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

Is the one who gives up on marriage because he can`t afford it considered sinful?

Marriage is desirable, but one who can`t afford it isn`t considered sinful. However, he should supplicate to Allah, and seek His forgiveness.

Is it permissible to offer an Udhiyah on behalf of another without their permission?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is not permissible for a person to offer a sacrifice (Udhiyah) on behalf of someone else without their permission, except in the following cases: if he sacrifices on behalf of the members of his household, if a guardian sacrifices from his own wealth on behalf of his ward, or if the Imam (ruler) sacrifices from the public treasury (Bayt al-Mal) on behalf of the Muslims. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What are the Sharia consequences when the sacrificial time for the uḍḥiyyah comes to an end?

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
If the sun sets on the final day of Tashriq (the 13th of Dhu al-Hijjah) and the Udhiyah (sacrificial animal) has not yet been slaughtered, its designated time has expired. Should a person slaughter it after this point, it will not be counted as an Udhiyah.
 
However, if the sacrifice was a vowed one (Mandhurah), they are strictly obligated to slaughter it as a makeup act (Qada’), and its meat must be distributed entirely according to the rules governing vowed sacrifices.
 
It is stated in Bushra al-Karim (p. 702): "If one slaughters after sunset on the final day [of Tashriq]... it does not count as an Udhiyah, unless it was a vowed sacrifice, in which case it is fulfilled as a makeup act (Qada’)." 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.