عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(274): "Ruling on a Financial Donation Given to Orphans Fund Development Foundation"

Date Added : 01-05-2019

Resolution No.(274) (7/2019)By The Board of Iftaa', Researches anad Islamic Studies:

"Ruling on a Financial Donation Given to Orphans Fund Development Foundation"

Date: (19/Sha`ban/1440 AH), corresponding to (25/4/2019 AD).

 

Praise be to Allah the Lord of the Worlds and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.

During its fourth session held on the above date, the Board reviewed the letter (MA/1/1/3250) of His Excellency Mr. Hamdan Al-Faw`eer, director of the Orphans Fund Development Foundation, which reads as follows: "Back in 1981, the Foundation`s board-through resolution No.(6/81) - approved of Mr. Ameen Saleh Mar`ee`s wish to donate 100.000 JDs to be invested by the Orphans Fund Development Foundation (OFDF). This is provided that the annual profits in addition to whatever sums are added to the original donation should be spent in favor of poor Muslim orphans, needy students, the poor and other charity channels. This should also be done under the supervision of the Foundation`s board and the direct participation of Mr. Maree (Donor) himself, and , in case he dies, his son shall take over, and so on. Could you kindly consider discussing this matter with the Board of Iftaa` to provide us with answers to the following questions: Is the above sum (100.000 JDs) a donation or an endowment? Does the donor or his heirs have the right to participate in distributing the annual profits, yielded from investing the above sum, amongst the aforementioned categories who don`t have any funds at the (OFDF)? Is it permissible to consider the above sum amongst the Foundation`s revenues and the earnings made from investing that sum part of the profits added annually to the orphans deposits by the Foundation? Do the heirs of the donor have the right to reclaim the original sum (100.000 JDs)?

After deliberating, the Board decided what follows:

The above sum (100.000 JDs) takes the rulings of an endowment although it was termed a donation. This wording indicates holding money in perpetuity and spending its profits in accordance with the conditions of the donor, as reflected in resolution No.(6/81) issued by the (OFDF). This is in addition to the Sharia maxim, which states that meaning/content prevails over form/structure.

In conclusion, the above sums should be transferred to a party in charge of regulating endowments affairs where it invests the sums in question and spends their profits as stipulated by the endower. In addition, it isn`t permissible for the heirs or any of them to reclaim these sums (100.000 and profits made out of investing it), because once a property is endowed, it becomes Allah`s, not the endower`s. And Allah The Almighty Knows Best.

 

Chairperson of Iftaa` Board,

Grand Mufti of Jordan,

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh

Sheikh Abdulkareem AlKhasawneh/ Member

Sheikh Sa`eid Al-Hijjawi/ Member

Dr. Muhammad Khair Al-Issa/ Member

Prof. Adam Nooh/ Member

Judge. Khaled Al-Worikat/ Member

Dr. Ahmad Al-Hasanat/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Zou`bi/ Member

 

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

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.

What is the ruling on wiping over socks?

It is not permissible to wipe over most common socks today because the conditions for wiping are not met. The concession was reported for wiping over leather socks (khuff) and socks (jowrab) with conditions: They must be thick, not allowing poured water to penetrate, enable one to walk in them, be worn while in a state of purity (from ablution), cover the entire foot up to the ankles (meaning covering the protruding ankle bones), and not be torn. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling if a postpartum woman becomes pure before forty days; are acts of worship obligatory upon her, and is she permissible for her husband?

If the postpartum woman becomes definitely pure before forty days, she must perform the ritual bath and perform acts of worship as a pure woman does. What was prohibited for her also becomes permissible, so she becomes permissible for her husband after her bath. The minimum duration for postpartum bleeding is a moment (an instant), and its usual maximum is forty days. Reaching forty days is not a condition; rather, it is sufficient for the blood to stop or to see the white discharge (qassa bayda'). And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Is a person rewarded for refraining from all that breaks their fast when required to do so, and is it considered a valid fast?

If a person eats or drinks thinking that Fajr has not yet arrived, but then someone informs them that Fajr had already begun, they must refrain from eating for the rest of the day and make up the fast later.
If they observe the required restraint (imsak), they will be rewarded for obeying the command because fulfilling an obligation brings reward.
However, this is not considered a valid fast in terms of rulings. For example:
● It is not disliked (makruh) for them to use a miswak after noon.
● They are not encouraged to hasten the breaking of the fast at sunset.
● Other fasting-related rulings do not apply to them.

See More