عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(296): "Using the Building of an Old Mosque by Zakah Committee"

Date Added : 04-01-2021

Resolution No.(296) (16/2020) By The Board of Iftaa', Researches and Islamic Studies:

"Using the Building of an Old Mosque by Zakah Committee"

Date: (16th of Rabi'ul-Akhir, 1442 AH), corresponding to (2/12/2020 AD).

 

All perfect praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds; may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.

 

In its 13nth meeting held on the above date, the Board of Iftaa` reviewed the letter No.4/2/3/1122 sent from His Excellency the Minister of Awqaf, Holy Sites and Islamic Affairs Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh. It read as follows: What is the ruling of Sharia regarding the request made by Um Jozeh and 'Allan Zakah Committee to use the building of Um Jozeh Old Mosque, where prayers haven`t been offered for a very long time because the New Um Jozeh Mosque was established next to it? This Committee expressed its readiness to make total maintenance for the building and its annexes to serve as new headquarter for Um Jozeh and `Allan Zakah Committee of the Zakah Fund. What is the ruling of Sharia on the permissibility of using Um Jozeh and `Allan old Mosque for the afore-mentioned purposes?

  

After careful consideration, the Board has arrived at the following decision:

 

In principle, religious endowments are bound by the conditions of the endowers and should meet the purpose for which they have been established in the first place. However, at the same time, it is permissible for Um Jozeh and `Allan Committee to use the building of Um Jozeh and `Allan Old Mosque after running the necessary maintenance; provided that it is used as a mosque and kept officially registered as such. This is in order to enable the Waqf Administrator-Ministry of Awqaf, Holy Sites and Islamic Affairs-to benefit from it as a mosque in the future. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

 

 Chairperson of Iftaa` Board,

Grand Mufti of Jordan,

Dr. Abdulkareem al-Khasawneh

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh, Member

Prof. Mahmoud al-Sartawi, Member

Sheikh Sa`eid Al-Hijjawi, Member

Dr. Majed al-Darawsheh, Member

Dr. Ahmad al-Hasanat, Member {I have a reservation at this Resolution unless it is states that Um Jozeh and `Allan Old Mosque remains as a mosque}.

Judge Khalid Woraikat, Member 

Prof. Adam Nooh Al-Qhodaat/Member {I agree under the condition that prayers are established in this Mosque and its sanctity is preserved}.

Dr. Amjad Rasheed, Member {I reserve this Resolution without mentioning the statement "It takes the rules of a mosque and remains as such, and not merely that "It only remains as an endowed mosque. This is with the need to keep a place for performing prayers or teaching the Quran}.

Dr. Jamil Khatatbeh, Member

Dr. Mohammad Younis Al-Zou`bi, Member

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Is Fajr (dawn) Sunnah a confirmed one?

All praise be to Allah The Lord of The Worlds                                                                                                                                                                                  Of course, it is a confirmed Sunna which the Prophet (PBUH) used to offer in a regular basis. And Allah Knows Best.

What is the ruling on someone who possesses gold with the intention of saving/hoarding it, and owns nothing else — is he obligated to sell a portion of it in order to pay the zakāh due on it?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Zakāh becomes immediately obligatory on cash, and likewise on gold — that which is not designated for a woman's personal adornment— once both reach the niṣāb (minimum threshold liable for zakah) and a full ḥawl (lunar year) has passed over them. It is not permissible to delay payment when it is genuinely possible to pay — meaning, when the wealth and the eligible recipients are both available. It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.129): "Zakāh is obligatory immediately once it becomes feasible to pay it, meaning when the wealth and the eligible recipients are both present."
The one paying zakāh must discharge the obligatory zakāh due on saved (hoarded) gold either from the gold itself, or from its equivalent monetary value, in the event that no other funds are available — since paying from the gold itself is the original default (al-aṣl). It becomes permissible to pay from other funds instead only because zakāh is built upon the principle of ease and leniency, as stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib (Vol.1/p.366): "When a full ḥawl has elapsed on wealth other than trade goods... zakāh attaches to the actual asset itself (al-‘ayn), and the poor effectively become partners in it — even, for example, [becoming partners] in camels through the value of a sheep [owed as zakāh on them]... Paying from other wealth is permitted only because zakāh is built upon the principle of ease and leniency."
Accordingly: the one paying zakāh must discharge it either from the actual saved gold itself, or by selling a portion of the gold equal to the amount of zakāh owed. He may also borrow money to pay the zakāh, or pay the zakāh in installments before the ḥawl is complete [as an advance payment]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What are the legal and religious consequences for a charitable organization in the event that a sacrificial animal is damaged or spoiled after slaughter?

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Charitable organizations entrusted with slaughtering sacrificial animals (uḍḥiyyah) and distributing their meat on behalf of their owners are obligated to safeguard the meat from spoilage, damage, theft, and any other harm. This is because such organizations act as agents (wukalā') on behalf of those offering the sacrifice, and an agent holds what is entrusted to them in trust (amānah) — whether they receive a wage for their work or act on a voluntary basis.
If the sacrificial animal is damaged after slaughter during the processes of packaging, transportation, or storage due to negligence or oversight — whether on the part of the organization's own staff overseeing the operation, or on the part of third parties contracted by the organization such as transport or shipping companies — then liability falls upon the negligent party, who is required to compensate for the value of the sacrifice. It is not permissible to cover such compensation from the organization's other donor funds.
However, if the damage to the sacrificial animal occurs without any negligence in its preservation and storage on the part of any party involved in the transportation, shipping, or storage process, and is instead attributable to force majeure circumstances beyond their control, then no financial liability is borne by any party in such a case. And Allah Almighty knows best.

See More