عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(116): “Sharia Ruing on Paying a Compensation to Partners“

Date Added : 28-10-2015

 

Resolution No.(116): “Sharia Ruing on Paying a Compensation to Partners“

Date: 4/9/1427 AH, corresponding to 27/9/2006 AD.

 

The Board received the following question:

In 1999, a person assumed operating a land in which he was a partner and which was irrigated free by a natural flow of a spring water. In 1994, the Water Authority of Jordan drew out its water shares in that spring in order to deliver them to residential areas. As a result, he was forced to purchase plastic pipes and a generator to pump the water to his land. In 2001, he and his partners filed a suit against the Water Authority of Jordan because of the harm inflicted on them. However, his partners didn`t cover any expenses concerning that lawsuit because the lawyer was supposed to receive a percentage from the compensation, so he had to cover all the expenses on his own. After filing that suit, his partners proposed selling their shares in that land to him, and he agreed and the deal was concluded. In February of 2006, the court ruled that the Water Authority of Jordan pays a compensation to the land owners because its value as irrigated land differed from its value as unirrigated land. On its part, the Water Authority of Jordan did pay the compensation and ordered the Lands Registration Department to transfer that land from irrigated into unirrigated. Is that person entitled to take that compensation for himself because he is the only one who was inflicted with harm while operating the land and after purchasing it as it was changed from irrigated into unirrigated, or is that compensation the right of all his partners?

Answer: All success is due to Allah

The Board is of the view that all partners are entitled to receive the compensation, and the above person`s purchase of their shares doesn`t deny them their right in the compensation since he did so after the suit was filed.

Besides, his partners sold him their shares after the price of the land had decreased. However, the Board sees that he is entitled to claim the costs, which he paid for buying the plastic pipes and the generator, from them. And Allah Knows Best.

 

 

The Iftaa' Board

        Chairman of The Iftaa' Board

            Chief Justice/ Dr.Ahmad Hlyaal

                    Sheikh AbdelKareem Al-Khasawneh

Dr. Yousef Ali  Ghythan

                                                                 Dr. Wasif Al-Bakhri

                                                                 Sheikh Saeed Hijawii

Sheikh Naeem Mujahid

                                                                 Dr. Yaser Al-Shamali

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Is the father a Mahram (Non-marriageable) to his son`s mother-in-law?

The father is a non-Mahram (Marriageable) to his son`s mother-in-law, so it is impermissible for them to look at each other, or to have a seclusion (Khalwah).

What is the ruling on swearing an oath by the Prophet ﷺ, and does such an oath take effect according to Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, requiring expiation upon its breach?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Swearing an oath by a created being is disliked (makrūh) in our Shāfiʿī school. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Swearing by a created being is disliked — such as swearing by the Prophet, the Kaʿbah, Jibrīl, the Companions, or the Prophet's family. Al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: 'I fear that swearing by other than Allah the Almighty may constitute an act of disobedience.' The scholars of the school explained this to mean: that is, something forbidden and sinful — indicating that he had some hesitation in the matter. Al-Imām stated: the established position of the school is that it is categorically not forbidden, but rather disliked. Furthermore, whoever swears by a created being, his oath does not take effect and no expiation (kaffārah) is required if he breaks it." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa ʿUmdat al-Muftīn, Vol. 11/P.6]
According to the Ḥanbalī school, however, expiation becomes obligatory upon one who swears by our master the Prophet ﷺ and then breaks his oath. Imām al-Bahūtī al-Ḥanbalī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "No expiation is required for swearing by other than Allah the Almighty, even if the oath is broken — because expiation was made obligatory for swearing by Allah and His attributes, out of reverence for His names, and nothing else is equal to Him in this regard... except in the case of swearing by our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, for expiation becomes obligatory when one swears by him and then breaks the oath. This was explicitly stated in the narration of Abū Ṭālib, because he is one of the two conditions of the two testimonies of faith by which a disbeliever becomes a Muslim. Ibn ʿAqīl held the view that swearing by any of the other prophets, peace and blessings be upon them all, carries the same ruling." [Sharḥ Muntahā al-Irādāt, Vol. 3/P.441]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on vomiting, and does it invalidate ablution?

Vomit is impure (najis). Its exit is not considered one of the nullifiers of ablution. However, the mouth must be washed and purified from it, and any that gets on clothing or the body must be washed for prayer, because prayer is not valid with impurity present on the body or clothing. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Is a person rewarded for refraining from all that breaks their fast when required to do so, and is it considered a valid fast?

If a person eats or drinks thinking that Fajr has not yet arrived, but then someone informs them that Fajr had already begun, they must refrain from eating for the rest of the day and make up the fast later.
If they observe the required restraint (imsak), they will be rewarded for obeying the command because fulfilling an obligation brings reward.
However, this is not considered a valid fast in terms of rulings. For example:
● It is not disliked (makruh) for them to use a miswak after noon.
● They are not encouraged to hasten the breaking of the fast at sunset.
● Other fasting-related rulings do not apply to them.

See More