عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(49) "Ruling on Financing the "Diminishing Partnership" Offered by the Central Bank to its Employees"

Date Added : 16-12-2015

Resolution No.(49): "Ruling on Financing the "Diminishing Partnership" Offered by the Central Bank to its Employees"
Date: 24/4/1422 AH, corresponding to 15/7/2001.

What is the ruling of Islamic Sharia on the diminishing partnership system offered by the Central Bank to its employees?

Answer:

All perfect praise be 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.

Over several sessions, the Board has reviewed the above issue and arrived at the following view:

Employees of Islamic banks and others can obtain dwellings by one of the following formulae:

First: Murabaha in favor of the purchaser where the employee covers the costs of the construction team; whereas, the bank covers the cost of materials which can be bought through the Murabaha transaction so that they become possessed and guaranteed by the bank. This formula can be employed for purchasing a flat or a building in line with the rules of Murabaha.

Second: Istisna` (making on customer`s order). Here, the bank provides the needed financing in line with the conditions of this form of transaction whereby a flat or a building could be built.

However, the formula, in the above question, presented to the Iftaa` Board: "The Diminishing Partnership" and the attached contract differ from a similar contract that had been approved by the Board where the law had defined it as: (The bank participates as a financing partner- partially or completely-in a project of an expected income on basis of agreeing with the other partner that the bank receives a percentage from the net of the actual income while maintaining the right to keep the remaining part of the profit or some of it, to be agreed upon, to cover the original amount of financing it had provided.) 

In other words, the income of the project, which is based on the aforementioned contract, is the one expected upon the conclusion of the contract itself and the determiner of the expected income is the market, after the completion of the project.

First: it isn`t permissible to estimate that revenue in relation to the financing amount provided by the bank, which settles it on basis of the diminished interest, as is the case of the contract presented to the Board. From the perspective of Sharia, that interest is unlawful although it is low.

In order for this formula to become valid, it isn`t correct to calculate the expected revenue in the manner mentioned above; rather, it should be left to the market.

Since the employees desire to have dwellings for residence and since these won`t be offered for leasing, then the Sharia alternative is that a committee of trustworthy and honorable experts estimate the rent of similar premises after the project is finished based on  actual estimation of the prices of similar houses and flats. In conclusion, it is imperative that the contract is rewritten on the basis that draws a distinction between the acceptable and the unacceptable form in Sharia, this is of course if the employee and the bank wish to resort to the above formula "The diminishing partnership", or they can simply resort to other formulae mentioned above. And Allah Knows Best.

 

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, The Supreme Judge, Sheikh Izuldeen At-Tamimi

Dr. Abdulsalam Al-Abbadi

  Dr. Yousef Ghyzan

Dr. Wasif Al-Bakri

Sheikh Saeid Hijjawi

Dr. Abdulaziz Al-Khayat

Sheikh Na`eim Mujahid

  Dr. Mahmoud Abu Yahia

Sheikh Mahmoud Shewayat

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Does using a gargling medicine break the fast?

If the medicine reaches the body cavity (jauf), the fast is invalidated. However, if it does not enter the body cavity, the fast remains valid.
Therefore, it is advisable to avoid using it during the day in Ramadan.

What is the ruling on someone who dies while having missed fasts?

● If a person dies before having the opportunity to make up the missed fasts—such as someone whose excuse (e.g., illness) persisted until their death—then no makeup fast (qada), fidyah, or sin applies to them.
● However, if they had the ability to make up the fasts but did not do so before passing away, the missed fasts must be compensated by giving a mudd of food for each missed day from their estate.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever dies while having a month’s fast due, one needy person should be fed per day on their behalf." [Narrated by At-Tirmidhi]
Additionally, a guardian (wali) may fast on their behalf, as the Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever dies while having missed fasts, their guardian should fast on their behalf." [Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim]
In another narration: "If they wish." This indicates that both feeding the needy and fasting on behalf of the deceased are permissible options.

Who is the one required to slaughter the 'aqīqah?

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is Sunnah for the 'aqīqah to be slaughtered by the guardian of the newborn — the one upon whom the child's financial maintenance is obligatory — provided he is financially capable of doing so. 'Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, may Allah be pleased with him, reported: "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ performed the 'aqīqah for al-Ḥasan with one sheep." — Narrated by al-Tirmidhī. And Allah Almighty 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.

See More