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

Does vomiting during the day in Ramadan break the fast?

Intentional vomiting is one of the nullifiers of fasting; whoever vomits deliberately breaks their fast.
However, if vomiting occurs involuntarily, the fast remains valid as long as nothing returns to the body cavity (jauf). If anything is swallowed back, the fast is invalidated.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever is overcome by vomiting does not have to make up the fast, but whoever induces vomiting deliberately must make it up." [Narrated by Abu Dawood and At-Tirmidhi]

Is it permissible to offer an absentee funeral prayer?

Yes, it is permissible to offer an absentee funeral prayer.

My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

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.

See More