Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(9): “Ruling on the Amendments over the Moqarada Bonds Act“

Date Added : 25-01-2018

 

Resolution No.(9) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:  

“Ruling on the Amendments over the Moqarada Bonds Act“

Date: 29/5/1407 AH, 29/1/1987 AD.

 

Question: What is the ruling on the amendments over the Moqarada (A borrowing tool in favor of a company bonds act?
Answer: All perfect praise is due to Allah, The Lord of the Worlds.
After reviewing the articles of the interim, act no. (10), 1981, the proposed amendments and deliberating over them, the Board has decided the following:
A- Confirming the resolution of the Iftaa` Committee issued on the 8th of Feb. 1398 AH, 17/1/1978 on Moqarada draft-act and that its texts and sections comply with the rulings of Islamic Sharia.
B- Confirming the resolution of the Iftaa` Committee issued on the 8th of Feb. 1398 AH, 17/1/1978 on the permissibility of the government`s guarantee over settling the par value of Moqarada bonds within the specified dates since the government is considered a Third Party, and enjoys the general authorities in doing what is in the best interest of its citizens.
C- The Board noticed that the 12th article of the interim act No.(10),1981  has added-after stating that the government guarantees settling the whole due par value of the Moqarada bonds within the specified dates-that the amounts paid by the government  in this case are considered a zero-interest loan to the project, and becomes due once the bonds are totally settled. In other words, the government isn`t a Third Party anymore because the project itself has settled all the payments. In fact, the project borrowed from the government because it didn`t have the amount needed for settling the par value of the bonds. This is a kind of guarantee against loss given by the owner of the money from the Mudarib (co-partner) in a Mudaraba (co-partnership) contract, and this contradicts the rulings of a Mudaraba contract stipulated in Islamic Jurisprudence.
Therefore, the board believes that it is essential for the government to continue its guarantee role as a Third Party. This in order to avoid stipulating that subscribers shall endure any loss-as stated by the Iftaa` Committee in the aforementioned resolution-and consequently this transaction becomes acceptable in Sharia.
Therefore, the Board views that it is essential that article (12) ends with the words: “specified dates”, and that what comes after them is omitted. Actually, Waqf(religious endowment) projects, projects undertaken by municipalities and  financially as well as managerially independent organizations  from which this guarantee  shall benefit are amongst the vital projects that target the best interest of the citizens. The government is keen on holding such projects and promoting them in order to achieve eco-social development so long as there are sufficient guarantees, which secure their proper progress and supervision.
The government`s guarantee over settling these bonds within the specified dates entails no harm, or squander of public funds, rather, it is using them positively in rare cases and exceptional situations.
D- The Board has reviewed the proposed amendments included in the note attached with the official letter of the Minister in question and believes that they don`t contradict the rulings of Sharia in this regard and that it (Board) doesn`t object including them in the interim act. And Allah Knows Best.

 

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Does the intention (niyyah) of the principal (muwakkil) suffice for the sacrifice (dhabḥ) of the udhiyyah?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person appoints an agent (wakīl) to perform the slaughter (dhabḥ) on their behalf, the intention (niyyah) of the principal (the one appointing the agent) suffices, and there is no need for the agent to have this intention himself. In fact, even if the agent is unaware that he is performing the sacrifice on someone's behalf as an udhiyyah (sacrificial offering), this does not affect its validity. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, and is it permissible to slaughter the ewe if one knows it is pregnant?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, the fetus becomes lawful (ḥalāl) by virtue of its mother's slaughter (tabaʿan li-ummihā).
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/P.158): "A fetus found dead [after the mother's slaughter], or found alive but in a state resembling that of a slaughtered animal [i.e., dying shortly after], becomes lawful — whether or not it had grown fur — provided it is found in the womb of a mother that was lawfully slaughtered, whether her slaughter was by cutting the throat, or by an arrow or hunting dog sent after her. This is based on the ḥadīth: 'The slaughtering of the fetus is [effected by] the slaughtering of its mother' [narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan, and by Ibn Ḥibbān, who graded it ṣaḥīḥ] — meaning that the slaughter which rendered the mother lawful renders the fetus lawful as well, by virtue of following her; and because the fetus is one of her constituent parts, and her slaughter renders lawful all of her parts."
This ruling differs, however, from the case of one who knows from the outset that the ewe is pregnant [and intends to sacrifice her specifically as the udḥiyah while pregnant] — in which case, according to the Shāfi'ī school, she does not fulfill the requirement of a valid sacrifice.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī 'alā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.4/P.335): "A pregnant animal does not fulfill the requirement [of a valid sacrifice], and this is the authoritative position (al-mu'tamad), because pregnancy diminishes the quality of the meat. As for why such an animal is nevertheless counted as complete [i.e., fully valid] in matters of zakāh, that is because the intent there is reproduction (nasl), not the quality of the meat.". And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

What is the ruling on fasting only on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday?

In voluntary fasting (nafl), it is disliked (makruh) to fast only on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.
However:
● If one fasts a day before or after Friday, then that is permissible.
● The same applies to Saturday and Sunday—fasting them along with another day removes the dislike.
● Fasting all three days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) together is not disliked.
If any of these days coincide with a recommended fasting day, such as Arafah or Ashura, then fasting it alone is not disliked.

Is it permissible to include others in the reward of one`s sacrifice?

 

In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is permissible for the person offering an Udhiyah (sacrificial offering) to include others in the spiritual reward of the sacrifice. However, it is not permissible for multiple people to jointly share the purchase price of a single sheep or goat, unless one person gifts the money to the other.
 
It is stated in Mughni al-Muhtaj (6/137) by Al-Khatib al-Shirbini:
 
"If a person includes someone else in the reward of his sacrifice and slaughters it on his own behalf, it is permissible."
 
It should be carefully noted that including someone else in the reward of one's sacrifice is completely distinct from offering a sacrifice on behalf of someone else. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.