Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

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

Is it permissible for someone who has forgotten to mention the supplication pertaining to answering the call of nature to say it while in the toilet?

It is disliked for a Muslim to mention Allah while in the toilet, but he/she may recall the supplication in his/her head without uttering it; that is in case he/she had forgotten mentioning it before entering the toilet.

Talking to one's fiancée in Ramadan with romantic talk may lead to arousal, and if pre-ejaculate fluid (Madhy) is discharged as a result, it does not break the fast. However, it is advised to avoid actions that provoke desire and lead to this outcome. If semen (Mani) is discharged as a result, it does break the fast.
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

The discharge of Madhy doesn't invalidate one's fasting but it invalidates the ablution and his clothes must be washed because they are impure in this case. As for Mani, it breaks one's fast and making up invalidataed  is obligatory, beside; a Muslim suitor should abstain from these matters during Ramadan and not to degrade the holy month to this extent. And Allah Knows Best.

I wear braces because I had an accident. However, Iam afraid that I could die and be buried while wearing them because they are permanent installation. Is this forbidden? I also wear false teeth. Should I ask my children to pull them out after I die?

All perfect praise be to Allah the Lord of The Worlds. May His peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.
If the braces are worn to get teeth back to normal, then there is no sin in that and there is also no harm in wearing false teeth. Moreover, you don`t have to have them removed after your passing away as this undermines the dignity of the dead. And Allah The Almighty Knows Best.

Is it permissible for a person who had vowed to give a certain amount of money to another, but didn`t find the latter to donate that money to the mosque?

In principle, the vowing person should abide by his vow as much as possible. Therefore, if he couldn`t find the person that he had made the vow for, then the vow itself is countless and nothing is due on its maker. However, if the latter happens to find the former later on then, he has to give him that money.