عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(159): "Ruling on Dividing Part of the Blood Money Accepted by one of the Victim`s Heirs from the Killer`s Family, in Intentional Killing, amongst other Heirs, each according to his Share as Stipulated in Sharia"

Date Added : 02-11-2015

 

Resolution No.(159) (25/2010) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:

"Dividing Part of the Blood Money Accepted Amongest Heirs in Intentional Killing, each according to his Share as Stipulated in Sharia"

Date: 17/1/1432 AH, corresponding to 23/12/2010 AD.

 

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

During its twelfth session held on the above date, the Board reviewed the following question:

Five years ago, my son was intentionally killed in Saudi Arabia by a Saudi citizen. Two weeks passed over his marriage to a Jordanian woman before he was murdered. When the killer was sent to court, his family offered (25) million Riyals as Diyah (blood money) in return for waiving our right to Qisas (retribution). I along with his father insisted on Qisas and obtained an authorization to that end from all the heirs of my son including his wife.

Several years later, the court ruled for Qisas. However, one hour before the execution of that sentence, we were told that it has been delayed and I was told to check with the Saudi Ministry of Interior.

When I arrived there, I found out that my son`s widow has waived her right to Qisas in return for (5) million Riyals, and so the killer`s life will be spared and we will receive (25) million Riyals as Diyah.

Is the five million Riyals received by my son`s widow hers or should that sum be divided amongst his heirs as stipulated in Sharia.

 After prolonged deliberations, the Board decided:

The five million Riyals received by the victim`s widow from the killer`s family must be divided amongst the heirs of the killed in accordance with Sharia. This is the opinion of the Malikite jurists and it is most compatible with the principles of justice, the provisions of Sharia and  the juristic principle pertaining to warding off harm. 

It is stated: "If one of the victim`s heirs waived his right to Qisas in return for an amount, which is more or less than his share from the Diyah stipulated in Sharia, other heirs become obliged to waive their right to Qisas and take their share from the Diyah as well." [Hashyat Ibn Abdeen Ala-Asharih Al-Khabeer].

As clearly stated in the aforementioned quotation, if one of the two guardians of the victim, in intentional killing, waived his right to Qisas against taking more or less than his share in the Diyah, then the other guardian is obliged to follow suit. This is also supported by the Hadith of the Prophet (PBUH): "There is no injury nor return of injury". And Allah Knows Best.

 

Head of the Iftaa` Board, The Grand Mufti of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, His Grace Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh

Vice Head of the Iftaa` Board, Dr. Ahmad Hilayel

Dr. Yahia Al-Botoosh/ Member

His Eminence, Sheikh Sa`ied Hijjawi/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Khair Al-Essa

Judge Sarrie Attieh

Dr. Abdulrahman Ibbdah/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Oklah/ Member

Dr. Abduln`nassir Abu Al Bass`al/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Gharaibeh/ Member

Executive Secretary of the Iftaa` Board, Sheikh Mohammad Al-Hunaiti

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on one who performs ablution or the ritual bath while having nail polish?

Nail polish must be removed before ablution or ritual bath so that water reaches what is beneath it, because it is a barrier that prevents water from reaching that area. This is based on the hadith narrated by Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Whoever leaves a hair's breadth of his body unwashed from major impurity, such and such will be done to him in the Fire." (Reported by al-Bukhari). And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on sitting between the two prostrations, and what is the ruling on the dhikr recited during it?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Sitting between the two prostrations (al-jalsah bayna al-sajdatayn) is one of the pillars (arkān) of the prayer, while the dhikr recited during it is Sunnah according to the Shāfi'ī scholars. It is recommended (mustahabb) to say what was narrated from Ibn 'Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to say between the two prostrations in the night prayer: 'Rabbi ighfir lī, warhamnī, wajburnī, warzuqnī, warfa'nī' (My Lord, forgive me, have mercy on me, make good my deficiencies, provide for me, and raise me)." If one were to say a different supplication instead, such as "Rabbi ighfir lī" (My Lord, forgive me), the prayer would still be valid.
If the worshipper omits this dhikr between the two prostrations, whether intentionally or out of forgetfulness, their prayer remains valid and nothing is required of them, though they miss the reward of following the Sunnah. Leaving it out does not necessitate the prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw).
It is stated in Hāshiyat al-Bājūrī 'alā Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim 'alā Matn Abī Shujā' (Vol.1/P.298): "The eleventh — i.e., of the eighteen pillars — his statement: 'sitting between the two prostrations,' meaning even in a supererogatory (nafl) prayer... his statement: 'with the supplication that has been narrated concerning it,' meaning: 'Rabbi ighfir lī, warhamnī, wajburnī, warfa'nī, warzuqnī, wahdinī, wa 'āfinī' (My Lord, forgive me, have mercy on me, make good my deficiencies, raise me, provide for me, guide me, and grant me well-being). Al-Ghazālī added: 'wa'fu 'annī' (and pardon me). Al-Mutawallī also added: 'Rabbi hab lī qalban taqiyyan, naqiyyan min al-shirk, bariyyan lā kāfiran wa lā shaqiyyan' (My Lord, grant me a heart that is God-fearing, pure from associating partners with You, innocent, neither disbelieving nor wretched)."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 incumbent upon the one offering the sacrifice if, after slaughtering the animal, they discover that one of its internal organs is damaged or diseased?

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
The presence of disease or defect in the internal organs of a sheep does not affect the validity of the sacrificial animal, unless the disease leads to the animal becoming emaciated and its meat becoming corrupted.
 
It is stated in al-Iqnā' (2/590) by Imam al-Shirbīnī: "The third disqualifying condition: an animal with a manifest illness — meaning one whose illness visibly results in emaciation and corruption of its meat. However, if the illness is minor and does not produce such effects, it doesn`t affect the validity of the sacrificed animal." And Allah Almighty knows best.

See More