عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(244): "A Masjid should be Used as such"

Date Added : 12-11-2017

Resolution No.(244) (13/2017):

"A Masjid should be Restricted as such"

Date: 20/Safar/1439 AH, corresponding to 9/11/2017

 

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 twelfth session held on the above date, the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies reviewed the letter sent by the Manager of Awqaf of Balqa Governorate requesting using Um Jawza Old Msjid as a Cultural Forum. Could you kindly clarify the ruling of Sharia on renovating, using and leasing that Masjid to the Cultural Directorate of Salt, taking into consideration the fact that it has been closed for more than twenty five years.

 

After deliberating the above question, the Board reached the following view:

 

According to Sharia, a Masjid is an Islamic endowment (Waqf) that may not be used for a purpose other than that for which it was endowed in the first place, whether a particular person had made it a Waqf or it became such for being used by people as Masjid. Based on the fact that it was proven to be a Masjid, it may not be changed into something else; rather, it should remain as such, and should be maintained and preserved for offering prayers. However, it may be used for a purpose close to that of Masjid, such as teaching Quran and Religious Sciences. But, turning it into a cultural forum isn`t permissible; particularly since Article (1239) of the Jordanian Civil Code states: "It isn`t permissible to change a Masjid into something else nor change the use of whatever was endowed to serve that Masjid in the first place." And Allah Knows Best. 

 

 Chair  of Iftaa` Board

Grand Mufti of Jordan, Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh

 

Vice chair of Iftaa` Board, Sheikh AbdulKareem al-Khasawneh

 

Prof. Abdulnaser abulBasal, Member                    Prof. Abdullah al-Fawaz/ Member

Judge Khalid Woraikat,Member                            Dr. Mohammad Khair al-Esa, Member

Dr. Majid Darawsheh, Member                            Sheikh Sa`eid Hijjawi,  Member

Dr. Ahmad al-Hasanat, Member                          Dr. Mohammad al-Zo`bi, Memebr

 

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on swallowing phlegm while fasting?

If a fasting person intentionally swallows phlegm, their fast is invalid, as it is possible to avoid it.
However, if they swallow it unintentionally, their fast remains valid.
Phlegm is impure and should be avoided.

What are the legal and religious consequences for a charitable organization in the event that a sacrificial animal is damaged or spoiled after slaughter?

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Charitable organizations entrusted with slaughtering sacrificial animals (uḍḥiyyah) and distributing their meat on behalf of their owners are obligated to safeguard the meat from spoilage, damage, theft, and any other harm. This is because such organizations act as agents (wukalā') on behalf of those offering the sacrifice, and an agent holds what is entrusted to them in trust (amānah) — whether they receive a wage for their work or act on a voluntary basis.
If the sacrificial animal is damaged after slaughter during the processes of packaging, transportation, or storage due to negligence or oversight — whether on the part of the organization's own staff overseeing the operation, or on the part of third parties contracted by the organization such as transport or shipping companies — then liability falls upon the negligent party, who is required to compensate for the value of the sacrifice. It is not permissible to cover such compensation from the organization's other donor funds.
However, if the damage to the sacrificial animal occurs without any negligence in its preservation and storage on the part of any party involved in the transportation, shipping, or storage process, and is instead attributable to force majeure circumstances beyond their control, then no financial liability is borne by any party in such a case. And Allah Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on wiping over socks?

It is not permissible to wipe over most common socks today because the conditions for wiping are not met. The concession was reported for wiping over leather socks (khuff) and socks (jowrab) with conditions: They must be thick, not allowing poured water to penetrate, enable one to walk in them, be worn while in a state of purity (from ablution), cover the entire foot up to the ankles (meaning covering the protruding ankle bones), and not be torn. And Allah the 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