عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(277): "Ruling on Exploiting Endowed Land"

Date Added : 22-05-2019

Resolution No.(277)(11/2019), By The Board of Iftaa', Researches and Islamic Studies:

"Ruling on Exploiting Endowed Land"

Date: (11/ Ramadan/1440 AH), corresponding to (16/5/2019 AD).

 

All perfect praise be to Allah the Lord of the Worlds.

On its sixth session held on the above date, the Board reviewed the letter (4/2/3/2905) of His Excellency Minister of Awqaf, Dr. Abulbasal. It states that the endowed land No.(45) of Um Attieh area (59) in Salt city, estimated at (320 Meters), was donated in 2000 for the purpose of building a mosque. However, building the mosque on the above land became impossible because it violates the effective laws and regulations of constructing mosques, the endowed land itself is small and three mosques were built in the same area. Knowing that the above land is commercial, what is the ruling of Sharia on investing it in favor of endowment programs by building a small Musala on part of it instead of a mosque?

After deliberating, the Board arrived at the following decision:

According to scholars, it is allowed for the endowment (Waqf) administrator to take the necessary steps to achieve the interest expected from the Waqf and preserve its benefits. Ibn Qhodamah says: "If the Waqf was damaged and its benefits were stopped….for example, a mosque that people have deserted or was too small and impossible to expand, or was expanded to the extent that it became impossible to maintain save by selling part of it. In this case, it is permissible to sell part of it to maintain the rest." Moreover, if it wasn`t possible to benefit from it at all, then selling it is permissible. In a narration by Abi Dawoud, Ahmad said: "If there were two valuable pieces of wood in a mosque, then it is permissible to sell them in order to maintain the mosque." {Al-Moghni, vol.6/pp.28}.

In conclusion, it is permissible to invest the above land to achieve the purpose for which it was endowed without any stoppage or delay. This is provided that the revenue is spent in favor of the mosque itself since the stipulation of the endower has the same binding force as the text of Sharia. And Allah The Almighty Knows Best.

 

Chairperson of Iftaa` Board,

Grand Mufti of Jordan,

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh

Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh, Member

Dr. Ahmad Al-Hasanat, Member

Sheikh Sa`eid Al-Hijjawi, Member

Judge Khalid Woraikat, Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Zou`bi/ Member

Prof. Adam Nooh Al-Qhodaat/Member

Prof. Abdullah al-Fawaaz/Member

Dr Mohammad Khair al-Esa/Member

Dr. Rashaad Al-Kelaani/Member

 

 

 

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Does the clipping of nails nullify ablution?

No, it does not, and it is preferable to wash the hands afterwards.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on wudu (ablution) when there is an adhesive substance on the hand that is difficult to remove?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general principle is: if what is applied to the limbs of wudu' (ablution) does not form a barrier substance preventing water from reaching the skin, then the wudu' is valid despite its presence. However, if these substances prevent water from reaching the skin, the wudu' is not valid with their presence, and they must be removed so that water reaches the hair or skin without any barrier.
Shaykh al-Islam, the Imam an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "If there is wax, dough, henna, or similar substances on some of his limbs [of wudu'], and this prevents water from reaching any part of the limb, then his purification (tahara) is not valid — regardless of whether the amount is much or little. But if there remains on the hand or elsewhere only the trace and color of the henna, without its substance [i.e., the physical residue itself], or the trace of a liquid oil such that the water touches the skin of the limb and flows over it, though it does not remain [as a barrier] — then his purification is valid." [Al-Majmu' , Vol.1/P.529]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on waiving a debt owed by a debtor and counting it toward zakāh?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Waiving a debt owed by a debtor, with the intention of counting it toward zakāh, does not fulfill the zakāh obligation. Rather, it constitutes an ordinary act of charity, for which Allah rewards the giver generously — since one of the conditions for the validity of zakāh is that the person paying it must form the intention of zakāh at the actual moment the wealth is paid out. In this case, the debt has already been established as a standing obligation upon the borrower, so it is not valid to simply redirect the intention toward zakāh after the fact.
It is preferable, instead, for the creditor to first collect the debt from the debtor, and then return to him the amount of money he is required to pay as zakāh — or a portion of it — if the debtor happens to fall under one of the eight categories that Allah, the Exalted, has commanded be given from zakāh.
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik, from the books of the Shāfi‘ī school: "If someone gives [money] to a poor person, stipulating that the recipient return it to him in payment of a debt owed to him, or says, 'I am making what you owe me into zakāh, so take it [as such]' — this is not valid. But if he gives it to him with the [unstated] intention that the recipient will use it to repay him, or says, 'Repay what you owe me, so that I may [then separately] give it to you as zakāh,' or the debtor himself says, 'Give it to me, so that I may [then] repay you with it' — this is valid, and there is no binding obligation for the recipient to actually fulfill this [informal understanding]." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

"If the fidyah becomes obligatory upon a pregnant or nursing woman because she broke her fast out of fear for her child, is it obligatory from her own wealth, or from her husband's wealth?"

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The fidyah (ransom/compensation payment for breaking the fast) is obligatory from the wife's own wealth, and is not obligatory upon the husband unless he voluntarily chooses to pay it on her behalf.
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/P.174): "If the two [the pregnant woman and the nursing mother] fear for the child alone — such as a pregnant woman fearing miscarriage, or a nursing mother fearing that her milk supply would decrease, thereby endangering the child — then both the qaḍā' (making up the missed fast) and the fidyah become obligatory upon them, to be paid from their own wealth." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

See More