عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(320): "Entitlement to Financial Benefits of Solidarity Funds is Subject to Related Instructions"

Date Added : 17-01-2023

 

Resolution No.(320), By The Board of Iftaa', Researches and Islamic Studies:

"Entitlement to Financial Benefits of Solidarity Funds is Subject to Related Instructions"

Date: (21 Jumada al-Ula, 1444 AH), corresponding to (15/12/2022 AD).

 

Praise be to Allah the Lord of the Worlds. May His peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.

 

In its fifteenth meeting held on the above date, the Board of Iftaa` reviewed the letter No.(11367/1444) sent from the Jordanian Constructions Contractors Association. It stated the following:

We would like to inform you that our late colleague Mr.X passed away on 4 June 2022. Under the Social Solidarity Fund System, testamentary heirs are entitled to financial benefits. However, when the beneficiaries went to collect these benefits from the SSF, they were told that there was a discrepancy between the inheritance deed and the will of the deceased in the application form of the SSF at the JCCA. In that form, the deceased stated that the financial benefits go to his wife and children while in the inheritance deed it is stated that he had a second wife and that the date of the will was earlier than the date of the second marriage. In light of this, what is the legal and Islamic ruling on the entitlement of the second wife to any financial benefits from the SSF at the JCCA?

After deliberations, the Board decided the following:

Islamic Solidarity Funds are based on contributions and cooperation amongst a group of people who agree on paying specific sums of money as a gift to the fund in return for agreed upon sums in case of affliction befalling any of them (subscribers) such as death, and such an act is recommended in Sharia. Almighty Allah Says  in the Holy Quran (What means): “Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one another in sin and rancor.“ {Al-Maida/2}. Here, the money of the SSF isn`t privately owned. Rather, it belongs to all the subscribers and the contract between them is not a contract of debt; rather, it is a commutative contract. This means that entitlement to the financial benefits depends on the system of the Fund itself and doesn`t undergo the rulings of Sharia on inheritance and bequests because these benefits aren`t part of the deceased`s estate, but a gift from the Fund to the beneficiaries. 

 

As understood from the contract of the SSF in light of the above question, the beneficiaries, in case of the subscriber`s death, are his wife and children. The general rule is that "Wife and children" apply to those who are wives and those who are children of the subscriber since the first wife may pass away during the lifetime of her husband (Subscriber) without having given birth to any children. Moreover, he may marry a second wife and she may give birth to children, and he may have both wives. Therefore, financial benefits go to the wives and the children, regardless of being a first or a second wife, because the criterion in (the construction of) contracts is intentions and meanings and not words and form. Rather, the word "Wife" in the application form of the SSF includes the second wife, so she is eligible to receive her share of the Fund`s payments. And Allah The Almighty Knows Best.

 

Grand Mufti of Jordan, Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/ Member

Prof. Mahmoud Al-Sartawi/ Member

Sheikh Sa`eid Hijjawi/ Member

Prof. Amjad Rasheed/ Member

Prof. Adam Nooh Al-Qhodah/ Member

Dr. Jameel Khatatbeh/ Member

Dr. Ahmad Al-Hasanat/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Younes al-Zou`bi/ Member

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What are the categories of the livestock permissible for Udhiyah?

In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
An Udhiyah (sacrificial offering) is only valid if it is selected from Al-An'am (livestock), which includes: camels, cattle, and sheep or goats—whether male or female, and even if castrated. Allah Almighty says {what means}: "And for all religion We have appointed a rite [of sacrifice] that they may mention the name of Allah over what He has provided for them of [sacrificial] livestock." (Al-Hajj/ 34)
 
In terms of preference, camels are considered the best choice, followed by cattle, then sheep, and finally goats.
A single sheep or goat is valid as a sacrifice on behalf of one person. However, a single camel or cow can be shared by up to seven people. This is based on the narration of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: "In the year of Al-Hudaybiyah, we sacrificed along with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) a camel on behalf of seven people, and a cow on behalf of seven people." (Narrated by Muslim)
 
(Note: The term "Badanah" used in the original Arabic text specifically refers to a camel in this context). And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on obtaining financing from Islamic banks by bringing invoices in prior arrangement with the seller, then taking the cash after the financing is approved — with the purpose of settling debts and buying a car?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It appears from the transaction described that its underlying purpose is to obtain cash through resorting to a legal artifice (ḥīlah/tawarruq-style trick), and it is not permissible to engage in such trickery or to coordinate with the various parties merely to obtain liquidity. This is because such artifices bring the sale closer in reality to a ribā-based (usurious) transaction, even if it outwardly appears otherwise.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Do not commit what the Jews committed, thereby making lawful what Allah has made unlawful through the flimsiest of tricks." This was related by Ibn Baṭṭah in his book Ibṭāl al-Ḥiyal (p. 47), and many scholars have graded it as ḥasan (sound/acceptable).
We have already explained the impermissibility of engaging in such deceptive dealings with Islamic banks in Fatwa No. 516, so please refer to it. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on a person who insists on praying in a specific spot and becomes angry if someone else prays there?

ruling on a person who persists in praying in a specific spot and becomes angry if someone else occupies it

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Our Master the Prophet ﷺ forbade a man from habitually claiming a specific spot in the mosque as a camel claims its place (to sit); scholars consider this to be among the disliked matters (Makruhat). It is therefore obligatory to advise this individual that whoever arrives at a spot first has the most right to it. And Allah the Exalted knows best.

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.

See More