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 is the Islamic ruling on one who was unable to fast and then regained the ability?

 
He is not required to make up the fast (Qada) even if he becomes capable of it; whether he regained the ability to fast after paying the fidya (feeding a needy person for each day of missed fasting) or before it, because he was liable for paying it in the first place, so it remains binding upon him. However, if he delayed paying it beyond the first year, nothing is required of him due to the delay. If he is unable to pay it, it does not remain as a debt upon him. And Allah the Exalted knows best.

 
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 obligatory to make up all missed prayers?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Making up missed prayers (qaḍāʾ) is a sharʿī obligation, established by the practice of the Prophet ﷺ himself — when the disbelievers preoccupied him on the Day of the Trench and he missed the ʿAṣr prayer, he made it up afterward. This is further affirmed by the ḥadīth: "Fulfil what you owe to Allah, for Allah is most deserving of being fulfilled." (Reported by al-Bukhārī.)
Accordingly, a person who has missed prayers should set aside his voluntary and Sunnah prayers and replace them with make-up prayers in their stead. There is no objection to making up one missed prayer alongside each obligatory prayer that is performed — praying the equivalent missed prayer together with each current obligatory prayer as a practical and manageable way of gradually clearing one's debt of missed prayers. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Is it permissible for a guardian (Big brother) to unlawfully stop his sister from getting married?

If the guardian denies her right in getting married for an unlawful reason, she should go to court in order to settle that matter, and the guardian is considered sinful in this case.