Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(36): “Ruling on Migrating from Palestine"

Date Added : 02-11-2015

Resolution No.(36):
 "Ruling on Migrating from Palestine“
Date: 4/1/1414 AH corresponding to 24/6/1993 AD.

All perfect praise is due to Allah, The Lord of The Worlds; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.
The Board convened on the above date and reviewed an article issued by a researcher of Sharia Sciences, living in Amman, who deems that it is an obligation on the people of Palestine to migrate from it under the pretext that they are being oppressed by a polytheist enemy, and in order to follow in the footsteps of the Prophet (PBUH) and the honorable companions when they migrated from Makkah to Medina. On their part, members of the Board of Iftaa` have agreed that such an opinion is a lapse on the part of the writer, and it shouldn`t be adopted or acted upon because this person is unaware of the situation in Palestine, and haven`t exercised patience to make sure that it is parallel to the situation of the early Muslims in Makkah before their migration to Medina.
The Board stresses that it isn`t permissible for the people of Palestine to migrate or leave the Holy Land to the Jews because their staying there is considered Jihad in the cause of Allah, and for that they will receive the reward of the steadfast. Moreover, their standing up to the enemy is Jihad as well, and for that, they will receive the reward of those fighting in the cause of Allah. Those killed because of resisting this enemy are considered martyrs who are living with their Lord, by Him sustained. In addition, every act that strengthens the steadfastness of the people of Palestine supports those fighting there, and this is considered Jihad in the Cause of Allah. The Board would like to point out that there are several differences between the situation of Muslims in Palestine and that of early Muslims in Makkah before their migration (Hijrah):
1- Palestine is an Islamic territory, and the Jews are trying to take it by force, dominate it and alter its identity; therefore; it is a duty for all Muslims to stand up to them by every means possible. This is the responsibility of the People of Palestine in the first degree, then the neighboring Islamic countries closest to it and so on; whereas, polytheists inhabited Makkah and Muslims were trying to dominate them, but when they failed to achieve that, they migrated to Abyssinia, then to Medina.
2- Migration to Abyssinia wasn`t an obligation, rather it was an option for those who wanted to be spared the torture of the polytheists. However, when the Islamic state was established in Medina, migration to Medina has become an obligation on every Muslim capable of that, whether he was in Makkah or anywhere else. This is because migrating to Medina wasn`t intended for refuge only, but was also meant to provide the Islamic state with workforce and financing. Therefore, this issue was repealed when Islam dominated in Makkah and other places of the Arabian Peninsula, and Palestinians nowadays can`t find a place similar to Medina to migrate to.
3- Migrating to Medina was an order issued by the ruler of Muslims; Prophet Mohammad who did what was in the best interest of Muslims. However, today Muslim rulers and scholars, who are acquainted with the Palestinian situation, agree that the best interest lies in the steadfastness of Muslims in Palestine to preserve the Islamic identity there, awaiting a relief from Allah.
4- Jews don`t ban Muslims from observing religious rituals, performing acts of worship or adhering to the rules of Sharia; however, they ban them from Jihad. Meanwhile, the polytheists of Makkah used to ban the weak Muslims from performing any act of worship related to Islam.
5- Emptying Palestine from its Muslim people is the aim of Jewish leaders and rulers because it is in their best interest and paves the way for executing their plots. Consequently, it is the duty of every Muslim to weaken the plan of the disbelievers.
6- The Board of Iftaa` confirms that what this researcher did was a lapse, and had he known its consequences, he wouldn`t have made it. The Board also calls on all Muslims not to take all that is said as regards religion for granted since what is lawful is clear and what is unlawful is also clear. Piety is that which contents the soul and comforts the heart, and sin is that which causes doubts and perturbs the heart.
7- The Board supports the Jihad of our people in Palestine, our brothers in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in every Muslim country. It blesses their honorable stands and calls upon all Muslims to support them as much as possible. Besides, pleasing Allah is our sole quest. And Allah Knows Best.

 

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, Chief Justice Izzaddeen Al-Tamimi
Acting Mufti General, Sheikh Saeid Hijjawi
Mufti General of Jordanian Armed Forces: Mhamood Shwayat
Dr. Ali Al-Faqheer
Dr. Mahmood Al-Sartawi           
Dr. Moh. Na`eim Yaseen           
Secretary General of Awqaaf Ministry, Dr. Ahmad Hilayel
Sheikh Ratib Az-zahir       
Sheikh Ibrahim Khash-shaan                   

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on wiping over socks?

