عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(64): "Ruling on a Veiled Woman Uncovering her Face"

Date Added : 29-11-2015

 

Resolution No.(64): "Ruling on a Veiled Woman Uncovering her Face"

Date: 8/4/1424 AH, corresponding to 9/6/2003

 

The Board received the following question:

What is the ruling on uncovering woman's face for voters identifications causes minutes before voting takes place at polling stations?

Answer: All success is due to Allah

The Board is of the view that the permissibility of a woman uncovering her face, in general, is a controversial issue amongst the Jurists. The majority of them see that it is permissible for a woman to uncover her face because it isn`t an Awrah (private parts); whereas, some of them see that it is forbidden. Nevertheless, there is a consensus amongst the Jurists that it is permissible for the woman to uncover her face for litigation or delivering a testimony, and she isn`t considered sinful when required to do that for similar purposes.

Since casting her vote is tantamount to giving a testimony, a veiled woman is permitted to uncover her face, while not wearing make-up, for identity check at poll stations and she isn`t considered sinful at all. However, it is better that a female is assigned for checking the identity of veiled women during elections, and as much as possible.

And Allah, The Almighty Knows Best.

 

Chairperson of the Iftaa` Board, Chief Justice, Izz Aldeen Attamimi

  Dr. Wasif Al-Bakhri

Dr. Ahmad Hilayel

            Dr. Abdulsalam Al-Abbadi

  Dr. Yousef Ghizaan

     Sheikhb Sa`id Hijjawi

        Sheikh Na`iem Mujahid

             Sheikh Mahmood Shwayat

            Dr. Mohammad Abu Yahia

 

Note: His Grace, Dr. Nooh Al-Qhodat said: "It is permissible for a woman to cast her vote, and that covering her face before people other than her husband and Mahrams (unmarriageable male relatives) is obligatory according to some Jurists. Therefore, a woman who sees that covering her face before non-Mahrams (Marriageable men) obligatory, she mustn`t uncover it for the purpose of casting her vote."

 

 

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

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.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on a menstruating woman (ḥā'iḍ) reciting the Islamic ruqyah (Qur'anic/spiritual healing)?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is permissible for a person in a state of janābah (major ritual impurity), or a menstruating woman (ḥā'iḍ), or a woman in postpartum bleeding (nufasā'), to recite for the purpose of ruqyah (spiritual/Qur'anic healing), even if this includes some verses of the Noble Qur'an — whether recited from memory or by looking at the Muṣ-ḥaf (the physical copy of the Qur'an) without touching or carrying it — provided that the intention behind the recitation is ruqyah, protection (taḥṣīn), and remembrance (dhikr), not the intention of tilāwah (Qur'anic recitation as an act of worship in itself). This remains permissible even if what is recited is an entire sūrah, such as Sūrat al-Mulk.
Imam al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "It is lawful for a person in janābah to utter its [the Qur'an's] remembrances and other content — such as its admonitions, its narratives, and its rulings — so long as it is not with the intention of [reciting] Qur'an. [This is] like his saying upon mounting [a vehicle]: 'Glory be to Him Who has subjected this to us, and we could never have accomplished this [by ourselves]' [Sūrat az-Zukhruf: 13] — meaning, [could never have] been capable of it — or upon a calamity: 'Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we shall return'... In fact, my teacher, ash-Shihāb ar-Ramlī, issued a fatwā that even if he recited the entire Qur'an without the intention of [reciting] Qur'an, it would be permissible." [Summarized from Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol. 1/P.217] And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on the prayer of one who said "Subḥāna Rabbiya al-ʿAẓīm" in prostration (*sujūd*) and forgot to correct it?

 

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Saying “Subḥāna Rabbiya al-ʿAẓīm” in bowing (rukūʿ) and “Subḥāna Rabbiya al-Aʿlā” in prostration (sujūd) is one of the hayʾāt (non-essential sunnahs) of the prayer. Whoever omits it, whether deliberately or by forgetfulness, or replaces it with another remembrance (dhikr), his prayer is valid and he does not perform sujūd al-sahw. Shaykh al-Islām Imam al-Nawawī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Our school holds that one does not prostrate for omitting the audible or silent recitation, the tasbīḥ, and the rest of the hayʾāt.” [al-Majmūʿ, Vol.4/p.127]
If he performs sujūd al-sahw for something that does not call for it, his prayer is invalidated, because he introduced a prostration of forgetfulness without a cause, and he must repeat the prayer. The exception is one who did so out of forgetfulness or ignorance, whether because he recently entered Islam or because he lives far from scholars; he is excused and his prayer is not invalidated.
It is stated in Mughni al-Muḥtāj (Vol.1/p.417): “It is stated in al-Anwār: If he does something that does not call for sujūd al-sahw, thinking that it does, and then prostrates, his prayer is not invalidated if he is ignorant because he recently entered Islam or because he is far from scholars.”
Since this issue is hidden from the laity, as it is among the subtleties of knowledge, and the laity are excused for ignorance of whatever is of such a nature, and their act of obedience is not invalidated because of it, it may be said that the prayer of one who has not acquired knowledge of the issue is not invalidated. As for after knowing it, the prayer is invalidated.
Whoever realizes while still in the prayer that his prostration was out of place, it is sunnah for him to perform sujūd al-sahw. And Allah Almighty knows best.

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.

See More