عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No. (260): "Liability in Run-Over Accidents"

Date Added : 18-07-2018

Resolution No. (260) (13/2018) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:

"Liability in Run-Over Accidents"

Date: (8/Ramadan/1439 AH), corresponding to (24/5/2018).

 

 

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 eighth session held on the above date, the Board reviewed the question sent by one of the citizens and it read as follows:

 

Should the driver, who is observing lane discipline and moving within the assigned speed limit, be held liable for running over a child who popped up from between cars or from the sidewalk?

 

After deliberating, the Board decided the following:

 

Islamic jurisprudence has addressed the issue of liability in traffic accidents with a spectrum of generally agreed upon rules. One of these is that when initiation and cause of damage are combined, the person causing the accident shouldn`t be held liable unless there is misconduct/transgression on his/her part. "The initiator should bear liability in case he/she has or hasn`t transgressed." {Al-Enayah Shareh Al-Hidayah, vol.10/pp.325}. Moreover, "The initiator is liable even if he/she hasn`t transgressed while the person causing the accident isn`t unless he/she has transgressed." {Maj`ma` Ad-Damanat, 146}.

 

In principle, rulings on traffic accidents depend on the traffic sketch issued by the appropriate departments based on what has actually happened, and so this report determinesliability or non-liability and its percentage.

 

As for accidents in which the driver is free from liability: abided by traffic regulations, speed limit and paid attention to the road, the situation of the person who has been run over is checked in terms of being negligent or not. Based on this, there are two case scenarios:

 

Either the driver or the victim initiated the collision. If the initiation was accompanied by some kind of negligence on the part of the driver then the latter should be held liable.

 

However, if the driver hasn`t committed any act of negligence or violation that could make him bear part of the liability, there was no chance that he could avoid the accident, and the victim (Person run over) was fully negligent, then the formeris neither held liable nor pays an expiation, as determined by the Sharia maxim: "Permissibility eliminates liability." Resolution (71/1993) by the International Islamic Fiqh Academy stated: "Car accidents undergo the rulings of criminology stipulated in Sharia……freedom from liability is granted only in the following situations: (One of them): The accident was due to the victim`s negligence and transgression, so it is his/her liability."

In conclusion, liability in run-over accidents should be borne by the negligent party. And Allah Knows Best.

 

 

 

The Iftaa` Board (2017)

Chairperson: Dr Mohammad al-Khalayleh, Grand Mufti of Jordan

Sheikh AbdulkareemKhasawneh/ Member

Prof. Abdullah Al-Fawaz

 Dr. Ahmad Al-Hasanat/ Member

Dr. Moh. Khair Al-Esa/ Member

Dr. Majid Drawsheh/ Member

Sheikh Sa`eidHijawi/ Member           

 Judge Khalid Woraikat/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Zou`bi/ Member   

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on water that contains ornamental fish — does it become impure on account of their waste?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The water in a pond containing ornamental fish is pure so long as it has not been altered, for a small amount of fish waste (rawth) is pardoned and overlooked — provided it does not change the water.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Jamal ʿalā Sharḥ al-Manhaj (Vol.1/P.178): "A small amount of hair from a non-edible animal is pardoned, as is a small amount of hair from a riding animal — on account of the hardship involved in avoiding it — and likewise a small amount of fish waste is pardoned, unless it alters the water." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

The imam recited a verse containing a prostration of recitation (*sajdat al-tilāwah*) but did not prostrate. After the imam's *salām*, a follower (*maʾmūm*) performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because the imam had not performed the prostration of recitation. Is it permissible to go against the imam in this way?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no sin on the imam if he omits the prostration of recitation (sujūd al-tilāwah), even deliberately. The maʾmūm (the one following the imam) is obliged to follow the imam in the prayer, so if the imam does not perform the prostration of recitation, it is not permissible for the follower to prostrate, because the imam is appointed only to be followed.
If the follower introduces a prostration after the imam’s salām but before his own salām, in a case where there is no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw), his prayer is invalidated if he knew it to be prohibited. Otherwise, he is excused on account of his ignorance and his prayer is not invalidated.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Imām al-Jamal ʿalā Fatḥ al-Wahhāb: “His statement: ‘So the omission of the hayʾāt (the non-essential sunnahs of the prayer) is not compensated for by prostration; if one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to his ignorance.’”
Since this issue is one that is hidden from the laymen, as it is among the subtleties of knowledge, and the laymen are excused for ignorance of whatever is of such a nature, and their act of obedience is not invalidated because of it, it may be said that the prayer of one who has not acquired knowledge of this issue is not invalidated, with the necessity of learning the rulings remaining. As for after knowing it, the prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Should one who doesn`t perform prayer out of laziness make it up later, and how should he/she do so?

All perfect praise be to Allah,The Lord of The Worlds                                                                                                                                                              He/she is obliged to make up missed prayers by offering with each obligatory prayer another one, and if he/she offers two, then it is better. And Allah Knows Best.

Is it permissible to eat from an Udhiyah slaughtered on behalf of a deceased person?

Praise be to Allah, and prayers and peace be upon our Master the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is permissible to eat from the sacrifice (uḍḥiyyah) that is offered on behalf of a deceased person. This is the madhhab (school of thought) of the Hanbalis. In this case, the heirs take the place of the deceased as if he were alive, with the same rights to eat from it, give it in charity, and offer it as a gift.
 
It is stated in Maṭālib Uli al-Nuhā (Vol.2/P.472): "Offering a sacrifice on behalf of a deceased person is better than offering one on behalf of a living person, because the deceased is unable (to perform deeds) and is in need of reward. It is to be treated like a sacrifice on behalf of a living person in terms of eating, giving charity, and giving gifts." And Allah Almighty knows best.

See More