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 do you say about someone who stays up all night on Laylat al-Qadr but misses Fajr prayer?

Such a person has deprived themselves of a great reward. Performing obligatory acts is more beloved to Allah than voluntary acts. Fajr prayer is an obligation, and performing it in congregation is equivalent to worshiping for the entire night. So how can someone neglect it while striving for voluntary prayers?!

What is the ruling on waiving a debt owed by a debtor and counting it toward zakāh?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Waiving a debt owed by a debtor, with the intention of counting it toward zakāh, does not fulfill the zakāh obligation. Rather, it constitutes an ordinary act of charity, for which Allah rewards the giver generously — since one of the conditions for the validity of zakāh is that the person paying it must form the intention of zakāh at the actual moment the wealth is paid out. In this case, the debt has already been established as a standing obligation upon the borrower, so it is not valid to simply redirect the intention toward zakāh after the fact.
It is preferable, instead, for the creditor to first collect the debt from the debtor, and then return to him the amount of money he is required to pay as zakāh — or a portion of it — if the debtor happens to fall under one of the eight categories that Allah, the Exalted, has commanded be given from zakāh.
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik, from the books of the Shāfi‘ī school: "If someone gives [money] to a poor person, stipulating that the recipient return it to him in payment of a debt owed to him, or says, 'I am making what you owe me into zakāh, so take it [as such]' — this is not valid. But if he gives it to him with the [unstated] intention that the recipient will use it to repay him, or says, 'Repay what you owe me, so that I may [then separately] give it to you as zakāh,' or the debtor himself says, 'Give it to me, so that I may [then] repay you with it' — this is valid, and there is no binding obligation for the recipient to actually fulfill this [informal understanding]." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on discharging one's zakāh obligation through the provision of a specific benefit (manfa‘ah) — such as performing a surgical operation for a patient, or providing housing to a tenant, and counting the value of this service as zakāh?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is obligatory to pay zakāh from the actual asset (‘ayn al-māl) upon which zakāh is due, except in the case of zakāh on trade goods ('urūḍ at-tijārah), which is paid based on their monetary value. In all cases, zakāh must be given in the form of tamlīk (a full transfer of ownership), based on the words of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic (which mean): "Zakāh expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy, and for those employed to collect [zakāh], and for bringing hearts together [for Islam], and for freeing captives [or slaves], and for those in debt, and for the cause of Allah, and for the [stranded] traveler — an obligation [imposed] by Allah. And Allah is Knowing and Wise" [at-Tawbah/60]. The letter "lām" (لِ) in this verse — as in "lil-fuqarā'" ("for the poor") — indicates possession/ownership (lām al-milk).
It is not permissible to fulfill one's zakāh obligation by providing a benefit or service (manfa‘ah) — such as housing, education, or medical treatment — in place of the zakāh itself. This is because zakāh must be paid as wealth (māl) that is transferred into the ownership of the poor recipient, whereas such services are intangible benefits that are not, in themselves, capable of being formally transferred in ownership (ghayr qābilah lit-tamlīk). And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?

 
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
 
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
 
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
 
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
 
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
 
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

See More