عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

The Orphans Fund Development Foundation has Canceled the Penalty Clause
Author : The General Iftaa` Department
Date Added : 05-07-2023

The Orphans Fund Development Foundation has Canceled the Penalty Clause

 

In reference to what was published on the website of the General Iftaa` Department and the fatwas it issued prohibiting the penalty clause in Murabaha contracts, the Orphans Fund Development Foundation has responded by deleting the sixth clause from its Murabaha contracts, which include the penalty clause. This was included in a letter from the Director of the Foundation Dr. Faisal Al-Hiary- (Number MA / 1/4/2290), (1st of June, 2009)-addressed to the Grand Mufti. The letter reads as follows:

 

"Since the sixth clause in the Murabaha contract used by the Foundation has not been activated from the time the Foundation started providing Murabaha services in 1988, and in order to avoid any ambiguity that may arise in the Murabaha contract, I would like to inform you that the management of the Foundation has decided to delete the sixth clause and adhere to the general rules stipulated in the Civil Code, in this regard."

 

The Grand Mufti thanked the Director of the Foundation, saying:

"I thank you for deleting the sixth clause from the Murabaha contract used at your institution, and I hope that Allah will reward you well for that. You have removed an obstacle for those who deal with your noble institution, which is keen on earning halal/lawful profits. Your institution is the first among institutions to take into account the provisions of Islamic Law, and I hope that other financial institutions will follow your example, and to you is the reward of being the first good doer in this regard."

 

Afterwards, the Director of the Foundation attached a copy of the new Murabaha contract to his letter, which showed that it was free of the penalty clause and was acceptable from the standpoint of Sharia. However, the employee in charge of executing the Murabaha contract is responsible for applying the Sharia conditions and not neglecting them. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

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.

What is the ruling on water that contains ornamental fish — does it become impure on account of their waste?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The water in a pond containing ornamental fish is pure so long as it has not been altered, for a small amount of fish waste (rawth) is pardoned and overlooked — provided it does not change the water.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Jamal ʿalā Sharḥ al-Manhaj (Vol.1/P.178): "A small amount of hair from a non-edible animal is pardoned, as is a small amount of hair from a riding animal — on account of the hardship involved in avoiding it — and likewise a small amount of fish waste is pardoned, unless it alters the water." And Allah the Almighty 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.

What is the ruling on intramuscular injections? Do they break the fast?

Therapeutic injections administered under the skin or into the muscles do not break the fast, as they do not enter the body cavity (jauf) through an open passage.
However, intravenous (IV) injections that provide nourishment do break the fast because they function like food and drink in effect.

See More