عربي
Home


Articles
الموقع الرئيسي

Articles

A Royal Decree Appoints Hasanat as Grand Mufti
Author : The General Iftaa` Department
Date Added : 06-11-2023

A Royal Decree Appoints Hasanat as Grand Mufti

 

The General Iftaa Department is pleased to extend its warmest congratulations and best wishes to Dr. Ahmad Ibrahim Al-Hasanat on the issuance of the royal decree appointing him as the Grand Mufti of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. We pray to Almighty Allah to grant him success and guidance in his new role.

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to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication.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 someone who eats or drinks while uncertain about the arrival of dawn, then later finds out that dawn had not yet broken?

If a person does this, their fast remains valid, as it is confirmed that they ate during the night. Similarly, if someone eats while uncertain and remains unsure whether they ate before or after dawn, their fast is still valid. This is based on the maxim of Sharia Law, which states: "Certainty is not removed by doubt." Certainty, here, is the presence of night, and the doubt concerns the arrival of dawn. Therefore, one relies on certainty and disregards doubt.

Is it permissible for someone who is unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, due to his own poverty?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is not permissible, nor does it fulfill the obligation, for a sick person who is currently and permanently unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, since it is a financial obligation owed by him, established as a standing debt upon him — much like any other debt he owes. If he were to pay it to himself, it would not thereby be discharged. So if he cannot find [anyone eligible to] pay it to, it remains a standing obligation upon him, and is not thereby waived. If Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, later grants him wealth, it becomes obligatory upon him to pay it out to the poor and needy.
Imam al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "There is no difference in the obligation of the fidyah between the wealthy and the poor person; its benefit lies in its remaining established as a standing debt upon the poor person [until he is able to pay it] — and this is the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ), as indicated by the wording of ar-Rawḍah and its source text." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.174]
Accordingly: it is not permissible for a Muslim to pay the fidyah to himself while he remains poor. If the sick person is poor, he is not obligated to pay the fidyah immediately, and it remains a standing debt upon him until a time when he has sufficient means and wealth. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on praying behind a disliked Imam?

 

 
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is mildly disliked (Makruh Tanzihan) for a man—other than the permanent designated Imam (Imam Ratib)—to lead people in prayer if the majority of them dislike him due to a religiously blameworthy reason (Amr Madhmum Shar‘an), such as associating with open sinners (Fussaq), for example. As for the followers who dislike him, the prayer behind him is not disliked for them. However, if less than the majority dislike him, or if the majority dislike him for a reason that is not religiously blameworthy, then his leading the prayer is not disliked. And Allah the Exalted knows best.

What is the ruling on one who wiped over his leather socks (*khuff*) while resident and then traveled, or wiped while traveling and then became resident? And likewise, what is the ruling on one who incurred a minor ritual impurity (*ḥadath aṣghar*) while resident, then traveled and wiped while traveling?

 

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever wipes over his leather socks (khuffayn) while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, before a day and a night have passed in both cases, completes the wiping period of a resident. If he wipes while resident and then travels after a day and a night have passed, he must remove the socks, because the period has ended. Likewise, if he wipes while traveling and then becomes resident after a day and a night have passed, he must remove them as well.
Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ while resident and then wipes while traveling takes the ruling of a traveler as regards the duration of wiping, so long as he does not become resident. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik wa ʿUddat al-Nāsik (Vol.1/p.15): “If he wipes over both [socks] or one of them while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, or doubts whether he began the wiping while traveling or while resident, he completes only the wiping period of a resident. But if he broke his wuḍūʾ while resident and wiped while traveling, he completes the period of a traveler, whether or not the full time of a prayer had passed over him while resident.” And Allah Almighty knows best.

See More