Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(9): “Ruling on the Amendments over the Moqarada Bonds Act“

Date Added : 25-01-2018

 

Resolution No.(9) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:  

“Ruling on the Amendments over the Moqarada Bonds Act“

Date: 29/5/1407 AH, 29/1/1987 AD.

 

Question: What is the ruling on the amendments over the Moqarada (A borrowing tool in favor of a company bonds act?
Answer: All perfect praise is due to Allah, The Lord of the Worlds.
After reviewing the articles of the interim, act no. (10), 1981, the proposed amendments and deliberating over them, the Board has decided the following:
A- Confirming the resolution of the Iftaa` Committee issued on the 8th of Feb. 1398 AH, 17/1/1978 on Moqarada draft-act and that its texts and sections comply with the rulings of Islamic Sharia.
B- Confirming the resolution of the Iftaa` Committee issued on the 8th of Feb. 1398 AH, 17/1/1978 on the permissibility of the government`s guarantee over settling the par value of Moqarada bonds within the specified dates since the government is considered a Third Party, and enjoys the general authorities in doing what is in the best interest of its citizens.
C- The Board noticed that the 12th article of the interim act No.(10),1981  has added-after stating that the government guarantees settling the whole due par value of the Moqarada bonds within the specified dates-that the amounts paid by the government  in this case are considered a zero-interest loan to the project, and becomes due once the bonds are totally settled. In other words, the government isn`t a Third Party anymore because the project itself has settled all the payments. In fact, the project borrowed from the government because it didn`t have the amount needed for settling the par value of the bonds. This is a kind of guarantee against loss given by the owner of the money from the Mudarib (co-partner) in a Mudaraba (co-partnership) contract, and this contradicts the rulings of a Mudaraba contract stipulated in Islamic Jurisprudence.
Therefore, the board believes that it is essential for the government to continue its guarantee role as a Third Party. This in order to avoid stipulating that subscribers shall endure any loss-as stated by the Iftaa` Committee in the aforementioned resolution-and consequently this transaction becomes acceptable in Sharia.
Therefore, the Board views that it is essential that article (12) ends with the words: “specified dates”, and that what comes after them is omitted. Actually, Waqf(religious endowment) projects, projects undertaken by municipalities and  financially as well as managerially independent organizations  from which this guarantee  shall benefit are amongst the vital projects that target the best interest of the citizens. The government is keen on holding such projects and promoting them in order to achieve eco-social development so long as there are sufficient guarantees, which secure their proper progress and supervision.
The government`s guarantee over settling these bonds within the specified dates entails no harm, or squander of public funds, rather, it is using them positively in rare cases and exceptional situations.
D- The Board has reviewed the proposed amendments included in the note attached with the official letter of the Minister in question and believes that they don`t contradict the rulings of Sharia in this regard and that it (Board) doesn`t object including them in the interim act. And Allah Knows Best.

 

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on vomiting, and does it invalidate ablution?

Vomit is impure (najis). Its exit is not considered one of the nullifiers of ablution. However, the mouth must be washed and purified from it, and any that gets on clothing or the body must be washed for prayer, because prayer is not valid with impurity present on the body or clothing. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

How to perform the witr prayer in terms of connection (wasl) and separation (fasl)?

 
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
The Witr prayer has several forms that vary in terms of virtue:
 
The First Form: Separating every two units (rak‘ah) with a Tashahhud and a Taslim (salutation). This is superior to connecting the units, even if it is only a single rak‘ah. This is based on the Hadith of ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her): 'The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray eleven units between the end of the ‘Isha prayer and dawn, performing the Taslim after every two units and performing Witr with a single unit.' (Related by al-Bukhari & Muslim).
 
The Second Form: Connecting the units with only one final Tashahhud at the very end.
 
The Third Form: Connecting with two Tashahhuds—meaning reciting the Tashahhud before the final unit without performing the Taslim, then standing to complete the final unit. This form is considered the lowest in rank so that the Witr prayer remains distinct from the obligatory Maghrib prayer, as stated in the Hadith: 'Do not make the Witr resemble the Maghrib prayer.' (Narrated by Al-Daraqutni, who stated its narrators are trustworthy).
 
It is stated in Bushra al-Karim Sharh al-Muqaddimah al-Hadramiyyah: 'It is permissible to connect [the Witr] with one Tashahhud in the final unit—which is better—or with two Tashahhuds in the last two units, as both methods are established in Sahih Muslim from the actions of the Prophet ﷺ. In the connected method, more than two Tashahhuds are prohibited. Furthermore, separating (al-Fasl) is better than connecting (al-Wasl) if the number of units is the same, because the Hadiths supporting it are more numerous and it involves more devotional actions.' And Allah the Exalted knows best."

How many prostrations of Quranic recital are there, and is it permissible not to offer them while reciting?

There is one prostration for the Quranic recital, and it is a Sunnah for which one is rewarded upon offering it. However, one who doesn`t isn`t punished. Therefore, those who fail to offer it aren`t considered sinful, rather they deprive themselves from the reward.

Is it permissible for a wife to refuse to go to bed with her husband (for sexual intercourse)?

It isn`t permissible for her to do so unless for a sound reason.