عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(221): "The Prize Resulting from Transferring the Maid`s Salary is hers, not her Employer`s"

Date Added : 23-02-2016

Resolution No.(221) (3/2016) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:

"The Prize Resulting from Transferring the Maid`s Salary is hers, not her Employer`s"

Date: 8/Jumada 1/ 1437, corresponding to 17/2/2016 AD.

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.

During its second session held on the above date, the Board reviewed a question that read as follows:

I transfer my maid`s salary, to her family, through an exchange office which holds a prize draw on such transfers. Do I have the right to collect the won prize or is it my maid`s, taking into consideration that I pay for the transfer fees?

After deliberating, the Board decided what follows:

The salaries of the above employer`s maid, which he transfers to her family, are a debt on him. Legal scholars define debt as "A rightful obligation due on a person", and this includes any confirmed obligation incurred by a loan, a sale/transaction, an Ijarah (hiring) or else.

The above salaries is a debt, on you, possessed by your maid, in return for her work at your house, and she is permitted to dispose of it as she likes, including appointing you as her proxy with that money. Legal scholars have permitted  authorizing  the person,  on whom one`s debt is due, to dispose of that debt the way they ask him to.

For instance; the proxy in this regard is permissible as stated by scholars; whereas Ashrbini stated: "If he/she authorized their employer to buy them an item in return for their debt, due on him, and he did, then that is permissible according  to the more famous of the two opinions that validate proxy purchase." [Al-Mughni, vol3/pp.236].

In conclusion, the above money is possessed by the maid, and her employer functions as her proxy in transferring it to her family abroad; therefore, the loss or profit incurred by that proxy contract is hers, so the prize is hers as well; because it has resulted from her authorizing him. And Allah Knows Best.

 

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, The Grand Mufti of Jordan, Sheikh Abdulkareem Alkhasawneh

Vice Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, Prof. Ahmad Hilayel

Dr. Hayel Abdulhafeez/ Member

Prof. Abdulnnasir Abulbasal/ Member

Sheikh Sa`eid Hijjawi/ Member

Dr. Yahia Albotoosh/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Khair Alessa/ Member

Dr. Khalid Alworaikat/ Member

Prof. Abdullah AlFawaaz/ Member

Dr. Mohammad AlKhalayleh/ Member

Dr. Mohammad AlZou`bi/ Member

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Does the fast become invalid if water from rinsing the mouth reaches the stomach while performing ablution?

If water reaches the stomach without the fasting person exceeding normal rinsing or being excessive, their fast remains valid.
However, if they exceed the normal practice or exaggerate in rinsing, causing water to enter the stomach, their fast is invalid.
This is because excessiveness in rinsing is prohibited for a fasting person, as the Prophetﷺ said: "Exaggerate inhaling water during ablution, except when you are fasting." [Narrated by the Four Imams]
Transgression (Ta‘addi) refers to rinsing the mouth more than three times, while exaggeration (Mubalaghah) includes gargling, drawing water deep into the nasal passages, or filling the mouth with water in an unusual manner.

What are the conditions governing the portion that must be distributed to the poor from a voluntary uḍḥiyyah (sacrificial offering)?

 
 
 
 
 
 

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The following conditions apply to the portion distributed to the poor from the sacrificial animal:
First: It must be meat — it isn`t valid to give the poor organs or offal such as the liver.
Second: It must be given raw — cooked meat does not fulfil the requirement.
Third: It must amount to no less than half a kilogram. And Allah Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on objecting to the Mosque Imam regarding the joining of prayers due to rain?

 
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is not permissible for any of the congregants to object to the Imam in the mosque, whether the objection is to demand the joining of prayers or to oppose it; for the general principle is that the Imam possesses the religious knowledge (Al-Ilm al-Shar‘i) that qualifies him to make the decision in this matter. And Allah the Exalted 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.

See More