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 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.

What is the ruling on offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?

 
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
 
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
 
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
 
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
 
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
 
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on selling gold or silver in installments or for a differed price?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is prohibited (haram) to sell gold or silver in installments or for a deferred price; rather, immediate hand-to-hand exchange (Taqabud) is mandatory, otherwise, it is considered usury (Riba). The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'Gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates, and salt for salt—like for like, hand to hand. Whoever increases or asks for an increase has engaged in Riba; the receiver and the giver are the same in this regard.' (Narrated by Muslim). Furthermore, when exchanging new gold for used gold, they must be of equal weight, or it falls into Riba.
 
The permissible solution (al-makhraj) is for the merchant to purchase the used gold for cash first, and then sell the new gold for cash in a separate transaction. However, the price must be paid during the sitting of the contract (Majlis al-Aqd) for both deals. Alternatively, the jeweler may take the used gold with the intent of remodeling or repairing it, and then charge a fee for the craftsmanship or repair work. And Allah the Exalted knows best."

What are the signs of Laylat al-Qadr?

It is said that among its signs are:
● A sense of peace and tranquility during the night.
● The sun rises on the following morning white and without strong rays.
However, one should not be preoccupied with searching for its signs at the expense of worship. Allah has hidden its exact date so that we strive in worship throughout multiple nights, ensuring that we attain its great reward.