عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(255): "Ruling on Waving/Forgiving a Portion of Debt against early Settlement"

Date Added : 15-05-2018

Resolution No.(255)(8/2018)  by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies

"Ruling on Waving/Forgiving  a Portion of Debt against early Settlement"

Date: 3/Sha`ban/1439 AH, corresponding to 19/4/2018.

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.

During its fifth session held on the above date, the Board reviewed the letter sent from the Minister of Awqaf, Holy Sites and Islamic Affairs, Dr. Abdulnaser Abulbasal, and it read as follows:

Could your grace approve of presenting what Muslim jurists call "Da`wa Ta`ajjal" {i.e. when the creditors "waive or forgive" a portion of the debt in return for early settlement of the rest of the money} and the mechanism  of its application to the Iftaa` Council, and consider the potential of its applicability on Islamic finances granted by the Hajj Fund.

After deliberating, the Board decided what follows:

Waiving a portion of debt in what`s called "Debt Contracts" in return for early settlement is called by Muslim jurists "Da` wa Ta`ajjal" i.e. when the creditors "waive or forgive" a portion of the debt in return for early settlement of the rest of the money." In this regard, there are five cases:

First: Waiving a portion of debt is conditioned in the original contract. In this case, this is considered Riba (interest and/or usury). It is like making two transactions combined in one bargain, and this is forbidden since The Prophet (PBUH) said: "If anyone makes two transactions combined in one bargain, he should have the lesser of the two or it will involve usury." {Related by Abi Dawud}.

Second: Waiving a portion of the debt against early settlement of the rest of the money is agreed upon after having concluded the original contract. In fact, the majority of the Muslim scholars have forbidden this based on the preponderant opinion of the four schools of thought.

On the other hand, Ibn Abbas, may Allah bless them both, Al-Nokha`i, Ibn Serene and Zufar permitted waving a portion of the debt against early settlement of the rest of the money based on the narration of Ibn Abbas (May Allah Be Pleased with them) narrated: "Where it is stated that when the Prophet (PBUH) wanted to make Bani An-Nadeer leave Madinah, they said to him: "O` Messenger of Allah! You ordered us to leave although we haven`t collected our money from debtors because the time of settlement isn`t due yet." He (PBUH) said: "Da`oo wa Ta`ajjaloo" i.e. "waive or forgive" a portion of that debt in return for immediate settlement of the rest of your money by debtors." {Related by Al-Hakim, but Al-Baihaqi considered it a weak narration}. Because usury is addition against delay in settlement, it totally harms the debtor and differs from "Da`oo wa Ta`ajjaloo" where both parties (Creditor and debtor) benefit from that transaction. The latter view was adopted by the International Islamic Fiqh academy in its resolution No. (66), but stipulated that no prior agreement was reached to that end.

Third: The waiving pertains to the debts which the debtor has failed to settle on time. In this case, it is permissible to waive/forgive a portion of that debt against early settlement of the rest of the money in order to be cleared from the debt.

Fourth: The waiving wasn`t conditioned by the contracting parties; rather, it was a donation/gift from the creditor because the debtor had settled the rest of the money or the deferred payments earlier than agreed in the original contract.

Resolution No.(61) of the Iftaa` Board stated: "It is permissible for the bank to relieve the (Asker) from a portion of the value of the Murabaha, as it sees fit, taking into account the special circumstances that he is experiencing. This is provided that this waiver isn`t a regular practice of the bank or was conditioned in the Murabaha contract in the first place……"

Fifth: It is permissible for the debtor to give the creditor a commodity against his debt, even if its value was less than that of the debt, and this was permitted by the majority of the Muslim scholars. For further details, please refer to the books {Bedayat Al-Mojtahid by Ibn Roshd & Al-Qawaneen Al-Fiqhia by Ibn Al-Jazzi}.

In conclusion, waiving/forgiving a portion of the deferred debt, upon request of debtor or creditor, in return for early settlement of the rest of the money is permissible, and isn`t Riba so long as it wasn`t conditioned in the original contract. And Allah Knows Best.

Chairman of Iftaa` Board,

Grand Mufti of Jordan,

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh

Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh, Member

Dr. Ahmad Al-Hasanat, Member

Dr. Majid Darawsheh, Member

Sheikh Sa`eid Al-Hijjawi, Member

Judge Khalid Woraikat, Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Zou`bi/ Member

Prof. Abdullah Al-Fawaaz/ Member

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Can someone who begins a voluntary fast break it?

It is preferable for someone who begins an act of worship not to break it.
Allah the Exalted has said {what means}: "and let not your [good] deeds come to nought!" [Muhammad/33].
However, if a person starts a voluntary fast (nafl) and needs to break it, they are going against what is preferable, but there is no sin upon them.

What is the ruling on performing dry ablution (tayammum) on a wall or stone?

One of the conditions for tayammum is that it be with pure, clean dust (soil). It is not valid to perform tayammum by striking stones, a wall, sand that has no dust (i.e., that does not produce dust), pebbles alone, or clay, as these are not from the earth or its same category. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Which holds greater virtue: The Udhiyah (Sacrificial Offering) or giving its value in Charity (Sadaqah)?

In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Offering an Udhiyah (sacrificial offering) holds greater virtue than donating its monetary value to the poor and needy. This is because the sacrifice is a prominent, manifest ritual among the sacred symbols of Islam. Allah Almighty says: "That [is so]. And whoever honors the symbols of Allah - indeed, it is from the piety of hearts." (Al-Hajj: 32)
 
Furthermore, there are numerous authentic and explicit Hadiths highlighting its immense reward. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) consistently offered this sacrifice, as did the Righteous Caliphs after him. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.
 

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, and is it permissible to slaughter the ewe if one knows it is pregnant?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, the fetus becomes lawful (ḥalāl) by virtue of its mother's slaughter (tabaʿan li-ummihā).
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/P.158): "A fetus found dead [after the mother's slaughter], or found alive but in a state resembling that of a slaughtered animal [i.e., dying shortly after], becomes lawful — whether or not it had grown fur — provided it is found in the womb of a mother that was lawfully slaughtered, whether her slaughter was by cutting the throat, or by an arrow or hunting dog sent after her. This is based on the ḥadīth: 'The slaughtering of the fetus is [effected by] the slaughtering of its mother' [narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan, and by Ibn Ḥibbān, who graded it ṣaḥīḥ] — meaning that the slaughter which rendered the mother lawful renders the fetus lawful as well, by virtue of following her; and because the fetus is one of her constituent parts, and her slaughter renders lawful all of her parts."
This ruling differs, however, from the case of one who knows from the outset that the ewe is pregnant [and intends to sacrifice her specifically as the udḥiyah while pregnant] — in which case, according to the Shāfi'ī school, she does not fulfill the requirement of a valid sacrifice.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī 'alā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.4/P.335): "A pregnant animal does not fulfill the requirement [of a valid sacrifice], and this is the authoritative position (al-mu'tamad), because pregnancy diminishes the quality of the meat. As for why such an animal is nevertheless counted as complete [i.e., fully valid] in matters of zakāh, that is because the intent there is reproduction (nasl), not the quality of the meat.". And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

See More