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to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication.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

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 should someone do if they fasted for 30 days in their country, then traveled to a place where people are still fasting?

If a person completes 30 days of fasting in their country and then travels to another country where people are still fasting, they should continue fasting with them until they observe Eid. Even if they have already completed 30 days, he/she should abstain from eating and drinking and join the people of that country because he/she has now become part of that community.

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.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law if the follower (maʾmūm) stands up for the third rakʿah out of forgetfulness while the imam has sat for the middle tashahhud?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
If the imam sits for the tashahhud while the follower (maʾmūm), out of forgetfulness, stands up for the third rakʿah, he is obliged to return to his sitting position, since following the imam is obligatory. In this case, no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw) is required of him. If, however, he fails to return, his prayer is rendered invalid.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "If the follower stands up alone out of forgetfulness, he is obliged to return, since following the imam is obligatory... If he does not return, his prayer is rendered invalid, due to his departure from what is obligatory." [Asnā al-Maṭālib,Vol.1/P.190] And Allah the Almighty knows best.

See More