It is not permissible to wipe over most common socks today because the conditions for wiping are not met. The concession was reported for wiping over leather socks (khuff) and socks (jowrab) with conditions: They must be thick, not allowing poured water to penetrate, enable one to walk in them, be worn while in a state of purity (from ablution), cover the entire foot up to the ankles (meaning covering the protruding ankle bones), and not be torn. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

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.

The Jurisprudential Significance of the Ḥadīth: "Whoever says, at the conclusion of the Fajr Prayer, while crossing his legs, before speaking..."
"Whoever says, at the conclusion of the Fajr prayer, while crossing his legs, before speaking: 'Lā ilāha illā Allāh, waḥdahu lā sharīka lah, lahu al-mulku wa lahu al-ḥamdu yuḥyī wa yumītu wa huwa ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr' ten times — ten good deeds will be recorded for him, ten bad deeds will be erased from him, he will be raised ten levels, he will spend that day in protection from everything disliked and guarded from the devil, and no sin will be able to befall him on that day except associating partners with Allah" — does this noble ḥadīth apply to the imam, and what is meant by "extraneous speech"?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is recommended for both the imam and those praying behind him to recite, immediately after the final salām, the specific remembrance reported in the sunnah to be said before turning away from one's place of prayer. The imam then leaves his praying spot, and the act of "turning" is fulfilled when the imam faces the congregation — even without physically leaving his spot — by positioning his right side toward them and his left side toward the qiblah, and this applies even while he is engaged in supplication.
Al-ʿAllāmah Ibn Qāsim al-ʿAbbādī states in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Tuḥfah (Vol.2/P.105): "It is most virtuous for the imam, once he has given the salām, to rise from his place of prayer immediately afterward." He adds that an exception must be made for the remembrances that are specifically required to be recited before he turns away. He then notes, citing Sharḥ al-ʿUbāb: "Yes, an exception to this rising immediately after the salām applies to the Fajr prayer, due to the authentic report that the Prophet ﷺ, when he prayed Fajr, would remain seated until the sun rose." He further cites, from al-Khādim, the ḥadīth concerning one who recites, at the conclusion of the Fajr prayer while still in the position of crossing his leg to rise: "Lā ilāha illā Allāh, waḥdahu lā sharīka lah..." and the rest of the well-known ḥadīth. He comments that this makes explicit that this particular remembrance is to be recited before the worshipper turns his legs to leave, and the same applies to Maghrib and ʿAṣr, as reported in those contexts as well.
What is meant by "speech" in the relevant ḥadīth is extraneous worldly speech that is not called for after the prayer and for which there is no legitimate excuse. The remembrances reported to be recited upon concluding the prayer, however, do not fall under this category of extraneous speech, since they are themselves required by the sharīʿah.
Al-ʿAllāmah ʿAlī al-Shabrāmalsī states in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Nihāyah (Vol.1/P.551): "If someone greets a person with salām while he is occupied with reciting this remembrance [i.e., 'Lā ilāha illā Allāh...'], should he return the greeting — without this causing him to forfeit the promised reward, since he is engaged in an obligatory matter — or should he delay returning the greeting until he finishes, this being a legitimate excuse for the delay?" He continues: "I say: the more likely view is the former, and the prohibition on speech is to be understood as applying to extraneous speech for which there is no legitimate excuse. Based on this, should the worshipper give precedence to this remembrance ('Lā ilāha illā Allāh...') or to reciting Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ ('Qul huwa Allāhu aḥad')? This requires consideration, though it is not unlikely that the remembrance takes precedence, given that the Lawgiver urged hastening to it through his words 'while crossing his leg.' This is not considered ordinary speech, since it is not extraneous to what is required after the prayer."
Accordingly, it is recommended for both the imam and those praying behind him to recite this remembrance and to give it precedence over the other remembrances of the prayer, ensuring it is said before they move from their place. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Is it permissible for a young man and a young woman to enter into a covenant as a married couple without having a true seclusion (Khalwah) until their marriage contract is officially concluded?

The relation which isn`t based on a marriage contract is forbidden, and entering into a covenant as a married couple is unaccounted for and is from the evil suggestions of the devil.