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

Is a woman sinful if she fasts out of shyness from her family while menstruating or in postnatal bleeding?

It is forbidden for a woman who is menstruating or in postnatal bleeding to abstain from food and drink with the intention of fasting. If she fasts out of shyness, she is sinful, as her fast is not valid.
However, if she refrains from eating and drinking without intending to fast, it is not forbidden, but she unnecessarily burdens herself without need.

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.

Do pregnant and breastfeeding women have to fast?

Pregnant and breastfeeding women are required to fast. However, if fasting causes them harm or unusual hardship, they may break their fast but must make up for the missed days later.
If they break their fast solely out of fear for the fetus or the child, then they must both make up the fast and give fidyah (feeding a needy person for each missed day), as the benefit of breaking the fast was only for the child.

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.

See More