عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(237): "Emphasizing an Earlier Resolution about Brain Death"

Date Added : 31-05-2017

Resolution No.(237)(5/2017) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:

"Emphasizing an Earlier Resolution about Brain Death"

Date: (27/Sha`aban/1438 AH), corresponding to (24/5/2017 AD).

 

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.

On its fifth session held on the above date, the Board reviewed the following question: Based on the recommendations of the Third International Medical-Fiqh Conference held under the patronage of your eminence at the World Islamic Sciences and Education University, we hope that your eminence would clarify the final stand of Sharia on Fatwa No. (2011) concerning the donation of  human organs.

After deliberations, the Board decided the following:

The Board has already issued a resolution considering brain death as actual death upon which all rulings of a dead person apply. It is resolution No. (11), 1988. At that time, this resolution has adopted the theme of resolution No. (5/3)(1986), by the International Islamic Assembly which was held in Amman at that time.

On its part the Iftaa` Board emphasizes the content of Resolution (11) and recommend adhering to it.

The states in it and has deemed the following: From the view point of Sharia, a person is considered dead and the Sharia rulings of the dead apply to him/her if any of the following signs is present:

1- His/her heart has stopped beating and his/her breath has totally stopped, and the doctors decided that he/she can`t be revived.

2- His/her brain functions have totally stopped, his/her brain started decomposing, and the expert medical specialists ruled that this brain is totally dead and can`t be revived. In this case, he/she is considered dead although his/her heart is still beating by being on life support equipmets. In this case (2), it is permissible for the doctors to take them away, but they can`t rule that this person is dead unless they are absolutely certain of the following:

1- All conditions of brain death are present.

2- Other causes of comma are excluded.

3- The reflexes of the brain`s core have totally stopped.

4- Running all the necessary medical tests which prove that breathing has stopped.

5- Electricity is static while performing brain scanning.

6- Running any necessary medical tests to ascertain that the brain is dead.

7- All these tests must be run in a fully-equipped hospital.

Due to the religious, legal, medical, ethical, and social considerations of this issue, judging that a patient’s brain is dead must be done by a committee of expert medical specialists made of three members at least, and that none of them has any kind of hostility with the patient in question. Time of death begins from  the moment when the members of the aforesaid committee put down their signature.

On its part, the Board stresses the need for addressing this critical matter in order to ensure that the conditions stipulated in this Fatwa are executed, and that violating them entails legal accountability. And Allah Knows Best.

The Board of Iftaa`

Chairman of the Board, Chief Justice, Mohammad Mohailan

The Grand Mufti of Jordan,: Izz al-Deen al-Tamimi, Vice Chairman of the Iftaa` Board

Dr. Nooh al-Qodat, Mufti of Jordanian Armed Forces “ I have a reservation on the second sign  and see that a patient is considered alive so long as a sign of life is present in him/her.”

Dr.Ibrahim al-Keelani         Dr. Abdulsalam Abbadi

Dr. Abdulfatah Amr              Dr. Abdulhalim Ar-Ramahi

Dr. Mostafa Az-Zarqa           Dr. Mahmood al-Sartawi

Dr. Yasee Dradkeh                Dr. Abdulssalam al-Abbadi

Dr. Sa`eid Hijawi                 

   Dr. Mahmood Al-Awattli ” The same reservation 

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Is it acceptable to perform the Aqiqah for a male child by slaughtering and distributing the first sheep, and bringing the second one cooked from the restaurant?

 

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.

It is permissible to slaughter the first sheep with the intention of Aqiqah (the newborn's sacrificial offering) and distribute it entirely [uncooked], and to slaughter the second sheep and have it cooked at a restaurant to bring home for the household. However, it must be noted that it is obligatory to give some portion of the Aqiqah in charity to the poor, even if it is a small amount, though it is preferable to send the food cooked to them.

Buying a pre-cooked, ready-made sheep from a restaurant does not suffice as an Aqiqah. However, if an agreement is made with the restaurant to explicitly slaughter a sheep with the intention of Aqiqah for the newborn, and then cook it afterward, this is permissible.

In conclusion, slaughtering the sheep and distributing it with the intention of Aqiqah is permissible, and through it, the foundational prophetic tradition (Sunnah) is fulfilled. As for simply buying a cooked sheep from a restaurant that was not specifically slaughtered with the intention of Aqiqah, it will not count as such. Conversely, if the restaurant owner is commissioned (Wakala) to handle both the slaughtering and the cooking as an Aqiqah, it is valid. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

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.

My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?

 
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
 
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
 
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
 
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
 
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
 
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

See More