عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

Answer from the General Iftaa` Department on what was Published in "Al-Ra'y" Newspaper.
Author : The General Iftaa` Department
Date Added : 06-07-2023

Answer from the General Iftaa` Department on what was Published in "Al-Ra'y" Newspaper

 

 

We have read what was written in "Al-Ra'y" newspaper (Issue No. (14044), Tuesday, March 24, 2009) under the "Al-Ra'y Platform" section entitled (The story of a Jordanian family raises deep questions in religion and society / Medical examination made him doubt her pregnancy, so he divorced her, and the due date of childbirth cleared her. Would she return to him?).

 

We would like to emphasize that divorce cases aren`t answered over the phone.

 

Indeed, this is true due to the extremely sensitive nature of this matter and because some people, if they heard the answer on the phone, try to change the question to get the answer that suits them.

This emanates from insufficient knowledge of the meaning of the Sharia ruling, which is the ruling of Allah before Whom we will be held to account. Consequently, there is no use in having hidden some facts from the Mufti or the Judge. Once Allah's Messenger (PBUH) said, "You people present your cases to me and some of you may be more eloquent and persuasive in presenting their argument. So, if I give some one's right to another (wrongly) because of the latter's (tricky) presentation of the case, I am really giving him a piece of fire; so he should not take it." {Bukhari & Muslim}.

 

It is the duty of the Iftaa` Department to give the ruling of Sharia; however, the responsibility of implementation is that of the person concerned.

In the matter under discussion:

 

• How dare a man divorce his wife repeatedly although recently married? What happened to patience, good character, and trusting wife?!

 

• How could four doctors make a mistake in a matter that lies within their field of specialty and the fact that medical devices, nowadays, are very advanced?!

 

• What could the Mufti do after the husband admits having divorced wife on three separate occasions and this is proven in the Sharia court? Just as the wife was made lawful to her husband by uttering one word, she is made forbidden to him by uttering one word as well, which is the utterance of divorce. Out of His mercy, Allah made the wife unlawful to her husband after three divorces (Talaq Bain baynuna Kubra/Final divorce). Allah the Almighty says {What means}: "A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by God. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by God, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by God; so do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by God, such persons wrong (Themselves as well as others). So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), He cannot, after that, re- marry her until after she has married another husband and He has divorced her. In that case there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by God. Such are the limits ordained by God, which He makes plain to those who understand." (Al-Baqarah, 229-230)

 

The marriage mentioned in the above verse is what the jurists call marriage of desire. I.e. the intention is living permanently with the wife, and not the engaging in a poor performance that the virtuous person would feel ashamed to mention. The Prophet (PBUH) said about it: "May Allah curse the one who makes permissible and the one who makes permissible for him." {Transmitted by Abu Dawood}. In addition, the Prophet (PBUH) called such person as "The borrowed "buck" goat". The Department wouldn`t deliver such Fatwa nor would any of the scholars who have respect for their knowledge. Moreover, with due respect, media should seek the truth and the ruling of Sharia since sympathizing with whoever divorces his wife in this way is inappropriate.

 

We do not like divorce because, as the Prophet (PBUH) said, it is the most hated of lawful things to Allah. However, worse than that is that a man lives with a woman who is not lawful to him, or that a woman lives with a man who is not lawful to her. The person addressed here is not the first to divorce and regret, but we confirm that no one had divorced without regretting that afterwards.

In the past, they used to say:

 

Do you cry over Layla while you left her*****Layla is gone, so what are you going to do about it!

In conclusion, do not blame the Mufti, but blame those who do not estimate matters correctly.

 

 

 

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 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.

A woman made a wig for herself from her own [previously shed] hair, which she wears on her head after having lost her hair [due to hair loss]. Is this permissible?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Since the hair belongs to the woman herself, the wig can be removed during the obligatory ghusl (ritual bathing), and part of the head can still be wiped during wuḍū' (ablution), there is no sharī‘ah objection to making this wig — provided she does not appear wearing it in front of non-maḥram men (Any males outside a woman's immediate family whom she is permitted to marry under Islamic law), since it is not permissible for them to look at a woman's detached hair.
It is stated in Rawḍat aṭ-Ṭālibīn wa ‘Umdat al-Muftīn: "Whatever it is not permissible to look at while still attached [to the body] — such as the male genitalia, a free woman's forearm, the hair of her head, and a man's pubic hair, and similar matters — it remains unlawful to look at even after it has been detached [from the body], according to the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ)." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on someone who possesses cash reaching the niṣāb (minimum threshold liable for zakah), and then uses part of it to purchase gold before the ḥawl (lunar year) is complete — must he pay zakāh on all of it [combined], or only on the remaining cash, excluding the gold?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Gold acquired for hoarding and saving is subject to zakāh once it reaches the niṣāb (minimum threshold liable for Zakah) — when combined with any cash held — and once a full ḥawl (lunar year) has elapsed over it. The starting point for calculating this ḥawl is the ḥawl of the paper currency [used to purchase it], which had already reached the niṣāb and was then used to purchase the gold.
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.78): "As for someone who sells silver in exchange for gold, or vice versa, zakāh remains obligatory upon it, since he builds [the calculation of] its ḥawl upon [the ḥawl established at the time of] the original transaction [i.e., when the wealth was first acquired]."
This has already been explained in detail in Fatwa No. 2670 — please refer to it.
And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

I vowed to give a specific charity if a certain matter came to pass — what is the ruling on giving that charity before the matter is realised?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Fulfilling a vow (nadhr) is obligatory, in accordance with the word of Allah the Almighty: "And let them fulfil their vows." [Al-Ḥajj/ 29] And the saying of our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: "Whoever vows to obey Allah, let him obey Him; and whoever vows to disobey Him, let him not disobey Him." (Reported by al-Bukhārī.)
The Shāfiʿī scholars distinguished between a financial vow (nadhr mālī) and a bodily vow (nadhr badanī). They permitted the fulfilment of a financial vow to be brought forward — before the stipulated condition is met — but did not permit the same for a bodily vow, which may only be fulfilled after the condition has actually been realised.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "It is permissible to bring forward the fulfilment of a financial vow before the condition stipulated in it is met — such as saying: 'If I am healed, I vow to free a slave' or 'to give such-and-such in charity' — just as it is permissible to pay zakāh in advance. This is unlike a bodily vow, such as fasting." [Asnā al-Maṭālib, vol. 4/P.246]
Imām al-Bājūrī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Like expiation other than fasting, a financial vow — such as saying: 'If Allah heals my sick one, I vow to free a slave for the sake of Allah,' or 'If Allah heals my sick one, I vow to free a slave on the Friday following the recovery' — it is permissible to bring it forward before the recovery in the first case, and before the Friday following the recovery in the second case." [Ḥāshiyat al-Bājūrī ʿalā Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim, Vol.2/P.596] And Allah the Almighty knows best.

See More