Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(55): “Ruling on Receiving a Financial Compensation against Procrastination in Payment“

Date Added : 28-10-2015

 

Resolution No.(55): “Ruling on Receiving a Financial Compensation against Procrastination in Payment“

Date: 22/8/1422 AH corresponding to 7/11/2001 AD.

 

Question:

The Municipality of Irbid took possession of a plot from the lands of Irbid in 1987, owned by the Orphans` Fund Development Foundation for a price estimated at that time with (82215) JDs. (51215) JDs of that sum were paid to the Foundation and (31000) JDs remained due on the Municipality until 31/12/1999, when the Foundation filed a suit to collect the remaining amount. Later on, a court order was issued whereby the municipality was forced to pay off the price of the land (31000) JDs in addition to the statutory interests estimated at (32355) JDs and (600) fils, and so the Municipality did settle all the due sums during January 2000. However, the Orphans` Fund deposited the interests in the above plot`s bank account temporarily.

Please clarify the Sharia ruling as regards disposing of these interests, taking into consideration that article(4) of the Orphans` Foundation`s law No.(20) for the year 1972 states: “The Foundation aims at developing orphans` funds by investing them in legitimate businesses that don`t violate the rules of  Islamic Sharia “?

Answer: All success is due to Allah.

The procrastination on the part of Irbid`s Municipality in paying the remaining sum of the land`s price is considered a violation to the funds of the orphans and an act of injustice against them for the Prophet (PBUH) said in this regard: “Procrastination (delay) in paying debts by a wealthy man is injustice. So, if your debt is transferred from your debtor to a rich debtor, you should agree. “ {Al-Bukhari}. In addition, the Messenger of Allah said: "if one who can afford it delay repayment, his honor and punishment become permissible." {Muslim}. 

Therefore, the Municipality`s procrastination hindered the development of the orphans` funds through legitimate businesses decreed by the law-giver for the Prophet (PBUH) said in this regard {what means}: “One who becomes the guardian of an orphan, who owns property, must trade on his behalf and not leave it (saved and unused) until it is all eaten up by Zakah (which is paid yearly).” {Related by At-Tirmidhi and Ad-Daraqutni with a weak chain of narrators...}.

Therefore, the Board is of the view that a suitable compensation must be estimated in light of the harm done to the orphans` funds during the delay period, and to be paid in accordance with the average of the profits distributed on the orphans deposits during that period.

For example, if the average was 5%, then the amount due to the orphans is this average multiplied by the number of delayed years. These profits are permissible from the view point of Islamic Sharia and aren`t considered from the usurious interests because they are a compensation against  the harm done to the orphans` funds resulting from delay in payment on the part of the debtor, which impeded developing and investing them in legitimate businesses. 

The extra amount of profit that remains after giving the orphans their due shares is unlawful money (according to many scholars), and must be given to the poor and for charity. The Board also deems that this extra money must be deposited in the reserve account stated in clause (G), article (14) of the Orphans` Fund Development Foundation, and reads as follows: “The Board may dedicate more than 25% of the reserve earnings of the Islamic institutions or give cash assistance to underage orphans and needy Muslim students.” And Allah Knows Best.

 

Iftaa` Board

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, Chief Justice, Izz Al-Deen Al-Tamimi

            Dr. Mohammad Abu Yahia

           Dr. Abdulsalam Al-Abbadi

    Dr. Yousef Gheezaan

Dr. Wasif Al-Bakhri

         Dr. Abdulaziz Al-Khayaat

  Sheikh Saeid Hijjawi

      Sheikh Na`eim Mojahid

               Sheikh Mahmoud Shwayyaat

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

When is it Sunnah to slaughter the 'aqīqah?

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is Sunnah for the 'aqīqah to be slaughtered on the seventh day from the birth of the newborn. According to the sounder position, the day of birth itself is counted as the first of the seven days. Thus, for example, if the child is born on a Saturday, the 'aqīqah is to be slaughtered on the following Friday. If the child is born at night, the count begins from the day that follows. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Is it permissible to purchase the Udhiyah on installments?

It is permissible to purchase the sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyyah) on installments or by borrowing its price. However, it is not recommended for the poor to do so, because they are not required to offer a sacrifice, and Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity. If doing so would lead to negligence in providing for one's dependents (nafaqah wājibah), then giving precedence to obligatory maintenance over borrowing to buy the sacrifice is appropriate. This is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "It is sufficient sin for a person to withhold food from those whom he is responsible to support."
 
Furthermore, the sacrifice is valid from one who has a debt, but it is preferable (awlā) to repay the debt first, especially if the debt is due immediately (ḥāll). And Allah Almighty knows best.

Is it valid to share in the 'aqīqah by contributing a seventh share of a camel or cow?

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Yes, it is permissible. If a group of people jointly share in the slaughter of a camel or a cow on behalf of seven individuals, this is valid — regardless of whether all of them intend the 'aqīqah, or some intend the 'aqīqah, others the uḍḥiyyah, and others simply the purchase of meat. And Allah Almighty knows best.

Is it permissible for a wife to refuse to go to bed with her husband (for sexual intercourse)?

It isn`t permissible for her to do so unless for a sound reason.