Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(22): “Marriage of Challenged Individual"

Date Added : 29-11-2015

 

Resolution No.(22) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:    

“Marriage of Challenged Individuals“

Date: 20/11/1411 A.H, corresponding to 3/6/1991 A.D

 

We have received the following question:
What is the ruling of Sharia on the marriage of challenged individuals?
Answer:
All success is due 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.
Having reviewed article (120) of the Jordanian Civil Status Law which grants a wife the right to ask for separation in case her husband became insane after the conclusion of their marriage contract, and the articles (113-119) which give her/him the right to ask for dissolution of marriage due to illnesses and diseases, the Board is of the view that it is permissible to confine the marriage of an individual afflicted with a disability, repulsive disease, or a disease that  could be transmitted to others or to his offspring, whether his disability was mental, physical, or psychological. It is also permissible to confine the marriage of an individual inflicted with a handicap, or was genetically handicapped, by obtaining a permission from a Sharia judge, by analogy to the ruling applied to the person inflicted with insanity, or idiocy, which undermines the very purpose of marriage itself.
The ruling in such cases depends on the judge`s decision and assessment of the best interest of both spouses, provided that each case is considered separately and after submitting a certified medical report from a specialized committee of expert doctors, showing that his disability or illness is incurable, and that he is likely to beget children inflicted with the same disabilities. In this case, the judge is entitled to stop this marriage before the conclusion of the contract to avoid any future harms since in this situation marriage loses its purpose, and causes embarrassment or harm to one of the spouses or to both of them. And Allah Knows Best.

 

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, Chief Justice Mohammad Mohailan
The Grand Mufti of Jordan, Izzaldeen At-tamimi
Dr. Abdusallam Al-Abbadi
Dr. Umar Al-Ashkhar
Dr. Yaseen Daradkeh
Dr. Abdulahaleem Al-Ramahi
Sheikh Ratib Al-Zahir
Sheikh Ibrahim Khashan
Dr. Abdullahlim Ar-ramahi

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on fasting only on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday?

In voluntary fasting (nafl), it is disliked (makruh) to fast only on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.
However:
● If one fasts a day before or after Friday, then that is permissible.
● The same applies to Saturday and Sunday—fasting them along with another day removes the dislike.
● Fasting all three days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) together is not disliked.
If any of these days coincide with a recommended fasting day, such as Arafah or Ashura, then fasting it alone is not disliked.

Is the one offering the sacrifice liable if its meat spoils?

Praise be to Allah, and prayers and peace be upon our Master the Messenger of Allah.
 
If the meat (of the sacrifice) spoils due to the negligence of the one offering the sacrifice in preserving it, or due to improper storage, then he is liable to compensate for the portion due to the poor (which is estimated as half a kilogram of meat). If the sacrifice was a vowed (mandatory) one, then he is liable for all of it.
 
However, if he was not negligent, then there is no liability upon him, because its ruling is the ruling of a trust (like an item left in someone's care). And Allah Almighty knows best.

I vowed to give a specific charity if a certain matter came to pass — what is the ruling on giving that charity before the matter is realised?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Fulfilling a vow (nadhr) is obligatory, in accordance with the word of Allah the Almighty: "And let them fulfil their vows." [Al-Ḥajj/ 29] And the saying of our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: "Whoever vows to obey Allah, let him obey Him; and whoever vows to disobey Him, let him not disobey Him." (Reported by al-Bukhārī.)
The Shāfiʿī scholars distinguished between a financial vow (nadhr mālī) and a bodily vow (nadhr badanī). They permitted the fulfilment of a financial vow to be brought forward — before the stipulated condition is met — but did not permit the same for a bodily vow, which may only be fulfilled after the condition has actually been realised.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "It is permissible to bring forward the fulfilment of a financial vow before the condition stipulated in it is met — such as saying: 'If I am healed, I vow to free a slave' or 'to give such-and-such in charity' — just as it is permissible to pay zakāh in advance. This is unlike a bodily vow, such as fasting." [Asnā al-Maṭālib, vol. 4/P.246]
Imām al-Bājūrī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Like expiation other than fasting, a financial vow — such as saying: 'If Allah heals my sick one, I vow to free a slave for the sake of Allah,' or 'If Allah heals my sick one, I vow to free a slave on the Friday following the recovery' — it is permissible to bring it forward before the recovery in the first case, and before the Friday following the recovery in the second case." [Ḥāshiyat al-Bājūrī ʿalā Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim, Vol.2/P.596] And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.