offer more than one uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering), and intends by these sacrifices "on behalf of everyone whom Allah and His Messenger love." Is this intention valid?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering) is not valid with this intention, because if the sacrificial animal is from sheep or goats, it suffices for one person only; and if it is from cattle or camels, it suffices for seven persons.
However, one may sacrifice it on his own behalf, and then gift the equivalent of its reward to whomever he wishes.
Imam ar-Ramlī (raḥimahullāh) says: "Ash-Shāfi‘ī (raḍiyallāhu ‘anh) said: It is within the vastness of Allah's bounty, the Exalted, that He rewards the one giving charity as well. From this, the scholars of the madhhab said: it is recommended for a person to intend the charity on behalf of his parents, for example — for Allah, the Exalted, will reward them, without this diminishing his own reward in any way." He then relates, as the relied-upon position, the permissibility of saying: "O Allah, convey the reward of what I have recited specifically to so-and-so, and to the Muslims generally." Az-Zarkashī said: "For reward varies in degree — its highest form is what one designates specifically, and its lowest form is what one dedicates generally [alongside others]." [End of quote from Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

Is it incumbent on the fiancée to obey her fiancé?

When the woman settles in her husband`s house, it is incumbent on him to provide for her and it is incumbent on her to obey him. Before that, and if the marriage contract had been concluded, then she is lawfully his wife and thus she should abide by custom in treating him, but if the marriage contract hadn`t been concluded, then she should treat him as a non-Mahram (Marriageable).