Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(96): "Dissolution of a Christian Woman`s Marriage Contract with Christian Husband upon her Conversion to Islam"

Date Added : 08-02-2018

Resolution No.(96) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies: "Dissolution of a Christian Woman`s Marriage Contract with Christian Husband upon her Conversion to Islam"

Date: 18/12/1426 AH, corresponding to 18/1/2006 AD.

 

 

 

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

The Board reviewed the letter sent from the Chief Justice to His Eminence the Grand Mufti (17/8/2006) with which was enclosed the letter of the General Manager of Civil Status & Passports Department along with other documents originally addressed to the Chief Justice. The letter read as follows:

Mr. (S), a Moroccan man married to Mrs. (O) according to a Certificate of Sharia Court Marriage (8/8/2005) issued by the Sharia Court of Salt City, submitted a request to obtain a civil record and a family register, enclosing a parentage confirmation certificate (11/8/2005) for his children (Rami, Ramzi, Mohammad and Randa). It is worth pointing out that Rami was born on February the 2nd, 1988. It was made clear to the Board, based on records, that the wife (O), formerly Christian and  registered included in the civil record of her first husband, holds an Ecclesiastical Marriage Dissolution Certificate (10/12/1988).

Based on the above facts, it was made clear that the parentage confirmation certificate contradicts with the provisions of article (22) of the Civil Status Law (9/2001). This article states: "To the exclusion of articles (19), (20), and (21), the clerk is banned from mentioning the name of the father or mother or both, even if he was asked to do so in any of the following two situations:

One: They are within the prohibited degree of marriage

Two: The mother is married to another man for Rami was born during her being married to another man.

Answer:

It was made clear to the Board, based on Mrs. (O) certificate of conversion to Islam issued from the Sharia Court of Salt City (No. 53/93/7, 8/8/2005) in which she confirmed having embraced Islam for over twenty years, and since the majority of the Muslim scholars have agreed that separation is expedited between the non-Muslim spouses once the wife embraces Islam and the husband maintains his faith without the latter`s refusal to convert to Islam contrary to the Hanafie school of thought (Madhab). Accordingly, and opting for the view of the majority of the Muslim scholars, the marriage contract of Mrs. (O) with her former Christian husband (R) is considered dissolved upon her conversion to Islam twenty years ago. Since she visited the Iftaa` Dept. on November 16th, 2005 and submitted a petition in which she clarified that she had observed Iddah (Waiting period after death of husband or getting divorced) of her already dissolved marriage contract and wasn`t pregnant and her Iddah had ended before her second marriage to a Muslim husband and since both (S & O)mutually confirmed that their marriage contract was concluded on October 13th, 2005 with their mutual consent based on a Certificate of Sharia Court Marriage issued by the Sharia Court of Salt City (No. 67/8/65, 8/8/2005), the dissolution of her first marriage contract with her Christian husband on basis of the Ecclesiastical Marriage Dissolution Document issued by the Greek Orthodox First Instance Court (Amman, 10/12/1988) is pointless because that contract has already been dissolved. On this basis, Rami, born 21/2/1988, was the fruit of a valid marriage contract between Mrs. (O) and Mr. (S), and his father is Mr. (S) as confirmed by the Parentage confirmation certificate issued by the Sharia court of Salt city (No.144, 11/8/2005). And Allah Knows Best.

 

 

 

Iftaa` Board

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, Chief Justice, Izzaldeen Al-Tamimi

Dr. AbdulMajeed Al-Salaheen

Dr. Abdulsalam Al-Abbadi

Dr. Ahmad Hilayel

Dr. Yousef Ghyzaan

Dr. Wasif Al-Bakhri

Dr. Abdukareem Al-Khasawneh

Sheikh Sae`id Hijjawi

Sheikh Nae`im Mujahid

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

If someone regularly fasts the six days of Shawwal, are they obligated to fast them every year?

A person is not obligated to fast the six days of Shawwal every year, even if they have made it a habit. However, someone who regularly performs a good deed should not abandon it as long as they are able.

Is Zakah (obligatory charity) due on leased property, and how is it calculated?

Zakah isn`t due on the leased property itself, but on the saved income from that property if it reached Nissab (minimum amount liable for Zakah), and a whole lunar year had lapsed over saving it.

Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on swearing an oath by the Prophet ﷺ, and does such an oath take effect according to Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, requiring expiation upon its breach?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Swearing an oath by a created being is disliked (makrūh) in our Shāfiʿī school. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Swearing by a created being is disliked — such as swearing by the Prophet, the Kaʿbah, Jibrīl, the Companions, or the Prophet's family. Al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: 'I fear that swearing by other than Allah the Almighty may constitute an act of disobedience.' The scholars of the school explained this to mean: that is, something forbidden and sinful — indicating that he had some hesitation in the matter. Al-Imām stated: the established position of the school is that it is categorically not forbidden, but rather disliked. Furthermore, whoever swears by a created being, his oath does not take effect and no expiation (kaffārah) is required if he breaks it." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa ʿUmdat al-Muftīn, Vol. 11/P.6]
According to the Ḥanbalī school, however, expiation becomes obligatory upon one who swears by our master the Prophet ﷺ and then breaks his oath. Imām al-Bahūtī al-Ḥanbalī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "No expiation is required for swearing by other than Allah the Almighty, even if the oath is broken — because expiation was made obligatory for swearing by Allah and His attributes, out of reverence for His names, and nothing else is equal to Him in this regard... except in the case of swearing by our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, for expiation becomes obligatory when one swears by him and then breaks the oath. This was explicitly stated in the narration of Abū Ṭālib, because he is one of the two conditions of the two testimonies of faith by which a disbeliever becomes a Muslim. Ibn ʿAqīl held the view that swearing by any of the other prophets, peace and blessings be upon them all, carries the same ruling." [Sharḥ Muntahā al-Irādāt, Vol. 3/P.441]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.