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to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication.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 on one who vowed not to speak to a certain person, then forgot his vow and spoke to him?

 

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever swears an oath or makes a vow to abstain from something has a choice: if he wishes, he may keep to his vow, or if he wishes, he may offer the expiation of an oath (kaffārat yamīn). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The expiation for a vow is the expiation for an oath.” Narrated by Muslim. This type of vow is called a nadhr al-lajāj (a vow made in stubbornness or anger).
If a person makes a vow and then forgets it, nothing is due from him, for forgetfulness is among the excuses that lift legal responsibility (taklīf) from a Muslim. This is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “Actions are judged only by intentions, and every person will have only what he intended.” [Narrated by al-Bukhārī]. There is no intention for the one who forgets or errs. It is also based on the report: “Indeed, Allah has pardoned for my Ummah mistakes, forgetfulness, and what they are compelled to do.” Narrated by Ibn Mājah and others, and graded authentic by Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Ḥākim.
It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik (p. 243), one of the books of the Shāfiʿī school: “Whoever swears, [for example], ‘I will not enter the house,’ and then enters it forgetfully, ignorantly, under compulsion, or being carried, he does not break his oath.” And Allah Almighty knows best.

What should a person, who doubts the validity of his Wudu, or over performs it, do?

One who doubts the validity of his/her Wudu while performing it should redo it until he/she is certain of having attained purity. But, if doubt was after having performed Wudu, then he/she should not pay attention to that as doubt after the end of an act of worship does not count. This is of course in case doubt was within the reasonable limits since once it goes beyond that, it becomes a whispering of the Shaytaan (devil) which he/she should ignore as the Wudu is valid.

What is the ruling on a person in a state of major impurity (junub) or a menstruating woman (ha'id) reciting the Quran from memory?

It is not permissible for a menstruating woman, a postpartum woman, or a person in a state of major impurity to recite anything from the Quran, whether from memory, from the Quran, from a phone, or a computer. It is also not permissible for them to touch the Quran, based on what was reported from Ali bin Abi Talib that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not prevented from anything regarding the Quran except major impurity (janabah). (Reported by al-Tirmidhi who said it is a hasan sahih hadith). Menstruation and postpartum bleeding are analogous to major impurity (janabah) as they are all major impurities (hadath akbar).
For those mentioned, it is permissible to mention Allah and supplicate even with verses from the Quran, provided they do not intend them as recitation of the Quran, but intend them as remembrance (dhikr) or supplication (du'a). And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Must a woman seek her husband's permission to fast a make up fast (qada)?

● If there is ample time to make up for the missed fasts, a woman should seek her husband's permission before fasting.
● However, if the time is running out—such as when only the remaining days of Sha'ban are sufficient to complete the qada—she does not need his permission and must fast, because Allah’s command takes precedence over the husband's consent.

See More