عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(50): "Ruling of Sharia on the Staff Provident Fund of a Shareholding Company"

Date Added : 27-12-2015

Resolution No.(50): "Ruling of Sharia on the Staff Provident Fund of a Shareholding Company"

Date: 2/5/1422 AH, corresponding to 22/7/2001 AD

We have received the following question:

What is the ruling of Sharia on the staff provident fund of a Jordanian shareholding company; and is the staff member subscribing to that fund obliged to pay Zakah in return for his savings in it?

Answer:

The Board is of the view that some of the investments undertaken by the above fund adhere to the rules of Islamic Sharia; whereas, others don`t. Therefore, profits made through lawful methods are equally lawful; whereas, those made from unlawful methods are equally unlawful.

Moreover, since subscribing to the above fund is mandatory, then there is no harm that every staff member subscribes to it because he has to make a living.

However, upon the collection of his claims from the above fund, including the profits, it is mandatory that every staff member investigates where they come from.

Therefore, those, which come from a lawful source of investment, are equally lawful.

Whereas, those which come from an unlawful source of investment are equally unlawful. The latter must be given to charity in order to get rid of the ill-gotten money.

However, if he couldn`t distinguish the lawful from the unlawful while knowing for sure that it is most probable that they include ill-gotten money, he may possess half of these profits on the basis that they are legitimate, and he should give the other half for charity to get rid of the ill-gotten money, unless he thought it is probable to be the other way around.

On the other hand, if he couldn`t tell the lawful from the unlawful while not knowing for sure that it is probable that they include money coming from an unlawful source, he may possess all of the profits as lawful money on the basis that Muslims` transactions are, in principle, valid and they are righteous people.

As regards the rule of Islamic Sharia on the Zakah of the savings of the staff member in that fund as well as that of their profits, the Board is of the view that he is obliged to give their Zakah once they reach Nisab (Minimum amount liable for Zakah) after one lunar year elapses over possessing them, in accordance with the opinion of the Maliki school of jurisprudence on the Zakah of debts. And Allah Knows Best.

 

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, the Chief Justice, Sheikh Izuldeen At-tamimi

Dr. Wasif al-Bakhri

           Dr. Abdulsalam Al-Abbadi

            Dr. Mohammad Abu Yahia

        Sheikh Sae`id Al-Hijjawi

               Sheikh Mahmood Shewayat

                                             Dr. Yousef Ali Ghyzan Sheikh Nae`im Mujahid 

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on the cessation of blood after (40) days from delivery, but later continued sporadically during two days of Ramadan?

Once postpartum bleeding (Nifas) ceases, and the woman is certain that it won`t reoccur, then she becomes ritually pure and so she is free to make Ghusl (purificatory bath), pray, and fast. If the bleeding reoccurs before fifteen days from its cessation, and before the end of (60) days after delivery, then the ruling on postpartum bleeding is effective, and her fasting and prayer are null and void, thus she must make up the fasting that she missed and not the prayer during those particular days.

Is the son of the sister by breastfeeding considered a mahram in Islam, and is it permissible for a woman to go for Hajj with him?

Everything that is prohibited by lineage is also prohibited by breastfeeding. The son of the sister by breastfeeding is considered a mahram, just like the son of the sister by blood, and it is permissible for him to be her mahram for Hajj and Umrah. And Allah 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.

Is it permissible for a young man and a young woman to enter into a covenant as a married couple without having a true seclusion (Khalwah) until their marriage contract is officially concluded?

The relation which isn`t based on a marriage contract is forbidden, and entering into a covenant as a married couple is unaccounted for and is from the evil suggestions of the devil.

See More