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to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication.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

I have a brother who is harsh in his dealings [with me], and many problems have occurred between us, and I do not intend to reconcile with him. What is the ruling of Islamic Law on that?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible for a Muslim to abandon or boycott his fellow Muslim brother for more than three days. This is based on the saying of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him: "It is not lawful for a Muslim to forsake his brother for more than three [days], meeting each other but one turns away and the other turns away, and the better of the two is the one who initiates the greeting (salam)." (Reported by al-Bukhari.)
A Muslim must strive to end such estrangement (hajr), so as not to fall under the prohibition mentioned in the hadith. If he takes the initiative to reconcile but the other party does not respond, then there is no sin upon him. We remind [ourselves] of the saying of Allah, the Exalted: "And let them pardon and overlook. Do you not wish that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." (An-Nur/22). And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

Is it a condition that a woman should untie her locks while making Ghusl (ritual bath)?

Ghusl from Janabah (ritual impurity), or menstruation obligates that water reaches the roots of the hair in order for the Ghusl to be valid, but if it doesn`t, then hair locks must be untied for water to reach them, and for Ghusl to become valid.

What is the ruling on mentioning Allah`s name upon slaughtering an animal?

In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is a Sunnah (prophetic tradition) for the person slaughtering to say: "Bismillah" (In the Name of Allah), though the most complete and perfect phrasing is to say: "Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim" (In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful). This is in accordance with the words of Allah Almighty: "So eat of that [meat] upon which the name of Allah has been mentioned." (Al-An'am/118)
 
However, pronouncing it is not an obligatory requirement (Wajib). If someone omits it—whether deliberately or out of forgetfulness—the meat remains entirely lawful (Halal) to eat, though purposely omitting it is considered disliked (Makruh). And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

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.

See More