عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(318): "Ruling when the Donor Stipulates Replacing the Waqf with another"

Date Added : 08-01-2023

Resolution No. (318), By The Board of Iftaa, Researches and Islamic Studies:

"Ruling when the Donor Stipulates Replacing the Waqf with another"

Date: (21 Jumada al-Ula, 1444 AH), corresponding to (15/12/2022 AD).

 

 

Praise be to Allah the Lord of the Worlds. May His peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.

In its fifteenth meeting held on the above date, the Board of Iftaa` reviewed the letter sent from His Excellency the Minister of Awqaf and Islamic affairs Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh. It read as follows:

According to the Waqf deed presented by Mrs. X, she stipulated selling her endowed flat and building a mosque instead. A copy of this deed No.(1/93/5) (5/12/2006) issued by the Sharia Court of Shmesani area has been attached.

From an Islamic perspective, is the condition of this donor considered valid?

After deliberating, the Board decided what follows:

If the endower stipulated replacing the Waqf (Religious endowment) with another, through buying, selling or direct replacement, then this is approved on the level of fatwa and the judiciary based on the view of the Hanafi jurists who said that in such case the condition of the endower is considerable. It was mentioned in [Al-Fatawa Al-Hindiyah] and other Hanafi books: "If the endower said: "This land of mine is a Waqf for charity till the Day of Judgment provided that it is allowed for me to replace it with something else. It is considered a Waqf out of Istihsan (Application of discretion in legal matters) if the second Waqf was bought with the same price of the first. This view was also given in the book [Moheet Al-Sarkhasi]. Moreover, the second Waqf takes the same conditions of the first and there is no need to renew the conditions of the Waqf in the first place. This was also mentioned in [Fatawa Khadi Khan]. In addition, if the endower stipulated replacing the Waqf with another but didn`t specify that the latter should be a piece of land or a house and sold the first Waqf, then he/she is allowed to replace it with a Waqf of the same kind; a land  or a house. Similarly, if the donor didn`t specify a country, then the replacement may take place in the country of his choice. This view was mentioned in [Al-Kholasah]: "If the endower said that he/she should replace the Waqf with a house, then he/she isn`t allowed to replace it with a piece of land and vice-versa."

In conclusion, the Iftaa` Board is of the view that it is permissible to fulfill the condition of the endower, sell the abovementioned flat for the highest price, then use that amount to build a mosque instead. And Allah The Almighty Knows Best.

 

Grand Mufti of Jordan, Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/ Member

Prof. Mahmoud Al-Sartawi/ Member

Sheikh Sa`eid Hijjawi/ Member

Prof. Amjad Rasheed/ Member

Prof. Adam Nooh Al-Qhodah/ Member

Dr. Jameel Khatatbeh/ Member

Dr. Ahmad Al-Hasanat/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Younes al-Zou`bi/ Member

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Is it permissible for a woman to ride a taxi without a Mahram (unmarriageable kin) in order to attend a gathering of knowledge?

It is permissible for the woman to pursue the knowledge that she needs in order to perform the religious requirements due on her if there was nobody to teach her at home, provided that there is no temptation involved. Moreover, we don`t recommend that she rides a taxi without a Mahram although such an act isn`t from the forbidden Khulwah (seclusion).

Is it permissible to offer an Udhiyah on behalf of the deceased?

In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Offering an Udhiyah (sacrificial animal) on behalf of a deceased person is permissible. This is the official position of the Hanbali school (as stated in Kashshaf al-Qina’ by al-Bahuti,Vol.6/P.428) and was also upheld by the prominent Shafi'i scholar Al-’Abbadi (mentioned in Bidayat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Qadi Shuhbah,Vol. 4/P.358). It has likewise been narrated as a valid view among some Maliki and Hanafi scholars.
 
In fact, Imam Abu Dawud dedicated an entire chapter in his Sunan collection entitled, "Chapter on Sacrificing on Behalf of the Deceased." In it, he recorded a narration from Hanash, who said: "I saw 'Ali sacrificing two rams, so I asked him, 'What is this?' He replied, 'The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded me to offer a sacrifice on his behalf, so I am sacrificing on his behalf.'"
 
Imam Abu Dawud also narrated from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "O Allah, this is from You, for You, and on behalf of Muhammad and his Ummah (community). In the Name of Allah, and Allah is the Greatest," and he then slaughtered the animal.
 
The textual evidence here lies in the fact that our Master, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), offered a sacrifice on behalf of his entire community—and it is well-established that his community includes those who have already passed away.
 
Furthermore, there is an abundance of sacred texts demonstrating that the rewards of righteous deeds reach the deceased. For instance, it is permissible to fast on behalf of a deceased person who passed away with missed obligatory fasts, and it is equally permissible to perform Hajj on their behalf, both of which are firmly established in authentic Hadiths. Therefore, if the reward of fasting (which is a purely physical act of worship) and Hajj (which is a joint physical and financial act of worship) can reach the deceased, then the reward of an Udhiyah reaches them with greater reason (by way of A Fortiori argument). This is because it is a purely financial act of worship, falling under the general category of charity (Sadaqah).
 
Additionally, scholars have reached a consensus (Ijma') that the rewards of charity reach the deceased, and since the Udhiyah is inherently an act of charity, it falls under the same ruling. Consequently, based on all the aforementioned evidence, we hold the view that offering a sacrifice on behalf of the deceased is entirely permissible. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on the colored discharges that appear one or two days before the menstrual cycle?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Colored discharges carry the same Islamic ruling as blood, whether they appear at the beginning or the end of the menstrual period. This remains true even if the discharge is intermittent—appearing for some days and stopping for others before returning—provided that the total duration does not exceed fifteen days nor fall short of a day and a night (24 hours). This is because the minimum duration of menstruation (Hayd) is one day and a night, while its maximum duration is fifteen days. Furthermore, the minimum period of purity (Tuhr) between two menstrual cycles is fifteen days, and there is no maximum limit for it. And Allah the Exalted knows best."

What is the ruling on swearing an oath by the Prophet ﷺ, and does such an oath take effect according to Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, requiring expiation upon its breach?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Swearing an oath by a created being is disliked (makrūh) in our Shāfiʿī school. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Swearing by a created being is disliked — such as swearing by the Prophet, the Kaʿbah, Jibrīl, the Companions, or the Prophet's family. Al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: 'I fear that swearing by other than Allah the Almighty may constitute an act of disobedience.' The scholars of the school explained this to mean: that is, something forbidden and sinful — indicating that he had some hesitation in the matter. Al-Imām stated: the established position of the school is that it is categorically not forbidden, but rather disliked. Furthermore, whoever swears by a created being, his oath does not take effect and no expiation (kaffārah) is required if he breaks it." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa ʿUmdat al-Muftīn, Vol. 11/P.6]
According to the Ḥanbalī school, however, expiation becomes obligatory upon one who swears by our master the Prophet ﷺ and then breaks his oath. Imām al-Bahūtī al-Ḥanbalī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "No expiation is required for swearing by other than Allah the Almighty, even if the oath is broken — because expiation was made obligatory for swearing by Allah and His attributes, out of reverence for His names, and nothing else is equal to Him in this regard... except in the case of swearing by our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, for expiation becomes obligatory when one swears by him and then breaks the oath. This was explicitly stated in the narration of Abū Ṭālib, because he is one of the two conditions of the two testimonies of faith by which a disbeliever becomes a Muslim. Ibn ʿAqīl held the view that swearing by any of the other prophets, peace and blessings be upon them all, carries the same ruling." [Sharḥ Muntahā al-Irādāt, Vol. 3/P.441]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

See More