عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

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

Should a pregnant woman who broke fast because of pregnancy make it up, and is a ransom due on her?

The pregnant and the suckling, if they fear for their health, may break their fast and make up for it, and no ransom is due on them. However, if they broke fast in fear for the fetus and the baby, then they are obliged to make up for it, and pay the ransom which is feeding a needy person for each of the missed fasting days. And Allah Knows Best.

Is it permissible for a mother to stop her daughter from marrying a respectable, God-fearing young man because he isn't college/university graduate?

It is impermissible to deny a woman her right in getting married except for a lawful reason, and problems can be solved through dialogue. However, she can file a suit in order for the judge to have a say in that regard.

My husband wanted to sell a piece of land that was his own, but his father insisted that he transfer the land in his (the father’s) name so that he could sell it at a higher price. Then, my husband and his father would split the price. After my father-in-law sold the land, he denied everything and refused to acknowledge my husband’s right. My father-in-law passed away a year ago, and my husband’s brothers divided the inheritance, refusing to acknowledge that this land was a trust held by their father for my husband until it was sold. Are they sinful for knowingly denying that the land belongs to my husband, and what is the ruling on praying against them?
 
 
 
 
 

All perfect praise be to Alalh, The Lord of The Worlds, and may His Peace and Blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all of his family and companions.
Among the rights of the deceased upon their heirs are: preparing them for burial at death, settling their debts, returning people’s rights to them, executing their will, and then dividing their estate. What was mentioned in the question falls under the rights of others, even if they are among the heirs, and the deceased is not absolved of it unless it is returned to its rightful owners. This is because Allah, Almighty, forbids consuming others' wealth/properties unjustly. However, do not give up on seeking a solution by involving righteous and well - respected individuals who may have influence over them, in the hope that Allah guides them to goodness and correctness. As for supplicating against them, the prayer of the oppressed is not rejected, even if the oppressed person is not a Muslim. And Allah knows best.
 
 
 
 
 

Is it permissible for a woman to sit with her brothers-in-law?

It is impermissible for a woman to sit with her brothers-in-law, and it is also impermissible for a person to have a Khulwa (seclusion) with his sister-in-law.

See More