عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(231): "The Legitimacy of the Arab Agreement on Banning Human Cloning"

Date Added : 04-01-2017

Resolution No. (231) by the Board of Iftaa', Research and Islamic Studies:

"The Legitimacy of the Arab Agreement on Banning Human Cloning"

Date (22/Rabee' Al-Aoal /1438 AH) corresponding to (22/12/2016 AD)

 

All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of the Worlds, and may His peace and blessings be upon our Muhammad and upon all of his family and companions.

On its twelfth session held on the above date, the Board reviewed the question of his Excellency the Minister of Islamic  Awqaf, Islamic Affairs and Holy Places Dr. Wa`el Arabiat, and it reads as follows:

I have enclosed the memorandum of the General Secretariat of the Arab League No.(3/2984), (12/10/2016 AD), including the report and the recommendations issued by the concerned committee, during its sixth session held from the 28th to the 29th of Sept. 2016, as well as  representatives from the Ministries of Justice, Health, Interior and Official Religious Affairs in the Arab countries, in order to prepare the draft of the Arab agreement on banning human cloning. Could your Grace clarify the legal ruling on the articles of the aforementioned agreement? 

After prolonged deliberations, the Board decided what follows:

In light of scholar`s consensus that safeguarding human dignity from aggression or degradation is a legal obligation and the earlier resolutions issued by the Iftaa` Board and the Islamic Fiqh Academies, the articles of the aforementioned agreement don`t violate the rules of Islamic Law (Sharia). And Allah Knows Best.

 

Chairman of the Iftaa Board,  Sheikh Abdulkareem  Al-Khasawneh

Vice–chairman Prof. Ahmad Hilayel                Prof. Abed Al-Naser Abu Al-Basal           

Sheik Sa`eed Hijjawee / Member          Sheik Ghalib Al-Rbaba'h / Member

Dr. Muhammad Khaar Al-Aisaa' / Member                Judge Khaled Woraikat /Member

Dr. Muhammad Al-Khalyla / Member           Dr. Muhammad Al-Zouby / Member               

 

 

 

 

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on someone who insults or deceives others while fasting?

Insulting or deceiving others is forbidden (haram) and diminishes the reward of fasting.
The Prophet ﷺ warned against deception, saying: "Whoever deceives is not one of us." [Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi]
However, their fast remains valid despite the sin.

What should a person do if they suffer from an incurable illness that prevents them from fasting?

A person who has an illness that is not expected to be cured and prevents them from fasting must feed a needy person one mudd (600 grams) of food (such as wheat or rice) for each missed day instead of fasting.
Allah Almighty says {what means}: "and [in such cases] it is incumbent upon those who can afford it to make sacrifice by feeding a needy person." [Al-Baqarah/184].

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.

Is it permissible for a woman to shake hands with her brother-in-law?

It is forbidden for the woman to shake hands with her brother-in-law because he isn`t a Mahram (unmarriageable) of hers.

See More