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

Is it permissible to trim the eyebrows if they become excessively long?

Trimming eyebrows is permissible if they become excessively long, yet; it is reprehensible. And Allah Knows Best.

Which is better for a traveler: fasting or breaking the fast?

Fasting is better, unless it causes hardship—in that case, breaking the fast is better.

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.

Is it permissible to agree with a butcher to purchase the meat of an animal after it has been slaughtered — for instance, by buying the meat of a sheep at a price determined by the weight of its meat following slaughter, at a fixed rate per kilogram? And what is the ruling if the animal is being purchased with the intention of it being an uḍḥiyyah (sacrificial offering)?

 
 
 
 
 

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible to sell livestock in the manner of pricing each kilogram of meat after slaughter at a fixed rate, because the meat within the animal prior to slaughter is unseen and unknown. This leads to jahālah (ignorance of the subject matter) and gharar (contractual uncertainty), both of which are among the invalidating factors in sales transactions.
However, it is permissible for the buyer to issue a promise to purchase the meat of the animal after slaughter at a specified price per kilogram, with the actual sale being concluded at the time of weighing the meat — at which point both the quantity of the goods and the total price become known. There is no Sharī'ah objection to this arrangement.
The jurists have stipulated that for a sale to be valid, both countervalues must be present and observable. Al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states:
"It is valid to sell a heap of grain whose total measure is unknown to both contracting parties at a rate of one sā' per dirham. This sale is valid because the subject of sale is present and observable, and ignorance of the total price is not harmful since it is known in detail — and uncertainty is thereby lifted."— [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.355]
As for the uḍḥiyyah, the 'aqīqah, and vowed blood sacrifices (al-dam al-mandhūr) — full ownership of the animal must be established prior to slaughter. It is not valid for such animals to be slaughtered while still in the ownership of the butcher. Rather, the animal must be purchased alive and then slaughtered with the intention of uḍḥiyyah or the like. And Allah Almighty knows best.

See More